The Four Women Of The Twitter Apocalypse!

GOP Rep Nancy Mace rips into fired twitter officials over covid censorship – admits she has devastating side effects from covid vaccine.

  • During Wednesday’s Republican-led House Oversight Committee concerning conservative censorship on social media, GOP Rep. Nancy Mace slammed Twitter’s former Chief Legal Officer for censoring the Harvard & Standford doctors because they didn’t support the Covid-19 vaccine. (100% FED-UP)

Marjorie Taylor Greene slams Yoel Roth for his pro child-porn activity while at Twitter:

  • Greene specifically called out Yoel Roth, the homosexual former Head of “Trust & Safety” at Twitter, explaining that she was amazed at his inability to remove child porn from Twitter. (LIBERTY DAILY)

Rep. Lauren Boebert grills former Twitter execs over ‘shadow-banning’ of her account:

  • “Who the hell do you think that you are?” Boebert, who narrowly won her re-election bid in November, asked the former Twitter executives, saying that Russian President Vladimir Putin would have wished for the type of election interference she accused the executives of carrying out. (YOUR NEWS)

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna Catches Twitter Execs Lying, With Proof… Ms Luna brings the receipts!

Biden Tell The Truth For Once About Oil Companies

(The guy is clueless)

  • Biden: “When I talked to a couple of [oil companies], they say, ‘we are afraid you are going to shut down all the oil refineries anyway, so why should we invest in them?’ I said, we are going to need oil for at least another decade.”

All the Republicans start laughing (WASHINGTON FREE BEACON TWITTER)

PJ-MEDIA has this:

….During these off-the-cuff remarks, Biden’s admission came in the form of an anecdote, recounted here by Fox News:

The president then told an anecdote in which an oil executive asked him why his company should invest in fossil fuel projects in light of the negative business atmosphere for oil and gas projects. Biden said he responded that oil and gas would be needed for years to come.

“They said, ‘well, we’re afraid you’re going to shut down all the oil wells and all the oil refineries. So, why should we invest in them?’ I said, ‘we’re going to need oil for at least another decade and beyond,’” Biden added.

Did you get that? Biden admitted that the oil industry — which remains crucial to our entire way of life, no matter what the Earthist fantasizers say — will not invest in domestic production because they don’t trust him.

Biden has earned every drop of that distrust with his egregious actions to eradicate domestic fossil fuel production beginning the day he was inaugurated. He kicked off the hostilities by shutting down the Keystone XL Pipeline project — costing thousands of jobs and throwing away billions of dollars. He has bashed, threatened, and throttled the oil industry ever since.

Related: Biden Aide Calls Oil Companies’ Refusal to Increase Drilling ‘Un-American’

Nor is “Big Oil” the only example of partnership and trust demolished by Biden’s heavy-handed policies…..

A “Domain Awareness Gap” Failure? (U.S. Northern Command)

General Keith Kellogg, who was the Executive Secretary and Chief of Staff of the United States National Security Council in the Trump administration, says he was never notified! And he went to every daily briefing.

NO BRIEFING DURING TRUMP’S PRESIDENCY

GATEWAY PUNDIT notes:

….Former Trump advisor John Bolton, former DNI Ric Grenell, Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Former Secretary of State and CIA Direcor Mike Pompeo, President Trump , Defense Secretary Mattis, and former DNI John Ratcliffe, spoke out that that this was a lie.

This never happened during the Trump years. And if it did happen, the top officials in Trump administration were not notified – which is just as bad.

The military is changing their story.  Now they want you to believe that the intelligence community discovered the balloons during the Trump years — BUT NEVER NOTIFIED THEIR INTEL LEADERS!….

DOMAIN AWARENESS GAP

PJ-MEDIA discusses why this may well be the case:

….The American military had a “domain awareness gap,” according to Gen. Glen VanHerck, commander of U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command.

“Every day as a NORAD commander, it’s my responsibility to detect threats to North America. I will tell you that we did not detect those threats,” VanHerck said. “And that’s a domain awareness gap that we have to figure out, but I don’t want to go into further detail.”

What’s a “domain awareness gap”? General VanHerck didn’t define the term, but Breaking Defense offered a partial explanation.

When VanHerck speaks of a “domain gap,” he’s referring to the U.S. Northern Command not having “the correct mix of sensor capabilities.”

The four-star general, a staunch proponent of beefing up US sensing capabilities to include over-the-horizon radars, did not disclose the number of past detection failures or where the balloons had flown. John Kirby, the White House National Security Council’s coordinator for strategic communications, said today that the Biden administration discovered three incidents during the Trump administration when “surveillance balloons, by the [Chinese government] transited US airspace” for “brief periods of time.” On Saturday a senior defense official told reporters there had been another incident earlier in Biden’s presidency. None were for the duration of last week’s saga.

That still doesn’t answer the question of how the balloon transits were detected after the fact. Here we get into the classified area of intelligence gathering,

“The intel community, after the fact … assessed those threats through additional means of collection and made us aware of those balloons that were previously approaching North America or transiting North America,” VanHerck said. He noted that USNORTHCOM does not have the authority to collect intelligence inside US borders but was able to track the movement of last week’s balloon because it was granted “specific authorities.”

So part of the problem was jurisdictional. But what those “additional means of collection” are is classified. It still doesn’t answer the question of why no one was informed if the intel was somewhere in some database. That would appear to be a big gap in our intelligence gathering that General VanHerck and Northern Command might want to address with all speed.

Likewise JUST THE NEWS has this:

The Air Force general charged with protecting America’s air space from hostile threats acknowledged Monday that the U.S. military failed to detect some previous incursions by Chinese spy balloons, calling it a troubling “awareness gap” that needed fixing.

“We had gaps on prior balloons,” Air Force Gen. Glen VanHerck told reporters.

The comment by the North American Aerospace Defense Command commander both raised concern about NORAD’s vaunted ability to detect airspace threats and also undercut a bungled weekend effort by the Biden administration to try to suggest former President Donald Trump failed to react to three incursions on his watch.

In fact, VanHerck told reporters during a Pentagon briefing, the Trump administration wasn’t told about the incursions because NORAD missed them and that they only recently were detected after the fact by U.S. intelligence agencies.

“I will tell you that we did not detect those threats. And that’s a domain awareness gap that we have to figure out,” he said, declining to be more specific about how earlier flyovers of Chinese spy balloons were missed……

Which makes KJP’s comments seem coherent (POWERLINE):

….Q How is it possible that this administration discovered at least three previous balloons that flew over the U.S. under the previous administration, but Trump officials didn’t know it was happening?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, so, look, I think that — and we have talked about this before, about how the — when it — when the PRC government surveillance balloons trans- — trans- — trans- — transited the continental U.S. briefly at least three times, as you just mentioned, during the President’s — the prior administration and once that we know of the beginning of this administration’s. But never for this duration of time, as we know.

This information was discovered prior to the admin- — administration left, but the intelligence community, as I said, is prepared to give — give briefings to key officials. But this is something —

Q Prior or post?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — this is something — sorry, post. So this is something that we — they did not — they were not aware of, as we’ve just laid out. But again, we are ready to brief key officials to let them know what — you know, what the intelligence community was able to figure out…..

Jordan Peterson Calls Out Disney Exec’s Lies About Kids

(THUMBNAIL: Saturn Devouring His Son by Francisco Goya)

Clay Travis and Buck Sexton react to Jordan Peterson’s message on the narcissism surrounding progressive parents virtue signaling through their children. Peterson talks about the odds of having both transgender and pansexual children, a claim made by a Disney executive a few months ago. What are the odds that one person could have two children of these varying identities compared to the odds of the mother just attempting to look virtuous to her progressive cohorts. Clay and Buck build on Jordan Peterson’s message and how the woke left is preying on kids.

Here is the fuller video of Peterson’s visit to the Joe Rogan Show:

JORDAN PETERSON ON THE DEVOURING MOTHER

In related “news,” two “devouring mothers” raising a boy. (I say that not meaning any ill-intent to these two women. They are fooled like many other progressive left persons by this vile [leftist] train of thinking. Worldviews matter.) Hat-tip top THE BLAZE! DAILY WIRE! and OFF THE PRESS!

In this episode, we speak to Rose, the mother of two boys, who has asked to remain anonymous.

I was a true believer.

I was a social justice organizer and facilitator before social justice overtook the world. I was on the forefront, introducing the concept of intersectionality to progressive organizations, and having people share their pronouns. My friends and I felt we were the cool kids, the vanguard of revolutionary work to change the world, to achieve what people in the social justice movement call “collective liberation.” I was deeply committed to the work of creating another world that was possible.

Within this context, I came out as a lesbian, and identified as queer. And then I fell in love, entered a committed relationship with my spouse, and gave birth to our first son. Two years later, my partner gave birth to our second son. Having children, and experiencing the absolutely life changing love and devotion to them, was a game changer for me. And it was when, to quote Helen Joyce’s subtitle, ideology began to meet reality.

I immediately began to feel the tensions inside of me between what I felt intuitively and instinctively as a mother, and what I “should” be doing as a white anti-racist social justice parent. Because of my own experiences of perceived victimhood with my own parents’ rejection of my sexuality, I wanted to make sure I would honor my children’s “authentic selves.” I was primed to look for any clues that might suggest they could be transgender.

We raised both our sons as gender neutral as possible, with gender neutral clothes, toys, and language. While we did use he/him pronouns and others in their life called them boys, we did not call them boys, or even tell them that they were boys. We made all language gender neutral. In everyday reading of books or descriptions of people in our lives, we did not say “man” or “woman,” we said “people.” We thought we were doing the right and best thing, both for them and for the world.

At an early age, we noticed that our first son was a bit different. He was highly sensitive, and was extremely gifted. By about three years old, he started to orient more toward the females in his life than the males. Since he did not have the language, he would say, “I like the mamas.” Some of this difference we started to attribute to possibly being transgender. Instead of orienting him to the reality of his biological sex by telling him he was a boy, we wanted him to tell us if he felt he was a boy or a girl. As true believers, we thought that he could be transgender, and that we were to “follow his lead” to determine his true identity.

At the same time that this ideology was shaping my view of my son, I was also taking a very deep dive into attachment and child development. This opened my eyes to understanding the nature of attachment as hierarchical, and the fact that parents, not children, are meant to be in the lead. I began to struggle with the conflict between putting my child in the lead on gender and my deepening knowledge of my responsibility to lead and orient my child. Sadly, my commitment to ideology had the upper hand.

At around four years old, my son began to ask me if he was a boy or a girl. Instead of telling him he was a boy, I told him he could choose. I didn’t use those words—I thought I could be more sophisticated than that. I told him, “When babies are born with a penis, they are called boys, and when babies are born with a vagina, they are called girls.  But some babies who are born with a penis can be girls, and some babies born with a vagina can be boys. It all depends on what you feel deep inside.” He continued to ask me what he was, and I continued to repeat these lines. I resolved my inner conflict by “leading” my son with this framework—you can be born with a penis, but still be a girl inside. I thought I was doing the right thing, for him, and for the world.

His question, and my response to it, would come back to haunt me for years, and continues to haunt me now. What I know now is that I was “leading”—I was leading my innocent, sensitive child down a path of lies that were a direct on-ramp to psychological damage and life-long irreversible medical intervention. All in the name of love, acceptance, and liberation.

About six months after my son began to ask me if he was a boy or a girl, he told my spouse that he was a girl, and wanted to be called sister, and she/her. I received a text message about this at work. On the way home that night, I resolved I would have to put all my own feelings away, and support my transgender child. And that is what I did.

With this one declaration, after months of refusing to tell our son he was a boy, we changed his entire world. We told him he could be a girl. He jumped up and down on the bed, happy, saying, “I’m a girl, I’m a girl!” (What a relief it must have been to him to actually have an identity to hold on to!). We, not him, initiated changing his name. We socially transitioned him, and enforced this transition with his younger brother, who was only two years old at the time and who could barely pronounce his older brother’s real name.

When I look back at this, it is almost too much to write about. The grief and the shock of what we did is so deep, so wide, so sharp and penetrating. How could a mother do this to her child?  To her children? I truly believed that what I was doing was pure, right and good, only to later realize with horror what it could have lead to for my child. This horror still shakes me to my core.

It will not surprise readers of this site to hear that once we made the decision to socially transition our son, we received resounding praise and affirmation from most of our peers. One of my friends who had also socially transitioned her young child assured me that social transition was a healthy, neutral way of allowing children to “explore” their gender identity before puberty, when decisions would need to be made about puberty blockers and hormones. We sought out support groups for parents of transgender children where we went to find out if we had “done the right thing.”  After all, our son showed no signs of actual gender dysphoria—was he actually transgender? At these support groups we were told what good parents we were. How kids on the autism spectrum (which he likely is), simply “know” they are transgender earlier than other kids.

At one of the support groups we attended, we were also told that transgender identity takes a few years to develop in children. They told us that during this period, it is very important to protect the child’s transgender identity, and therefore, you must eliminate contact with any family or friends who do not support this identity or go along with it. Yes, the gender therapist running this parent support group said this, and at the time, I believed her. Looking back, I now see this in a shockingly different light: this was an intentional process of concretizing transgender identity in children as young as 3 years old – the age of the youngest child in this group. When identity is concretized at this young of age, children will grow up actually believing they are the opposite sex. How could medicalization not follow?

The therapist also employed the same script that many adolescents use on their parents, helping parents of transgender children script letters to grandparents, aunts and uncles to declare a child’s transgender identity, and make conditions of engagement clear – you must use the name and pronouns, and embrace the new identity, or you will not have contact with the child…….

(READ IT ALL)

Richard Dawkins Is 30-Years Behind The Curve

This is with a hat-tip to Denyse O’Leary who notes this about UD’s post: “Is The Selfish Gene holding back medicine and cancer cures?” UNCOMMON DISSENT has the following:

LIVE DEBATE Oxford professor Denis Noble locked horns with Richard Dawkins in June at the How the Light Gets In UK conference. Is The Selfish Gene holding back medicine and cancer cures? The world’s most incendiary evolutionary biologist asks if we need to rethink DNA.

The debate was both cordial and revealing. One thing that is quite clear from this debate is that Dawkins’ knowledge of biology and genetics lags 20-30 years behind current research.

Denis Noble Debates Richard Dawkins (full video)” at Evolution 2 (December 22, 2022)

Before I get to a comment from UD’s post, I must recommend an old post of mine: What is a Gene? (Denis Noble vs. neo-Darwinism). Okay, enough self puffery… here is a good comment via Martin_r

February 6, 2023 at 7:59 am

I watched this debate few weeks ago at Perry Marshall page […] some user commented as follows:

  • Dawkins really did get blindsided towards the end. When he asked “how many generations?” It was a dead giveaway. The only test of Darwinian evolution is that a genetic change lasts and alters the population frequency. But the population frequency is affected by the lasting genetic change. Noble has to be right… the cell utilizes the gene…not the gene the cell. There is no preferred biological frame of reference. It’s systems within systems within systems. All interdependent and all intimately involved in the cell’s informatics.

to which Perry Marshall replied as follows:

  • Yes sir. And, not on this video, there was some audience Q&A at the end where Dawkins was even more puzzled. Dawkins fans in the audience were incredulous that he fared so poorly.

Of course this would be a good time for a FLASHBACK:

#NeverTrumpers and Democrat’s Behind Hamilton 68 Lies!

  • “They took ordinary conversations of mostly conservatives and called it Russian influence… Maybe the NYT, WaPo, CNN, NBC, would say Russian bots are supporting this hashtag… In reality, most of these were real Americans.” — Matt Taibbi

NEW YORK POST asks the obvious question: who was really behind Hamilton 68?

…..NeverTrumper nexus 

Who is behind this gigantic exercise in journalistic malfeasance and deception? Well, wouldn’t you know it, at the center of the operation is our old friend Bill Kristol, patron saint of NeverTrumpery, along with John Podesta, former Hillary Clinton apparatchik, and Michael McFaul, academic anti-Trumper par excellence. 

As a story in The Post put it, “Hamilton 68’s pronouncements were used to allege a hidden Russian hand in US politics from hundreds, and possibly thousands, of news stories during the Trump years.” 

But it was fake, all fake — or, as a frustrated Twitter employee put it, it was “bulls–t.” Indeed, Taibbi reports that Twitter execs were so concerned (“shocked” is his word) about the proliferation of news stories linked to Hamilton 68 that they ordered a forensic analysis. Result: out of many hundreds of accounts identified as Russian bots, only 36 were registered in Russia, and many of those were associated with Russia Today, a news site. 

So here we are. The entire “Russia Collusion” hoax was dreamed up, paid for, and set into action by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. It aimed at and succeeded in hobbling Trump’s first term, weighing it down with the $40 million fishing expedition conducted by senile former FBI chief Robert “What’s Fusion GPS?” Mueller. 

And now we learn that all the ambient static about the Russkies are coming! the Russkies are coming! was similarly fabricated out of whole cloth. 

Here’s how it worked: Hamilton 68, a “research institute,” invents claims about Russian bots. Reporters then target public enemies like Devin Nunes, Mike Flynn, Tulsi Gabbard, or Donald Trump with the claims and, as Taibbi says, “headlines flow.” The scam, he concludes, “needed just three elements: credentials of someone like ‘former FBI agent’ [Clint] Watts, the absence of any semblance of fact-checking, and the silence of companies like Twitter.” 

‘Digital McCarthyism’ 

Bottom line? This was an example of what Taibbi calls “digital McCarthyism, taking people with dissident or unconventional opinions and mass-accusing them of ‘Un-American activities.’” But where McCarthy claimed to have found a commie under every bed, Hamilton 68 focused not on targeting leftists — though a few were swept up as window dressing and cover — but on conservative accounts with handles like ULTRA MAGA Dog Mom and @ClassyLadyForDJT. 

The activity of Hamilton 68 marks a new, and distinctly malodorous, chapter in politically motivated disinformation. Even as I write, it is being exposed. So far, however, the response has been muted. Not surprising, perhaps, since so many who might have responded were either in on or dupes of the scam. 

 

They Love To Lie About Trump (Chinese Spy Balloon)

  • Bolton is the most noteworthy because he is very adversarial with Trump. It’s unlikely he would be covering for the President. (LIBERTY DAILY)

EPOCH TIMES has this:

Former President Donald Trump responded to claims that Chinese regime spy balloons entered U.S. airspace during his administration, saying such alleged events “never happened.”

An anonymous U.S. Defense Department official said over the weekend that spy balloons transited over U.S. territory under the Trump administration. But Trump, in a Fox News interview on Sunday, pushed back.

“This never happened. It would have never happened,” Trump told the outlet, adding that the Chinese regime “respected us greatly” under his leadership. “It never happened with us under the Trump administration and if it did, we would have shot it down immediately,” added Trump. “It’s disinformation.”

Before the balloon was shot down, Trump on his social media platform Truth Social had called for the U.S. military to shoot down the balloon last week after it was spotted near Billings, Montana.

“Now they are putting out that a Balloon was put up by China during the Trump Administration, in order to take the ‘heat’ off” the Biden administration, Trump wrote Sunday. “China had too much respect for ‘TRUMP’ for this to have happened, and it NEVER did.”

Other Officials Respond

Mark Esper, who served under Trump as secretary of defense, refuted claims about balloons flying over the United States under the previous administration.

“I don’t ever recall somebody coming into my office or reading anything that the Chinese had a surveillance balloon above the United States,” he told CNN. “I would remember that for sure.”

John Bolton, a former U.S. national security adviser under Trump, said that he never heard of any spy balloons entering U.S. airspace or hovering over U.S. territory while Trump was in office. Bolton, also a Bush administration official when he was in office, also said that he never heard of anything like this happening before he joined the Trump administration in 2018.

“I don’t know of any balloon flights by any power over the United States during my tenure, and I’d never heard of any of that occurring before I joined in 2018,” Bolton told Fox News on Sunday. “I haven’t heard of anything that occurred after I left either.”

Responding to claims made over the weekend, Bolton said that the current administration needs to “tell Congress” about any “specific examples.” He added that “I can say with 100 percent certainty not during my tenure.”

“Unequivocally, I have never been briefed on the issue,” added Robert O’Brien, who served as White House national security adviser under Trump. “It never came up,” he said. “If a balloon had come up, we would have known. Someone in the intelligence community would have known, and it would have bubbled up to me to brief the president,” former acting Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell told Fox.

“It’s not true. I can refute it,” former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe also said. “The American people can refute it for themselves. Do you remember during the Trump administration, when photographers on the ground and commercial airline pilots were talking about a spy balloon over the United States that people could look up and see, even with the naked eye, and that a media that hated Donald Trump wasn’t reporting?”…………

(READ MORE)


UPDATED ARTICLES


HOT AIR joins the fray:

….Biden partisans pushed the story hard, claiming that Slow Joe was Maverick from Top Gun, while Trump meekly took it when China did the same thing during his administration.

The story appeared in the MSM, of course, and Biden toadies were all over Twitter with posts like these endlessly repeated:

Of course, we all knew the story would turn out to be a fabrication, and indeed it is. The goal was to implant the idea in people’s heads that Biden was a strong leader, even stronger than Trump. More importantly, it muddied the waters.

Now that the idea is out there, the story is starting to change. Not a little, but a lot.

[….]

If the media had any integrity they should reveal the names of the liars when the truth comes out. Instead, they encourage government officials to lie, reward them with fake stories, and impose no cost for lying. Rinse, repeat.

Honest reporters would only reward honest leakers. It should be part of the deal. If you are lying, it will be exposed.

The WASHINGTON EXAMINER opines on a very important point:

THE CHINESE BALLOON STORY IS EVEN BIGGER THAN IT SEEMS. The Chinese spy balloon matter has become far more serious in recent hours — and it was serious enough to begin with.

Of course, there are lots of questions in the aftermath of the U.S. Air Force shootdown of the balloon off the coast of South Carolina on Saturday. Questions such as what, specifically, was it spying on? What information had it gathered? When was the United States aware of its existence? Will experts be able to secure enough of the wreckage from the ocean floor to answer those and other questions?

But there are perhaps more troubling questions raised by the conduct of top Biden administration officials. First, they sought political cover by claiming that Chinese spy balloons had overflown the U.S. three times during the Trump administration, and nobody did anything about them at the time. Then, when a chorus of high-ranking officials of the Trump years said with one voice that simply did not happen, the Biden team responded with an explanation that strains credulity. That’s where we are now…….

Chinese Balloon News… Shot Down (Updated)

UPDATE:

ACE OF SPADES has this quick comment:

The US Air Force shot down that errant balloon. (CNBC)

But not until after Democrats spent several days accusing Republicans of racism for wanting to shoot down that errant balloon, and not until after that errant balloon had completed its spy mission and transferred all the data back to the servers at China’s central spy agency, TikTok.

Democrat lawmakers explained this move as turning the tables on the Chinese and extracting intelligence on China’s technological capabilities.

From a balloon.

I was wondering what USAF jet was used…. answered:

  • A senior U.S. military official said that an F-22 Raptor took out the spy balloon with one air-to-air A9X sidewinder missile that was fired at an altitude of approximately 58,000 feet. (DAILY WIRE)

Here is the close-up footage:

RED VOICE MEDIA caught it live:

A good article on the possible purposes of this balloon is here at AMERICA FIRST REPORT.

MORE:

The intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities of high-altitude spy balloons

Also, here are some of my favorite funnies on it:


FUNNIES







Judge Blocks California’s [fascist] COVID ‘Misinformation’ Law

(LANGUAGE WARNING)

California Judge BLOCKS Law Punishing Doctors For COVID Treatment

A federal judge has temporarily blocked a California law intended to prevent doctors from spreading COVID-19 misinformation or disinformation to patients, finding that it is “unconstitutionally vague.” 

A group of five doctors and two nonprofit advocacy groups sued in November after California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed Assembly Bill 2098 into law the month before. ….

(THE HILL)

Newsweek Essentially Admits The Were Full of Shite!

(Language Warning) “We Betrayed Public Trust On COVID Purposely” – Says Newsweek

NEWSWEEK’S article (go to article for the many links in the text):

As a medical student and researcher, I staunchly supported the efforts of the public health authorities when it came to COVID-19. I believed that the authorities responded to the largest public health crisis of our lives with compassion, diligence, and scientific expertise. I was with them when they called for lockdowns, vaccines, and boosters.

I was wrong. We in the scientific community were wrong. And it cost lives.

I can see now that the scientific community from the CDC to the WHO to the FDA and their representatives, repeatedly overstated the evidence and misled the public about its own views and policies, including on natural vs. artificial immunity, school closures and disease transmission, aerosol spread, mask mandates, and vaccine effectiveness and safety, especially among the young. All of these were scientific mistakes at the time, not in hindsight. Amazingly, some of these obfuscations continue to the present day.

But perhaps more important than any individual error was how inherently flawed the overall approach of the scientific community was, and continues to be. It was flawed in a way that undermined its efficacy and resulted in thousands if not millions of preventable deaths.

We excluded important parts of the population from policy development and castigated critics, which meant that we deployed a monolithic response across an exceptionally diverse nation, forged a society more fractured than ever, and exacerbated longstanding heath and economic disparities.

Our emotional response and ingrained partisanship prevented us from seeing the full impact of our actions on the people we are supposed to serve. We systematically minimized the downsides of the interventions we imposed—imposed without the input, consent, and recognition of those forced to live with them. In so doing, we violated the autonomy of those who would be most negatively impacted by our policies: the poor, the working class, small business owners, Blacks and Latinos, and children. These populations were overlooked because they were made invisible to us by their systematic exclusion from the dominant, corporatized media machine that presumed omniscience.

Most of us did not speak up in support of alternative views, and many of us tried to suppress them. When strong scientific voices like world-renowned Stanford professors John Ioannidis, Jay Bhattacharya, and Scott Atlas, or University of California San Francisco professors Vinay Prasad and Monica Gandhi, sounded the alarm on behalf of vulnerable communities, they faced severe censure by relentless mobs of critics and detractors in the scientific community—often not on the basis of fact but solely on the basis of differences in scientific opinion.

When former President Trump pointed out the downsides of intervention, he was dismissed publicly as a buffoon. And when Dr. Antony Fauci opposed Trump and became the hero of the public health community, we gave him our support to do and say what he wanted, even when he was wrong.

Trump was not remotely perfect, nor were the academic critics of consensus policy. But the scorn that we laid on them was a disaster for public trust in the pandemic response. Our approach alienated large segments of the population from what should have been a national, collaborative project.

And we paid the price. The rage of the those marginalized by the expert class exploded onto and dominated social media. Lacking the scientific lexicon to express their disagreement, many dissidents turned to conspiracy theories and a cottage industry of scientific contortionists to make their case against the expert class consensus that dominated the pandemic mainstream. Labeling this speech “misinformation” and blaming it on “scientific illiteracy” and “ignorance,” the government conspired with Big Tech to aggressively suppress it, erasing the valid political concerns of the government’s opponents.

And this despite the fact that pandemic policy was created by a razor-thin sliver of American society who anointed themselves to preside over the working class—members of academia, government, medicine, journalism, tech, and public health, who are highly educated and privileged. From the comfort of their privilege, this elite prizes paternalism, as opposed to average Americans who laud self-reliance and whose daily lives routinely demand that they reckon with risk. That many of our leaders neglected to consider the lived experience of those across the class divide is unconscionable.

Incomprehensible to us due to this class divide, we severely judged lockdown critics as lazy, backwards, even evil. We dismissed as “grifters” those who represented their interests. We believed “misinformation” energized the ignorant, and we refused to accept that such people simply had a different, valid point of view.

We crafted policy for the people without consulting them. If our public health officials had led with less hubris, the course of the pandemic in the United States might have had a very different outcome, with far fewer lost lives.

Instead, we have witnessed a massive and ongoing loss of life in America due to distrust of vaccines and the healthcare system; a massive concentration in wealth by already wealthy elites; a rise in suicides and gun violence especially among the poor; a near-doubling of the rate of depression and anxiety disorders especially among the young; a catastrophic loss of educational attainment among already disadvantaged children; and among those most vulnerable, a massive loss of trust in healthcare, science, scientific authorities, and political leaders more broadly.

My motivation for writing this is simple: It’s clear to me that for public trust to be restored in science, scientists should publicly discuss what went right and what went wrong during the pandemic, and where we could have done better.

It’s OK to be wrong and admit where one was wrong and what one learned. That’s a central part of the way science works. Yet I fear that many are too entrenched in groupthink—and too afraid to publicly take responsibility—to do this.

Solving these problems in the long term requires a greater commitment to pluralism and tolerance in our institutions, including the inclusion of critical if unpopular voices.

Intellectual elitism, credentialism, and classism must end. Restoring trust in public health—and our democracy—depends on it.