The 'fact checkers' at Snopes are going after me for taking on Big Pharma
Snopes is spreading fake news.
Snopes, a “fact checking” site that operates solely to defend powerful institutions from legitimate scrutiny, is now coming after me for… reporting the facts.
The website has a new piece out titled, “Did Pfizer CEO Say 2-Dose Vaccine Gives Little Protection Against COVID-19?”
My story in The Dossier from earlier this week is referenced. In the story, I repeated what the CEO of Pfizer, Albert Bourla, said verbatim about his own products.
“Two doses of the vaccine offers very limited protection, if any,” against COVID-19, Bourla said, adding, “three doses with a booster offer reasonable protection against hospitalization and deaths. Less protection against infection.”
Now, Snopes claims my story is “mostly false,” because I didn’t distinguish between Omicron and other previous variants of COVID-19.
“Bourla was referring specifically to infection from the omicron variant of COVID-19, not COVID-19 in general,” Snopes writes.
In their “fact check,” Snopes claims that the shot is still effective against previous variants of COVID-19, so Bourla was somehow misrepresented here.
“Bourla wasn’t saying his vaccine couldn’t fight off COVID-19 in general, and those who claimed as much were grossly misrepresenting what he said, the meaning of which is made entirely clear when viewed in its proper context,” the website concludes.”
Snopes is spreading a bald-faced lie through omission here, as they are confusing their audience into believing that many people are acquiring this thing separate from Omicron called “COVID-19 in general.”
There is little to no separation between the omicron variant and the virus that causes COVID-19 as a broader category. Omicron now accounts for over 95% of new sequenced cases. Therefore, omicron is COVID-19, and COVID-19 is omicron. If the shots work for previous strains, it’s an irrelevant point because omicron is increasingly becoming the only strain in town.
In my piece, I referenced how Bourla’s recent comments are a dramatic departure from his earlier claims that the shots are akin to a miracle cure. Snopes never addressed that part.
Notably, in marketing its shots, Pfizer never warned of declining efficacy due to potential variants. As we’ve discussed at The Dossier shots were originally sold as a two or one and done cure, not a seasonal injection protocol. The idea that the shots would stop working with later mutations was not at all part of the conversation until very recently.
The verdict is in. I rate Snopes as “mostly fake news.”
Check out our loyal sponsor:
TrustCapital is the #1 Bitcoin and precious metals IRA/401K platform in America. Sign up using my promo code DOSSIER and you will receive the benefits of tax-free investing and trading with ZERO MONTHLY FEES! Linked here and in the banner.
They didn’t need fact checkers until the truth started getting out.
That’s insane. Why would anyone have any interest in whether the Pfizer vaccine might work, or have worked, for a historical version of COVID that doesn’t exist any more? Why would Bourla be interested in this? Or a doctor? Or a person considering vaccination? Or anyone other than a historian?
Omicron is all there is. The other variants are history. The efficacy of medical treatments is not judged by reference to their putative effect on past medical conditions that no longer exist. It’s judged by how they operate in the present, and by that yardstick, as Bourla clearly knows, the Pfizer vaccine has had its moment.