Curiously, as Horowitz noted, the authors of the Danish-government-funded study state: "Based on the RCTs with the longest possible follow-up, mRNA vaccines had no effect on overall mortality despite protecting against fatal COVID-19."
Horowitz asked: "So how is it that mRNAs had no effect on all-cause mortality but protect against fatal COVID?"
He supposed that either the vaccines "don't really protect against COVID, or the nominal benefit is washed away by the mortality from adverse events."
Moore got one key fact wrong. The study has not been published in The Lancet -- it was published on a separate preprint website prior to peer review; if it clears peer review, only then will it actually be published in The Lancet.Moore aldo didn't explain why the Blaze writer was demanding that COVID vaccines prevent death from non-COVID causes.
On top of that, Moore (along with the Blaze) overstates what the study actually says. PolitiFact reported:
"The study isn’t about the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against COVID," said Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health and Security. "The study is aimed to determine if COVID vaccines have non-specific mortality impacts that extend beyond the incontrovertible mortality benefit they confer with COVID-19. Certain vaccines have effects that extend beyond the target infection and decrease mortality from other causes (e.g. measles vaccine)."
Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, also said the question of the paper isn’t about COVID-19, but whether the vaccines had a beneficial effect on other causes of mortality.
The research reinforced that both types of vaccines significantly prevented COVID-19 deaths, "which is not surprising as both types of vaccines generate cellular immunity against SARS-CoV-2, protecting us against severe disease."
This is an oversimplification that doesn’t accurately reflect the preprint study, which was not peer reviewed. Researchers used clinical trial data to see how the different COVID-19 vaccines reduced deaths from all causes. They found that adenovirus-vector vaccines appeared to protect against non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths, while mRNA vaccines didn’t have much of an impact. They said more research is needed.
The research didn’t conclude that mRNA vaccines were ineffective at protecting people from dying of COVID-19.
Moore does have an unfortunate tendency to falsely report on study results in order to push the bogus narrative that COVID vaccines don't work.
NEW ARTICLE -- Out There, Exhibit 81: The Only Good Superman Is A Straight White One Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center melts down over the idea that Superman can be an alien of color or bisexual. It's similarly upset that Robin is no longer heteronormative and that Supergirl is "woke." Read more >>
How Is The MRC Fearmongering About Soros Now? Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center issues regular attacks on George Soros complaining he's funding various things it doesn't like in order to portray him as a liberal puppetmaster (never mind how anti-Semitic that looks). Let's see how many attacks have piled up since the last time we checked:
We've already noted how the MRC invoked Soros in an attempt to criticize ADL leader Alan Greenblatt for working with Whoopi Goldberg over her incorrect statements about the Holocaust. But the MRC has also dragged its Soros obsession into other narratives it has pushed. As part of its campaignofhate against Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, Joseph Vazquez huffed in a March 23 post:
A leftist dark money group funded by liberal billionaire George Soros is closely connected to efforts to push for confirmation of President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee.
Demand Justice, which has advocated for radical left-wing reforms like packing the Court, has aggressively pushed for the nomination of District of Columbia Circuit Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson for at least around two years. Demand Justice’s shortlist for Court nominees includes Jackson. The group even included her on a shortlist as far back as September 2020. Soros gave at least $1,337,000 and possibly as much as $3,837,000 to Demand Justice between 2018 and 2020, according to Open Society Foundations and Open Society Policy Center records respectively.
Soros’s Open Society Policy Center (OSPC) directly funded Demand Justice to the tune of $1,337,000 between 2018 and 2020 through the left-wing dark money group Sixteen Thirty Fund, according to Open Society Foundations records. In addition, OSPC records suggest that it may have given another $2.5 million to Demand Justice through the fund between April 1, 2018 and June 30, 2018. The billionaire also spent at least “$29 million in funding” through his “personal network of political action committees (PACs)” to help elect at least 23 leftist district attorneys spread throughout the country. Jackson’s confirmation to SCOTUS would fit right in line with the overarching leftist goals of Demand Justice and Soros.
Demand Justice’s actions to reshape the Court into a pro-abortion bulwark and its connections to Soros have gone largely ignored by the liberal media. A Nexis search revealed that the group’s involvement in Jackson’s nomination received no coverage by the ABC, CBS and NBC broadcast networks from her Feb. 25 nomination to March 20.
By contrast, Vazquez has been silent about right-wing dark money influencing the selection of conservative judges and Supreme Court members, or that said dark money funded attacks on Jackson.
The MRC also tried to tie Soros to criticism of Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter, which it heartilysupports:
Vazquez groused in an April 15 item that Free Press, "a left-wing outlet funded by liberal billionaire George Soros," had "whined that the world’s richest man’s plan to purchase Twitter was a threat to democracy."
A May 4 item by Alexander Hall complained that groups "heavily funded by liberal megadonor George Soros" were among organizations arguing that Musk buying Twitter "will further toxify our information ecosystem and be a direct threat to public safety, especially among those already most vulnerable and marginalized.”Hall did not dispute the claim; instead, he attacked some of the signatories as purportedly being "pro-censorship."
In a May 24 post laughably headlined "VILLAINS, UNITED?", Jeffrey Clark whined that Soros and Bill Gates "funneled millions into some of the same organizations that attacked Tesla CEO Elon Musk as a threat to democracy. " He unironically added: "Ironically, the same groups dedicated to dismantling free speech in the United States apparently had no qualms accepting money from one of the most influential purveyors of leftist policy in the world, George Soros."
Norris Abuses WND Column Again To Sell Stuff -- And Joseph Farah Helps Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've documented how Chuck Norris has shamelessly and unethically used his WorldNetDaily column to shill for the gold company that hired him as a spokesman. But now he has a new profitable venture to use his column to shill for. He began his April 18 column this way:
I'm definitely not an alarmist or fear monger, and I dislike those who are. Succumbing to fear literally robs us of life and paralyzes us from achieving our best.
At the same time, I don't believe in sticking our heads in the sands of ignorance or denial. I believe in having a plan, a back-up plan and preparing for the future in case of emergency. That includes preparing even for events we pray will never happen, like nuclear or civil war.
The world is a very volatile place, and even life in America is escalating more and more to a frantic peak. Let me give you some bad news before some good news. Consider just these few international and national news facts and headlines:
All of which, of course, are alarmist and fearmongering. Nevertheless, he repeated himself: "As I said, I'm not an alarmist, but I do believe in being ready in season and out of season no matter what comes."
He then started ranting about EMP attacks "that could knock out the power grid for months across the whole U.S. from a high-altitude detonation of a single nuclear warhead in the skies above us," then asked: "Imagine what would be the impact on our economy and your life if an EMP hit America simultaneously with an imminent global food crisis? Is that really so far-fetched when Biden himself recently confessed that the food shortage "is going to be real"?" That hint turned into a full-blown promotional ad a few paragraphs later:
All the preceding global and domestic threats, in addition to my love for America and Americans, is what prompted my wife, Gena, and I to decide to support and endorse some new survival resources we call "Roundhouse Provisions." (https://roundhouseprovisions.com/)
Please watch this brand-new 50-second video I just created about "Roundhouse Provisions," then visit the Roundhouse Provisions website to learn more about emergency survival and preparations. There you will also find some of the most tasty, nutritious and cost-effective options for food storage.
It may seem like a no-brainer to many, but in this terror-pervasive age, we all need to have "a personal survival kit" or a survival storage closet or room that contains essentials that could last us for months at a minimum.
Below is my list of essential emergency supplies. I know that some of these are costly items, so I'd encourage you to save for each, and check them off until you have them all.
Everyone (and I mean, everyone) should have essential emergency supplies, regardless of whether or not you're a survivalist. These items can help you and your loved ones survive a host of emergency situations or disasters, whether the cause is from weather, power outages, EMPs, or something worse – such as a terrorist attack – that completely shuts down communications, travel or the financial system for an extended period of time.
Preparation is absolutely key. When disaster hits, the time to prepare has passed.
Proverbs 27:12 says, "A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions. The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
Or, as Howard Ruff, a financial adviser and writer, wisely and simply put it: "It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark."
(Again, please take a few minutes to check out our "Roundhouse Provisions." I bet you'll be glad you did.)
Yes, Norris is so shameless that he threw in a Bible verse as an incentive to buy his stuff.
The really sad thing, though, is that three days later, WND editor Joseph Farah devoted his column to praising Norris -- and endorsing his prepper fearmongering:
I truly love Chuck Norris. He's my hero, my friend, my Christian brother, my inspiration. And the funny thing is I rarely see him in these strange times in which we live. I take him altogether for granted – which means, for me, the matter is settled.
The reason I write this today is because he and I think alike. I don't have to talk to him regularly to know it. At a heart level, we see eye-to-eye.
Do we agree America is the greatest country ever devised by man? Yes.
Do we think Israel is the greatest country ever created by God? Yes.
Things like that – and so much more.
God bless Chuck Norris for issuing this timely reminder to all of us. It's worth the list of things he and his wife, Gena, prepared that we need to think about. They've done the hard work for us.
Every day, we see more of the kinds of economic and global conditions that can put us and our families at risk, the events we have to be prepared for – for ourselves, our loved ones and for the God who loves us all.
Why am I bearing my soul about this?
Because he just wrote a column in WND that took my breath away – truly.
I was moved by it – and I have been a "survivalist" most of my life. So, is my wife, Elizabeth.
It was like a wake-up call!
It was very real.
So much is happening to this nation and world now that we have been both expecting and dreading at the same time.
But we're talking about all these things as if they are somehow unrelated. They're not. They are "harbingers," as another dear friend would say – Jonathan Cahn, a man who was prepared by God for a time such as this.
Interestingly, Farah didn't specifically promote the prepper food Norris was shilling. Instead, he highlighted "special preparadness offers for WND readers," which icluded links to "the PREPAREDNESS section of the WND Superstore" and to a place that claims to help you "Shield your retirement savings from Biden's tax plans now" -- which just so happens to be Goldco, the company Norris has been abusing his WND column to shill for.
The fact that Farah is clearly allowing Norris to used his column to make money instead of imparting useful information is another sign that WND has no interest in correcting the dubious business practices and editorial policies that have ied it to the brink of insolvency.
MRC Gets Mad When Hungary's Orban Is Accurately Described As Authoritarian Topic: Media Research Center
We've already caught the Media Research Center cozying up to Hungary's right-wing authoritarian leader Viktor Orban, portraying his as an avatar of "free speech" despite his history of cracking down on dissent and imposing censorship. An April 20 post by Curtis Houck complained that Orban's authoritarianism was called out:
Wednesday’s CBS Mornings and Reliable Sources Daily on CNN+ flashed the profession’s virulent hatred for conservatives by giving cushy interviews to Daily Show correspondent and failed Comedy Central host Jordan Klepper ahead of his new special trashing Hungary as a bastion of authoritarianism reminiscent of what Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) has done with Florida.
Having established himself as the show’s correspondent who paints non-leftists as some combination of dangerous, idiotic, and underdeveloped, Klepper was welcomed with four teases on CBS. In the first, fill-in co-host Vladimir Duthiers said Klepper investigated “an unusual fascination shared by some supporters of former President Trump” in Hungary’s “authoritarian government” (under Viktor Orban).
Dokoupil began the piece by touting his recent trip to CPAC 2022 and how that led to visiting Budapest, Hungary to find out “why so many seem to look to Hungary and its authoritarian leader as a model for America’s future.”
Dokoupil then remarked how it’s been “amazing...how Hungary has declined from a near democracy to what has been qualified as an authoritarian state” with Duthiers wondering “how” Klepper “see[s] the antecedents here in the U.S.”
Klepper obliged by explaining that Hungary’s made “voting harder,”created “a lot of gerrymandering,” fostered a media landscape that’s “owned by wealthy oligarchs who have connections to the ruling party,” and “villified” “the LGBTQ community.”
Perhaps knowing that he can't refute Klepper on the facts, Houck instead resorted to lazy whataboutism: "As a side note on the media angle, if it’s some right-wing playbook, then how would Klepper explain the executives who run ABC, CBS, CNN, NBCUniversal (aka Comcast), and the major papers?"
Houck only briefly mentioned in passing a discussion about how Klepper and Dokoupil discussed "how it’s a farce to argue George Soros is “the boogeyman who controls things,” making sure not to mention that this is exactly the anti-Soros narrative that his employer pushes.
Houck continued to whitewash Orban when Klepper appeared on CNN, pretending that his campaign of anti-LGBThate is merely "refusal to kowtow to the LGBTQ agenda" and indulged in the MRC's usual smear of CNN's Brian Stelter as a "media janitor":
A few hours later, Klepper joined media janitor Brian Stelter for more of the same, including the same condescending dismissal people would mention Hunter Biden’s laptop.
Klepper lamented the angle about refusal to kowtow to the LGBTQ agenda, claiming they’re being ostracized and thus a country where“progressives...are frustrated”and cities aren’t able to be left-wing bastions with “liberties...stamped out” and “a brain drain of young people.”
“Hungary was — was progressive 15 years ago. I talked to people who were there, like, it was more inclusive, more open, and now that’s changing and changing and changing and the ability to actually change that narrative, it’s harder for people with a progressive mindset,” Klepper added.
Stelter then commiserated with him about how similar Orban and Hungary are to Republicans and red states given “the anti-trans legislation” and “anti-gay narratives in GOP media.”
This gave Klepper the room to argue such legislation that forbids the teaching of sex education and encouraging of transgenderism toward young children is dangerous and will lead to a world in which gay people are seen as pedophiles
Again, Houck didn't dispute the factuality of anything Klepper said -- even when he pointed how conservativfes have "conflated sexuality with pedophila." The goal here is to shout down and dismiss Klepper as an enemy of right-wingers like Houck and the MRC, not engage in any sort of reasoned debate.It's also to pretend that foreign leaders can't possibly be authoritarian if they're spouting the same right-wing rhetoric that the MRC does.
CNS Joins MRC Parent In Flip-Flopping On Musk Over Twitter Buy Topic: CNSNews.com
Like the Media Research Center, its "news" division CNSNews.com was critical of Elon Musk -- in particular his ties to Russia and China -- before sharing the big flip-flop with its parent over his plan to buy Twitter. For example, an April 2020 column by Chuck Muth denounced Musk as a "repeated Trump backstabber" who engaged in "political grandstanding" for being named to Trump administration advisory councils then "chose publicly to throw a fit and leave the council by way of a tweet." A June 2020 column by Justin Caruso was headlined "Celebrate the SpaceX Launch, but Don’t Pretend Elon Musk Is a Free Market Hero,"noting that Musk's space company "is ultimately looking for big bucks from the government in the form of federal subsidies." A July 2020 article by Craig Bannister seemed to be upset that "Musk said that government should maximize citizens’ happiness by giving each one of them money to be spent however he or she sees fit."
Christopher Smithmyer ranted against Musk in a June 2021 column:
No stranger to getting in bed with U.S. geopolitical adversaries, it looks like Musk may have a new controversial partnership in his crosshairs: Russia.
In a recent webinar Q&A for Kremlin students, Musk was asked if he had plans to expand his empire to Russia. The Tesla and SpaceX boss answered in the affirmative, saying that he thinks they are “close” to establishing a presence in the country.
Just how far does Musk have to stray before the U.S. starts to place some sort of legal boundaries on him?
It wasn't long after that that CNS stopped being concerned about putting legal boundaries on Musk. A Dec, 1 article by Bannister touted how Musk said that "People should be taught how to debug their brains and purge mental malware," Bannister followed that with a Dec. 15 article cheering how "After Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) accused Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk of “freeloading,” the billionaire who publicly opposes Democrats’ $1.75 trillion “Build Back Better” plan, fired back with a series of barbs and rebuttals," including "liken[ing] Warren to an angry woman who yells at everyone for no reason and applying the pejorative moniker 'Karen' to the senator."
When Musk bought a stake in Twitter in early April, Bannister rushed to approve with an April 7 article featuring fave Republican Rep. Rand Paul claiming that "Musk’s impact will be even more beneficial to free speech if liberal outrage over the news prompts Twitter’s “left-wing crazies” to abandon the social media platform they currently dominate." Susan Jones whined about criticism of Musk's offer to buy all of Twitter in an April 15 article:
"Morning Joe" anchor Mika Brzezinski on Friday left no doubt about where she stands on speech she doesn't like.
She not only slammed Twitter as "Donald Trump's playground to be...cruel toward people," but she also called Elon Musk's attempted takeover of Twitter a "very dangerous precedent."
To help Brzezinski buttress the Musk-bashing, MSNBC brought on a little-known columnist who slammed Musk as a "petulant billionaire" and -- yes, of course -- a "racist."
Jones buried in a transcript how the "little-known columnist" -- Linette Lopez of Business Insider -- pointed out inconvenient facts such as Tesla being sued for discrimination and needing at "Twitter sitter" because 'He's not allowed to tweet things about Tesla without legal review because he used Twitter to commit fraud" (though Jones did link to outside items proving Lopez correct). Jones never explained why she denigrated Lopez as a "little-known columnist" when she was actually fact-checking and verifying the things Lopez said.
An April 18 article by Bannister promoted former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt giving Twitter's handling of Musk's bid for purportedly ignoring their responsibility to act in the best interests of the company’s shareholders. And managing editor Michael W. Chapman used an April 20 article to detail a non-Twitter-related pontification from Musk: "Although some climate change activists claim overpopulation is a serious problem that contributes to global warming and must be curtailed, investor and business giant Elon Musk said it is a "false impression" that there are too many people in the world, and added that the 'Earth could maintain a population many times the current level.'"
Bannister followd up with an April 22 article forwarding an implied threat to Twitter's board: "A letter sent Friday and signed by a group of 18 House Republicans, headlined by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), calls on Twitter’s board members to prepare to provide information about their efforts to prevent billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk from buying the social media platform." Bannister went on to gush that "Musk is seeking to buy the social media giant in order to rid it of its partisan censorship practices," as if any proof existed to back up Musk's words.
When the Twitter board accepted Musk's offer on April 25, the editorial floodgates opened at CNS as if it was working for Musk directly:
Needless to say, there was no mention of Musk's real-life record on free-speech issues; as Judd Legum detailed, Musk is all too eager to censor speech by trying to shut down critics, firing Tesla workers for union advocacy, and asking the Chinese governmen to silence Tesla critics in that country.
MRC's Doocy Defense Committee Activates Again Topic: Media Research Center
We've documented how the Media Research Center acts as the Peter Doocy Protection Center, attacking anyone who dares criticize its favorite biased Fox News reporter, particularly after President Biden got caught calling him a "stupid son of a bitch.". Well, Doocy got besmirched again, and PDPC leader (and chief Doocy man-crusher) Curtis Houck snapped into defense mode yet again in an April 15 post:
Thursday night during a taping of the Obama bros podcast Pod Save America, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki implicitly doubled down on President Biden’s insistence that Fox News reporter Peter Doocy is a “stupid son of a bitch,”arguing he works for a network that “provides questions that...might make anyone sound like” one.
Psaki also weighed in on her tenure at the Briefing Room podium, danced around questions of when she’ll move to MSNBC. And seeing as how the press corps have decided it’s not an issue (other than a few questions on April 1) to take a taxpayer-funded salary while negotiating with an outlet that’s supposed to hold her to account, she’s clearly felt empowered to say things like that.
Co-host and former Psaki colleague Dan Pfeiffer brought up Doocy (to the groan and laughter of the live audience) as a way of asking: Given the show’s audience and the voting demographics of Washington D.C., the crowd went wild in applause and laughter.
Psaki found a back-handed way of answering in the affirmative: “[H]e works for a network that provides people with questions that, nothing personal to any individual, including Peter Doocy, but might make anyone sound like a stupid son of a bitch.”
Both the crowd and co-hosts went ballistic in laughter, which gave Psaki the chance to pivot to a more diplomatic answer with a retelling of what happened on January 24 between Biden and Doocy because it was “a nice Peter Doocy story” even if it’s not “popular in this crowd.”
Houck went on to gushabout how Doocy "took the high road when talking about" Biden's comment, though he grudgingly conceded that "Psaki added it 'was a moment of grace' by Doocy and one could say that without 'lik[ing] everything [he] says and does.'"
A couple hours later, Houck lashed out at designated MRC villain Brian Stelter of CNN for refusing to be the top-level Doocy-fluffer he is:
Like the quisling that he is, CNN’s Reliable Sources host Brian Stelter defended White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Friday afternoon after she said “sound[s] like a stupid son of a bitch” by working at Fox News, arguing “she didn’t really criticize him” and was “relaxing” in her final moments before leaving for MSNBC.
The liberal media janitor appeared on CNN Newsroom and was proceeded by co-host Victor Blackwell characterizing Psaki’s remarks as “choice words for her frequent press room rival, Peter Doocy during a taping of Pod Save America podcast.”
After co-host Alisyn Camerota asked whether Psaki should know the tough questions and Doocy being “a thorn in the side...come[s] with the territory,” Stelter conceded the last part, but quickly went into spin mode sucking up to Psaki.
“I think the point she's trying to say there is that Fox pushes storylines that are sometimes nonsense. Doocy does that in the briefing room,” Stelter boasted, fretting that her comments “to a liberal audience” will “cause a lot of outrage from Fox” lasting a “few days.”
Stelter added another shameless defense by claiming Psaki “didn’t really criticize him directly” but instead “Fox News as an organization.”
At no point did Houck dispute Stelter's contention that Doocy's job is to "advance right-wing talking points" on behalf of his employer -- after all, that's exactly why Houck has such a man-crush on the guy. Houck concluded by sneering that Stelter expressed "virulent hatred for Fox" -- which is a lie. Stelter simply told the truth, which, again, Houc, did not dispute; the only "virulent hatred" we see is from Houck against anyone who offers a truthful assessment of Doocy.
Of course, Houck is personally invested in pushing every narrative Doocy and Fox News forward, no matter how bogus, because he is a true right-wing believer who believes they are above all criticism. To him, Psaki and Stelter are subhuman for daring to criticize them.
UPDATE: Newsmax host Eric Bolling also got into the act, saying on his April 19 show that Russians see Carlson “as their ally,” and referred to him as “the guy across the ocean who’s helping their cause,” and that Carlson's failure to condemn Russian war crimes puts him on "the wrong side of history."
Newsmax's Morris Still Hammering Tucker Carlson For Supporting Putin Topic: Newsmax
Dick Morris has been notoriously wrong about many things, but his stopped-clock example of hammeringTucker Carlson and Fox News for effectively supporting Vladimir Putin's aggression in Ukraine has been surprisingly persistent and on point. He served up even more in an April 17 article:
Russia's Vladimir Putin has snagged Fox News and host Tucker Carlson hook, line, and sinker by his propaganda machine, sharing an "anti-American" narrative to conservatives, according to political strategist Dick Morris on Newsmax.
"Putin's strategy is, essentially what the Russians have always done, which is when they do something wrong: They take the copy and they turn it around on its head and blame us for it, even though it's something that they, and not we, have done," Morris, a former adviser to both former President Bill Clinton and President Donald Trump, told Saturday's "The Count."
"It's shocking to see Tucker Carlson doing this, and it's outrageous to see Fox News going along. This is not just pro-Russia, this is not anti-Ukraine, this anti-American."
Russia is even using Fox News and Carlson clips to justify Putin's invasion of Ukraine and continued escalations, Morris lamented.
"To see the Russian state media, the propaganda machine, quoting the leading talk television host in the United States is outrageous," he added.
Siding with Russia as it invades Ukraine is not only a bad look, but it is spreading disinformation to Americans, according to Morris.
"I think it's absurd and really shocking that Tucker Carlson in particular and Fox News in general really appear to be siding with Russia in this war," he said. "We have Tucker's overt statements saying, 'I side with Russia or I prefer Russia.'"
"And every night Tucker spews a monologue that basically says that the United States and our allies caused this invasion by provoking it by flirting with the idea of Ukraine joining NATO."
Morris said he spent a night this week watching Fox News and "found absolutely no coverage of what's really happening in Ukraine."
"No coverage of Putin's war crimes; no coverage of the atrocities – sometimes they pass it off with, 'We all know that Putin's not a great guy, but,' and then you go on," Morris noted.
Fox News is just not sharing the total truth, Morris concluded.
"Every night we see real images, not phony ones, of unbelievable havoc and hell being wrought upon the people of Ukraine by Russia – and yet we turn to Fox News and we see this stuff denied, downplayed," Morris said.
Morris used a May 17 column to lash out at Republican Sen. Rand Paul for obstructing U.S. aid to Ukraine, taking another shot at Carlson and Fox News in the process:
Rand Paul and a small band of Republican congressmen are using the same arguments and the same phony construct to oppose aid to Ukraine.
It is a message that Fox News' Tucker Carlson has been pushing for weeks: Why are we spending money on Ukraine when we need money for cancer research, roads and bridges, border security -- and as we struggle to keep gas prices down and fight inflation.
Carlson has long been a Kremlin apologist. And Fox News has been abetting his position with little or no coverage of Russia's war on Ukraine during its prime-time hours.
Fox's audience is becoming increasingly blind to the reality of this war, opening the door for Rand Paul and others.
Thankfully most Americans see the real danger Vladimir Putin poses to all of us.
Morris isn't the only person at Newsmax serving up stopped-clock takes, however. The hard-right David Horowitz and Daniel Greenfield took their own shots at Carlson and Fox News in a May 19 column, though he did make sure to blame Democrats for doing things that led up to this and President Biden for not doing anything effective:
Tucker and the conservative patriots who have joined him are wrong — wrong in their analyses, wrong in their priorities, and wrong in their opposition to a war that the West (led by the United States) must win.
Tucker has argued that Ukraine is a remote European country, and the U.S. has no security interest there that is worth the cost or the risks involved in defending it.
But in today’s world there are no remote countries.
What is happening in Ukraine is like 40 Guernicas or Coventrys rolled into one; it is also a spectacle of inspiring human heroism and courage with few parallels in our time or any other.
America can not turn our backs on the ordinary Ukrainian people who have risen so nobly to defend their homes.
Under President Trump, this crisis would not have occurred. There’s a reason that both of Putin’s invasions of Ukraine took place under White House Democrats.
That’s also why Russia’s Alaska incursions flared up under Obama and Biden.
Weakness is much more likely to bring on a war.
Abandoning the Ukrainians would be a sign of crippling weakness.
Biden badly mishandled the Ukraine crisis.
But we should not let the corruption in the White House or other political institutions, here and abroad, blind us to the human suffering or the bigger issues at stake for our national security.
If Russia’s efforts in Ukraine fall apart, it will not be due to Biden or the European Union, but the resilience of ordinary people in the face of war.
Horowitz and Greenfield can't quite concede that the billions in aid and weapons the U.S. and Europe are sending to Ukraine might be playing a major role, presumably because Democrats and liberals are behind them.
WND Writer Can't Stop Defending The (Dubious) Honor Of Ivermectin Topic: WorldNetDaily
Art Moore has been WorldNetDaioly's biggestpromoter of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID -- and biggest censor of the fact that legitimate testing has shown that the drug doesn't actually work in treating COVID. So whenever someone besmirches the drug (read: accurately report on it), Moore is there to defend its good name. He complained in an April 22 article:
Dr. Anthony Fauci says that to preserve his "integrity," he had to publicly "correct" President Trump on the validity of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as treatments for COVID-19.
He complained of "the people who were talking about hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and the virus is going to go away, it’s going to disappear."
"I had to maintain my integrity as well as my responsibility to the public to tell them the truth. That clearly alienated a lot of people," Fauci said.
Then Moore's defense brigade kicked in:
In fact, when the pandemic began, mass vaccination to quell a pandemic was an unproven novel therapy while physicians and medical scientists around the world were finding success using anti-viral drugs such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
Esteemed epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch of Yale Medical School was among scientists and physicians who said in Senate testimony that thousands of lives could have been saved if the treatments had not been suppressed.
One major problem for the promoters of the experimental vaccines was that they could not be granted emergency use authorization – shrinking the approval time from less give to 10 years to less than one year – if a viable alternative treatment of COVID-19 was available.
Under Fauci's leadership, physicians were punished, including losing their licenses, for legally treating COVID patients with the drugs off-label.
From 10% to 20% of all prescribed drugs are used off-label. Ivermectin has been shown to be effective as a preventative and early- and late-stage in at least 82 controlled studies. Researchers have demonstrated its ability to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 as well as its strong anti-inflammatory properties.
Risch is an anti-vaccine activist, so he's much less "esteemed" in real life than Moore would like you to believe. Also, mass vaccination is has proven quite successful in the past to quell or eradicate diseases, smallpox and polio among them. And again, Moore linked to the anonymous website that claims to document ivermectin studies, which may be secretly run by WND's favorite fringe-right medical group, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
The defense continued:
One of the physicians punished for treating patients off-label is Dr. Meryl Nass, a Maine clinician and scientist. She points to a 2005 paper published by the CDC showing chloroquine – the stronger form of hydroxychloroquine – was an effective drug against SARS coronaviruses, exhibiting "strong antiviral effects."
In 2014, scientists at Fauci's NIAID came to the same conclusion.
In fact, Nass is an anti-vaxx extremist whose medical license was suspended because she lied to get an ivermectin prescription by falsely claiming a patient had Lyme disease.
Moore sent on to hype "prominent cardiologist and epidemiologist" Peter McCullough -- a major COVID miosinformer -- for praising the South Carolina attorney general for issuing a legal opinion that permitted medicationslike ivermectin to be used for"off-label" uses.
IN an April 26 article, Moore repeated last fall's defense of ivermectin fronm those who (accurately) point out that its main purposethese days is treating horses and livestock:
Noticing that the word ivermectin is trending on the newly liberated Twitterverse under Elon Musk, the FDA has reprised its disingenuous "horse dewormer" smear of the drug as a treatment for COVID-19.
"Hold your horses, y'all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn't authorized or approved to treat COVID-19," said a post on the FDA's Twitter account.
The reference to horses played on the explosion last fall of media articles and social media posts mocking people who treated COVID-19 with the drug as ignorant rubes who were sneaking into farms or patronizing Tractor Supply stores in quest of "horse dewormer."
During the pandemic, Twitter and other social media platforms censored positive mention of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine despite the countless testimonies and dozens of studies from around the world showing the drugs to be effective in treating COVID-19.
Dr. Pierre Kory, who has testified to the Senate of the effectiveness of ivermectin against COVID-19, fired back.
"You are not a horse, you are not a cow, you are Big Pharma's ass," he tweeted.
The FDA, he wrote, was "messaging BS" by citing "one corrupt study" while ignoring 82 trials, including 33 randomized controlled trials with 129,000 patients from 27 countries that show "massive benefits" of ivermectin in treating COVID-19.
"Stop lying man, people are dying," he wrote, adding the hashtag "earlytreatmentworks."
Moore also gave space to Kory to complain about a trial in Brazil that found ivermectin had no effect on COVID hospitalizations, insisting that "The dosage of the trial was far lower than everyday Brazilian clinicians were prescribing patients at the time to match the strength of the strain."
NEW ARTICLE: Hans Bader Goes Racial Topic: CNSNews.com
The CNSNews.com columnist is concerned that non-white people might get access to a COVID vaccine or treatment before he does -- and that there may be too many black people on the Supreme Court. Read more >>
MRC Completes Flip-Flop, Defends Musk Against Criticism Of China Ties Topic: Media Research Center
Remember when the Media Research Center soured on Elon Musk when it was pointed out he's quite cozy with China so he can sell Teslas there, which it totally forgot about when Musk got interested in buying Twitter? well, the flip-flop became complete in an April 26 post by Kyle Drennen, who criticized media outlets for reminding people of that fact:
On Tuesday, both NBC’s Today show and ABC’s Good Morning America hyped a suggestion from Amazon founder and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos that fellow billionaire and new Twitter owner Elon Musk might be under the influence of China’s authoritarian regime given the amount of business the Tesla CEO does in the country. However, neither network mentioned that in a follow-up tweet, Bezos admitted that Musk was “probably not” beholden to China.
“Sold. After weeks of watching and waiting, Elon Musk reaches a deal to buy Twitter for $44 billion,” co-host Hoda Kotb announced at the start of NBC’s Today show. She then was quick to sound the alarm: “This morning, inside the world’s richest man’s plans to change the popular platform, the critics who call the move dangerous, and the looming battle of the billionaires as Jeff Bezos raises his own questions about the deal.”
Bezos initially quote-tweeted someone pointing out Musk’s business interests in China, speculating: “Interesting question. Did the Chinese government just gain a bit of leverage over the town square?”
However, in a second tweet in the thread, Bezos promptly dismissed the notion: “My own answer to this question is probably not. The more likely outcome in this regard is complexity in China for Tesla, rather than censorship at Twitter.”
In the final tweet in the thread, Bezos neutrally observed: “But we’ll see. Musk is extremely good at navigating this kind of complexity.”
Bezos conceding that Musk is "probably not" under Chinese influence is not the ringing endorsement that Drennen wants you to think it is. Drennen also failed to remind readers that just three and a half months earlier, MRC sports blogger Jay Maxson was cheering then-NBA player Enes Freedom Kanter for calling out Musk because heopened a Tesla showroom in Xinjiang, "the province which contains what many view as modern-day concentration camps," adding that "Fanboy Musk also credited China with its people’s happiness, indicating he must have a warped sense of what constitutes that human emotion."
Instead, Drennen played whataboutism with Bezos, complaining that the media reports lacked "an examination of the significant business ties Bezos has with China. That includes the Chinese state-run publication China Daily paying millions to run an insert in the Post for years that spewed regime propaganda."
It will not surprise you to learn that the MRC has never menttioned Musk's coziness with China again.
That wasn't the only flip-flop the MRC performed in service of Musk, however. An April 30 item by Autumn Johnson stated:
Facebook “whistleblower” Frances Haugen said she was “cautiously optimistic” about Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter. Haugen alleged last year that Facebook prioritized its own profits over public safety and encouraged content moderation in her testimony to Congress.
Fox News reported that she said that Mark Zuckerberg has too many people around him who “tell him what he wants to hear.” She said that Musk handled feedback better.
"I have a feeling that Facebook is going to rationalize to itself that it can't really do anything different than it already does because of the demands of the market," Haugen said, according to Fox. "I think there's a huge opportunity here for Elon to really demonstrate that there's another way forward."
Last fall, the MRC was trashing Haugen for her whistleblowing -- a script that just happened to be supplied to it by Facebook itself. Johnson didn't mention any of that or concede her employer was acting as a Facebook tool; instead, she uncritically quoted Haugen saying that "maintained her stance about the issues at Facebook."
Meanwhile, the MRC was still busy gushing over his planned Twitter purchase and whatever else he says:
WND Twists Obama's Words To Portray COVID Vaccines As A Failure Topic: WorldNetDaily
Barack Obama hasn't been president for years, but there's still a raging case of Obama Derangement Syndrome at WorldNetDaily. Read how Art Moore twists Obama's words to conform to WND's COVID vaccine conspiracy theories in an April 21 article:
In a direct appeal to the Silicon Valley tech giants to censor "misinformation" on social media, former President Obama on Thursday unwittingly affirmed the contention of critics of the COVID-19 vaccines that the fact that clinical trials have not been completed makes the people who have received the shots part of an experiment.
"Despite the fact that we have now essentially clinically tested the vaccine on billions of people worldwide, around one in five Americans is still willing to put themselves at risk, and put their families at risk, rather than get vaccinated," he said in a speech at Stanford University.
"People are dying because of misinformation."
The former president's remarks illustrate the danger of censoring "misinformation," if only because one person's misinformation might well be another person's evidence-based opinion or eventually become common knowledge.
Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and other social media platforms notoriously have censored the voices of some of the world's most highly qualified medical scientists because their views don't align with the ever-evolving government and establishment media position on the pandemic and related issues.
President Biden and CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, for example, assured Americans when the vaccines were rolled out that if you get vaccinated – for a disease that the CDC says has a survival rate of nearly 100% for people without chronic comorbidities – you won't get infected and you won't transmit the virus.
That hasn't turned out to be true, confirming the censored warnings of scientists such as Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Peter McCullough, who in January observed the "crumbling" establishment narrative that included "false statements regarding asymptomatic spread, reliance on lockdown and masks – which obviously didn't work – the suppression of early treatment, the mass promotion of vaccines that failed."
Both Malone and McCullough are COVID misinformers who have been repeatedly proven wrong, so maybe they're not the best example Moore could be citing. It's also a lie to portray the COVID vaccines as still experimental -- but the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have been fully approved by the FDA -- as a "failure" because they weren't 100% effective in preventing COVID infection with zero side effects -- no vaccine meets that extremely high bar.In fact, the vacciners have been credited with preventing millions of deaths and hospitalizations.
The rest of the article is largely a rehash of dubious claims aout the vaccine WND has previously published. WND has a badhabit of publishing false and misleading claims about the vaccines.
Newsmax's Hirsen: You Lose Your Soul If You Get Microchipped Topic: Newsmax
Last year, Newsmax columnist James Hirsen embraced extremist Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene for pushing the idea of COVID vaccination passports as the mark of the beast. Hirsen went that direction again in his May 2 column that declared getting an implantable chip that could be used for making financial transactions would also be the mark of the beast under the dire headline "Submitting to Microchip Means Forfeiting Your Soul":
Bible adherents who are Christian believe that The Word of God contains prophecies within the Books of Revelation and Daniel, which provide a description of a future time in which a single global government will assert control over a world economy.
Not all Bible believers view prophecy in a literal sense, but a sizable number do. Such individuals give greater weight to the Scripture passage in which a malevolent world leader forces “…all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads.”
The Bible passage goes on to state that the people oppressed by this evil leader would be unable to “… buy or sell unless they had the mark …”
The demand that one's hand or forehead be marked in order to purchase or otherwise engage in trade is commonly referred to by Scripture scholars and Bible adherents alike as “The Mark of the Beast.”
In order to conform to Biblical predictions, the above described hand implant technology would have to be implemented through coercion. This is not nearly as far-fetched as it used to seem; that power hungry elites would actually force individuals to be microchipped.
The notion of our economy being transformed into a cashless society, where governing authorities have power over the operation of individual microchips, is a nightmare scenario. Freedom itself would be snuffed out.
When you think about it, if all of your personal data were to be stored in your hand, it would be way too easy for that information to be misused.
Bottom line: If you allow yourself to be chipped, you may find that you have handed over your life to the powers that be. And possibly even your soul.
Hirsen himself seems to be on a journey of trying to reclaim his soul after selling it in the form of enthusiasticallyembracing Donald Trump's lies about election fraud, which culminated in the Capitol riot -- though he's never confessed to being taken in by Trump's fraud.
CNS Censors Donohue, Greene Duking It Out Over Catholic Stuff Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com loves far-right extremrist Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. It also loves dishonest Catholic Bill Donohue. So you'd think a controversy involving both of them would be splashed all over CNS, right? Well, think again.
In an interview with the right-wing Catholic outlet Church Militant, Greene lashed out at the Catholic Church's longtime support for undocumented immigrants, calling it "Satan controlling the church" and adding (wihtout offering evidence for her claim): “The church is not doing its job, and it’s not adhering to the teachings of Christ and it’s not adhering to what the Word of God says we’re supposed to do.” Donohue retorted: :"She needs to apologize to Catholics immediately. She is a disgrace. We are contacting House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy about this matter. He’s got a loose cannon on his hands."
Greene then posted a lengthy response to Twitter claiming to be a "cradle Catholic" who left the church over the clergy sexual abuse scandals, going on to huff of bishops she claimed she was referring to in her claim about "Satan controlling the church": "The Catholic Church must throw out these monsters instead of lecturing the people its own bishops have driven away. I refuse to use kinder, gentler language as Bill Donohue might prefer when I talk about his disgusting and corrupt friends, who have made him rich with the donations from ordinary churchgoing Catholics." She also called out Donohue for making "a million dollars a year, partly from sending out emails to defend corrupt bishops" and having "breezily claimed on television recently that the abuse crisis was 'over,' relying on the same biships who rake in taxpayer money in the name of our Heavenly Father yet have still, somehow, bankrupted theChurch, and who spend donations on lawsuits to silence their victims."
Donohue did not respond to Greene's criticism of him; instead he posted a letter he sent to the House Ethics Committee demanding that Greene be "sanctioned" and complaining that she said "that her sweeping condemnation of the entire Catholic Church was meant only to apply to the bishops, as if that makes her hate speech acceptable. Greene has a history of offending African Americans and Jews, so bigotry is something that is apparently baked into her." He issued another statement commenting "on the fallout from our dispute with Marjorie Taylor Greene" in which he again refused to address Greene's criticisms of him but instead calling her an "angry ex-Catholic" whose views of the church are akin to "radical Muslims":
Angry ex-Catholics and militant secularists within the Jewish community are consumed with hostility over the Church’s sexual ethics. Practicing Catholics and observant Jews are not the problem—it is those who have lost their way.
When radical Muslims lash out at Catholics, it is usually the result of some twisted understanding of their own religion. Similarly, there is a strain of anti-Catholicism among Protestants, more commonly exhibited by extremists within the evangelical community.
Marjorie Taylor Greene belongs to two of these groups: she is an angry ex-Catholic and an extreme evangelical.
CNS was completely silent about this kerfuffle. It did, however, find the time and space while this was going on to write and publish an article headlined "WATCH: Biden Chokes on the Word 'Kleptocracy'."
CNS sure has some funny ideas about what it considers "news."
As Musk Buys Twitter, MRC Goes Orgasmic Again Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center went from squeeing like a teenage girl when Elon Musk announced he had become the Twitter's largest shareholder to going pretty much orgasmic when Musk launched a hostile takeover bid for the company. After that, the MRC went into defense mode on behalf of Musk.
An April 17 post by Autumn Johnson unuronically quoted the guy who wants to spend billions to gain sole control of Twitter criticizing Mark Zuckerburg for allegedly having too much control over Facebook and its owner Meta. That was followed by various attacks on people criticizing Musk:
In an April 20 so-called "study" attacking the Washington Post for covering Musk's attempt to buy Twitter, Joseph Vazquez huffed:
The leftist newspaper owned by the second richest man in the world is obsessed with smearing his main competitor’s $43 billion Twitter takeover bid. It was willing to spend over 17,000 words to do it.
An MRC Business study of The Washington Post archives found that the newspaper published at least 15 articles between Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s April 14 Twitter announcement and April 17 alone criticizing him over his mission to turn Twitter into a platform that upholds free speech. That’s just four days worth of articles making up news items and op-eds.
The articles included made up a whopping 17,046 words, all of which attempted to smear Musk. One columnist claimed that if Musk succeeds, “we’re all doomed.”
Vazquez offered no evidence that 1) the Post is "leftist, 2) Post owner Jeff Bezos demanded that editors and reporters attack Musk over the purchase, or 3) that Musk genuinely believes in free speech.
Johnson excitedly wrote in an April 24 post that "Twitter is reportedly reconsidering Elon Musk’s offer to purchase the platform for $43 billion." The next day, it was time for Joseph Vazquez to go orgasmic after Twitter decided to accept Musk's offer, under the headline "Musk Wins":
The world’s richest man is set to complete his hostile takeover of Twitter for $43 billion, according to news reports.
Reuters released an exclusive saying that Twitter is “nearing a deal to sell” itself to Tesla CEO Elon Musk for “$54.20 per share in cash.” That was the original price Musk offered when he launched his bid to own the company. Twitter may announce the deal “later on Monday once its board has met to recommend the transaction to Twitter shareholders, the sources said.”
Musk slammed the platform on March 26 for its censorship-heavy environment: “Given that Twitter serves as the de facto public town square, failing to adhere to free speech principles fundamentally undermines his bid was successful.
Then, under the headline "VICTORY!", Alexander Hall cheered that Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal "broke his silence to share the news that free speech advocate and billionaire Elon Musk successfully bought Twitter," going to tout Musk's tweet that "I hope that even my worst critics remain on Twitter, because that is what free speech means." By contrast, the MRC didn't mention how, according to Judd Legum, in real life Musk is all too eager to censor speech by trying to censor critics, firing Tesla workers for union advocacy, and asking the Chinese government (which is communist, as the MRC loves to remind us) to silence Tesla critics in that country.
Then it was defense mode again, as the MRC was offended by the (arguably accurate) suggestion that Musk really doesn't care about free speech and is more interested in self-promotion and creating chaos:
Of course, the MRC continued to act as Musk's PR agent as well. An article by Johnson hyped Twitter Jack Dorsey cheering Musk's purchase, followed by a repurprosed CNSNews.com article noting MRC favorite Mark Levin's return to Twitter because of Musk even though Musk had not actually completed the purchase at this point. Then the boss got his sycophantic say, courtesy of a lovingly transcribed (and anonymously written) Fox Business appearance:
Billionaire Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter was totally about protecting the First Amendment, and had little to do with labor considerations or investing for financial gain. MRC President and founder Brent Bozell made those remarks during an appearance on Fox Business’ Varney & Co. on Tuesday.
“Today’s a great day for freedom,” he said. “This entire debate has been over free speech, with the left saying that this ought not to be allowed. Let’s understand this very clearly: This has nothing to do about economics, nothing having to do about work practices. It’s all about Elon Musk saying, ‘I’m buying this company because we have to have free speech in America to have a functioning democracy.’”
“This is a totalitarian institution, Silicon Valley, and along comes Elon Musk and he’s tipped over the apple cart, just like [Florida Gov. Ron] DeSantis tipped over the applecart with Disney in Florida,” Bozell said. “The American people have had enough of this totalitarianism.”
Musk said in a statement that he wants to enhance Twitter by launching unnamed new features, open-sourcing algorithms to improve public trust, defeating spam bots, and “authenticating all humans.” The last statement was a nod to free speech.
"Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated," Musk stated. “Twitter has tremendous potential – I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it."
Again: All this overblown MRC praise for Musk's fealty to "free speech" belies his actual record. The MRC doesn't want you to know that, however.