Madhava offered some wise critiques in his piece. I’m going to summarize a few, and then add another thought of my own.
Firstly, some of Madhava’s critiques are:
Where did the number “1000’s” come from when speaking of the vaccine injured? Shouldn’t there be a source? What about the millions of VAERS reports? “Thousands” seems like a random and arbitrary number that minimizes the issue.
The NYT suddenly acknowledges that there is a subset of people who are credible and believe they have been vaccine injured. Doctors for example. Madhava points out that the examples covered by The Times focus on people their average reader cannot relate to because they are about vaccines taken off the market. Further, some of the people injured side step the vaccine as the cause even though their injuries occurred right after vaccination. Some even believe it wasn’t the vaccine itself but contamination that may be the cause. All casting doubt in the mind of the reader.
Madhava points out that the NYT believes vaccine misinformation and the patently false claims coming from ‘anti-vaxxers’ out there are the cause for how difficult it is to gain clarity on COVID vaccines. As if the CDC, government and the NYT aren’t to blame themselves. The NYT never points out what is false from antivaxxers, just that things are false. The NYT continues to play confused about why there is hesitancy after millions of injury reports and years of credible people pointing this fact out while being ignored by mainstream circles. Simply put, the NYT is living in a fantasy land that does not comply with objective reality.
We can see here that the New York Times piece was addressing the subject while also minimizing it. But why did the New York Times write this piece? What was the author thinking? Do they truly think the number of vaccine injured is just “thousands?” or is this what the NYT chose to write because they know they’d get crushed if they wrote “hundreds of thousands” or “millions?”...<<<Read More>>>...
