In a letter to the WSJ OpEd Board, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm said the board’s claim that people previously infected with COVID appear to be more susceptible to the Delta variant has “no basis in either current scientific epidemiological data or the fundamentals of immunology.”
Paul Gigot (left) and Daniel Henninger (right) are the leading editors of the Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Board. On July 20, 2021 they allowed publication of a radically false statement about the susceptibility of COVID-recovered and already immune Americans to the risk of re-infection. The serious trouble with the falsehood these WSJ editors are promoting is that it opens the door to coercion of already immune Americans undergoing unnecessary and potentially dangerous vaccinations — in line with the dangerous “one-size-fits-all” directive being promoted by the Biden administration’s CDC, FDA and Surgeon General. Is the WSJ a propaganda arm of the Biden administration now?
The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters by subscribing to our top news of the day. It’s free.
Editor’s Note: The article and letter below were written by Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, an immunologist and patient safety advocate, in response to this editorial published in the Wall Street Journal.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editorial board has published an absolute falsehood regarding the susceptibility of COVID-recovered and immune Americans to subsequent infection. This letter demanding a correction or retraction was sent to the editorial board and a few prominent WSJ reporters:
Dear Messrs., Gigot, Murrary, Henninger and colleagues,
Today, I was shocked to read what I know, with 100% certainty as an immunologist and physician, is a lie in the WSJ’s Editorial Board OpEd on COVID-19:
Specifically, your colleagues are stating the following falsehood:
“Previously infected individuals appear to be more susceptible to re-infection by the Delta variant, which could explain some of the rising cases.”
This WSJ editorial statement is a dangerous lie, with NO basis in either current scientific epidemiological data or the fundamentals of immunology.
To the contrary, the the bulk of studies on the topic of “re-infection” in the COVID-recovered, are demonstrating that individuals who are COVID-recovered and have thus acquired antibody and T-cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2, are equally if not better protected from subsequent infection as compared to the vaccinated.
Though I am cognizant this fact ought NOT be abused as an argument for seeking natural infection as a pathway to immunity, it IS the argument for not allowing coercion of COVID-recovered Americans into undergoing what is an unnecessary and potentially dangerous treatment to them.
I am left wondering why the editorial board of a respected media outlet like the WSJ would allow itself to spread such a lie with no stringent verification:
1) Are you simply careless journalists now? or
2) Are you now active participants in the U.S. Government’s publicity machine attempting to impose a “one-size-fits-all” vaccine policy on all Americans, irrespective of medical necessity, the fundamentals of immunological science and medical ethics?
Irrespective of what the reason is for the lie you have now published in today’s editorial article, it is an absolute journalistic duty for you to either correct or retract this false statement now — given that you have been alerted to it.
For the WSJ to publish a critical false statement that opens the door to misleading the public and galvanizing generalist politicians and regulators into comfortably accepting unnecessary, and potentially dangerous coerced vaccination of the already immune subset of Americans, is a florid and dangerous dereliction of journalistic duty — but, of course, this seems to the norm for the mainstream media these days.
Please immediately retract your editorial board’s false statement and correct it to reflect the truth of what is known and what the science of immunology actually would predict. Your editorial piece, as it stands, promotes a very serious lie.
Originally published on Medium.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.