It’s hard to say which of our elite institutions has degraded the most.
In terms of cultural continuation, it is academia. In terms of day-to-day life, it is probably politics. But in terms of personal survival, it is probably the medical establishment, which I am convinced will kill us all and be glad for it, at least once we are no longer worth keeping around in their judgment.
They withdrew a scientific paper because they didn’t like that it might contribute to vaccine hesitancy.
In other words: follow the science—unless WE don’t like the conclusion. Then hide the science and brand anyone who questions “the science” as an unscientific nut.— Enough Already (@loochc1) August 21, 2026
In my earlier post today I took on the insanity of a paper in the British Medical Journal that argued that the Western desire to eliminate Female Genital Mutilation, which is the practice of removing the clitoris of pre-pubescent girls to ensure that they never enjoy sexual pleasure, is really not such a bad thing.
Thinking that it is shows that we are not culturally sensitive enough. And, besides, we now cut off the genitals of children, which is obviously a good thing, and this is just another version of a practice we consider barbaric. Diversity is our strength and all that.
Now sane people see the connections and think, “Yes, mutilating genitals is a BAD THING, and we shouldn’t do it here either,” but of course all The Best™ people see it differently.
Well, it’s not just what the BMJ will publish that is a problem; it’s what it chooses to censor, such as this paper they just retracted on excess deaths in the post-vaccination COVID world.
The paper did not LINK the two phenomena, but noticed the correlation and implied that the expectation that the COVID vaccine would prevent excess deaths did not seem to pan out. This is, you may say, a fact that should be studied and explained because the whole point of the “vaccine” (which the mRNA shot was most definitely not) was to avoid excess deaths, but it sure doesn’t seem to have worked out, given the fact that there is no correlation between reduced deaths and high vaccination rates.
To be clear, the paper does not assert and definitely does not prove that the jabs CAUSED the increase in deaths; there are far too many confounding variables, in the first place, and the one modern Western country without massive increases in excess deaths is Sweden, which was also highly vaccinated, making the correlation weaker than vaccine skeptics would like, all other things being considered.
It’s difficult to explain but this is the same syndrome that took hold in news, leading me to quit CBS in 2014.
It got to where certain executives wanted to censor info and stories not because there was anything wrong with them, they just didn’t like the conclusion people… https://t.co/9207J4HDNM— Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️♂️💼🥋 (@SharylAttkisson) August 21, 2026
It’s difficult to explain but this is the same syndrome that took hold in news, leading me to quit CBS in 2014.
It got to where certain executives wanted to censor info and stories not because there was anything wrong with them, they just didn’t like the conclusion people might draw.
I argued that it wasn’t our job or concern to try to force people to think a certain way. What they do with the info we give them is their business.
If we decide it’s our job to shape public opinion rather than report info, and when we get “vested” in an outcome, then we can’t be fair reporters.
That’s largely what’s happened.
Now, people aren’t even hiding this ludicrous argument: “We don’t want you to see or hear this factually true information because we don’t think you would draw the proper or state-approved conclusion.”
#1984
Personally, I think there were deaths caused by the vaccine (how could there not be? Every medical intervention will have negative outcomes for some people), and it likely caused a lot of problems other than fatality. But I also think it is unlikely that the majority of the excess deaths were caused primarily by the vaccine; there are lots of other COVID-policy-related causes of death, and COVID itself, which, by the way, was not prevented by the vaccine, killed a lot of people.
The paper called for more study into why this intervention, which was expected to reduce deaths, didn’t, which seems like an obvious thing.
Except…the BMJ, which spent NINE MONTHS having the study peer-reviewed and then chose to print it because it was sound, has retracted it this month. And not because it was bad science or had, say, plagiarism problems.
But because it might cause vaccine hesitancy, and there are people who are using the paper to make arguments that the BMJ doesn’t want made.
Remind you of anything? It’s the same basic reason why Nathan Cofnas was suspended for revealing that Jason Arday was a fraud. Revealing uncomfortable truths and stimulating a conversation about them is now forbidden in elite circles.
If the truth hurts, shut people up.
The British Medical Journal (BMJ) has been accused of damaging scientific integrity after retracting a paper which suggested that Covid vaccines may have been to blame for some excess deaths during the pandemic.
In 2024, a group in the Netherlands published a paper in BMJ Public Health, warning that some pandemic deaths may have been caused by the indirect effects of containment measures and vaccination programmes, and calling for further investigation.
The work was peer reviewed for nine months, and accepted as accurate by BMJ Public Health. However, it was retracted this week after a slew of complaints and an investigation by the Princess Máxima Centre in Utrecht, where three of the four authors worked.
The investigation found no evidence of malicious intent, fabrication or falsification of data, but still labelled the work as misleading and selective because it “did not reflect scientific consensus”, and had disproportionately focused on the negative effects of vaccination.
Dr Saskia Mostert, the first author, has since resigned from the Princess Máxima Centre, and said she had been unprepared for the “irrational and blind fury” that met publication.
The BMJ said it was retracting the article because of “misinformation in the discussion regarding the possible causes of excess mortality and because the limited nature of the original work by the authors was not sufficiently described”.
But three experts from the Netherlands have written to the BMJ editorial board and have said they are shocked by the retraction and asked them to reconsider their decision.
“Retraction is disproportional and raises serious questions about the extent to which political considerations played a part in your decision,” they wrote.
As so often happens with me, without any plan, I wound up with a “theme for the day” in my writing, and since I was (officially) off yesterday (apologies to everybody who cannot live without my fine insights!), my Arday post from yesterday probably counts as an unofficial post for today.
I bring that up because yesterday I wrote about the suspension of Nathan Cofnas for exposing Arday, and my first post of the day was about Matt Calkins, the Seattle sports columnist, who resigned after his column profiling fans of Sophie Cunningham was spiked because it didn’t fit The Narrative™.
My last post was about the BMJ promoting The Narrative™, and now we see the same prestigious publication ripping a paper out of the medical record because it might cause people to distrust the public health officials who screwed up so badly during COVID.
It’s all the same story: totalitarian information control. “We will tell you what you may and may not think.”
BMJ is corrupt. Retracts the Mostert paper in violation of COPE guidelines. So you should put your trust what has been REMOVED from the journals, not what is in the journals. pic.twitter.com/V61CEVekYj
— Steve Kirsch (@stkirsch) August 17, 2026
Now, zoom out and look at what scientific journals have become. They print poetry from doctors who killed a patient and learn to forgive themselves, print fake papers to cover up that COVID was engineered in a lab, and endorse presidential candidates. Their job is to promote false narratives when that is useful, and censor the truth when it is not. They will lecture us on decolonizing medicine, the racism of naming black holes, and promote the most unscientific nonsense to push political narratives.
This is killing people and destroying our societies. And, as far as I can tell, it is all about grasping for power, prestige, and money.
I honestly don’t know how to remove dangerous people from our prestigious institutions. How many Bari Weisses, Jay Bhattacharyas, Vinay Prasads, and Ron DeSantises are there in the world? How do we empower them to root out the rot in a way that has long-lasting effects? Is there a way to do so in a period of time that is short enough to survive the backlash?
I simply don’t know.
Editor’s Note: The mainstream media continues to gaslight, spin, and lie about President Trump, his administration, and conservatives.
Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join HotAir VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
