In a letter to the WSJ OpEd Board, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm said the board’s claim that people previously infected with COVID appeared to be more susceptible to the Delta variety without the basis of any current epidemiological scientific data or immunological criteria.
Paul Gigot (left) and Daniel Henninger (right) are the lead editors on the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal.
Defender experienced censorship on many social channels. Be sure to keep in touch with news that matters subscribe 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 editorial board of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published a complete lie about the speed of COVID-Recovered and immune Americans to the next infection. The letter requesting correction or retraction was sent to the editorial board and some prominent WSJ reporters:
Dear Messr., Gigot, Murrary, Henninger and associates,
Now, I am shocked to read what I know, with 100% certainty as an immunologist and doctor, lies in The Editorial Board OpEd of the WSJ on COVID-19:
Specifically, your colleagues told the following lie:
“Previously infected individuals have shown to be more susceptible to re-infection Delta variantt, which may explain some of the rising cases. ”
This WSJ editorial statement is a dangerous lie, which is NOT based on any current epidemiological scientific data or immunological criteria.
In contrast, most studies on the topic of “re-infection” in COVID recovered, showed that individuals recovered with COVID and thus acquired antibody and T-cell resistance to SARS-CoV-2, both if not more protected from the next infection compared to the vaccinated.
Although I know that this reason should NOT be abused as an argument for finding natural infection as a pathway to resistance, IT is the argument for not allowing COVID-recovered Americans to be forced to submit. what is unnecessary and potentially dangerous to treat them.
I wonder why the editorial board of a respected media outlet like the WSJ would allow itself to spread such a lie without hard proof:
1) Are you simply indifferent reporters today? or
2) Are you now active participants in the U.S. Government’s publicity machine that is trying to impose a “one size fits all” vaccine policy on all Americans, regardless of medical necessity, standards? in immune science and medical ethics?
No matter what caused the lie you published today in the editorial article, it is an absolute journalistic duty for you to correct or also rebut this misrepresentation today – given that you are alert to it.
For the WSJ’s publication of a critically erroneous statement that opens the door to mislead the public and raise political generalists and regulators to comfortably accept unnecessary, and possibly dangerous coercion of the already vaccinated subset of Americans, a florid and dangerous loss of journalistic duty – but, of course, it’s as usual for the mainstream media these days.
Please immediately retract the erroneous statement on your editorial board and correct it to reflect the veracity of what is known and what is actually predictable in the science of immology. Your part in the editorial, as it stands, promotes a 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.