Featured Image

(Robert Malone) – On Wednesday the New York Times published the results (and interpretation) of its latest COVID poll. While the interpretation is full of the typical unsubstantiated false claims supporting the approved narrative, which we have come to expect from corporate media, the poll itself is well worth examining.

Examples illustrating my point regarding the approved narrative include the following gems, beginning with the now obligatory blaming of former President Donald Trump and unnamed “Republicans” for the mass formation hypnosis which a large fraction of the country has been suffering.

In short, the argument seems to be “the other side made us go crazy.” “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (hypnosis, psychosis, or choose your favorite term) is to blame for the mass formation that has occurred, particularly among what the Times characterizes as “very liberal adults.”

From the Times:

47 percent of very liberal adults said that they believed COVID presented a ‘great risk’ to their own personal health and well-being. That was a significantly larger share than among conservatives, moderates, or even liberals who stopped short of calling themselves very liberal. Particularly striking was the level of concern among liberals under age 45, even though the virus’ worst effects have been concentrated among older people.

I understand why attitudes about the virus vary so sharply by ideology. Our country is polarized on most high-profile issues today. In the case of COVID, Trump and some other Republicans exacerbated the divide by making a series of false statements that downplayed the threat or misrepresented the vaccines.

My interpretation? Reality testing skills are objectively more intact in the groups which the Times characterizes as “conservatives, moderates, or even liberals who stopped short of calling themselves very liberal.” Any statements ascribing causation to this observation are purely unsubstantiated political spin.

Let’s stick to the facts for now. You can turn to the Times if you wish to watch as they carry on with their well-entrenched current practices of “advocacy journalism,” involving the active blending of fact-based reporting and political opinion. Which some would call propaganda. At least the Times demonstrates some self-awareness with the following cited quote:

As one progressive activist tweeted last year, ‘The inconvenience of having to wear a mask is more than worth it to have people not think I’m a conservative.’

Aha! I suggest that comment would be accurately described as an example of tribalism. And provides a prime example of “virtue signaling.”

— Article continues below Petition —
Support Brave Ottawa Detective, Suspended for Investigating the Truth About Child COVID Vaccines
  Show Petition Text
4015 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 5000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

Constable Helen Grus has twice been targeted by her own Ottawa Police Department for holding “anti-vaccine and anti-mask views” — and has now been suspended for standing for the truth about possibly fatal COVID vaccine effects on infants. 


Const. Grus has been a stalwart defender of medical freedom and transparency, serving as just one of a small handful of officers who have bravely stood up against Canada’s unrelenting enforcement of COVID vaccines and mandates. 

However, the Ottawa Police Department has now suspended Const. Grus for investigating a possible link between several infant deaths and COVID vaccines. The suspension comes despite police officers regularly asking other citizens for their vaccine status — it seems the question is verboten only when the establishment is uncomfortable.

But before Const. Grus could continue her work into this disturbing pattern, the Ottawa Police quickly banned and suspended her from discovering the vaccination statuses of additional parents who have lost infants.


There is good reason for Const. Grus' suspicions regarding potentially fatal COVID vaccine side effects.

In fact, American-based leading COVID expert, Dr. Peter McCullough, has sounded the alarm against mass-COVID vaccinations twice — and is facing backlash from his own medical profession as well.

There is too much on the line for us to lose this fight for medical transparency. That's why more people MUST hear about Const. Grus’ attempt to uncover the mystery surrounding potentially fatal effects linked to COVID vaccines and suspicious infant deaths.

With enough Canadians spreading the truth first investigated by Const. Grus, we can overcome the mainstream narrative and government censorship surrounding COVID vaccines.

Now is the time to stand together in support of Const. Grus and condemn the Ottawa Police Department's censorship — stand with Const. Grus and her brave attempt for medical transparency and the truth about COVID vaccination!



Const. Grus is a hero for medical freedom and transparency. Stand with her now! 

Thank You 

P.S. — The Ottawa Police Department is expecting to quickly silence Const. Grus without the public's knowledge. But with your help spreading this important message, Const. Grus will gain the attention she needs to sound the alarm against potentially fatal effects linked to COVID and suspicious infant deaths. Stand with Const. Grus before Ottawa Police completely silence her!

  Hide Petition Text

But getting back to the data. The Times describes the study as follows:

Based on surveys of 2,210 U.S. adults in March 2022 and 2,212 adults in August 2022.

This morning, we’re releasing the results of our latest COVID poll (which, like the earlier ones, was conducted by Morning Consult). This time, one of the central findings is how much attitudes have changed since the spring. Americans are less worried about the virus today – and driving that decline is the receding level of anxiety among the very liberal, including many younger adults.

The share of the very liberal who say the virus presents a great risk to their own personal health has fallen to 34 percent. The 13-point drop since March was larger than the drop among any of the six other ideological self-identifications in the poll:

C/O: Robert Malone

My interpretation is that those who self-identify as “very liberal” are now finally becoming more aligned with the true reality of COVID-19 disease risk.

The Times interpretation is as follows:

A growing number of very liberal Americans have decided that it’s time to treat COVID as an unpleasant but manageable part of life, much as many other Americans – as well as people in other countries – decided months ago.

In other words, the rest of the world figured this out months ago. “Very liberal” Americans are just a bit slow in this regard. I will leave that to you to draw your own conclusions in light of all that you have learned regarding the psychological, propaganda, information control, and political forces at work here.

The Times goes on to present these unsubstantiated doozies, which made me throw up in my mouth just a little bit. Notice the sleight of hand regarding the protection afforded by the genetic inoculations.

What explains the change? In part, it’s probably a reflection of changing reality. Drugs like Paxlovid and Evusheld are now widely available, reducing the risks for vulnerable people.

But psychology seems to play a role too. After all, many aspects of the pandemic have not changed in the past six months. Both then and now, vaccines provided excellent protection against severe illness; the risks of hospitalization for children and most adults under 50 were minuscule; and the vaccines reduced the chances of long COVID.

The statements on the COVID shots are clearly inconsistent with current data.

An alternative hypothesis is that “very liberal” respondents are finally confronting the reality that the highly inoculated (I refuse to call these “vaccines” at this point) are clearly not being protected from infection, replication, and spread, and may be starting to recognize that data from all over the world (and in our own hospitals) demonstrate that it is the highly inoculated who make up the majority of the hospitalized COVID cases, as well as the vast majority of the deaths attributed to the disease over the last six months. Details, details.

And then there is school policy.

According to the Times:

One example of changing liberal attitudes is related to in-person school. When asked about the best policy for K-12 education, a growing number of liberals support in-person school only, rather than hybrid or remote learning. The partisan gap on this question has narrowed since early this year:

C/O: Robert Malone

Once again, I think that the most straightforward explanation of these data is that those who self-identify as “conservative” appear to have had much better reality testing, and their opinions concerning in-school education for K-12 have remained relatively consistent. Those self-identifying as “moderate” appear to be reverting to the position which “conservative” responders have held for more than a year.

Moving on to other issues.

Conservatives are much less likely to be vaccinated or boosted, which means that many are voluntarily exposing themselves to COVID risk. And very liberal Americans remain more worried about the virus than almost any other demographic group, including the elderly.

Oh please. Relieve my gastro-esophageal reflux pain. Put me out of my misery. I need more Tums. Virtually the entire country has been infected with SARS-CoV-2 at this point. Apparently the Times missed the CDC memo about no difference between “vaccinated” and naturally immune.

That pattern does not seem consistent with scientific reality, given that the very liberal are younger than any other ideological group and that COVID’s effects are far worse for older people. But the pattern may help explain why young people in our poll reported wearing masks slightly more often than older people – and why the few schools and workplaces that still have mask mandates tend to be in liberal enclaves.

In other words, liberal enclaves are still suffering from impaired reality testing. Which I speculate is probably due to having been hypnotized by reading the Times and watching the CNN fearporn channel.

C/O: Robert Malone

So, 28 percent of Americans are either virtue signaling, demonstrating their tribal affiliation, or have not been exposed by their favorite media channels to the clear truth that the common masks do not protect against a very small respiratory virus which infects via nose, mouth and eyes.

Actually, when you look deeper at these data, they are outdated. The data are a combination of data from different Times polling performed during March and August of 2022. I travel a lot, and the only place I have seen about one-quarter of the population wearing masks has been in San Francisco, San Jose, and La Guardia Airport in New York City, where masks are currently “required” (although the vast majority completely disregard the “requirement”).

I think that the objective response to and interpretation of these data is to recognize what a horrible job the Times and other “very liberal” corporate media have done to educate their readership on the scientifically proven realities of the effect of mask usage.

I ask that we all strive to forgive the “moderate to very liberal” public, for they know not how badly they have been misled. So long as they stop trying to force their misinterpretation of reality on the rest of us.

Furthermore, I strongly suggest that these data bins, “very liberal” through “very conservative,” are outdated anachronisms, belonging to the 20th century. The current political axis runs more from “collectivist/globalist” to “individualist/nationalist.” The Times needs to get with the program or be left hopelessly behind.

Let’s also please stop blaming Trump, “conservatives”, or “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” The Times needs only to look into the mirror to understand what is really going on here.

Reprinted with permission from Robert Malone.


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.