Commentary from Jeff Childers - 'Coffee & Covid' on an WSJ op-ed.
'The Journal ran an optimistic op-ed yesterday headlined, “Hardly Anyone Is Buying Biden’s Bivalent Boosters.” Gosh! Check out this sub-headline: “The administration has oversold vaccines for two years, and Covid is less lethal now anyway.”

Ouch!

The Journal’s op-ed — penned by its editorial board, not a guest contributor — pointed out the uncomfortable fact that “many Americans who rolled up their sleeves for the original two-doses and even third ones were led to believe the vaccines would prevent them from getting sick.” But, as the Journal noted, “Many nevertheless fell ill.”

No refunds.

The editors even called out HHS for a recent World Cup ad pushing people to take the booster — so they wouldn’t “miss the game.” But the Journal noted that some people are “knocked out for days with flulike symptoms” after getting the jabs anyway.

First, the op-ed itself is great news; it’s significant that a major corporate media outlet is explicitly panning the jabs. The Journal’s article all but mocked the government’s efficacy claims. At another point, it even questioned the basic logic — using Fauci’s own words:

“The real danger is in the people who have not been vaccinated,” Dr. Fauci said at a Nov. 22 press briefing. “If we’re going to see a problem this winter, it’s going to be among those people.”
If that’s true, who needs another booster?
Indeed
But the article made another great point that I haven’t seen in corporate media before. It acknowledged that most people who took the jabs were never worried about dying from the virus in the first place. They took the jabs to be “part of the solution” and to avoid transmitting the disease to others, like grandma. But since the jabs don’t prevent transmission, the their MAIN REASON for jabbing has been deleted.

It went further. The article even reported that CDC data showed boosted Americans were testing positive at HIGHER rates than folks who only got two doses. But, the Journal reported, “These data were recently removed from the website when case data were added for the bivalent booster.”

Scrubbed, in other words.
The editors stopped short of explicitly accusing the CDC of manipulating data to try to make the new booster look good, but the implication was clear: boosters might be harmful.

The op-ed ended with this totally rational advice:

The best way to protect yourself from getting sick with Covid or any other respiratory illness is by getting enough sleep, nutrition and exercise.
The embargo is over. It won’t happen immediately. Media can’t just turn on a dime. They have to swing around to it, otherwise they’d be exposed as government stool pigeons, which of course is exactly what they have been.'