Is it any wonder…

… that a large number of the public are skeptical about taking the COVID-19 vaccine?

…”Senator Ron Johnson has assembled a cast of witnesses who question much of the public health consensus about the virus.

There is a prominent vaccine skeptic, an outspoken critic of masking and social distancing, and at least two doctors who have promoted the use of an anti-parasitic drug that government scientists have recommended against using to treat the coronavirus.

It is the latest example of how Mr. Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican who has used his powerful investigative panel to amplify groundless accusations pushed by President Trump, has now embraced the role of the Senate’s leading Covid contrarian.”

It is actions like this that will make it difficult to get out from under this pandemic.

Later in the article, Mr. Johnson is called out for running for a third term when he promised to only serve two. I hope the voters of Wisconsin remember what they went through in 2020 and how their Senator saw it.

24 thoughts on “Is it any wonder…

    1. you may have point the NYT does have a history of “hatchet job”s when presenting facts to the American people. Perhaps Breitbart has a better “take” on the obvious…

      Liked by 2 people

    2. RE: “Where, in this hatchet job…”

      I agree. The story is a good example of propaganda. There are several false statements (notably one about HCL), the argument is ad hominem, and the message is, “Only authorized points of view are allowed.” All in all not very liberal.


      1. “The story is a good example of propaganda.”

        Well, I consider you the local expert of posting propaganda, so I guess I should take you at your word.

        There are no false statements. There are statements you disagree with, but that does not make them false. The one you site about HCL is true in that the majority of health care specialists disagree that HCL is effective.

        Including anti-vaccine proponents is counter productive to getting people onboadr with getting the vaccine.

        If Johnson would include those he disagrees with as well, then maybe a spirited intelligent debate can be held. It is my view that it is Johnson who is the propogandist in this instance.

        …”not very liberal.” Johnson is in the GOP. You expect him to be liberal?

        Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “There are no false statements. There are statements you disagree with, but that does not make them false.”

          Here’s the false HCL statement I have in mind: HCL “has repeatedly been shown to be ineffective at treating coronavirus patients.” That’s simply untrue, since HCL has also repeatedly been shown to be effective.

          Lies of omission are lies just the same, hence the HCL statement is evidence of the NYT story being propaganda.


          1. “That’s simply untrue.”

            Uh, no. It is a true statement. The fact that it SOMETIMES seems to have a beneficial effect does not negate the truth. “Effective” is a measure that includes the balance of good and harm. There have now been enough careful studies done on HCL for the FDA to remove its EUA based on poor results and possible harm. Senator Johnson was way out-of-line with his ruminations that the medical professionals preference for Remdesivir over HCL was based only on greed.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. RE: “The fact that it SOMETIMES seems to have a beneficial effect does not negate the truth.”

            Right. So, it would be true to say, “The sky is green.”


          3. The sky is green?

            If there is some logic in your retort, it escapes me. The statement you claim is false – “HCL “has repeatedly been shown to be ineffective at treating coronavirus patients.” is NOT false. It is true. So true, in fact, that the FDA withdrew its EUA while under great pressure to leave it in place.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. RE: “The statement you claim is false… is NOT false.”

            It is also NOT false that shades of green contribute to the color of the sky. But it would still be false to call the sky green. Such is your fallacious argument.


          5. You are still making no sense. The statement you say was false, was true and not in some trivial sense. It was true enough to cause real action by the FDA to remove its EUA.

            The brouhaha about HCL and the people who defend it is a good example of how Stalinism works on weak minds. Because Dear Leader says that HCL works, loyalty demands that it be accepted as True no matter how many studies find that it is not. Same thing and more dangerous with masks. Wearing a mask is a sign of disloyalty to Dear Leader. Never mind the science. Dear Leader says they do no good. So they don’t.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. I guess when members of the same party decide it would not be beneficial to be present, its “OK, Ron. have at it, but we’re outta here.”

        “It has set off something of a quiet mutiny on the panel, enraging Democrats who plan to essentially boycott the traditional cross-examination of witnesses and unsettling some Republicans who are planning to skip Tuesday’s session lest their presence be seen as lending credence to the proceeding.”

        Liked by 1 person

    3. He only “allowed all voices to be heard?”
      Absolutely false. No one was there to defend snake oil which many people say works wonders on Covid.

      You call this a “hatchet job?” What in the story is untrue, incomplete or out-of-context? An objective observer would maybe opine that quoting Senator Johnson’s actual words was close to a “hatchet job” since so many of his comments are asinine but reporting what someone wants to say is not usually considered unfair.

      Liked by 1 person

    4. Both sides of the story?

      Like Pizzagate? Dropping off laptops to a blind man 3000 miles away? COVID is the common cold?

      Yeah, what we need in a pandemic that is killing Americans faster than anywhere else in the world is some political hack casting doubts on health measures to slow down the death rates.

      How come all the conspiracy nuts are conservatives? Reality not enough fun?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. All conservatives?

        The anti-HCQ conspiracy nuts who oppossed it solely because Trump mentioned it are responsible for at least 50,000 deaths.

        There are better choices now, but back in the spring, used early as recommended, prior to hospitalization, it would have kept 100,000 out of the hospital and 50,000 alive.

        We are currently losing 1000 people a day, yet the FDA won’t give the vaccines an EUA even a day before their planned lunch meeting set up a month ago, even though the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

        They aren’t conspiracy theories when they are real.


        1. “ The anti-HCQ conspiracy nuts who oppossed it solely because Trump mentioned it are responsible for at least 50,000 deaths.”



          “ Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said, when describing one of Johnson’s fringe witnesses, “I think it’s nuts to bring that into the Senate.”

          Romney is not a nut job. Johnson is.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Refer to the Ford Clinic study which I have provided many times.

            Early, in hospital, use of HCQ reduced serious outcomes by 50% The earlier anti-virals are used, the more effective they are. The studies the FDA relied on to ban HCQ use for COVID were all on patients already seriously ill in hospitals. Tested the same way, Tamiflu would also fail but it saves tens of thousands every flu season.

            Then do the math,

            At least 100,000 hospitalizations and 50,000 deaths could have been avoided had HCQ and zinc been released to outpatient use during the time recemdivir was not yet available,


          2. Speculation. I contend that the anti mask culture encouraged by the president was a hack of a lot deadlier.

            Where are all the studies after Ford?

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Further studies are moot now that monoclonal antibody cocktails are available, but there were scores of small, observational studies available at the time.

            Large scale, double blind, trials of outpatient treatment by primary care doctors are pretty much impossible, hence the reliance on hospital based studies.

            If you went to your PCP seeking treatment for a deadly disease, and he said take these pills, which may save you or may be placebos, would you not seek another PCP who would actually treat you using his best judgment?

            Pretty much eliminates double blind at the retail level. I would not see a PCP who would even consider participating.


          1. And refusal to accept facts you have been repeatedly provided is not of any use at all.

            The FDA is that absolute champion of the broken window fallacy, seeing only the risks of action but ignoring the risks of lost opportunity.


          2. The NOT-MADE-UP fact is that the FDA has withdrawn its EUA for HCQ. So now there is a clash of authorities. On the one hand there is you and that eccentric family doctor from New York State and on the other there is most of the medical science community. Hmmmm. Tough call. But since you have blown ALL your credibility with your kneejerk apologetics for Trump’s outrageous behavior and lies, I will go with the medical science community.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s