Too Little Too Late: WSJ Tries to Save Face on Failed COVID Policies

Guest Post by Madhava Setty, M.D.

Now that our public health agencies’ leaders have admitted failure when it comes to their COVID-19 policies, the Wall Street Journal suddenly has the “courage” to offer a stiff critique.

wall street journal covid policies too late feature

The Wall Street Journal last week published an opinion piece, “Fauci and Walensky Double Down on Failed Covid Response,” with this subhead: “Lockdowns were oppressive and deadly. But U.S. and WHO officials plan worse for the next pandemic.”

The article begins:

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] belatedly admitted failure this week. ‘For 75 years, CDC and public health have been preparing for Covid-19, and in our big moment, our performance did not reliably meet expectations,’ Director Rochelle Walensky said. She vowed to establish an ‘action-oriented culture.’”

Yes, you read that correctly. Dr. Anthony Fauci and Walensky admitted they failed. They learned their lesson.

As John Tierney, author of the op-ed, wrote:

“Lockdowns and mask mandates were the most radical experiment in the history of public health, but Dr. Walensky isn’t alone in thinking they failed because they didn’t go far enough. Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to the president, recently said there should have been ‘much, much more stringent restrictions’ early in the pandemic.”

They believe that they didn’t go far enough? There should have been “much, much more stringent restrictions?”

That’s what they learned from the destruction their public health policies wreaked upon this nation and the others that followed their lead?

To his credit, Tierney pointed out the absurdity of Walensky’s and Fauci’s stance on their own incompetence.

Tierney also dropped a series of “truth bombs,” including:

  • “Their oppressive measures were taken against the longstanding advice of public-health experts, who warned that they would lead to catastrophe and were proved right.”
  • “For all the talk from officials like Dr. Fauci about following ‘the science,’ these leaders ignored decades of research — as well as fresh data from the pandemic — when they set strict Covid regulations.”
  • “The burden of proof was on them to justify their dangerous experiment, yet they failed to conduct rigorous analyses, preferring to tout badly flawed studies while refusing to confront obvious evidence of the policies’ failure.”
  • “U.S. states with more-restrictive policies fared no better, on average, than states with less-restrictive policies.”
  • “When case rates throughout the pandemic are plotted on a graph, the trajectory in states with mask mandates is virtually identical to the trajectory in states without mandates. (The states without mandates actually had slightly fewer COVID deaths per capita.)”
  • A Johns Hopkins University meta-analysis of studies around the world concluded that lockdown and mask restrictions have had “little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality.”
  • Florida’s and Sweden’s open policies have been vindicated based upon their lower levels of excess mortality compared to other regions.
  • “It was bad enough that Fauci, the CDC and the World Health Organization ignored the best scientific advice at the start of this pandemic. It’s sociopathic for them to promote a worse catastrophe for future outbreaks.”

I take no issue with Tierney’s list. The problem here is with the Wall Street Journal.

Every single point this opinion piece offered could — and should — have been made months or years ago.

There was longstanding advice from public health experts that predicted Fauci and Walensky’s failures? Why didn’t you say so in 2020?

Fauci and Walensky ignored decades of research? They touted flawed studies while ignoring the obvious failures unfolding in front of them, month after month?

The successes of Sweden and Florida were apparent in 2020.

Where were the articles in your publication that could have brought light to these issues over the last two years?

The Johns Hopkins University analysis on mask restrictions was published nearly nine months ago. Why didn’t you cover it?

Why did it take so long to run this kind of piece when the evidence was around for so long?

Do you really expect us to look the other way because you now have the temerity to call Anthony Fauci sociopathic?

You had ample opportunity to give voice to the dissenters who were pleading for a voice, a conversation and a debate based on the very same evidence you are mentioning now.

You failed your readership. You failed the public. 

The CDC’s policies were so devastating because you did not challenge them. Not once.

As a media platform, you were no less negligent than the public health officials you see fit to denigrate now — after untold damage has occurred, at their hands and yours.

Perhaps you’ve caused your loyal readers to finally scratch their heads and reconsider their perspective after 28 months of mercilessly attacking those of us who were asking you and other mainstream platforms to do your job.

Why are you holding Fauci and Walensky accountable now? Is it because they are finally admitting they blew it?

They are not the only galactically incompetent parties in this global tragedy. You are, too. And we all know it.

Interestingly, your scathing attack on our public health agencies still hasn’t gone nearly far enough.

One of their biggest “blunders” was not around lockdown measures. It was the dismissal of powerful, early treatment regimens, including ivermectin, that could have saved thousands of lives or more.

Instead, the public was forced to wait for a largely ineffective and harmful vaccine that has since exacted an incalculable level of damage on humanity.

Nevertheless, more than a year after Dr. Pierre Kory gave impassioned congressional testimony demanding that an official expert panel be convened to examine the mountains of evidence coming from all corners of the globe demonstrating the significant benefits of ivermectin in treating and preventing COVID-19, you had the audacity to print this hit piece on the safe and effective medicine that would have obviated the need to inject poorly tested mRNA technology into the bodies of several billion human beings.

Beyond being irresponsible, the article was silly, citing a single, small and yet-to-be-published study (at the time) that purportedly showed no benefit as proof that ivermectin cannot prevent COVID-19 hospitalizations.

The study underdosed the participants and was too small to detect statistically significant benefits, despite reduced incidence of hospitalization in most cohorts that got the medicine. (Read a full critique of the study here).

The study didn’t prove anything — other than that it was designed to fail from its inception.

Talk about touting a “badly flawed” study.

More importantly, your article on the study missed the real story: the scuttling of ivermectin by an unseen hand that was, it seems, in the pockets of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through Unitaid, a quasi-governmental advocacy organization the foundation funds (full story here).

Have your editors lost their sense of smell from repeated bouts of COVID-19? Or were you never able to sniff out where the real stories are?

It’s fairly obvious that despite this attempt to reclaim your journalistic integrity you are still muzzled. Any story that even intimates that the highly profitable COVID-19 vaccine was not only unnecessary but also a stark failure, is still off-limits.

Your silence on this continues to deafen us.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
14 Comments
cS
cS
September 14, 2022 7:51 pm

“Now that our public health agencies’ leaders have admitted failure when it comes to their COVID-19 policies, the Wall Street Journal suddenly has the ‘courage’ to offer a stiff critique.”

it’s called getting ahead of the parade.

cS
cS
September 14, 2022 7:51 pm

have they blamed trump yet?

ZeroZee0
ZeroZee0
  cS
September 14, 2022 8:32 pm

While they’ve started laying the groundwork for it, not yet. Soon, though. Probably about mid-October. And the same MSM will conveniently forget everything the Biden Crime Syndicate did to shove that shit into everyone’s arms by hook or by crook.

Furthermore, Trump’s either an Idiot or too vainglorious to disavow the Clot Shot he “Singlehandedly” brought to market. Were he actually a savvy individual, he’d distance himself from it, as quickly and vocally as possible, and blame his “Advisors”, such as Fauci and Birx, for LYING to him. Which I suspect is actually pretty damned close to the truth.

Instead, he keeps doubling down about his outsized role in this fiasco……. And it’s gonna bite him in the ass. He’ll be held solely accountable for all of the injuries and deaths while the current “Administration” is deemed as “Duped” by Orange Man Bad…..

Daryl
Daryl
  ZeroZee0
September 14, 2022 11:25 pm

Maybe The Donald should go rent Air Force One for a flyby of the next NASCAR race.

ken31
ken31
  cS
September 14, 2022 8:49 pm

I let my sub expire many years ago.

MrLiberty
MrLiberty
September 14, 2022 10:27 pm

Ropes for all.

WestcoastDeplorable
WestcoastDeplorable
  MrLiberty
September 14, 2022 11:10 pm

Erect the gallows on the Capitol steps, and make it a four-holer since we don’t have all day. I’d let ’em swing for at least 20 minutes.

Soup
Soup
  WestcoastDeplorable
September 15, 2022 3:50 am

Televise it. Sell ads.

Joe Blow
Joe Blow
  Soup
September 15, 2022 9:53 am

Use the lamp post down Pennsylvania Ave and leave them up as a reminder to others. Make a wind chime park out of it.

Arthur
Arthur
September 15, 2022 5:43 am

The fake virus hysteria was never about health. It was an orchestrated attack on society itself.

VOWG
VOWG
September 15, 2022 5:44 am

There was no pandemic just a made up crisis that is why total failure was the end result. The goal was to shoot experimental drugs into as many people as possible and that was an amazing success as those drugs are now killing far more people than the who who flu ever did.

Todd Packer's Mentor
Todd Packer's Mentor
September 15, 2022 7:15 am

I would imagine that the WSJ was taking government money to promote the vaccines, like all the rest. Whether they did or not, it doesn’t matter. Their attempt to get on the right side now is too little, far too late.
Fuck off, WSJ, you have no credibility.

B_MC
B_MC
September 15, 2022 11:25 am

Reversal on masks as well….

CNN’s Jake Tapper: “It doesn’t make a lot of sense” that Biden is still forcing masks on young kids.

“The masking is damaging psychologically, emotionally, and educationally for these kids.”

https://nitter.hu/RNCResearch/status/1570082702178525189#m

Captain_Obviuos
Captain_Obviuos
September 15, 2022 12:59 pm

I worked for the WSJ for several years, back when they actually were a respectable newspaper. I left right around the time their new breed of editors decided the WSJ needed to be “streamlined, to make it easier to find the articles you really want…” which were just buzzwords for “we’re dumbing it down, dropping whole sections and going with tabloid journalism.”

They started losing their subscription base, so they thought if they modernized it they would bring in new readers; it didn’t work. It’s like these people couldn’t realize that less and less college grads were studying finance, instead getting the more useful Racial Studies degrees, and it had absolutely nothing to do with the layout of the damn paper. Making it prettier was truly a pearls-for-swine move which nobody asked for, but I now understand it is the way of the new breed: like their beloved blacks, their insides are rotten, so they compensate by trying to wear flashy clothes (or get their hurr and nails did, if you will) — anything to distract from their lack of content.

(I did love talking to older WSJ readers. Lots of them were from the Northeast of course. They way they’d say “Hah-vud” or “Dahtmuth” when they’d talk about how they used to read the WSJ daily at their respective colleges was always endearing. And these guys knew their shit, when it came to finances; I had many chats [on company time, I might add — the old guys woulda been proud] about international banking and solvent equities and fractional tax shelters, all things I never would have known about otherwise, having never been to business school. I can only imagine what WSJ’s customers are like today, I’d be willing to bet they couldn’t even carry the old guys’ briefcases now. Very sad.)