Tag: nyt

FDA, NYT Downplayed Evidence Showing Covid Shots May Have Killed Kids

Last fall, FDA safety officers began compiling a list of children possibly killed by Covid vaccines. Digging through thousands of reports of adverse effects and autopsy records of those who had died after receiving the mRNA vaccines manufactured by Moderna and Pfizer, the team eventually determined that several adolescents had apparently died from the Covid vaccines.

On Dec. 5, the team’s leader, Dr. Meghna Alimchandani, sent an email recommending changing the labels on all mRNA Covid-19 vaccines to notify patients of the risk for cardiac death (fatal myocarditis), adding that her safety team planned to present those results at an upcoming FDA meeting. Such warnings, even regarding rare outcomes, are standard procedure — as is well-known by everyone who has watched drug TV ads that run through long lists of known harms.

Ten months later, the FDA has still taken no action to warn parents.

A RealClearInvestigations inquiry found that a strange-bedfellows convergence of political interests appears to have blocked the dissemination of this scientific information. President Trump, whose Operation Warp Speed helped fast-track development of the vaccines in 2020, believes his efforts saved millions of lives, and several current and former health officials told RCI they are loath to complicate that narrative for him. RCI also found evidence that the Biden administration, a strong supporter of vaccine mandates, showed little interest in examining or publicizing mortality data that might undermine its policies. For its part, the pharmaceutical industry was intent on protecting its profits, and influential media outlets, especially the New York Times, have downplayed evidence of Covid vaccine deaths and attack those who’ve tried to bring them to light.

“In the end that’s the big story,” said Sen. Ron Johnson, who has sustained a years-long investigation into Covid vaccine safety, releasing hundreds of pages of internal FDA records that call into question the agency’s forthrightness and that the legacy media have largely ignored or dismissed. “Advertising allowed Big Pharma to not only capture our medical colleges, medical journals, and Congress, but now the media,” Johnson added. “They’ve run the table,” he said. “That’s why this isn’t covered.”

Keep reading

Pharma PR Executive Leaked Insider Criticism of NIH Vaccine Injury Center to New York Times — Paper Neglected to Mention His Industry Ties

A pharmaceutical industry public relations (PR) executive who serves on an influential National Institutes of Health (NIH) board and is an academic colleague of Dr. Anthony Fauci leaked criticism of the agency’s new vaccine injury clinic to The New York Times — which reported the criticism without disclosing the PR executive’s industry ties, according to The Disinformation Chronicle.

Jack Leslie, a senior adviser and former chairman of Weber Shandwick, the world’s second-largest public relations firm, chairs the NIH Clinical Center Research Hospital Board. Weber Shandwick represents several major pharmaceutical companies.

The hospital board oversees the NIH Clinical Center in Maryland, which will house the agency’s new Vaccinology and Immunology Center (VIC). The center will focus on researching and treating vaccine injuries. U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced its launch earlier this month.

Last week, the Times reported that the NIH hospital board unanimously approved a statement criticizing the new center and Kennedy, accusing him of undermining public trust in the hospital’s work.

According to The Disinformation Chronicle, Leslie leaked the statement to Times health policy correspondent, Sheryl Gay Stolberg. The newspaper published her story within hours but did not disclose Leslie’s ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

Paul D. Thacker, investigative reporter and author of The Disinformation Chronicle, told The Defender that he believes the Times published the story to discredit Kennedy and people who say vaccines have injured them.

“Everyone knows the pharma industry hates RFK Jr. So, it’s beyond perplexing that a New York Times reporter saw ‘news’ when PR man Jack Leslie said something denigrating about him, and spit on people harmed by their products. That’s what Big Pharma pays Weber Shandwick to do,” Thacker said.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees the NIH, defended the new center in a statement to The Defender.

The VIC “reflects the Trump Administration’s commitment to restoring gold-standard science, transparency, and accountability to our public health institutions,” the spokesperson said.

“This work will help ensure that people who experience health problems following vaccination are taken seriously and studied with the same scientific rigor applied to other medical conditions,” the spokesperson added.

Pediatrician Dr. Elizabeth Mumper, who attended the center’s launch event earlier this month, called the VIC “long overdue.” She accused Leslie of using his “PR skills” and “background doing public relations for multiple vaccine manufacturers” to undermine an initiative intended to study and help people who have been injured by vaccines.

Keep reading

“Too Combustible”: New York Times Calls For Canceling Sophie Cunningham

The New York Times demonstrated again this week that it remains solidly part of the cancel campaign culture. The Athletic, owned by the Times, joined the mob in calling for the Indiana Fever to dump Sophie Cunningham for publicly opposing biological males playing in women’s sports – a position shared by the vast majority of citizens.

The column by Candace Buckner blames Cunningham for creating a “circus” and says that she is a distraction from the game due to her public stance. So, she is now “too combustible, her takes too “turbulent” to play basketball.

Of course, if she supported transplayers, she would presumably not be combustible but admirable.

Notably, the Times does not view those who have attacked Cunningham and her fans as too “combustible,” including coaches wearing opposing slogans and statements in favor of biological males in women’s sports. The New York Times itself reported that almost 80% of citizens hold the same position as Cunningham.

The Oct. 6 column called on Indiana not to renew Cunningham’s contract after two seasons when she becomes a free agent because she is “too combustible.”

However, the Times does not believe that those coaches and players speaking out in favor of such inclusion are “too combustible.”

There was no call for sacking figures like Storm co-owner Celeste Keaton, who reportedly yelled profanities at girls who were simply supporting women in sports and Cunningham.

Nor was there a call to sack Minnesota Lynx head coach Cheryl Reeve for wearing a T-shirt supporting trans players in a game against the Indiana Fever and Cunningham.

Liberal sentiments are never combustible for the Times. The newspaper ran a long line of columns supporting Colin Kaepernick in his kneeling protests during games. Conversely, columns attacked former player Enes Kanter Freedom for wearing a T-Shirt reading “WOMAN noun. adult human female.”

For most of us, the hatred for Cunningham is baffling. These athletes have a unique perspective on this controversy that can help inform the debate on both sides. We should welcome the insights of athletes for and against transgender players in this national discussion.

Instead, Cunningham has been subject to the same hateful, unhinged attacks that we have seen on other influential figures such as J.K. Rowling. There is no room for civil debate or any difference of opinion.

The purpose of these campaigns is obvious. Even with the vast majority of citizens supporting Cunningham’s position, press and pundits want to deter others from publicly taking such positions. It is designed to chill speech and deter dissent.

On Friday’s episode of “No Hesitation with Sophie Cunningham & Drew Hanlen,” Hanlen correctly called the piece an “absolute hate piece.” Cunningham responded even more succinctly to the Times with “suck it.”

I am not concerned for Cunningham, who has shown great courage and steadfastness in the face of these critics. Rather, it was the latest evidence that the Times has changed little in fueling the mob and canceling opposing voices.

The Times has thrilled the extreme left with its signature relativism in defending any abuse on the left, from looting to murder. It has continued to feature violent extremists as political attacks rise around the country.

The same newspaper that fired editors and denounced Sen. Tom Cotton for his NYT column quelling violent protests would go on to print individuals who have said that they are ok with killing conservatives or capitalists.

Just before the anniversary of the Cotton controversy, the New York Times published a column by University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.

After canceling Sen. Cotton, the Times had no problem with publishing the views of a Chinese figure called the enforcer of Beijing in the crushing of protests.

The New York Times is undeterred because its readers seem to value the very hypocrisy revealed in these controversies. They can rely on the Times to offer spins and deflections to relieve them of any self-examination after tragedies like the Kirk assassination.

While denouncing disinformation, the Times has embraced false narratives and continues to publish distorted historical claims.

Keep reading

New York Times report on AIPAC hides a central truth about Israel’s unpopularity

At first glance, that recent New York Times article on AIPAC, the wealthy pro-Israel lobbying organization, may have looked promising. It ran on the front page of the Sunday print edition, the week’s most prominent location. It jumped inside, where it covered nearly an entire page. It was 53 paragraphs long. The byline indicated that 4 Times reporters had worked on the article.

But, astonishingly, not a single one of those 53 paragraphs explained that AIPAC’s efforts to influence American elections have changed dramatically in recent years. These days, the organization often actually hides its pro-Israel views, even though promoting Israel is the only reason it exists in the first place. Instead, it dumps money into political campaigns and frequently raises issues that have absolutely no connection to Israel and Palestine.

Let’s take, for example, the Democratic primary earlier this year for the House seat in New Jersey’s 13th Congressional district. AIPAC decided to target Tom Malinowski, a former congressman who had the temerity to mildly suggest that military aid to Israel should be “conditioned” on its human rights record. This site’s estimable Michael Arria succinctly explained how AIPAC acted:

“Of course, AIPAC can’t actually run ads telling Democratic voters to reject Malinowski for being sufficiently pro-Israel as the [Democratic] base has completely soured on the country, and lobbying groups supporting that relationship.

“So, the AIPAC-funded [television] ads attack Malinowski for allegedly supporting Trump’s immigration policies. The allegation stems from a 2019 vote, in which that year Congress passed a funding bill that included money for law enforcement at the southern border. Most Democrats, including Malinowski, backed the package.”

(In that race, AIPAC’s strategy backfired. It dumped $2 million into TV ads attacking Malinowski — which apparently damaged him enough so that Analilia Mejia, who is even more progressive on Israel/Palestine, won the Democratic primary, and is presently in Congress.)    

AIPAC’s new stealth strategy was by no means a secret. Both Politico and MS Now covered the New Jersey race, and revealed the Israel lobby’s behind the scenes maneuvering.

AIPAC deployed the same stealth strategy in August, when it helped defeat progressive former Rep. Cori Bush’s effort to win back her seat in Missouri’s Democratic primary. The pro-Israel lobby had already helped her opponent, Wesley Bell, two years before. This time around, AIPAC’s ads sidestepped Israel again, and instead emphasized Bush’s alleged missed votes in Congress and her supposed criticism of the Biden administration. 

So: how did 4 NYTimes reporters, who were handed 53 paragraphs of space, miss this vital Stealth AIPAC angle? How did the echelon of editors who reviewed the report also fail to do anything? The only plausible explanations are institutional bias and conscious whitewashing and self-censorship.

Keep reading

The Left Doesn’t Count Votes. It Finds Them.

f you saw a recent NYT report on Brazil’s election between incumbent socialist president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and conservative Flávio Bolsonaro, you may have noticed that the Left’s “paper of record” made an astounding, if unintended, admission in the headline: it reveals its conception of elections. In its words, “Flávio Bolsonaro’s first round lead leaves President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva three weeks to find the votes to stop Brazil’s rightward shift” (italics mine). It doesn’t say “prevail in the election by voter turnout,” but it casts the election as an implied political obligation to manufacture ballots to block voter will and engineer an imposed social order against it. This is clearly the Left’s intention in November.

While this may read as routine journalism, or perhaps just wishful thinking on the writers’ part, it may strike some readers as more of a Freudian slip about how the Left’s mental worldview works: leftist parties operate under a duty to manufacture enough ballots to overcome an election deficit. If your candidate falls behind, you intervene on the sidelines to close the gap. This is now their “normalized” concept of an election.

More than that, progressives have inverted the structure of an election from one that sets two opponents in passive receipt of votes to an actively managed, planned event that aids one side during the election. What was traditionally an arm’s-length contest becomes a pre-existing agreement.

Rather than preserving a quiet period after the close of campaigning to measure the public result of candidate marketing through voluntary voter turnout, the election becomes merely part of their total political campaign operation. It turns votes into indicators, and the indicators into corrective ballot measures.

This obviously goes by other names, such as rigging, stealing, cheating, and fraud, but the extraordinary aspect of this language in the NYT is how it reveals a shift in political psychology and a determination to make that abnormal psychology generally accepted behavior. It resembles the Left’s efforts to make people think that transgender athletes are legitimate contestants among biological females: it asks you to accept a fraud as a right, and, more than that, that you are wrong for questioning it. That is how election fraud works: objections violate a higher moral standing claimed by the victor, even though the victor obtained it through deception.

To use an analogy, it is like two horses in a race where the spectators rush the racetrack on the losing horse, inject him with amphetamines, block the other rider, and the racing judge looks the other way, while the crowd is asked to keep quiet out of fairness to the horse.

To use a good legal analogy, it would be like two legal opponents in a trial, along with their lawyers, actually accompanying the jury into the deliberation room and trying to measure which way they’re leaning and “tip” the scales. Jurors privately deliberate after closing arguments because they weigh what they heard and reach a protected verdict based only on the evidence presented in open court.

Elections are the same: voters effectively go into private deliberation after hearing both sides, cast their ballots in private, and the verdict is then announced in the open “public court.” We have certain appeal processes for election irregularity (e.g., Florida in 2000 and Bush v. Gore), or for an election “mistrial,” as in a deadlock (a runoff or recount), including the discretion to count state electors (e.g., Pence, 2021). In all cases, the counting or verdict is subject to a quiet period, and campaigning of any kind must stand down.

The other key factor in Brazil that is reframing the Left’s vision of elections is based on its paranoia that any conservative candidate is a Trump candidate and ally and part of a larger plan to aid and abet President Trump’s mandates (“Brazil Is a Sign of Things to Come,” NYT, 10.5.26). But South America (and Cuba as well) has been dragging behind the West economically for decades because of its leftist political corruption and because it swings in the extreme between Left populists and Right militarists. Rarely has an actual business conservative, or even a moderate leader, emerged.

Keep reading

NY Times Suggests Babies Are Not Conscious

The New York Times has decided the open question in science this week is whether a baby is conscious. Not a cluster of cells. Not a theoretical model. An actual newborn baby.

Carl Zimmer’s 5 October piece, “Are Babies Conscious?” (yes that’s a real headline) walks readers through a lab test and then informs them that a “squirming, gurgling infant” does not seem conscious, “at least not in the way adults are.”

Zimmer’s setup is the oddball-sound test. A subject hears three low tones and a high one, over and over, then a run of four low tones. Adult brains throw a brief, distinctive blip at the break. People in a coma do not. People who are asleep do not. The Times then puts a newborn in the same frame and asks whether the blip will be there.

Are Babies Conscious? As scientists map the birth of consciousness, they hope to gain a better understanding of how it evolved in humans in the first place. https://t.co/g1D5A4wRtF— Patrick Emerton (@egregiousknave) October 5, 2026

Er what? https://t.co/ZqhoAq4dJk— m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) October 6, 2026

The paper calls it an active scientific debate. Dr Topun Austin, a neonatologist at the University of Cambridge, is quoted defining the thing under study: “Consciousness is a process of being receptive to the outside world and mixing that with our own internal world, to create the feeling of who we are and where we are.“

A caption under the piece states that there was a time when our brains were too rudimentary to support consciousness. Zimmer’s own promo line said he had found scientists “on a mission to find out when consciousness begins in babies.”

The reaction online was immediate, and it was not about neuroscience. It was about where the line moves next.

@ModernityNews Ever get the feeling we’re living inside a cautionary tale?

Like we’re all just trapped in a dystopian ’70s sci-fi movie, while Charlton Heston screams about the sanctity of human life? pic.twitter.com/oxA1EaZhXJ— Alpha Of The Betas (@AlphaOfTheBetas) October 6, 2026

“Are Babies Conscious?”

Give this a few more years and they’ll claim consciousness doesn’t begin until the baby is one years old, so abortion should be legal up to that point. pic.twitter.com/hLxMdTzZzC— Arthur in California (@ArthurReturnss) October 5, 2026

@JackPosobiec This is setting to push for post-birth abortion down the line.— Emmanuel Gonzalez (@Emm_Gonzalez38) October 6, 2026

@JackPosobiec They want abortion legality to extend into early childhood— Paul Joseph Tinkle (@PTinkleIndy) October 5, 2026

@JackPosobiec Anyone who has had a child knows that babies are conscious. Only the childless hacks at the NYT are confused.— Andrew McCann (@andymccann) October 5, 2026

All this is going on while we’re debating whether ‘machines can be conscious’, a disturbing irony.

Incredible that we’re debating whether “machines can be conscious” while Democrats still haven’t acknowledged that babies in a mother’s womb have consciousness.— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) October 3, 2026

Of course, there are countless studies that indicate infants, even unborn infants have consciousness as we understand it.

In January, neonatologist Carlo Bellieni of the University of Siena published “A Rudimentary Consciousness Appears in the Late Fetal Period” in EC Gynaecology, reviewing 31 clinical trials from the last decade on fetal anatomy, perception and memory. His conclusion: the early appearance of memory is a sign of rudimental consciousness, and it does not depend on whether the fetus is inside or outside the womb, only on the grade of brain development.

Keep reading

25 Years After 9/11, NYT Continues to Rationalize Catastrophic Wars

The 25th anniversary of September 11, 2001, occasioned retrospectives on both the attacks carried out against the US that day and on the wars that the US prosecuted in their aftermath.Ft In its editorial remembrance, the New York Times (9/11/26)—which played a critical role in dampening skepticism of the “Global War on Terror”—rationalized the cataclysmic violence the US unleashed after 9/11, and assigned greater value to American lives over those of other people.

Under the headline “How a Heroic Response Went Awry,” the editorial board asserted:

The war against the Taliban and the Qaeda forces there was a justified and necessary response to the attacks. Within months, the US military destroyed Al Qaeda’s camps (even if killing Osama bin Laden would take nearly a decade) and drove the Taliban from power.

To say that a policy is “necessary” is to say that there is no alternative. But there was an alternative—namely, reaching an agreement with the Taliban for bin Laden to be extradited from Afghanistan, a possibility that existed before and immediately after 9/11.

The US, however, did not pursue this option as seriously as it could have. As the Washington Post reported on October 29, 2001:

Over three years and on as many continents, US officials met in public and secret at least 20 times with Taliban representatives to discuss ways the regime could bring suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden to justice.

Talks continued until just days before the September 11 attacks, and Taliban representatives repeatedly suggested they would hand over bin Laden if their conditions were met, sources close to the discussions said.

Throughout the years, however, State Department officials refused to soften their demand that bin Laden face trial in the US justice system.

A CIA administrator was quoted in the report: “I have no doubts [the Taliban] wanted to get rid of [bin Laden]. He was a pain in the neck.”

In addition, a former head of Saudi intelligence said that, in 1998, the Taliban agreed to hand over bin Laden to Saudi Arabia, a close US ally; the source said that the Taliban changed course after the US fired cruise missiles at an apparent bin Laden camp in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, following attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania attributed to Al Qaeda (LA Times, 11/4/01).

Then, just a week after the US invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban offered to discuss handing over bin Laden if the US stopped bombing Afghanistan and provided evidence that bin Laden was involved in 9/11 (Guardian, 10/14/01).

In other words, far from being “necessary,” the Afghan War was a choice the US made when diplomacy appeared to be a viable option. And we now know that those 20 years of war had disastrous effects on Afghans (Jacobin, 9/11/21; Al Jazeera, 9/11/21), and resulted in the Taliban returning to power.

Keep reading

Sulzbergers Keep Secret Archives at Taxpayer Expense While Denouncing Supreme Court for Doing the Same Thing

A highly hyped New York Times investigation—touted with the unusual label “Times Exclusive”—appeared this month under the headline “How the Supreme Court Locks Away Its Own History.” It complained that “many of the justices have valued confidentiality over transparency and chosen to postpone scrutiny of their work for years to come.”

“Some scholars question why papers should be sealed long after a justice has retired,” says the Times article, by Jodi Kantor, with research and reporting contributed by Julie Tate, Ann Marimow, and Adam Liptak. It quoted a legal historian at the University of California, Davis, Mary Ziegler, accusing the justices of engaging in “reputation management,” and, as Ziegler was paraphrased in the article, “protecting themselves from examination and second-guessing.”

Not disclosed in the Times article: that the papers of former Times publishers Arthur Ochs Sulzberger and Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., donated to the New York Public Library in 2007, are closed to public access until 2035 and 2057, respectively, according to the finding aid to the collection.

Keep reading

NYT Killed A Story That Exposed How Democratic Spam PACs Drain Elderly Donors — And A Stanford Professor Had To Publish It Himself

You might remember that eight months ago, Stanford University political science professor Adam Bonica spent that time collaborating with The New York Times to run a massive, data-driven expose on the how Democratic spam PACs targeted and bilked elderly donors of their cash. And in the end, The New York Times killed the story after the Elias Law Firm (DCCC/DSCC lawyers) contacted The Times.

Using Federal Election Commission (FEC) data on contributions to Democratic PACs and voter registration lists with age information covering over 300 million contributions to candidates and PACs, Bonica found that the vast majority of donors to Democratic spam PACs are elderly. In fact, a surprisingly concentrated group of elderly donors are responsible for the lion’s share of money raised by these groups.

1% of Democratic donors – approximately 138,000 donors with an average age of 75 – are responsible for more than 49% of $1.4 billion raised by “spam PACs” since 2017.

These are actual cases of senior citizens being taken advantage of by Democratic spam PACs, all while consultants rake in millions. For example, an 85-year-old retired man from Oxford, Ohio sent out 7,800 donations to Democratic groups totaling $648,000 in value. That is more than double the value of his home. An elderly woman from an assisted living center in Indianapolis made 25,000 donations totaling $250,000 in value. The money she was spending on these donations was for her own care. A 93-year-old man was charged 4,208 times over the course of four months for Democratic groups, an average of 31 times per day. That came out to $32,742.

Between 70 and 85 percent of the largest spam PACs’ Facebook/Facebook fundraising ad impressions were served to users 65 and older – a demographic that comprises just 14% of the total adult user base on the platform.

Keep reading

New York Times Journo Admits the DSA Wants to ‘Take Out the Entire Constitutional System’

Last night on the Bill Maher show, one guest was Jeremey Peters, a journalist for the New York Times.

When the subject of the DSA came up, Peters was surprisingly candid and came right out and admitted that the DSA wants to take out our Constitutional system. That is correct.

Some Democrats and people in media are trying to soften the image of the DSA by saying they just want people to have healthcare. That is not true. Their own official platform includes the abolition of the Senate, the presidency, and the Supreme Court.

They also want open borders and amnesty for all illegals, the defunding of police and the closure of prisons. In short, they are completely insane.

You know that people are waking up to this when a NY Times journalist starts talking this way.

Transcript by the Vigilant Fox:

New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters admits to Bill Maher that the DSA’s stated goal is not only to take over the Democratic Party but to “take out the entire constitutional system.”

Maher says what they really want is communism, and you don’t even have to dig deep to prove it.

PETERS: “They’re not running to be members of the Democratic Party. They’re running, many of them anyway, as Democratic Socialists. It’s a totally different political organization. And in fact, they want to take out the Democratic Party. I mean, that’s their stated goal. They not only want to take out the Democratic Party, they want to take out the entire constitutional system that the Democratic Party is allowed to participate in governance.”

MAHER: “And they like communism. I proved it here a couple of weeks ago just by quoting them. They use the word a lot. They’re not actually trying to hide it, although if you ask them they will deny it.”

Keep reading