Newsweek calls on scientific community to admit “we were wrong” about covid


  By Ethan Huff



A seventh-year student at a medical school in Texas penned an op-ed for Newsweek this week calling out the establishment for imposing lockdowns, masks, “vaccines” and booster shots, and other unscientific, life-destroying tyranny in the name of fighting covid.

Kevin Bass, a medical student and researcher, says he initially supported the government’s covid fascism. He believed it was the right thing to do in order to save lives, but now believes the exact opposite.

“I believed that the authorities responded to the largest public health crisis of our lives with compassion, diligence, and scientific expertise,” Bass writes. “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.”

Are the powers that be now openly admitting they were wrong to try to avoid paying the price for their crimes against humanity?

For whatever reason, Bass just believed everything that Tony Fauci and other authorities were declaring at the time as solutions to the covid virus, which to this day, just to clarify, has still never been isolated and proven to exist.



Now, though, Bass admits that the entire approach the scientific community took to address covid was “inherently flawed … and continues to be.” And these inherent flaws, he says, resulted “in thousands if not millions of preventable deaths.”

“What we did not properly appreciate is that preferences determine how scientific expertise is used, and that our preferences might be – indeed, our preferences were – very different from many of the people that we serve,” he explains.

“We created policy based on our preferences, then justified it using data. And then we portrayed those opposing our efforts as misguided, ignorant, selfish, and evil.”