Jonathan Jarry Could Use A Class In Logic

You might recall Jonathan Jarry, the uber-left-wing science "communicator" from McGill University. How do I know he's a progressive who obviously votes left? Because one just had to peruse his account and observe who he retweeted and what he said. There was nothing neutral about him.

Jarry has been a dedicated soldier for Covid narrative. A splendid loyal servant of Covidian scientism.

McGill University - just like the University of Toronto - were steadfast in their support for specious and unethical measures and restrictions that set the civil order into a free-falling tailspin. 

They, along with the rest of the 'Trust the Science' brigade maintain a baffling indifference and complete lack of interest in assessing the response through an impartial and sober cost-analysis benefit. Part of it is due to a lack of humility and another in the mistaken belief the measures implemented were the correct course of action. Their certitude is their warm gun.

Which makes me wonder what parallel universe they live in. The fall out and unintended consequences have had a deleterious effect on the psyche of millions. To say nothing of the current economic malaise it unleashed. Most notably the skyrocketing spending, rising commercial vacancy rates, bankruptcies and inflation in both the U.S. and Canada.

Our Covid response was more detrimental and dramatic than any tariff imposed by Trump could ever accomplish. We responded to both in hysterical fashion creating moral panics.

Few voices cautioned against the route chosen to "fight" Covid. I won't get into the names here as I've spent years discussing who they were. Suffice to say, McGill wasn't a fan of any of them.

As they supported curfews and masking, other experts were questioning the science - and wisdom - of such ham-fisted and heavy-handed approaches that yielded little.

They didn't stop 'chains of transmission' or protect lives. To state so must be backed by hard empirical evidence. Not models. Facts and evidence. And where those studies have been conducted, it has not been kind to the Covidians. 

One popular target of The Consensus Science Brigade is Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford Jarry no exception.

Jarry took dead aim at Bhattacharya and his nomination for head of NIH with a hit piece masking as critical thinking.

I've tackled Jarry in the past pointing out his logical fallacies. He could use a class in logic.

From the onset, Jarry sets the tone from a strong, one-sided ideological perspective portraying Bhattacharya as a dangerous and unqualified ideologue who is complicit in what the author views as the institutionalization of pseudoscience. 

Jarry, predictably, maintains the narrative that there's only one acceptable source of "truth" revealed by his appeals to authority. For example, citing Fauci and Collins as sources as if they were infallible. The former having been discredited through a well-documented plethora of contradictions (Fauci was telling the truth about masks) and rank political manipulation and the latter admitting to being guilty of applying a one-dimensional approach to public health to the detriment of overall health.

None of this is ever pointed out. 

His article has a pseudoscience label in its sub header. Does he mean the pseudoscience of masking, curfews and vaccine passports? All of which Bhattacharya (and many, many, many others of sound ethical and scientific judgement) courageously opposed and McGill (and others) cheered on.

The ad hominem attack is employed as well.  Instead of focusing on Bhattacharya’s specific arguments, the piece frequently attacks his character. It highlights that he “never completed a residency,” implying he is unqualified, despite his expertise in public health and epidemiology.  It mocks him for “never treating a COVID patient,” as if that disqualifies his ability to study pandemic responses. Know who also didn't see a patient? Fauci, Collins and Tam here in Canada. We could even add Jarry himself to this criticism. 

This approach shifts attention from scientific debate to personal smears.

Another logical fallacy in play is the Strawman. Here it's used to misrepresent Bhattacharya's position (s).

The author repeatedly frames Bhattacharya’s views with hyperbolic rhetoric. For instance, he described the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) as a “let ‘er rip” approach but ignores its stated emphasis on focused protection of the vulnerable.

The point was you can't shut down society for whom the virus largely didn't threaten in order to protect a demographic that could have easily been isolated and protected. But even there the 'experts' and government failed spectacularly as the deaths in long-term facilities showed in Quebec and Ontario and several U.S. states though ill-advised policies which proved to be far more callous than what the GBD argued. 

The idea of not locking down to protect people was NOT new. It was established science to avoid such a drastic strategy. Sweden wisely chose to avoid this with Norway also quickly reversing course. Canada ended up with a higher Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) than Sweden. In fact, it dismisses the psychological, economic and social consequences of lockdowns without even addressing the validity of those concerns. Go listen to the testimonies of the NCI inquiries or read the number of studies and books that clearly show this to be the case. Let us not speak of the fact that the Canadian admitted in court to not having evidence to justify their mandates but it didn't stop them from illegally and unnecessarily invoking the Emergencies Act to punitively quell a peaceful protest. In that process, Canada became the first Western nation to freeze financial assets of those who participated as well as donated. In the process, Trudeau and his subordinates in Canadian 'media' made sure to demonize and dehumanize truckers ensuring public opinion turn on them. At that time, moreover, Canada banned unvaccinated Canadians from domestic travel. Also earning the dubious distinction of being the first Western nation to do so. Making all this all the more obnoxious was Trudeau lecturing the world about freedom and democracy, He literally behaved like a tin-pot despot. 

But Bhattacharya is the problem and threat to our health with his 'dangerous' views, right?

A misrepresentation was that the GBD (of which I proudly signed very early on as a citizen) authors (which included Harvard's Marin Kuldorf and Sunetra Gupta) did not advocate for reckless mass infections. Rather, it advocated for a different approach to balancing public health measures, economic stability, and social well-being. Which again, if anyone was familiar with Pandemic handbooks and even the works of the respected D.A. Henderson, was not radical as portrayed by people like Jarry and the mainstream media. 

Jarry also charges Bhattacharya with guilt by association by lazily going after lazy low hanging fruit like Trump and DeSantis (more on Florida later). The shtick here is to try and link Bhattacharya's agenda to them. Of course, to anyone who listened to him from the onset as I have, you'd know this to not be the case. It's just that Governors like De Santis wanted to hear different perspectives and Bhattacharya was seeking avenues to express his. The idea that there was 'consensus' is the very definition of pseudoscience. Last, the fact that the GBD was promoted by a libertarian think tank does not automatically discredit its scientific merits. Science should be evaluated on its own terms, not based on who funds or supports it. Conversely, I rarely hear criticism when liberal or progressive think tanks back certain studies or initiatives. Worse, those bankrolled by the pharmaceutical industry. Did Jarry raise concerns about David Firman's 'hare science' approach with modelling designed to provide a preconceived outcome and his own conflicts of interest?

Of course not. Fisman is part of the Consensus Mafia. So it's all good. Wink. 

Finally, we get cherry-picked data. A classic where Covid Wars are concerned. 

The Florida example is used to suggest Bhattacharya’s advice led to unnecessary deaths. However, it does not consider other factors like pre-existing health conditions, demographic differences, or alternative interpretations of data. Particularly the fact that Florida has a large retirement age population. In terms of case fatality ratio - to the extent they're accurate - Florida wasn't the worst and was even surpassed by states like Arizona, New Mexico and Michigan who all locked down harder. And on the balance, 18 states were above 4000 including Florida. 

I've addressed Florida and Sweden in the past with hard data. Pinning deaths on someone is pretty despicable. Like when they claimed by not wearing a mask you killed people. Manipulative fear-mongering is NOT evidence-based medicine. It's social engineering to force a desire habit and outcome. In addition, the claim that the GBD would have resulted in significantly higher deaths is speculative and illustrates a counterfactual scenario.

The piece is partially accurate in that Bhattacharya has indeed been a critic of lockdowns and mainstream COVID-19 policies, and that the GBD was controversial - for Covidians. However, it distorts his position and fails to engage with the legitimate scientific debate around pandemic policy.

Canada still resists any meaningful conversation about how it handled the pandemic. The ones calling for an inquiry tend to be the sort of people who feel that Canada failed because it didn't lockdown early, hard and long enough. 

Despite Jarry's attempts to fool otherwise, the piece isn't a neutral or fair assessment of Bhattacharya’s nomination. It serves as a polemical piece designed to reinforce a particular narrative rather than an objective critique of his qualifications and policy positions.

Maybe McGill can offer Jarry free classes on logic?