Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for the ‘Health’ Category

Dr. Fauci: ‘There is a Misplaced Perception About People’s Individual Right to Make a Decision that Supersedes the Societal Safety’ (VIDEO)


Reported By Cristina Laila | Published November 15, 2021

Read more at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/fauci-misplaced-perception-peoples-individual-right-make-decision-supersedes-societal-safety-video/

Dr. Fauci on Sunday told CBS “Sunday Morning” senior contributor Ted Koppel that there’s a “misplaced perception” about people’s rights superseding “societal safety.”

“One of the things that to me was most difficult to accept is that we put together a good plan for how we were going to try and dampen down the spread of infection early on thinking that that was accepted by everybody,” Fauci said to Koppel. “And then, the next day you have the president [Trump] saying, ‘Free Michigan. Free Virginia.’ I didn’t quite understand what the purpose of that was, except to put this misplaced perception about people’s individual right to make a decision that supersedes the societal safety. That, to me, is one of the things that, I think, went awry in all of this.”

“Did you ever raise that with President Trump?” Koppel asked.

And this is precisely why Fauci, an unelected bureaucrat (and sociopath), should NEVER make decisions for the American people.

VIDEO:

Watch the full interview below:

Cristina Laila

Cristina began writing for The Gateway Pundit in 2016 and she is currently the Associate Editor.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Sweden obliterates the lie of ‘vaccines’ as ticket to ending pandemic


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-sweden-obliterates-the-lie-of-vaccines-as-ticket-to-ending-pandemic/

It is now undeniable that in almost every part of North America, Europe, and East Asia, the pandemic is more prolific than it ever was before a single person was vaccinated, even though most of those countries have nearly every adult vaccinated. Thus, it is impossible to deny that vaccinologists like Geert Vanden Bossche and Luc Montagnier were correct when they predicted that mass vaccination with a suboptimal, non-sterilizing vaccine in middle of a pandemic would create vaccine-mediated viral enhancement. It’s hard to imagine how people who pushed this strategy didn’t see this coming.

The typical retort to this allegation is that it’s all the fault of “the Delta” and that somehow things would have been even worse without the shots. The problem with this assertion is that we are seeing the sharpest waves ever in the most vaccinated countries. Also, the fact that Sweden has never gotten a Delta wave demonstrates that natural immunity alone would have ended this pandemic.

Central and Eastern Europe are now on fire from the latest wave of the virus, which some researchers suspect is no longer Delta. Putting the variant aside, every single European country has gotten at least one wave of the virus — to varying degrees of severity — since Delta proliferated in June. The one exception is Sweden. The Scandinavian country now has the second lowest case rate in all of Europe, but more importantly, unlike Spain, which is the lowest, the Swedes never experienced a single Delta wave (as Spain did in July).

Even other Scandinavian countries like Iceland and Norway, which seemed nearly impervious to this virus until the past few months, are suffering their largest waves to date.about:blank

As you can see, even the Scandinavian countries or other countries that currently have low case rates all had one or two Delta waves since June – except for Sweden.

It is self-evident that Sweden’s natural immunity was able to preclude any major Delta wave — the only country in Europe to accomplish this feat. Although Sweden currently has a high vaccination rate — slightly higher than that of the U.S. — the Swedish government didn’t start its vaccination drive until much later than the U.S., U.K., and other countries that have had two Delta waves.

According to the narrative of the masters of the universe, Sweden should have been particularly vulnerable to Delta, while the U.K. should have coasted through it. Instead, the opposite occurred.about:blank

Let’s look at the vaccination curves of Sweden and Ireland and then compare their case rates over the past 4-5 months.

As you can see, the two countries have similar vaccination curves, but Ireland wound up jabbing an even greater percentage of its population. What are the results?

Thus, it wasn’t the vaccination success that stemmed the tide of this variant in Sweden, because Ireland should be doing even better. It’s that Sweden was lucky to have achieved herd immunity before the disastrous vaccination campaign made the pandemic worse. With most of the population likely already immune, they are not harmed by any form of vaccine-mediated viral enhancement.

If we look at other countries that have higher vaccination levels than Sweden, among them some of the most vaccinated countries on earth, they have all done worse than Sweden since the mass vaccination commenced in the spring. This includes both countries like Belgium that already had the virus bad, as well as countries like Iceland and Singapore, which never seemed to have a problem prior to the mass vaccination.

Case rates:

Vaccination rates:

What is abundantly clear is that a vaccine that, to begin with, doesn’t stop transmission and gradually wanes is not a vaccine and, in fact, makes the virus learn to grow stronger and more durable. “Delta” was not inevitable, nor are the coming variants. Sweden could have declined to vaccinate a single person and its curve would have looked the same, because it’s clear from its contrast to every other country as a stark control group that its population’s greater natural immunity is the active ingredient responsible for the country’s success. The mass vaccination, on the other hand, is now the greatest obstacle to ending this pandemic in countries that have not achieved herd immunity through prior infection.

Let’s not forget that Sweden conducted the most comprehensive long-term study of vaccine effectiveness in the world and found that after 6-7 months, “no effectiveness could be detected” from the Pfizer shot. In fact, the study found negative efficacy after 210 days for those over 50, which harmonizes with what we are seeing before our very eyes throughout the world. For some older adults, the shots are as much as -77% effective, and the numbers seem to drop every month.

As one retired California nurse asked of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, “Why do the protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing the unprotected to use the protection that didn’t protect the protected in the first place?”

Mark Levin: DeSantis was right, and Fauci was wrong


Reported by BLAZETV STAFF | October 21, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/shows/levintv/ron-desantis-mark-levin?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1

On “LevinTV” this week, BlazeTV host Mark Levin explained why he believes Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ responses to COVID-19 — whether prioritizing care for the elderly and nursing home facilities from the very beginning of the pandemic, refusing to issue mask and vaccine mandates, or fighting the federal government’s attempt to cap the distribution of antibody treatments to his state — have been way out in front of any other political leadership. Could this be a preview of the 2024 presidential election?

Levin pointed out that the Harvard-educated governor studies the most current COVID data on a daily basis and makes his decisions accordingly, as opposed to leaders who blindly follow the advice of Dr. Anthony Fauci or comply with the political narrative of the day. As a result, Florida’s current (as of Monday, Oct 18, 2021) COVID death rate (per 100,000) is one of the lowest in the country.

Watch the video clip below to hear Mark Levin break it all down:

Disclaimer: The content of this clip does not provide medical advice. Please seek the advice of local health officials for any COVID-19 and/or COVID vaccine related questions & concerns.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Horowitz: The $cience of remdesivir vs. ivermectin: A tale of two drugs


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | October 18, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-the-cience-of-remdesivir-vs-ivermectin-a-tale-of-two-drugs-theblaze-2655321861.html/

A tale of two drugs. One has become the standard of care at an astronomical cost despite studies showing negative efficacy, despite causing severe renal failure and liver damage, and despite zero use outpatient. The other has been safely administered to billions for river blindness and now hundreds of millions for COVID throughout the world and has turned around people at death’s doorstep for pennies on the dollar. Yet the former – remdesivir – is the standard of care forced upon every patient, while the latter – ivermectin – is scorned and banned in the hospitals and de facto banned in most outpatient settings. But according to the NIH, a doctor has the same right to use ivermectin as to use remdesivir. And it’s time people know the truth.

Although the NIH and the FDA didn’t officially approve ivermectin as standard of care for COVID, it is listed on NIH’s website right under remdesivir as “Antiviral Agents That Are Approved or Under Evaluation for the Treatment of COVID-19.” It is accorded the same status, the same sourcing for dosage recommendations, and the same monitoring advice as remdesivir … except according to NIH’s own guidance, remdesivir has a much greater potential for severe reactions in the very organs at stake in a bout with acute COVID.

Now, let’s take a closer look at the details.

As you can see, they admit that remdesivir causes renal and liver failure! One of the symptoms is “ALT and AST elevations,” which are indications of liver damage. Is that really the drug you want when someone is at risk for a cytokine storm and thrombosis? They even have a monitoring requirement for these side effects. Also, it does have some drug interactions as well.

Now, let’s move on to the ivermectin side effects.

Notice how the NIH is essentially saying it has no side effects by the fact that it prefaces the section by noting the drug is “generally well tolerated,” a distinction not accorded to remdesivir. Then it proceeds to list the same boilerplate GI and nausea warnings on every drug under the sun. There are almost no drug interactions and ZERO specific guidance for monitoring!

Just looking at the NIH’s own table, why in the world would remdesivir be the expensive mandatory standard of care and ivermectin, buttressed by 64 studies, be relegated to hemlock status even for patients about to die and with no other options?

Yes, we get the message – every one of those studies is supposedly low-powered, a fraud, and all the thousands of doctors turning people around on ivermectin are some how frauds even though they have nothing to gain and everything to lose from pushing it. But if that is our standard for ivermectin, it raises the obvious question about remdesivir. How could remdesivir not only be approved but made the standard of care when it has negative efficacy in trials, has a negative recommendation from the WHO, and, by the NIH’s own admission, causes liver and kidney failure?

Even if the medical establishment dismisses the preponderance of evidence and reality of the past 18 months, with ivermectin saving so many people, just from a safety standpoint, why would they not allow people to at least try something this safe while forcing on them a dangerous drug like remdesivir? In addition, these are the same hospitals that administer Olumiant, which has a rare FDA black box warning for blood clots, even though these very patients are at high risk for a pulmonary embolism and other clotting disorders?

In other words, there is no way anyone can justify the war on ivermectin (and every other cheap treatment that has been and will be proposed) as being rooted in anything related to medicine and science. If that were the case, the medical establishment would be dead set against remdesivir and Olumiant. Moreover, to the extent remdesivir has any efficacy that is worth its risk, it would be outpatient during the viral stage. There is quite literally no scientific way remdesivir can work in the pulmonary inflammation stage. Unlike ivermectin, which tones down inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1beta and IL-10 as well as tumor necrosis factor alpha, remdesivir has no anti-inflammatory qualities.

However, remdesivir does have a lot of political science behind it. Aside from having the weight of Big Pharma pushing it (and it was concocted by UNC-Chapel Hill, curiously the same institution at the center of the coronavirus gain-of-function research), hospitals get a 20% bonus for using it!

Gee, is there any wonder hospitals will fight patients in court – including those whom they already recommend to remove from life support – to not even try ivermectin as a last resort?! So much for the desire to flatten the curve of hospitalizations. They want people in the hospital! If they really cared about the run on hospitals, they’d promote treatments that work early and outpatient so that nobody would need to come to the hospital.

For more information, watch this devastating contrast of ivermectin vs. remdesivir.

Here’s one other strong piece of evidence that this is not about any shortcoming of ivermectin, but stems from unrelenting war on anything off patent that might work, in order to run interference for expensive, dangerous, and ineffective tools of big pharma. Let’s go back to that NIH chart of potential antiviral drugs for COVID. There is actually a third one on that list aside from remdesivir and ivermectin.

Nitazoxanide, much like ivermectin, is a (potentially) cheap off-patent anti-parasitic that has been praised for years as a very safe, broad-spectrum anti-parasitic mechanism and is written about glowingly in studies. And it actually has an even longer and more direct precedent of research and clinical use against viruses than even ivermectin. It is the standard of care for norovirus and rotavirus in Brazil and has shown promise against not just flus and hepatitis, but coronavirus colds, SARS, and MERS. This research has been known even in the media for well over a year! Gee, we have an antiviral that is so safe it’s given to young kids for viral diarrhea and has been known to work against coronaviruses. Yet our government has refused to pursue any meaningful research for 18 months!

Originally, it was as cheap as ivermectin, but one company seems to have bought it up, and now it is prohibitively expensive in the U.S. However, were the government to promote it, this off-patent drug could easily be mass-produced for pennies on the dollar and costs just a few dollars for a full regimen in Mexico and Brazil.https://playlist.megaphone.fm/?e=BMDC5574376707

Notice that, just like with ivermectin, the NIH prefaces the side effects section on nitazoxanide by saying it is “generally well tolerated” and then proceeds to list the boilerplate of typical minor side effects that are disclosed for every drug under the sun. Anyone merely looking at this NIH page alone can see how the government and medical establishment’s treatment of remdesivir vs. every other therapeutic that has been tried is built upon control, greed, and something much darker than that. Now, just remember, these are the same people who will look you in the eye and say the shots are 100% effective and carry zero risk. It’s all in the $cience.
What is self-evident from the NIH’s disclosure, which was updated as late as July 2021, is that ivermectin and nitazoxanide work for a lot more than just parasites. It’s primarily the political parasites that fear that those drugs.

In-N-Out Burger tells San Francisco ‘we refuse to become the vaccination police’ after city closes restaurant


Reported by CHRIS PANDOLFO | October 19, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/in-n-out-burger-san-francisco-vaccination-police/

In-N-Out Burger blasted the city of San Francisco’s proof of COVID-19 vaccination requirements after the San Francisco Department of Health closed one of the popular California burger joint’s locations for serving customers who were not carrying the proper papers.

“On Thursday, October 14, the San Francisco Department of Public Health closed our restaurant at 333 Jefferson Street because In-N-Out Burger Associates (employees) were not preventing the entry of Customers who were not carrying proper vaccination documentation,” In-N-Out Burger’s chief legal and business officer, Arnie Wensinger, said in a statement.

“Our store properly and clearly posted signage to communicate local vaccination requirements,” Wensinger said. “After closing our restaurant, local regulators informed us that our restaurant Associates must actively intervene by demanding proof of vaccination and photo identification from every Customer, then act as enforcement personnel by barring entry for any Customers without the proper documentation.”

“We refuse to become the vaccination police for any government,” Wensinger declared, slamming the San Francisco Department of Health’s requirements as “unreasonable, invasive, and unsafe” and accusing the city of asking restaurants to “segregate Customers” based on vaccine documentation.

Wensinger’s statement was first reported by The HighWire.

In August, San Francisco Mayor London Breed announced that the city would require businesses in “high-contact indoor sectors,” including bars, restaurants, clubs, and gyms to obtain proof of COVID-19 vaccination from patrons and employees before servicing them. The health order was implemented to “protect against the continued spread of COVID-19, particularly among the unvaccinated,” according to a statement from the mayor’s office.

“Many San Francisco businesses are already leading the way by requiring proof of vaccination for their customers because they care about the health of their employees, their customers, and this City. This order builds on their leadership and will help us weather the challenges ahead and keep our businesses open. Vaccines are our way out of the pandemic, and our way back to a life where we can be together safely,” Breed said at the time.

San Francisco was among the first major U.S. cities to require proof of COVID-19 vaccination to enter indoor restaurants and other businesses. The city also implemented a vaccine mandate for workers at these places of business, which went into effect on Oct. 13. In his statement, Wensinger accused San Francisco of forcing businesses “to discriminate against customers who choose to patronize their business.”

“This is clear governmental overreach and is intrusive, improper, and offensive.”

The San Francisco Department of Health did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Iowa conservatives introduce gold standard bill to fight the dangerous COVID mandate


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | October 15, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-iowa-conservatives-introduce-gold-standard-bill-to-fight-the-dangerous-covid-mandate-theblaze-2655316302.html/

There is nothing free-market about “private” businesses joining in the violation of the Nuremberg Code. In fact, the entire concept of a rushed therapeutic that wanes quickly and causes a shocking number of known and unknown injuries never would have gotten off the ground under the free market. Socialism, subsidization, monopolization, government using taxpayer funding to create, market, coerce, censor, and reshape society with the shot — all the while being exempt from legal liability — are the only reasons why any business even under 100 employees, much less a larger business, would be mandating it at this point. The only effective, prudent, fair, and free-market position is to use equal and opposing force to restore the balance of the free market. It’s show time for the state legislatures.

Legislative bodies throughout the country are meeting over the next few weeks to debate measures that would counter the mandates being illegally promulgated by the Biden administration. Most GOP-controlled states are going to take some form of action, but the question is whether they will take the right action or be intimidated by the visceral response of the big business and health care cartel that has become a giant arm of government tyranny. Several Iowa lawmakers have put together a bill that is the gold standard of what other red states should adopt this coming week.

The crux of the bill, Iowa SF 193, sponsored by Sens. Guth, Johnson, Schultz, Whiting, and Carlin, categorically bans all human rights violations in relation to “Pfizer” government mandates. It prohibits an employer from failing or refusing to hire, discharge, penalize, or otherwise discriminate against an employee with respect to compensation or the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment based on the employee’s vaccination history or the refusal of the employee to receive a vaccine or provide proof of immunity. It provides a cause of action in court to anyone discriminated against, along with a prescribed remedy of back pay plus 10% from the employer.

This is what we do in the context of every other form of discrimination, including when employers legitimately terminate problematic workers. So, until we get rid of all those laws and the EEOC at the federal level, we don’t need to hear about “the free market.”

Next, rather than providing an exception to this rule for hospitals and health care settings, this bill specifically bans any discrimination against health care workers or discrimination on the treatment side for patients in a health care setting. It spells out every form of medical professional, including medical students and residents. Importantly, this bill bars any health care provider licensing authority from denying or revoking a license to any applicant because they decline the shot.

At this point, it is abundantly clear that the shots provide no more protection against transmission than not having the shots, which makes any form of any mandate unjustified, even if we are to believe one can govern another’s body. For example, in health care settings, where health organizations are arguing that they must protect cancer patients who didn’t get the shot, those patients are at least as likely to get the virus from a supposed vaccinated person as from an unvaccinated person, especially if the latter individual already had the virus. Moreover, research has consistently shown that people within 14 days of the first or second shot are the most vulnerable to catching COVID because of the suboptimal levels of antibodies. Having thousands of health care workers suddenly get the shots within a period of a few weeks would expose those patients to the most risk in health care settings.

Another important provision of the Iowa bill is that it bars all insurance companies from discriminating against those who don’t get the shot. This means they cannot reject; deny; limit; cancel; refuse to renew; increase the premiums for; limit the amount, extent, or kind of coverage available to; or otherwise adversely affect eligibility or coverage for the group health policy, contract, or plan for health insurance.

We’d all love to live with a market in which any providers can offer any insurance plan they wish. But that ship sailed with Obamacare. The only things worse than full socialist mandates are half-manipulated mandates, which induce totalitarianism in addition to socialism. Thanks to Obamacare, we cannot start our own insurance companies because of the actuarily insolvent mandates. Yet the same government that pushed universal coverage now gets to manipulate the government-sponsored “private” monopoly companies to bar coverage for large groups of people based on zero scientific evidence. Repeal Obamacare, and then we will remove this provision. Until then, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Next, the bill bars any owner or manager of a public accommodation from discriminating in services against someone who has not taken the shot. Again, this virus has been used as an excuse to prohibit all landowners from evicting anyone, including those who are disruptive, destructive, and late on rent. We will not allow the socialists to use their control over the “private” sector to suddenly encourage them to discriminate against people with no cause. I’m fine with ending most discrimination laws. But if we are going to have them, the worst outcome is for government to manipulate a perfectly perverse standard of who is subject to them and who is exempt from them. When businesses can deny services or employment to those with HIV or with certain sexual behaviors, or thwart Obamacare, Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, OSHA, and ADA regulations, then come back to me about “the private sector can do what they want.”

More provisions of SF 193 include the following:

  • A prohibition on including someone’s immunization status on their driver’s license.
  • Expansion of the exemption process for vaccine requirements in schools related to existing vaccines.
  • Anyone administering the vaccine must obtain written consent from the patient prior to reporting the administration of the vaccine or immunization to the statewide immunization registry.

At present, all private businesses over 100 employees are on the hook for a looming federal mandate to require a shot that the government has essentially created and manipulated with taxpayer funding that the free market never would have sustained. Both government and the pharmaceutical companies are exempt from liability. This is not free market; this is fascism. As such, for any state to merely pass a neutral law without providing equal and opposing force to prohibit (rather than exempt from) the federal mandate is not an exercise in free market ethos but in submission to totalitarianism.

How come none of these business and health organizations cried bloody murder about “rights of the private sector” when governors placed the ultimate regulation on them – a crippling shutdown or cumbersome capacity mandates? In this case, they are not regulating affirmative expensive compliance measures – just simply a dictate to apply existing discrimination and health privacy law to where it’s needed most in order to counter Nuremberg violations by the federal government. Private business owners don’t need to lift a finger and spend any time or money on this. Just don’t harass your workers. “Well, we’re scared of COVID,” they are saying. In that case, you have the shot, so what do you care about someone else not getting it?https://playlist.megaphone.fm/?e=BMDC5574376707

The private sector or free market did not conjure up the riskiest and leakiest shot in history or mask-wearing; it was all induced by the federal government through fear, intimidation, misinformation, threats, and censorship. In the case of big business and health care, there has been downright collaboration with the federal government at every stage – a violation of the ultimate antitrust principles. Therefore, every state has an obligation to interpose between the federal coercion and the safety of the people. Allowing every business in every state to remain a conduit for that federal tyranny is not respect for private rights. It’s collaboration with a very dark tunnel of tyranny. We don’t want to discover what’s on the other side.

BOOM! Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Union (SMART) with 203,000 Members Announces Stand Against Forced Vaccines


Reported By Jim Hoft | Published October 14, 2021

Read more at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/boom-sheet-metal-air-rail-transportation-union-smart-203000-members-announces-stand-forced-vaccines/

SMART, the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, is one of North America’s most dynamic and diverse unions with 203,000 members.   The union consists of sheet metal workers, service technicians, bus operators, engineers, conductors, sign workers, welders, production employees and more.  SMART is the largest railroad operating union in North America, with more than 500 Transportation locals.

On Thursday SMART Union General Chairperson Roy Davis sent a letter to advise Union Pacific Company that the SMART Union strongly disagrees with the company’s “unilateral” requirement for COVID vaccinations.

SMART demanded an immediate response and demands that Carrier negotiate in good faith.

Here is another letter by SMART Union sent a letter to the Union Pacific Railroad.

Mgid
Mgid

Jim Hoft

Jim Hoft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.

Healthy 16-Year-Old Boy Dies During Online Class After Receiving Second COVID Shot from Pfizer


Reported By Jim Hoft | Published October 13, 2021

Read more at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/healthy-16-year-old-boy-dies-online-class-receiving-second-covid-shot-pfizer/

California – A 16-year-old boy died while taking his math class on Zoom last April reportedly 27 days after taking his second shot of Pfizer vaccine according to VAERS data released on October 1, 2021.

Lifesite News reported:

On July 13, the boy’s mother filed a report with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) — run by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — indicating her son died 27 days after receiving his second dose of Pfizer’s experimental COVID-19 vaccine in April.

In the “Diagnostic Lab Data” section of the VAERS entry, the mother wrote, “He had no previous symptoms. I was with him one hour before and my assistant saw him 20 minutes prior and he did not show any irregularities.”

Per the report, the child’s second dose was administered on April 3, and the boy died on April 27.

Mgid

The entry also indicates that the child had not been diagnosed with any allergies, pre-existing conditions, illnesses, disabilities, or birth defects, and had not been taking any medications prior to his death. He apparently stayed in the hospital for eight days, and it’s unclear how he participated in the Zoom class, or if he was released prior.

Here is the information from National Vaccine Information Center with VAERS ID 1466009 from the 10/1/2021 release of VAERS data:

Amish survived COVID-19 better than most by not locking down, ceasing church gatherings: report


Reported By Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter | Wednesday, October 13, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/amish-survived-covid-19-better-than-most-by-not-locking-down.html/

Amish
An open Amish Buggy makes its way to town. | Getty Images

The Amish community in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has made it through the coronavirus pandemic without experiencing a catastrophic loss of life despite their refusal to adopt many of the safety precautions portrayed as necessary to prevent widespread loss of life, according to a new report. While officials in most U.S. cities ordered businesses and churches to close for several months in an attempt to slow the spread of COVID-19, the Amish continued working and never stopped worshiping together at church. 

On her news magazine series “Full Measure” Sunday, investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson reported on the Amish community’s response to the coronavirus pandemic, which differed significantly from the approach taken by the rest of the country.

She described the Amish as a “Christian group that emphasizes the virtuous over the superficial.” In an effort to live a “virtuous” life, many in the group refrain from driving and using electricity. 

Attkisson traveled to Lancaster County, well-known for its large Amish population, to talk to locals about how they handled the pandemic. One person she spoke to, an Amish Mennonite named Calvin Lapp, explained: “There are three things the Amish don’t like: And that’s government; they won’t get involved in government. They don’t like the public education system; they won’t send their children to education. And … they also don’t like the health system.” 

“Those three things are all part of what COVID is,” he said. Attkisson noted that “after a short shutdown last year, the Amish chose a unique path that led to COVID-19 tearing through at warp speed.” The community gathered for a religious celebration in May 2020, where they all took communion. 

Lapp then described how the Amish take communion: “They dunk their wine into a cup, and they take turns to drink out of the cup. So you go the whole way down the line and everybody drinks out of that cup, so if one person has coronavirus, the rest of the church is going to get coronavirus.” 

While he acknowledged that “everybody got coronavirus,” Lapp defended the community’s approach: “It’s a worse thing to quit working than dying. But to shut down and say that we can’t go to church, we can’t get together with family, we can’t see our old people in the hospital, we got to quit working … it’s going completely against everything that we believe.”

About a year after the coronavirus pandemic first broke out in the U.S., national news outlets and The Associated Press wire service reported that the Lancaster County Amish community had reached herd immunity, meaning that “a large part of the population had been infected with COVID-19 and became immune.” However, precise data is difficult to come across because the Amish were hesitant to publicize coronavirus cases in their community. 

Steve Nolt, a scholar on Amish and Mennonite culture, told Attkisson that in some cases, “Amish people … refused to go to the hospital, even when they were very sick because if they went there, they wouldn’t be able to have visitors, and it was more important to be sick, even very sick, at home and have the ability to have some people around you than to go to the hospital and be isolated.” 

Nolt added that “even those who … believed that they had COVID tended not to get tested. Their approach tended to be ‘I’m sick, I know I’m sick, I don’t have to have someone else tell me I’m sick,’ or a concern that if they … got a positive test, they would then be asked to really dramatically limit what they were doing in a way that … might be uncomfortable for them.” 

“There’s no evidence of any more deaths among the Amish than in places that shut down tight. Some claim there were fewer here,” Attkisson maintained. “That’s without masking, staying at home” or taking the coronavirus vaccine. 

Lapp highlighted that the absence of a prolonged shutdown meant that the Amish “made more money in the last year than we ever did” as the rest of the country experienced economic hardships because of lockdowns. He described 2020 as “our best year ever.” 

Ryan Foley is a reporter for The Christian Post. He can be reached at: ryan.foley@christianpost.com

Vaccine Tyranny: UCLA Doctor Escorted Off Property for Refusing Vax, Then He Reveals His Plan


Posted By C. Douglas Golden  October 11, 2021 at 9:23am

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/vaccine-tyranny-ucla-doctor-escorted-off-property-refusing-vax-reveals-plan/

The logic of vaccine mandates eludes me, particularly in the health care sphere.

The country is, at present, gearing up for what should be (God willing) the last major winter wave of COVID-19. It’s an all-hands-on-deck moment for the frontline medical professionals — the ones who braved SARS-CoV-2 in its early stages, the ones Americans applauded from apartment balconies in those grim, confusing early days.

The administration and some politicians — usually Democrats — are convinced that zero-tolerance vaccine mandates are one of the critical components when it comes to blunting the force of that wave. Plenty don’t agree. Some COVID survivors — and researchers — maintain that natural immunity provides more protection than the vaccine does. Some have moral objections to the vaccine. Some don’t trust the speed with which it was developed. Some believe the mandates to be an infringement on bodily autonomy.

Does the reasoning behind vaccine mandates hold water? Does it matter? The point is that forcing the recalcitrant is a difficult task for the COVID hawks on the left, particularly given their dire predictions about ICU usage this winter and a labor shortage that doesn’t seem to be abating. The solution, therefore, is to force health care professionals to take the vaccine or consider themselves out of a job as we approach the all-hands-on-deck moment.

You may perhaps begin to see the problem here. Granted, the intent was to force unvaccinated health care professionals to swallow their objections and take one for the team. Instead, the practical effect is that the team is getting winnowed down — as proven by the case of Dr. Christopher Rake.

According to The Sacramento Bee, Rake is an anesthesiologist at UCLA Health hospital system in Los Angeles who has become a vocal social media critic of COVID vaccines. UCLA Health executives decided they had had enough of that and had him escorted out of his workplace Oct. 4 — but not without Rake livestreaming the whole affair.

“They are escorting me out of the building,” Rake said in the video, posted to Twitter on Tuesday by Beverly Hills Courier staff writer Samuel Braslow. The doctor asked for the title of the men escorting him out, although he didn’t get it.

“This is what happens when you stand up for freedom and when you show up to work, willing to work, despite being unvaccinated, and this is the price you have to pay sometimes,” Rake said, turning the camera on himself.

Then he sketched out his plan: He’s going to keep fighting the mandatory vaccination regime, no matter what it costs him.

“But what they don’t realize is that I’m willing to go lose everything,” he said. “Job, paycheck, freedom, even my life for this cause.”

“Be well. United we stand, divided we fall,” Rake concluded.

The UCLA Health System requires workers to have a COVID-19 vaccination or “an exemption in accordance with University of California policy and a state public health order issued on Aug. 5, which only exempts workers on the basis of religious beliefs or medical reasons,” according to the Bee.

“Those out of compliance are subject to progressive discipline, including restricting access to work sites and being placed on leave,” a UCLA representative told McClatchy Newspapers, the Bee’s parent company.

Rake’s profile was still listed on UCLA Health’s website as of Monday morning Eastern Time, indicating he hadn’t been terminated. However, there’s been ample time for “progressive discipline,” given he began speaking out against vaccines publicly as early as August.

While he was once a frontline hero for his work with COVID, Rake said at an anti-vaccination rally in Santa Monica Aug. 29, “this year I’m a zero.”

“They want to force a vaccination or medication or treatment into my body that I don’t want. So they’re telling me, ‘Take the jab or we take your job,’” Rake said.

“And I’m here to say no. That’s not OK.”

He also urged those who are vaccinated to consider the implications of vaccine mandates and said he wanted them with the cause “because they deserve medical freedom.”

“Many of them are going to wake up when the government says, ‘hey, by the way, you need a third booster shot,’” Rake said. “And you know, they say, ‘I felt pretty bad after that second one, can I just pass?’ No. You are now out of alignment with what the government wants and cannot go to your child’s baseball game, you can’t go to the movie theater, you can’t go to the grocery store. They’re going to take everything away.”

UCLA Health responded with a tweet saying, “These comments do not represent the views of UCLA Health. Unvaccinated people are more likely to contract COVID-19 & we encourage employees to be vaccinated. We adhere to the state public health order requiring health care workers to be vaccinated or undergo regular testing.”

I’m not a medical expert, but I don’t agree with Dr. Rake’s position — and it’s a moot point anyway, given the fact I’m fully vaccinated and I’m unaware of any way to pull the Pfizer solution out of my arm at this point. However, I agree with Dr. Rake’s ability to state his position — and to live by it. If UCLA Health was testing him, there was no reason to escort him off of their property. He plays no role in administering or championing vaccines. He plays a vital role in the operation of the emergency room. This shouldn’t be difficult.

And yet, it is. Because of vaccine mandates in health care, hospitals have lacked the requisite nurses needed to deliver babies. Outside the medical field, law enforcement officers are leaving their jobs. Experienced members of the military are considering leaving the service.

We once celebrated our frontline medical workers for keeping us alive. Now we have to hope there are enough of them left as we’re told COVID cases are “overwhelming hospitals” — all because of what the vaccine mandate hath wrought.

C. Douglas Golden, Contributor

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he’s written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014.

@CillianZeal

Facebook

New study finds aspirin can significantly cut COVID risks — and even death


Reported by SARAH TAYLOR | October 11, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/study-aspirin-cut-covid-risks/

A new study finds that simple, over-the-counter aspirin may be able to protect COVID-19 patients from extreme risk, including the need for mechanical ventilation, the Jerusalem Post reported.

New research from George Washington University has determined that treating COVID patients with aspirin reduced the risk of severe illness by nearly half. The report noted that an aspirin regimen in more than 400 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the United States cut the need for ventilation by 44%, slashed ICU admission by 43%, and reduced overall in-hospital mortality rates by 47%.

Dr. Jonathan Chow, one of the study’s researchers, said, “As we learned about the connection between blood clots and COVID-19, we knew that aspirin — used to prevent stroke and heart attack — could be important for COVID-19 patients. Our research found an association between low-dose aspirin and decreased severity of COVID-19 and death.”

A low-dose aspirin regimen has long been touted as potentially lifesaving for people at risk of heart attack or stroke or who are afflicted by blood clotting issues. Chow added, “Aspirin is low-cost, easily accessible, and millions are already using it to treat their health conditions. Finding this association is a huge win for those looking to reduce risk from some of the most devastating effects of COVID-19.”

This isn’t the only study professing the possible benefits of aspirin in COVID patients. Earlier in October, Medical Express reported that researchers from the University of Minnesota and Basel University in Switzerland came to the same conclusion. The researchers’ findings were published in Lancet’s Open Access eClinical Medicine and revealed that patients on blood thinners before getting COVID were admitted less often to the hospital despite being older and having more chronic medical conditions than their peers. The findings also revealed that blood thinners — whether started before or after COVID-19 infection — reduced death by nearly half.

Lead author Sameh Hozayen said, “We know that COVID-19 causes blood clots that can kill patients. But, do blood thinners save lives in COVID-19? Blood thinners are medications prescribed to prevent blood clots in patients with a prior blood clot in their lungs or legs. They also prevent blood clots in the brain secondary to abnormal heart rhythms, like atrial fibrillation. Blood thinners are the standard of treatment in these diseases, which is why we looked at data to see if it impacted hospitalizations related to COVID-19.”

“We already know that overwhelmed hospitals have a higher risk for death among their patients, so reducing hospitalization may have a positive impact during a COVID-19 surge,” Hozayen added.

“Unfortunately, about half of patients who are being prescribed blood thinners for blood clots in their legs, lungs, abnormal heart rhythms or other reasons, do not take them,” Hozayen continued. “By increasing adherence for people already prescribed blood thinners, we can potentially reduce the bad effects of COVID-19.”

Grant Atkinson Op-ed: Fauci Agency Spent Over $1M to Poison Beagle Puppies, Cut Out Vocal Cords so They Couldn’t Bark: New Report


Commentary By Grant Atkinson  October 6, 2021

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/fauci-agency-spent-1m-poison-beagle-puppies-cut-vocal-cords-couldnt-bark-new-report/

Dr. Anthony Fauci has been propped up by the left as a savior throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. If leftists wrote a Marvel superhero movie, former President Donald Trump would be like Thanos, and Fauci is supposed to be some sort of Avenger who saves that day. The problem with that picture is that as far as I’m aware, Avengers are not supposed to brutally murder puppies and mutilate their bodies.

According to a watchdog group called the White Coat Waste Project, that is exactly what the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases did under the leadership of Fauci.

“Documents obtained by WCW through the Freedom of Information Act show that Fauci’s division at the National Institutes of Health ordered cruel and unnecessary drug toxicity tests on dogs and other animals that cost taxpayers $1.68 million,” the group said in a Tuesday news release.

This follows an August report that NIAID sent $424,455 in taxpayer money to the University of Georgia in September 2020 for research that would infect beagles with parasites so that an experimental drug could be tested on them.

In that research, documents obtained by WCW show at least 28 beagles were set to be infected with the parasites for three months. Afterward, they would be euthanized and their blood would be collected. The research was supposed to be completed by January 2022, but it is unclear whether the beagles were euthanized, according to the Daily Caller.

According to the new report from the Daily Caller, additional animal research took place between October 2018 and February 2019. These experiments reportedly included 44 beagle puppies aged 6-8 months who were given experimental drugs through either injection or force-feeding.

Afterward, WCW said the dogs were killed and dissected, supposedly for “research.”

In addition, NIAID paid for the abused puppies to have cordectomies, meaning part or all of their vocal cords were removed. WCW said Fauci’s division paid for these procedures so the puppies “couldn’t bark in the lab while they were being abused.”

NIAID defended the horrific treatment in its documents by saying the experiments were conducted to “provide data of suitable quality and integrity, in order to support applications to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other regulatory agencies,” according to the Daily Caller.

In July, WCW told KABC-TV that human drugs were being tested on puppies because of a 1930s law requiring drugs to be tested on animals before humans.

However, when KABC reached out to the FDA for comment, the agency said it “requires that an FDA-approved medical product must be demonstrated to be safe and effective,” but “does not mandate that human drugs be studied in dogs.”

This implies that NIAID’s reckless animal testing was conducted by choice, not out of obligation.

The timing of this new information is particularly ironic for Fauci. On Monday’s episode of “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Carlson revealed Fauci had candles in his own home depicting himself as a saint.

“Tony Fauci isn’t just the high priest of Fauci-ism. He’s also a true believer himself,” Carlson said.

The very next day, Fauci was revealed to have overseen experiments brutalizing innocent puppies. Somehow, that doesn’t seem to be very “saint-like” behavior.

“People are naming puppies after Anthony Fauci, but he’s actually dogs’ and taxpayers’ worst nightmare,” WCW vice president of advocacy and public policy Justin Goodman told the Daily Caller.

“From poisoning puppies here at home to funding gain-of-function experiments in China, the government’s highest-paid employee has proven he can’t be trusted to spend taxpayer dollars responsibly. With NIH director Francis Collins retiring, Fauci should be the next one to go.”

Grant Atkinson, Associate Reporter

Grant is a graduate of Virginia Tech with a bachelor’s degree in journalism. He has five years of writing experience with various outlets and enjoys covering politics and sports.

University of Colorado Hospital System Denies Woman’s Life-Saving Kidney Transplant; Will No Longer Provide Organ Transplants to Unvaccinated Patients


Reported By Julian Conradson | Published October 6, 2021

Read more at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/ready-university-colorado-hospital-system-denies-womans-life-saving-kidney-transplant-will-no-longer-provide-organ-transplants-unvaccinated-patients/

One of Colorado’s largest hospital systems has implemented a new policy that denies organ transplants to patients who have not taken the experimental Covid-19 vaccine under “almost all situations.” All organ donors will also have to be vaccinated under the new policy, and it has already stopped one woman from receiving the life-saving treatment she needs.

Last month, the University of Colorado Health sent a letter to Leilani Lutali informing her that her status on the waiting list for a kidney transplant was “inactivated” for “non-compliance” because she has chosen not to take the jab. She was given 30 days to take the shot, or else she would be removed from the transplant list completely.

Lutali, who has stage 5 renal failure, was told by the hospital in August that she wouldn’t need to be vaccinated to get her new kidney and was only made aware of the hospital’s new segregation policy when she received her letter in the mail – and only AFTER she was able to find a donor she knew who was willing to give her a kidney.

CBS4 Denver spoke with Lutali about the hospital’s policy and their reasoning behind foregoing the rushed vaccine, which she says has “too many unknowns.”

“I said I’ll sign a medical waiver. I have to sign a waiver anyway for the transplant itself, releasing them from anything that could possibly go wrong.

It’s surgery, it’s invasive. I sign a waiver for my life. I’m not sure why I can’t sign a waiver for the Covid shot.”

They also spoke with her donor – Jaimee Fougner – who was outraged that the hospital could decide not to operate when there is a kidney available that will save her friend’s life. Like Lutali, Fougner is also not vaccinated.

“It’s your choice on what treatment you have. In Leilani’s case, the choice has been taken from her. Her life has now been held hostage because of this mandate. 

Mgid
Mgid

Here I am, willing to be a direct donor to her. It does not affect any other patient on the transplant list. How can I sit here and allow them to murder my friend when I’ve got a perfectly good kidney and can save her life?”

The University of Colorado Health (UCHealth), which operates dozens of medical facilities and hospitals throughout the state, confirmed the segregation policy to the New York Post on Wednesday and claimed they were making the change because transplant patients are 20% more likely to die if they catch Covid-19. But, how much more likely are they to die if they catch Covid before getting a life-saving transplant? Or even without catching covid?

Higher than 20%, that’s for sure. Many of the people on the waiting list are also most likely medically exempt from taking the vaccine.

Not to mention the vaccine is so bad at preventing breakthrough infections that the tyrannical US health order is about to force a third booster dose, which will be most likely followed by perpetual doses every six months – Being vaccinated doesn’t even provide immunity (just check the CDC’s updated definition). Vaccinated patients waiting for an organ are about just as likely to contract a breakthrough case after a transplant as the non vaccinated.

UCHealth doubled down on their refusal to operate on the unvaccinated, saying that several other surgery centers have covid vaccine mandates for their patients in place already, and many more are following suit.

“In almost all situations, transplant patients and living donors are now required to be vaccinated against Covid-19 in addition to meeting other health requirements and receiving additional vaccinations.

Physicians must consider the short and long-term health risks for patients as they consider whether to recommend an organ transplant.”

The hospital’s policy has forced Lutali to search elsewhere for her operation. Unfortunately, she has checked with every surgery center in Colorado who would be able to perform a kidney transplant and none of them will provide care to her because she is unvaccinated. She is now looking outside the state for a hospital that will be willing to take her.

Like Lutali’s donor said, her life is being held hostage over this vaccine mandate. How many others will be denied care and left to perish because of these policies? So much for that “if we save just one life” nonsense. That was never the case.

Trans doctor warns against puberty blockers: Medical community ‘zigged’ too far Left


Reported By Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter | Wednesday, October 06, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/trans-doctor-warns-against-puberty-blockers-for-kids.html/

Transgender
LGBT activists and their supporters rally in support of transgender people on the steps of New York City Hall, October 24, 2018 in New York City. | Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Two trans-identified healthcare professionals are raising concerns about the rush to affirm children suffering from gender dysphoria and the longterm consequences of puberty blockers. In an exclusive interview with Wall Street Journal contributor Abigail Shrier published on Substack, Dr. Marci Bowers and clinical psychologist Erica Anderson cast doubt on the effectiveness of puberty blockers and lamented the demands for conformity within the medical community regarding the transgender debate. Both Bowers and Anderson are trans-identified men who go by female names and belong to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which “sets the standards worldwide for transgender medical care.” 

Bowers, a surgeon who performs gender reassignment surgeries and has been tapped to lead WPATH beginning next year, told Shrier that “We zig and then we zag, and I think maybe we zigged a little too far to the left in some cases.”

The doctor alleged that within WPATH, “there are definitely people who are trying to keep out anyone who doesn’t absolutely buy the party line that everything should be affirming, and that there’s no room for dissent.” 

Shrier noted that a similar mentality exists within corporate media: “Anderson told me [he] submitted a co-authored op-ed to The New York Times warning that many healthcare providers were treating kids recklessly. The Times passed, explaining it was ‘outside our coverage priorities right now.’” 

While Bowers is the doctor who performed trans-affirming surgery on famous trans-identified reality star Jazz Jennings, the surgeon is speaking out about some of the consequences of the puberty blockers. Specifically, Bowers warned that “if you’ve never had an orgasm pre-surgery, and then you’re puberty’s blocked, it’s very difficult to achieve that afterwards.” 

Bowers has come to believe that the risks of puberty blockers outweigh the benefits: “Believe me, we’re doing some magnificent surgeries on these kids, and they’re so determined, and I’m so proud of many of them and their parents. They’ve been great. But honestly, I can’t sit here and tell you that they have better — or even as good — results.”

“They’re not as functional,” Bowers added. “I worry about their reproductive rights later. I worry about their sexual health later and ability to find intimacy.” 

Shrier reported that the U.S. began to adopt affirmation of trans-identified children with puberty blockers as the standard operating procedure by embracing the Dutch Protocol. The Dutch Protocol is based on research conducted in the Netherlands portraying puberty blockers in a favorable light. According to Shrier, “the thinking behind the protocol was: Why make a child who has suffered with gender dysphoria since preschool endure puberty, with all its discomforts and embarrassments, if that child were likely to transition as a young adult?”

Shrier wrote that when a U.S. hospital first began relying on the Dutch Protocol in 2007, “researchers believed blockers’ effects were reversible.” When asked if puberty blockers were reversible, Bowers responded by saying, “I’m not sure,” adding, “I’m not a fan.” 

The doctor also explained that the common use of tissue from the stomach and bowel to construct “neovaginas” in trans-identified males can cause colon cancer in addition to other complications: “If it’s used sexually, you can get this chronic colitis that has to be treated over time. And it’s just in the discharge and the nasty appearance and it doesn’t smell like vagina.”

Both Bowers and Anderson weighed in on the phenomenon of “rapid onset gender dysphoria,” which refers to the rise in the number of biological females seeking to change their gender.

survey of 70,000 American college students conducted by the American College Health Association revealed that the share of biological female college students who identify as transgender rose from 1 in 2,000 in 2008 to 1 in 20 in 2021. At the same time, the number of gender clinics in the U.S. has grown from one in 2007 to hundreds today. 

Shrier, who wrote a book about the phenomenon, titled Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, and other researchers attribute the rise in “rapid onset gender dysphoria” to peer pressure stemming from the prevalence of trans influencers on social media.

Bowers agreed: “I think there probably are people who are influenced. There is a little bit of ‘Yeah, that’s so cool. Yeah, I kind of want to do that too.’” 

Anderson predicted that “we’re going to have more young adults who will regret having gone through this process” as a result of medical professionals “rushing people through the medicalization” as well as failing to “evaluate the mental health of someone historically in current time, and to prepare them for making such a life-changing decision.” Bowers elaborated on some of the underlying mental health factors that may cause young girls to want to transition and urged parents to think twice about doctors rushing to confirm gender dysphoria.

“When you have a female-assigned person and she’s feeling dysphoric, or somebody decides that she’s dysphoric and says your eating disorders are not really eating disorders, this is actually gender dysphoria, and then they see you for one visit, and then they recommend testosterone — red flag!”

Ryan Foley is a reporter for The Christian Post. He can be reached at: ryan.foley@christianpost.com

Ghoulish Fact-Checkers at Twitter Slap ‘Misleading’ Label on Obituary of Mom Who Died from Vaccine-Induced Blood Clot


Reported By Elizabeth Stauffer  October 4, 2021

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/ghoulish-fact-checkers-twitter-slap-misleading-label-obituary-mom-died-vaccine-induced-blood-clot/

Jessica Berg Wilson’s obituary described the Seattle woman as “an exceptionally healthy and vibrant 37-year-old young mother with no underlying health conditions” who “died unexpectedly on Sep. 7 from COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia (VITT).”

The obituary on Legacy.com continued: “Jessica fully embraced motherhood, sharing her passion for life with her daughters. Jessica’s motherly commitment was intense, with unwavering determination to nurture her children to be confident, humble, responsible, and to have concern and compassion for others with high morals built on Faith.”

“Jessica’s greatest passion was to be the best mother possible for Bridget and Clara. Nothing would stand in her way to be present in their lives,” it said. “During the last weeks of her life, however, the world turned dark with heavy-handed vaccine mandates. Local and state governments were determined to strip away her right to consult her wisdom and enjoy her freedom.

“She had been vehemently opposed to taking the vaccine, knowing she was in good health and of a young age and thus not at risk for serious illness. In her mind, the known and unknown risks of the unproven vaccine were more of a threat.

“But, slowly, day by day, her freedom to choose was stripped away. Her passion to be actively involved in her children’s education—which included being a Room Mom—was, once again, blocked by government mandate. Ultimately, those who closed doors and separated mothers from their children prevailed.

“It cost Jessica her life. It cost her children the loving embrace of their caring mother. And it cost her husband the sacred love of his devoted wife. It cost God’s Kingdom on earth a very special soul who was just making her love felt in the hearts of so many.”

This very sad story was made even worse by the Twitter Police.

When a Twitter user shared Wilson’s obituary on Friday, adding in the caption that she had not wanted to get vaccinated, the post was slapped with a warning label.

“This Tweet is misleading,” it said. “Find out why health officials consider COVID-19 vaccines safe for most people.”

It provided a link so users could “find out more,” adding, “This Tweet can’t be replied to, shared or liked.”

Here is a screenshot of the Twitter warning label, which apparently was removed after many users complained about it.

This is what popped up if you clicked on the retweet button.

Misleading? On the contrary, it’s very clear. A healthy young woman, who believed that the vaccine posed a greater risk to her health than contracting the virus itself, was forced to comply with the school’s vaccine requirement for visitors if she wanted to be involved in her children’s classrooms. She took the vaccine and then died of a vaccine-induced blood clot. She was one of the unlucky ones.

The author of the tweet was not misleading readers, either. She was simply mourning the loss of a young mother who would not have gotten the vaccine (and therefore likely would not have died) had she not been forced to. Nobody was trying to convince others not to take the vaccine or claiming that it will cause mass deaths.

I am not anti-vax. Vaccines are a potent tool in the fight against COVID. That said, these vaccines do pose a risk to some individuals. Some might have medical reasons for rejecting the vaccine, and others are highly skeptical about taking a vaccine that was developed so quickly. Not everyone needs to be vaccinated.

This is tyranny, and it’s hard to believe this is happening in America.

Elizabeth Stauffer, Contributor

Elizabeth is a contract writer at The Western Journal. Her articles have appeared on many conservative websites including RedState, Newsmax, The Federalist, Bongino.com, HotAir, Australian National Review, Independent Journal Review, Instapundit, MSN and RealClearPolitics. Please follow Elizabeth on Twitter.@StaufferVaughn

Fauci says it’s ‘too soon’ to say if Americans can gather for Christmas


Reported By Anugrah Kumar, Christian Post Contributor | Monday, October 04, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/fauci-too-soon-to-say-if-americans-can-gather-for-christmas.html/

Dr. Anthony Fauci
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, speaks during a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing to discuss the ongoing federal response to COVID-19 on May 11, 2021, in Washington, D.C. | Greg Nash-Pool/Getty Images

Chief White House medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci said Sunday that it’s “too soon to tell” whether Americans should gather for Christmas this year, as he spoke about the coronavirus pandemic and what to expect in the coming months.

“It’s just too soon to tell. We have to concentrate on continuing to get those numbers down and not try to jump ahead by weeks or months and say what we’re going to do at a particular time,” Fauci said on CBS’ “Face The Nation,” after anchor Margaret Brennan asked if Americans will be able to gather for Christmas.

“Let’s focus like a laser on continuing to get those cases down. And we can do it by people getting vaccinated. Also, in the situation where boosters are appropriate, to get people boosted, because we know they can help greatly in diminishing infection and diminishing advanced disease.”

Fauci received criticism on social media for his comments.

“It’s bad enough that Fauci says these ridiculous things, but it’s worse that journos keep framing questions to him as if he has any say over whether we get together for Christmas,” Washington Free Beacon reporter Chuck Ross wrote, according to Fox News.

Last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that Americans avoid traveling for Christmas. “The best thing for Americans to do in the upcoming holiday season is to stay at home and not travel,” Henry Walke, CDC’s COVID-19 incident manager, said at the time, The Hill reported.

In the United States, there have been over 42.9 million reported COVID-19 cases thus far, with 688,099 deaths counted as being from COVID-19 as of Monday, according to WHO, which also says, as of last Thursday, a total of 398,284,216 vaccine doses had been administered. 

An investigative report found that states are counting deaths by suicide, murder and auto accidents as deaths from COVID-19, inflating death totals. 

Dr. Fauci told CBS that complacency needs to be avoided. “We need to continue to get those individuals, now 70 million people who are eligible to be vaccinated, vaccinated.”

Fauci supported President Biden’s vaccine mandate, which requires federal employees, contractors and private employers with 100 workers or more to mandate vaccinations or weekly testing for the novel coronavirus.

“I think what the president said about companies greater than 100 individuals is a good thing, and you’re seeing also local groups, universities and businesses are doing that, mandating vaccines in particular,” Fauci said.

However, in August, when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was asked about requiring members of Congress to be vaccinated, she responded, “We cannot require someone to be vaccinated. It’s just not what we can do,” Forbes noted.

The vaccination status of members of Congress, she added, “is a matter of privacy.”

Several governors and members of Congress denounced Biden’s plans.

“I will pursue every legal option available to the state of Georgia to stop this blatantly unlawful overreach by the Biden administration,” Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp tweeted.

Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts also responded, saying: “This plan isn’t about public health — this is about government control and taking away personal liberties. Americans, not the federal government, are responsible for taking charge of their personal health.”

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: New study shows denial of ivermectin is a crime against humanity


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | October 01, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-new-study-shows-denial-of-ivermectin-is-a-crime-against-humanity-theblaze-2655204407.html/

“How can I get hold of ivermectin in case I get sick?” is probably the most common email inquiry I receive daily. It’s a shame we didn’t make this safe, Nobel prize-winning drug as available as we do needles in San Francisco for the injection of dangerous drugs. Perhaps we can ask the Mexican cartels to get into ivermectin production.

In all seriousness, given the data behind ivermectin, it is shocking how our government refuses to even embark on a study. In the meantime, insurers refuse to cover it and pharmacists refuse to dispense it — and that’s if you can get hold of a doctor willing to prescribe it.

Until now, despite dozens of studies and doctors all around the world with no financial gain at stake vouching for its efficacy, our government has balked at ivermectin because, it claims, the studies are too small. Well, the Argentinian Provincial Ministry of Health just published the results of a retrospective study of a trial of over 21,000 participants. The results were unmistakable among those participants above age 40, all non-vaccinated. Overall, when adjusting for confounding factors like less healthy people joining the ivermectin group, those in the ivermectin group had a 66% lower ICU admission rate and a 55% lower mortality rate than those in the control group. Anyone in the ivermectin group was treated with a dose of 0.6mg per kg of weight one time a day for five days.

This is just the latest study, but the key is to look at the preponderance of the evidence. A meta-analysis posted earlier this week of 65 total studies netted the following pooled results.

As the author notes, while many of the studies are small sample sizes, taken together, “The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 65 studies is estimated to be 1 in 403 billion.”

So many people, including actor Louis Gossett Jr., are human testimonies to ivermectin being more than a theoretical statistical benefit. They are alive today, even after having used it at a late stage. The war on ivermectin and the embargo against early treatment are truly a crime against humanity.

Ultimately, it’s important to keep in mind that this has never been about any one treatment. Imagine if along with making ivermectin cheap and available;

  • our government had helped empower people to raise their vitamin D levels and
  • exercise more rather than gaining a ton of weight over the pandemic.
  • Imagine if our government had encouraged doctors to treat this early and often with a cocktail of several drugs plus made the monoclonal antibodies available for everyone the minute they came out, over one year ago,
  • in addition to the successful nasal irrigation techniques using povidone-iodine sprays.

Well, then the reduction in mortality would have been closer to 100%.

Vitamin D alone could have saved anyone who has gotten seriously ill recently, a year and a half after our government should have been encouraging people to take high-dose supplements. There are now at least 113 studies vouching for the correlation between high vitamin D levels and positive outcomes. The results of a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of eight vitamin D studies showed that the risk of COVID mortality for people with D levels at 50 ng/ml is close to zero.

Then, of course, there is exercise and obesity. Weight is such a strong factor in determining risk of serious illness that BMI is now being used as a way of vetting people for eligibility for the monoclonal antibodies. Yet our government encouraged a lifestyle that caused obesity to skyrocket. The rates have gone up so quickly that, according to the latest CDC data, 16 states now have obesity rates of 35% or higher, an increase of four states in just one year.

Rather than encouraging people, in addition to seeking early COVID treatment, to pound vitamins, exercise, and eat right — which would induce a cascading confluence of benefits in every other area of health and wellness — they placed all of their eggs in the vaccine basket. Now what do they have to offer those people getting infected despite taking on so much known and unknown risk from the shots?

Finally, more than any one drug or therapeutic, it’s about the art of practicing medicine, which involves having a competent doctor prescribe the right course of action for the right patient for the given symptoms at the right time. Every primary care doctor should have been encouraged, rather than discouraged, to treat this virus early with their respective patient workloads. Each drug alone might have a 30%-60% efficacy rate, but a good doctor putting it all together achieves close to 100% success.

Drs. Brian Tyson and George Fareed posted a summary of their patient outcomes after treating thousands of COVID patients in Imperial County, California, since last March. Out of 6,000 patients they treated, they never lost a patient who came to them within the first week of symptoms. What Dr. Tyson explains is so simple, yet eloquent:

“We started seeing inflammation, so we used anti-inflammatories,” Dr. Tyson explains. “We saw blood clots, so we used anti-coagulants. We saw patients having trouble breathing, so we used asthma medications. … It wasn’t just one drug. It was the art of what we see and how those patients responded to what we gave them.” As Tyson notes, if you are not in favor of early treatment, that’s fine, but why do you have to attack others who try to treat the virus? “If I’m wrong, people are still going to die,” asserted Tyson. “But if I’m right, how many thousands of lives would have been saved?”

OP-ED: Cash, COVID, and cover-up, part 4: The virus that didn’t bark


Reported by LEON WOLF and CHRIS PANDOLFO | September 24, 2021 | JOHANNES EISELE / Staff / Xinhua News Agency / Contributor

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/cash-covid-and-coverup-part-4-the-virus-that-didn-t-bark/

Click here for part 1 of this series: Cash, COVID, and cover-up, part 1: The questions we should have asked of Fauci about the origins of COVID-19

Click here for part 2 of this series: Cash, COVID, and cover-up, part 2: The gain-of-function controversy

Click here for part 3 of this series: Cash, COVID, and cover-up, part 3: ‘You will have tasks today that must be done’

In the classic short story “The Adventure of Silver Blaze,” Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once famously had Sherlock Holmes solve a case based on what might be called the absence of a key piece of evidence. And while Holmes’ solution of the case might have been a bit of an unwarranted leap, sometimes the absence of evidence can be quite compelling, especially when it appears that evidence was likely destroyed. If a woman is found dead, and the next day her husband vanishes, leaving behind a house that has been scrubbed floor-to-ceiling with bleach, well … it doesn’t prove he murdered her, but pretty much everyone will have justified suspicions to that effect unless some compelling evidence surfaces to the contrary.

In examining whether the lab-leak theory is true or not, it is difficult to come to a hard and fast conclusion based on scientific evidence; however, that’s not because the science is in some way necessarily unclear. That’s because the Chinese government has gone to extraordinary lengths to destroy evidence and hamper any investigation into what happened at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China.

That transparently obvious effort to cover up the truth is, in and of itself, a compelling piece of evidence.

++++++++++

Many years ago, the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration (INSDC) was created as a collaboration between the National Institutes of Health’s GenBank, the European Nucleotide Archive, and the DNA Databank of Japan. Information on the INSDC is available to the public as one of its foundational principles, which means that any person with access to the internet can find information about genetic sequences that have been uploaded to those databanks. In theory, this means virtually all genetic manipulations that have been the subject of any research project that has been published, since most scientific publications require genetic sequences to be deposited in the INSDC prior to publication.

The INSDC exists for several reasons, but one of the most important reasons is that if, say, an infectious disease pandemic breaks out somewhere in the world, scientists are supposed to be able to compare its genetic sequence to other known genetic sequences in order to quickly pinpoint the potential source of the virus; this information can help develop early treatments.

When the COVID-19 outbreak began, biologists began a similar search and did not find any likely candidates — until, that is, Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Institute of Virology conveniently uploaded the sequence of a virus she called RaTG13 into GenBank on Jan. 23, 2020, shortly after the pandemic entered the public consciousness. RaTG13, as the story went, was collected from a cave in Yunnan province in 2013, and its genetic sequence matched the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 by 96.3% — making it the first plausible natural ancestor to SARS-CoV-2.

The public opponents of the lab-leak theory latched on to RaTG13 as a savior. Here, at last, was a virus that had been found in the wild that was really quite close to SARS-CoV-2. The fact that it was miraculously unearthed just as the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was gaining widespread global public attention in a laboratory that coincidentally was housed in the city where the pandemic began was apparently not a source of concern to these scientists. It was, for example, prominently referenced in what would become the seminal scientific article arguing for a natural origin of the pandemic, “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.”

The immediate question that arises, given this sequence of events, is why, if RaTG13 was collected in May 2013 (as Shi claims), was it not uploaded to GenBank until after a pandemic caused by a virus that was so closely related to it began? Well, that is because China does not participate in the INSDC. The WIV, China’s first biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) facility, decided to keep genetic sequences discovered and/or created in their lab in its own proprietary database.

Implausibly, the United States government appears to have been OK with this arrangement and even approved taxpayer funding of research conducted in China that contained no guarantee that the United States would be provided with the results of that research, including the genetic sequences of viruses being studied.

Allow that to sink in for a moment: Your tax dollars were used to conduct research in a foreign country, with the express understanding that the foreign country was not obligated to even share the results of that research with the United States government, much less its public.

Well, you might be thinking, what’s so bad about allowing the Chinese government to maintain control over its own data? Surely we can just go to the WIV’s database and perform an additional search there?

As you may have already guessed, we cannot. The reason: The Wuhan Institute of Virology took its entire database offline.

When, you might ask, did this event occur? In what is surely merely a spectacular coincidence, the WIV databases were pulled down on Sept. 12, 2019, which is probably a pretty good approximation of the actual date the first human was infected with SARS-CoV-2.

The Chinese government’s official story is that the WIV databases were pulled down because they were under attack by hackers. This might have been a plausible story, had the databases been pulled down after the pandemic became public knowledge and internet sleuths began aggressively investigating the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It is not a plausible story for why the databases had to be pulled down in September 2019, before anyone in the world had even heard of COVID-19 and before there was virtually any internet interest in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

In a separate article published by researchers at the WIV, the WIV further claimed, perhaps by way of explanation as to why the genetic sequence of RaTG13 was unknown to the scientific community prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, that its scientists had never fully sequenced the virus before and only did so after the pandemic began, when they discovered that a “short region of RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) from a bat coronavirus (BatCoV RaTG13) — which was previously detected in Rhinolophus affinis from Yunnan province — showed high sequence identity to 2019-nCoV.” According to the authors of this paper, who again worked at the WIV, at this point they finally “carried out full-length sequencing on this RNA sample,” whereupon it was uploaded to GenBank, thus showing that “the close phylogenetic relationship to RaTG13 provides evidence that 2019-nCoV may have originated in bats.”

Normal people, possessed of even a moderately healthy sense of skepticism, would have looked at this chain of events and concluded that the Chinese government obviously had something to hide. EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak, on the other hand, who would repeatedly lambaste proponents of the lab-leak theory as crackpots and conspiracy theorists, apparently found nothing untoward in what was happening. In a London Times interview, he uncritically repeated Shi’s assertion that RaTG13 had been discovered while Chinese researchers were exploring a cave where six miners had died in a now-abandoned mine in Tongguan, whereupon they threw it in a freezer and forgot about it until 2020.

The “crackpots” and “conspiracy theorists” would soon be vindicated in their suspicions about the miraculous and entirely-too-convenient “discovery” of the supposedly thrown-in-a-freezer-and-forgotten RaTG13.

In the first place, DRASTIC sleuths began to notice that the genetic sequence to RaTG13 shared a curious affinity — a 100% affinity, in fact — with a partially revealed genetic sequence from a virus that was then called BtCOV/4991. DRASTIC members noted that not only were the two viruses genetically identical in the brief strip of BtCOV/4991 that had been published, but also the purported collection details of the virus were exactly the same. Faced with a growing paper trail, Shi would finally publicly admit in July 2020 that they were the same virus.

This admission made the entire purported origin story of RaTG13 a lie.

BtCOV/4991 was not collected and then thrown in a freezer and forgotten. It was, in fact, studied extensively by researchers in China, and its discovery and study was discussed in a 2016 paper published by Shi and her colleagues. It was mentioned again in a separate 2019 paper published by Shi and colleagues. Further, during the course of her admission that BtCOV/4991 and RaTG13 were the same virus, Shi made another startling admission: RaTG13 had, in fact, been fully sequenced in 2018, which indicates clearly that a) not only was RaTG13 not thrown in a freezer and forgotten, it was still being actively researched by the Wuhan Institute of Virology five years after its discovery, and b) it was not, as Shi’s colleagues had claimed, only fully sequenced after the pandemic began.

The official story of RaTG13 — that it was discovered in 2013 and then thrown in a freezer and forgotten until someone finally bothered to sequence it after the outbreak of COVID-19 — had now been exposed thoroughly as a lie, even by the concession of the people who originally made the claim. No one has yet been able to extract an answer from Shi or her colleagues as to why they falsely pretended that the full genetic sequence of RaTG13 was only discovered after the pandemic began, or why they pretended (by omission), for several months, that RaTG13 was a different virus from the BtCOV/4991 virus they had already extensively studied and written about.

Internet sleuths were quick to discover that many of the other claims made by Shi about RaTG13 were, at best, highly suspect. Recall that the specific event that precipitated the search of the Tongguan cave was that six miners who worked in the mine had died of a respiratory illness of uncertain etiology. Shi claimed in a March interview with Scientific American that the Tongguan miners had actually died due to a fungal infection they caught in the mine and that it was mere coincidence that during the exploration of the cave, they found RaTG13 — a clear attempt to downplay the lethality of RaTG13. However, DRASTIC member TheSeeker268 unearthed a master’s thesis by Chinese doctor Dr. Li Xu of Kunming Medical University, which clearly stated that the miner deaths were “caused by SARS-like CoV or bat SARS-like coronavirus that has been isolated from the Chinese rufous horseshoe bat.” The symptoms the miners died of were noted to be “identical to what we now call Covid-19.”

Furthermore, TheSeeker268 unearthed a 2016 thesis “written by Huang Canping, a student of Gao Fu, the current director of China CDC … In addition to what was already known, this document clearly states that WIV had tested the four miners (two had died by then); and all four of them had tested positive for SARS-like antibodies.”

Which raises the obvious question: Why would Shi lie and say that miners who died in the cave where the closest natural ancestor to SARS-CoV-2 was discovered actually died of a fungal infection?

+++++++++++

In addition to scrubbing the record of all genetic sequences researched at the WIV, and in addition to the demonstrably false statements from WIV researchers about their discovery of RaTG13, the Chinese government was working overtime in the early days of the pandemic to ruthlessly suppress any information about the pandemic from reaching the general public.

Dr. Li Wenliang, the ophthalmologist who first brought the attention of public awareness to the emerging pandemic, was pressured and threatened by Chinese authorities to recant his statement that the new coronavirus even existed and was infecting people. Li eventually allegedly caught COVID-19 himself and allegedly died from it in a Chinese hospital, despite his young age (34).

The Chinese government also engaged in a breathtaking campaign of internet and social media censorship designed to squash any internal debate — or even discussion — of the pandemic in China. The government campaign even reached into popular chatting app WeChat and livestreaming platform YY and included a shockingly broad list of terms, including, notably, a number of phrases that referenced the “Wuhan lab.”

These efforts were wrapped into China’s well-documented effort to censor and suppress negative coverage of its response to the pandemic as well — efforts that included the expulsion of American journalists and the disappearing of one of China’s most prominent citizens.

The importance of the disappearance of Ren Zhiqiang cannot be overstated in this story. While most Americans have likely never heard of him, he was, before his untimely disappearance, one of China’s most prominent private citizens, and he was involved in a very public criticism of China’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Imagine if, say, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban suddenly vanished from the face of the earth without a trace during the middle of a Twitter spat with then-President Donald Trump in March 2020, and no government agency seemed particularly interested in finding him, and no one who mattered even asked pointed questions of government officials as to whether they were involved in his departure.

Almost no one believes that Ren is not either dead or imprisoned at the hands of the communist Chinese government at this point, and the Chinese government does not seem particularly interested in combating that perception publicly. Imagine the impression such an event would make upon the average Chinese citizen — or, for that matter, any researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology who might feel tempted to contradict the government line about what happened in that laboratory.

++++++++++++

If the censorship campaign the Chinese government conducted against its own citizens was thorough, it was nothing compared to what the Chinese government would do to the international community. From the onset of the pandemic in early 2020, China lied, hid information, and stonewalled World Health Organization researchers as they attempted to learn about the virus.

Publicly, both sides acted as if everyone was getting along. Chinese authorities told WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in a Jan. 25, 2020 letter they would welcome international experts to China to help “strengthen epidemic prevention and control.” Tedros met with President Xi Jinping in Beijing on Jan. 28 and praised the Chinese for their openness and transparency. In reality, as the Associated Press would report, China frustrated WHO officials by delaying the release of information, and Tedros and others were only lauding China in public “because they wanted to coax more information out of the government.”

In early January, three different Chinese labs had fully decoded the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2, but instead of sharing that information with the world, China sat on it. The virus was first decoded on Jan. 2, but it wasn’t until after the Wall Street Journal reported that Chinese scientists had discovered a new coronavirus on Jan. 8, a week later, that Chinese state media announced the discovery of the new coronavirus. China did not include any information about its genome, diagnostic tests, or detailed patient data that would have given scientists a clue about how infectious the disease was.

There was also a two-week period when Chinese officials censored reports of new infections in Wuhan. Operating under the belief that infections weren’t spreading, Chinese researchers, unaware of the censorship, told WHO officials that the virus didn’t transmit easily between humans. This led the WHO on Jan. 5 to announce that based on preliminary data from China, there was no evidence of significant transmission between humans and no need for travelers to take precautions. Of course, once the genetic sequence of the virus was made public and it turned out the virus was highly contagious, the WHO was made to look “doubly, incredibly stupid” for downplaying the virus, in the words of Dr. Tom Grein, chief of the WHO’s acute events management team.

Meanwhile, people began getting sick with COVID-19 throughout the region. When one woman fell ill in Thailand on Jan. 8, researchers attempted to match the virus to illnesses that had been reported in China, but the Chinese authorities hadn’t yet published the viral sequences. China’s obfuscation of data about COVID-19 prevented countries from taking steps to mitigate spread early in the pandemic, resulting in people getting sick and dying.

The SARS-CoV-2 sequence wasn’t published until Jan. 11, when a team led by Chinese virologist Zhang Yongzhen angered Chinese authorities by uploading the virus to virological.org. The next day, Zhang’s lab was temporarily shut down. But now that the viral sequence was out there, the Chinese CDC, Wuhan Institute of Virology, and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences each published their viral sequences for SARS-CoV-2 to GISAID, a platform for scientists to share data on viruses. The WHO’s first investigative team arrived in Wuhan on Jan. 14. One of the team’s tasks was to visit the Huanan Seafood Market, where scientists believed the virus’ first major outbreak took place, but from the beginning there was uncertainty about where Chinese authorities would allow the researchers to go and who they would be permitted to talk to. China had strongly opposed an independent investigation that it could not fully control, and before the terms of the investigation were agreed to, the WHO complained that China was taking too long to finalize arrangements for the investigators.

But after senior WHO delegation met with Chinese officials in Beijing on Jan. 28, Tedros made no public mention of China’s obstruction in the hope that the Chinese would be more forthcoming in the future. On Jan. 30, the WHO declared the outbreak to be a public health emergency of global concern. In the following months, WHO researchers continued to work with Chinese and on March 11, 2020 WHO declared COVID-19 could be characterized as a pandemic.

In May, the 73rd World Health Assembly charged WHO Director-General Tedros to form an international investigative team “to identify the zoonotic source of the virus and the route of introduction to the human population.” But even the vote on this resolution was delayed as Chinese officials “were negotiating over every comma,” as one former U.S. official described to the Wall Street Journal.

Chinese officials continued to play hardball with the WHO until in July 2020 an agreement was reached for a “terms and references” document that stated the goals of the investigation, was silent on the lab-leak theory, and gave China veto power over who would be on the WHO team.

The WHO investigative commission that eventually formed was fatally flawed by the prominent inclusion of one Peter Daszak in its ranks.

Daszak, by way of reminder, had been literally the global and public ringleader of the group of scientists who had been publicly ridiculing lab-leak theory proponents and attempting to quash public discussion of their theory for over a year. He was also the president of an organization that had for years funneled significant amounts of money to the lab he was purporting to investigate and that had widely publicized its frequent collaboration with that lab — meaning that if the lab-leak theory were true, he would be one of the first people in the public hot seat.

Sending Daszak as part of the team was grossly inappropriate not only because of the obvious conflicts of interest he was subject to, but also because, even in the absence of those conflicts of interests, Daszak had publicly and loudly made up his mind about the subject of the investigation before it even began.

Daszak was, in fact, the only scientist from the United States who was part of the WHO’s investigative team.

However, that did not stop the Chinese from stonewalling anyway. On Jan. 5 2021, some members of the Team began their journey to China, only for Chinese officials to deny the WHO team entry into the country for several days until Jan. 14.

After two weeks of quarantine, the WHO investigation proceeded under severe restrictions. According to the Wall Street Journal, the team was restricted to one part of their hotel by quarantine rules, forced to eat separately from their Chinese partners, and had limited contact with anyone outside the team. They proceeded to take a propaganda tour visiting the hospital where Beijing claims the first COVID-19 case was officially reported, another hospital where they visited an exhibition commemorating President Xi’s leadership, and cold-storage facilities at the Huanan market where Chinese officials claim the virus entered China from abroad.

Accounts from team members reported by the Journal indicate Chinese authorities refused to share raw data with the investigators, instead handing over their own data analysis. Even the team’s visit to the Wuhan Institute of Virology was limited to only three hours.

Nevertheless, the WHO released a report in February 2021 that determined it was “extremely unlikely” that COVID-19 leaked from a lab, determining instead that the most likely origin of the virus was a zoonotic event — a bat virus transmitting to another animal carrier and then leaping to humans sometime toward the end of 2019. Part of the investigation included inspecting the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s lab, under Chinese supervision, and WHO team leader Peter Ben Embarek said that the safety protocols at the lab led them to conclude “it was very unlikely that anything could escape from such a place.”

But the WHO investigation has since been highly criticized. On March 2, 2021, two dozen experts, including virologists, signed an open letter that called for a new international investigation on the origins of COVID-19. They said that the WHO did not have the independence or access “to carry out a full and unrestricted investigation” into the lab-leak theory. During a “60 Minutes” interview in March, Jamie Metzl, an advisory board member for WHO and one of the letter’s signatories, said the WHO team “didn’t demand access to the records and samples and key personnel” while they visited the Wuhan Institute of Virology. He blamed China for denying the investigators access to those materials. Metzl further said that the WHO agreed to let China do the “primary investigation” into the origins of the virus and then share its findings with the team.

Daszak’s inclusion on the team, in particular, led to entirely predictable results.

Speaking to “60 Minutes,” Daszak more or less confirmed that the WHO team’s investigative process, when it came to the Wuhan lab, was to just ask the lab staff questions and take their answers at face value.

“We met with them,” Daszak told Lesley Stahl. “We said, ‘Do you audit the lab?’ And they said, ‘Annually.’ ‘Did it you audit it after the outbreak?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Was anything found?’ ‘No.’ ‘Do you test your staff?’ ‘Yes.’ No one was —”

“But you’re just taking their word for it,” interjected Stahl.

“Well, what else can we do?” Daszak replied.

Incredibly, he argued that the answers the WHO team received from China were “correct and convincing,” even though Chinese authorities had demonstrably worked to suppress information about the virus.

When Stahl pointed out how China had “engaged in a cover-up,” Daszak was dismissive.

“Well, that wasn’t our task to find out if China had covered up the origin issue,” he said.

That jaw-dropping assertion was certainly a surprise to the rest of the world, which was told by the WHO that that was exactly what the purpose of their investigation was, and to Daszak’s fellow investigators, who were charged with going to China to “better understand the origins of the virus,” according to the terms of the report they prepared.

Only someone as thoroughly dedicated to the proposition that there was no chance China could have been in any way dishonest as Daszak could have concluded from such a charge that actually checking out any of the statements made by Chinese scientists was not part of the scope of work. It was as if, seeking to investigate the disappearances of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, the WHO had sent a spokesperson for O.J. Simpson as their lead investigator and was surprised to learn that he didn’t feel like it was his job to question O.J.’s denials.

Governments weren’t happy either. In a joint statement, the United States and 13 other countries raised concerns that China had refused to provide investigators with “complete, original data and samples. Additionally, in apparent contradiction of his own organization’s findings, WHO Director-General Tedros acknowledged on March 30 that “all hypotheses remain on the table,” as to the origins of the virus.

In remarks to WHO member states, Tedros said, “Further data and studies will be needed to reach more robust conclusions.” He called on China to be more forthcoming with data in the future.

China reacted by denying that it hid data from WHO investigators. It accused the West of politicizing the report. At the same time, the Chinese government has shared disinformation and conspiracy theories about COVID-19 being engineered as a bioweapon in the U.S. and brought to China by the U.S. military.

In July 2021, China rejected WHO requests for a renewed investigation in China, asserting that such investigations should be conducted elsewhere. Chinese authorities have also deflected responsibility for COVID-19 by claiming the virus was brought to China via frozen food packaging.

On July 22, Vice Health Minister of the National Health Commission Zeng Yixin slammed the door shut on a second investigation by denouncing the WHO’s request as “arrogant” and “shocking.”

“In some aspects, the WHO’s plan for next phase of investigation of the coronavirus origin doesn’t respect common sense, and it’s against science. It’s impossible for us to accept such a plan,” said Yixin.

With official investigations now thoroughly blocked by China, independent investigations have proceeded but with extremely limited success. The medical journal The Lancet established an international task force to investigate the origins and spread of COVID-19 in November 2020. But the task force was led by Daszak, who in June 2021 was forced to recuse himself after his connections to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and potential conflicts of interest became widespread knowledge.

In June 2021, an American scientist discovered evidence that Chinese researchers deleted SARS-CoV-2 viral sequences from the National Institutes of Health’s Sequence Read Archive (SRA). NIH later confirmed that after Chinese scientists submitted the data in March 2020, they were “requested to be withdrawn” three months later in June. On July 5, 2021, the missing viral sequences reappeared in a database controlled by Chinese authorities. Chinese authorities claimed that the viral sequences were removed and later reuploaded elsewhere to correct a copy-editing error.

The Chinese researchers have not explained why they didn’t mention the copy-editing error when they requested that the NIH take down their sequences, nor why they waited for a year before uploading them to another database. The bottom line, as this episode demonstrated, is that any investigation into COVID-19’s origins remains at the mercy of China’s willingness to be open and transparent — which they are not.

+++++++

What, then, are we to make of the actual scientific evidence about what the virus looks like?

In the absence of being able to access honest records at the WIV, which will likely never happen, or thoroughly examine its lab personnel, which will also likely never happen, the honest answer is: not much.

Scientific opponents of the lab-leak theory have expended a tremendous amount of energy arguing that the genetic features of the virus are consistent with natural evolutionary mutations and that there are no sequences that evince evidence of being an obvious man-made creation. We cannot cast doubt on the veracity of those conclusions, but they are, essentially an argument against a straw man. Very few people have suggested that the virus was specifically engineered as a bioweapon, and even if it was engineered as a bioweapon, surely the Chinese would have taken care to make it look natural.

It ignores, furthermore, two facts that are central to the discussion of this issue.

First, the work undertaken at the WIV (that we know about) specifically involved the creation of chimeric viruses that were intended to mimic possible evolutionary processes. Recall what the ostensible purpose of gain-of-function research is, which is to develop treatments and/or vaccines for viruses that might occur naturally.

Members of the media, who relied on the group of scientists who confidently declared the lab-leak theory a baseless conspiracy theory (most of whom have now backtracked) have assumed that scientists are somehow able to determine that a virus is engineered merely by looking at its genetic structure, as if the process of creating a chimeric virus leaves behind some irrefutable fingerprint, and that in the absence of such a fingerprint, a virus is obviously naturally occurring. That is not how it works.

Although it would certainly be possible to engineer a virus that has characteristics that would be obviously artificial, It is also entirely possible — in fact, it is what people like Ralph Baric have spent the entirety of their professional lives learning to do — to artificially engineer a virus that looks for all the world like a virus that might have evolved naturally. Recall that a central purpose of the gain-of-function research community is to develop vaccines and/or treatments for diseases that don’t yet exist but have a reasonable probability of someday existing in the future. One does not accomplish such a goal by generating viruses that could not possibly be produced by natural evolution.

Every virus created by Shi or Baric in a lab is one that, if you didn’t have access to a research paper telling you they created it, you would look at and say, “Well, this looks like a virus that might have arisen through natural evolutionary processes.” That is the entire point of what these researchers were doing. So pointing out that the viruses don’t look obviously artificial, as has repeatedly been done, is no answer at all, and anyone who confidently tells you that they can tell a virus wasn’t engineered just by looking at it is selling something. We have no way of knowing, as just one example, that RaTG13 itself was not engineered, except to take Shi’s word for it about where she found it. We can’t even verify that it hasn’t been substantially modified since she found it, since the genetic records have been intentionally erased.

One thing that would help us definitively rule out the possibility of a lab leak would be the discovery of an intermediate host, either animal or human, but no such host has yet come forward. These hosts have been found with other respiratory outbreaks, but none have yet come forth for SARS-CoV-2, in spite of the fact that Chinese researchers have, as previously noted, been assiduously collecting and cataloguing samples from bats for years.

The initial prime suspect for intermediate host was the poor pangolin, a kind of anteater that is found in China, based upon the fact that the receptor binding motif (RBM) of SARS-CoV-2 bears striking similarities to SARS strains that have been found in pangolins. Additionally, pangolins were found to be infected with other coronaviruses that were reasonably similar to SARS-CoV-2; however, no pangolins have yet been found to be infected with a virus that could plausibly serve as the actual ancestor to SARS-CoV-2, even though early papers touting a natural origin for the virus heavily promoted the theory that pangolins had served as an intermediate host for the virus between bats and humans.

It also might have helped shed light on the situation if researchers had been permitted to investigate laboratory staff early on in the pandemic, but the Chinese government refused.

The fact of the matter is, as an international group of respected scientists recently wrote in The Lancet, “There is so far no scientifically validated evidence that directly supports a natural origin.”

These scientists challenged the arguments put forward in the “Proximal Origins” letter and elsewhere that ruled out the possibility of the lab-leak theory by showing how proponents of the natural origins explanation fell for a logical fallacy (edited for readability):

The question of the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2—ie, the final virus and host before passage to humans—was expressly addressed in only one highly cited opinion piece, which supports the natural origin hypothesis, but suffers from a logical fallacy: it opposes two hypotheses—laboratory engineering versus zoonosis—wrongly implying that there are no other possible scenarios.

The article then provides arguments against the laboratory engineering hypothesis, which are not conclusive for the following reasons. First, it assumes that the optimisation of the receptor binding domain for human ACE2 requires prior knowledge of the adaptive mutations, whereas selection in cell culture or animal models would lead to the same effect. Second, the absence of traces of reverse-engineering systems does not preclude genome editing, which is performed with so-called seamless techniques.

Finally, the absence of a previously known backbone is not a proof, since researchers can work for several years on viruses before publishing their full genome (this was the case for RaTG13, the closest known virus, which was collected in 2013 and published in 2020).

Based on these indirect and questionable arguments, the authors conclude in favour of a natural proximal origin. In the last part of the article, they briefly evoke selection during passage (ie, experiments aiming to test the capacity of a virus to infect cell cultures or model animals) and acknowledge the documented cases of laboratory escapes of SARS-CoV, but they dismiss this scenario, based on the argument that the strong similarity between receptor binding domains of SARS-CoV-2 and pangolins provides a more parsimonious explanation of the specific mutations. However, the pangolin hypothesis has since been abandoned so the whole reasoning should be re-evaluated.

The main point they advance in their letter is that both the lab-leak and natural origins hypotheses remain viable, because we don’t have all the evidence, and both should be encouraged as a matter of open and honest public debate.

All that having been said, there are features of SARS-CoV-2 that are, in fact, similar to chimeric viruses that have been created in a lab. DRASTIC member Yuri Deigin catalogued some of those similarities at great length in a fascinating Medium post in April 2020. Specifically, Deigin noted that the virus looked like a virus that was “based on the ancestral bat strain RaTG13, in which the receptor binding motif (RBM) in its spike protein is replaced by the RBM from a pangolin strain, and in addition, a small but very special stretch of 4 amino acids is inserted, which creates a furin cleavage site that, as virologists have previously established, significantly expands the “repertoire” of the virus in terms of whose cells it can penetrate.”

Deigin, whose work is worth reading in full, was careful to emphasize that such a chimeric mutation could have occurred in nature. However, creating just such a kind of virus was also consistent with the exact sort of work Shi, with the help of Baric, had performed in the past:

Indeed, virologists, including the leader of coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Shi Zhengli, have done many similar things in the past — both replacing the RBM in one type of virus by an RBM from another, or adding a new furin site that can provide a species-specific coronavirus with an ability to start using the same receptor (e.g. ACE2) in other species. In fact, Shi Zhengli’s group was creating chimeric constructs as far back as 2007 and as recently as 2017, when they created a whole of 8 new chimeric coronaviruses with various RBMs. In 2019 such work was in full swing, as WIV was part of a $3.7 million NIH grant titled Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence. Under its auspices, Shi Zhengli co-authored a 2019 paper that called for continued research into synthetic viruses and testing them in vitro and in vivo.

Further information that has come to light since Deigin’s work has further solidified the fact that Shi, with the help of Daszak, Baric, and others, were seeking funding for the creation of a chimeric bat coronavirus that would behave in ways eerily similar to SARS-CoV-2. As we have reported previously, in 2018, Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance sought $14 million in funding from DARPA for a collaborative project between Baric, Shi, and others that would “synthesize spike glycoproteins which bind to human cell receptors and insert them into SARSr-CoV backbones to assess whether they can cause SARS-like disease.”

Even more specifically, the project’s goal stated that it intended to release “enhanced airborne coronaviruses” into Chinese bat populations in order to inoculate them against diseases that could spread to humans. Although DARPA ultimately refused to fund the proposed Daszak project, deeming it too risky, neither Daszak nor Baric returned a request for comment as to whether the research continued with alternate funding. Certainly, there is no way to determine whether Shi and her fellow WIV researchers undertook the project on their own and simply used funding from the Chinese government to do so. If they had, the end result of such a project would have looked a lot like SARS-CoV-2.

At the end of the day, it may now be impossible to scientifically prove the truth or falsity of the lab-leak theory. But that isn’t by accident: It’s because the Chinese government undertook an extensive, obvious, and thorough effort to destroy and restrict access to evidence that was necessary to conduct a full and thorough investigation. The conclusion you draw from that is, of course, up to you.

And if it is impossible to tell with any certainty now that the virus didn’t escape from the WIV, it was definitely impossible to rule the possibility out with certainty in the early months of 2020.

Which raises the somewhat important question: Why did scientists like Peter Daszak, et al., pretend that it was?

Editor’s note: This article was updated on Sept. 27, 2021 with additional information about the WHO joint investigative team.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Now that vaccinated people need the monoclonal treatments, Biden admin and media attack the treatment


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | September 20, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-now-that-vaccinated-people-need-the-monoclonal-treatments-biden-admin-and-media-attack-the-treatment/

For those of you who couldn’t believe that the government’s war on ivermectin and every other treatment was rooted in a sinister motivation, its new attack on the monoclonal antibodies should indelibly cement the terrifying thought in your mind. The government and the media are now using the same attack pattern on the monoclonal antibody treatment that they used on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin now that it has become popular with people desperate for treatment – vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.

On Sept. 14, the Biden administration announced that the feds would be cutting the number of monoclonal treatments per week in the southern states and reallocating them as part of a broader plan to start rationing the treatments. For example, in Florida, HHS issued an allocation for the week of Sept. 13 of 3,100 doses of BAM/ETE treatments and 27,850 doses of REGN-COV. As Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said in a press conference last week, this would effectively reduce Florida’s allocation by 50%. The federal agency did this without any warning or indication that there was a shortage.

Then, last Thursday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki explained the move as follows“Our supply is not unlimited and we believe it should be equitable.” HHS then followed up with an explanation of the policy of “equity.”

But wouldn’t you focus on where it’s needed at a given time rather than blind “equity”? Also, Biden promised just days earlier during the announcement of his vaccine mandate to boost monoclonal distribution by 50%.

Well, here is the answer to the enigma: In that same announcement, Biden warned, “If these governors won’t help us beat the pandemic, I’ll use my power as president to get them out of the way.” Is the federal takeover of the monoclonals his ace in the hole? And why wouldn’t the government just produce more? We have spent trillions of dollars on welfare, shutdowns, and vaccines that failed so miserably that people who already got the shots still need the monoclonals! So why not put the funding into the monoclonals?

Well, if you are trying to ascertain the motivation of government always watch carefully for its stenographers in the media to follow up with the psy-ops on the general public, which will reveal the true messaging. Once you read this New York Times article, you will see clearly that this is really not about “equity” or some concern over supply. In an article titled, “They shunned COVID vaccines but embraced antibody treatments,” the NYT essentially frames the monoclonals as some right-wing solution that is only for those who didn’t want to get the vaccine.

Some Republican governors have set up antibody clinics while opposing vaccine mandates, frustrating even some of the drugs’ strongest proponents. Raising vaccination rates, scientists said, would obviate the need for many of the costly antibody treatments in the first place. The infusions take about an hour and a half, including monitoring afterward, and require constant attention from nurses whom hard-hit states often cannot spare.”It’s clogging up resources, it’s hard to give, and a vaccine is $20 and could prevent almost all of that,” said Dr. Christian Ramers, an infectious disease specialist and the chief of population health at Family Health Centers of San Diego, a community-based provider. Pushing antibodies while playing down vaccines, he said, was “like investing in car insurance without investing in brakes.”

Except it’s simply not true. The vaccines are no longer working, especially for those who got them early on — particularly the elderly — and many of the people who got them badly need treatment. As Gov. DeSantis reported, the majority of those seeking monoclonals are vaccinated, a fact I have verified in the facility closest to me in Baltimore. Here are the statistics the Florida government publicized at last week’s press conference:

At our Broward site, 52% of the patients that have received treatment have been vaccinated, 69% of those over 60 that have received treatment at the Broward site had been vaccinated. In Miami Dade almost 60% of everybody that’s been treated at the Tropical Park site has been vaccinated. And 73% of the patients treated at the state site in Tropical Park that are over the age of 60 have been vaccinated.

So again, it’s the exact opposite of what the media and the Biden administration are saying. The vaccines cost a fortune and failed. Now these same people need treatment. The same government officials rationing the monoclonals have already scared 99% of doctors away from prescribing and pharmacists from filling cheap off-patent drugs that have cured the few people who can access them. The monoclonals are made by the cool kids at big pharma and are approved by the government. Except our government paid them off up front and then refused to even make the public aware of their existence. Thus, even things produced by big pharma are now attacked, so long as they actually work and people begin successfully using them.

It’s so cute to watch the government and media suddenly become concerned about expensive treatments after spending billions on the vaccines. There is a simple solution, and that would be mass production of ivermectin and encouraging all physicians to treat everyone early with it and other cheap drugs. But now that the government has essentially banned them, the monoclonals are the only show in town. This is where the Biden administration wants to place Americans they don’t like into a death trap.

Texas Montgomery County Judge Mark Keough warned that this is not about a lack of supply. “The manufacturer has confirmed supplies are ample but due to the Defense Production Act, the White House and its agencies are the only entities who can purchase and distribute this treatment,” wrote Keough on Facebook.

With the war on any and all forms of early treatment, ask yourself this question: Does our government really want the pandemic to end?

NCAA Athlete Hit with Severe Heart Complication After COVID Vaccine, Warns Against Vax Mandates


Reported By Grant Atkinson  September 15, 2021

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/watch-ncaa-athlete-hit-severe-heart-complication-covid-vaccine-warns-vax-mandates/

On Aug. 31, 2021, John Stokes was preparing for his senior season playing Division 1 NCAA golf at Tennessee State University. By Sept. 6, the 21-year-old was hospitalized with heart complications. What changed during the span of those four days? According to Stokes, he received the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.

“I am a Division 1 student-athlete with no prior health issues, and I got the second COVID shot Tuesday [on Aug. 31],” he said in a now-viral TikTok video. “And within four days, I have been diagnosed with myocarditis and was told that I probably won’t be able to play my senior season now.”

According to his profile on Tennessee State’s website, Stokes was set to begin his second and final season with the program. His newly developed heart condition is putting his ability to play in jeopardy.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines myocarditis as “inflammation of the heart muscle,” and the agency says it can be caused by an immune system response to some trigger, such as an infection. The CDC has admitted myocarditis, along with an “inflammation of the outer lining of the heart” known as pericarditis, has been reported after mRNA COVID vaccines.

The agency even went as far as to say that these side effects are most common in adolescent or young adult males after receiving the second vaccine dose from either Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna. Yet the CDC continues to push the vaccine even on this specific group.

“CDC continues to recommend that everyone aged 12 years and older get vaccinated for COVID-19,” the agency says on its website.

“The known risks of COVID-19 illness and its related, possibly severe complications, such as long-term health problems, hospitalization, and even death, far outweigh the potential risks of having a rare adverse reaction to vaccination, including the possible risk of myocarditis or pericarditis.”

A simple study of the numbers will prove that this theory is questionable, at best. According to Statista, there had been 3,043 COVID-19 deaths among Americans aged 18-29 as of Sept. 8, 2021. In another chart, Statista reported 7,148,719 COVID-19 cases among Americans aged 18-29. That means that if you get COVID-19 between the ages of 18-29, you have approximately a .04 percent chance of dying from the virus.

In addition, that only takes into account known positive cases of COVID-19. It does not include unreported cases, nor does it include Americans aged 18-29 who never even get COVID-19. Suffice to say, the chances of 18 to 29-year-old Americans dying from COVID-19 are very slim.

While cases of myocarditis and pericarditis as a result of the vaccine are admittedly rare, they are at least a possibility. Many 18 to 29-year-olds are not willing to take that risk to protect themselves from a virus that has an extremely low chance of killing them. Even if you feel that 18 to 29-year-olds should be vaccinated, you should at least be able to see the problem with mandating a vaccine that has some potential to cause heart inflammation. The CDC’s argument that the risks of COVID-19 outweigh the risks of the vaccine is a choice that Americans should make for themselves, not one that the government gets to decide for them.

“It isn’t right for people to be forced to take the vaccine because there are actual side effects like this that could happen to you,” Stokes said. “Everyone should be informed of the side effects, and no one should be forced to take something that could cause what has happened to me.”

While the CDC says the possible long-term effects from COVID-19 are a reason to get the vaccine, Stokes said the possible long-term effects from the vaccine itself are unknown.

“No one knows the long-term effects of what’s possibly going to happen from this,” he said. “It’s kind of uncharted territory because everyone else with the same heart issues from the vaccine as me, we’re all being tracked and monitored.’

“We’re basically like test subjects from the vaccine, so it’s a very serious issue that really needs to be spread.”

Just as living unvaccinated could present a higher risk of getting COVID-19, receiving the vaccine presents its own risks. The choice of which risk to take has always been and must remain a personal one.

Grant Atkinson, Editorial Intern

Grant is a graduate of Virginia Tech with a bachelor’s degree in journalism. He has five years of writing experience with various outlets and enjoys covering politics and sports.

Scoop: HHS is reviewing all doctors’ orders for monoclonal antibodies. Rep. Chip Roy wants to know why.


Reported by CHRIS PANDOLFO | September 13, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/scoop-hhs-is-reviewing-all-doctors-orders-for-monoclonal-antibodies-rep-chip-roy-wants-to-know-why-2655014134.html/

A Republican lawmaker is demanding to know why the Biden administration appears to be limiting the ability of doctors to order early treatment medications for COVID-19 patients. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) on Monday sent a letter to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra inquiring about a recent change in HHS policy that limits orders and shipments of monoclonal antibody treatments to HHS-approved administration sites.

“As you know, antibody treatments such as bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab/etesevimab, and casirivimab/imdevimab were approved under Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) and have been shown to be effective in treating COVID-19 patients,” Roy wrote to Becerra.

“Providers across the country, including providers in Texas, have utilized these treatments, aiding in effective treatment of COVID-19 patients. Unfortunately, numerous doctors and healthcare professionals who serve COVID-19 patients are reportedly being denied or limited orders for these treatments by HHS,” he wrote.

Monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy is a treatment for COVID-19 that studies have shown is effective at reducing the risk of hospitalization and death for patients with mild to moderate illness who receive early treatment. The Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency use authorization for mAb therapies to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults and children older than 12, and the treatment has been promoted across the ideological spectrum by figures like Dr. Anthony Fauci and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

On Sept. 3, HHS announced that because of a “substantial surge” in the demand for and use of mAb treatments, the federal government would make changes to “help promote optimal and equitable use of the available supply of monoclonal antibodies.”

HHS acted to temporarily limit immediate orders and shipment of mAb treatments “only to administration sites with HHS Protect accounts and current utilization reporting.” The agency also announced that it would review “all orders” by doctors for “alignment with utilization.”

Roy wrote that these changes appear “appeared to have an immediate effect on the ability to expeditiously care for and treat COVID-19 patients.”

Roy’s letter asks the department to clarify whether there is a current or expected shortage of monoclonal antibody treatments in the U.S. noting that HHS said the change was “temporary,” Roy also asked, “When does HHS plan to revert to normal procedures for ordering these antibody treatments?”

In a statement to TheBlaze, Roy slammed the Biden administration for “impeding on providers’ ability to best serve their patients.”

“The last thing HHS should be doing is impeding on providers’ ability to best serve their patients, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Roy. “This recent HHS order will further prevent doctors from being able to treat their patients and prevent their patients from receiving the care they need when they need it. The federal government should not be in the business of dictating healthcare; the American people deserve answers on why and under which authority HHS made this decision.”

Read the letter:

Roy Letter to Becerra – Antibody Treatment 9.13.21.pdf

Mom ‘furious’ after teacher taped masks to multiple 4th-grade students’ faces: Report


Reported by PHIL SHIVER | September 06, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/mom-furious-after-teacher-taped-masks-to-multiple-4th-grade-students-faces-report-2654920627.html/

The mother of a fourth-grade student in Las Vegas, Nevada is fuming after a substitute teacher reportedly taped a mask to her son’s face after he mistakenly took it off during class.

The mother, who wished not to be identified, spoke at length about the alleged incident in an interview with KVVU-TV over the weekend. She has since filed a police report and is calling for the teacher’s resignation.

“I was furious, furious. I was scared for my son on what kind of long-term effect it is going to have on him socially, the fact that the entire class was laughing,” the mother said, noting that her 9-year-old son’s failure to wear the mask properly was just an honest mistake.

“He went to get a sip of water, forgot to put the mask on,” she said.

But rather than reminding him to put the mask back on or even sending him to the principal’s office, the teacher allegedly dragged him in front of the whole class and then applied the tape.

“The teacher did not tell him to put it back on or send him to the office, she instead pulled him up in front of the classroom in front of all of the students and she then taped the mask across the top of his face,” the mother continued, adding that the teacher applied a second layer of tape from his nose to his forehead.

With the tape still on his face, her son was then allegedly sent to the office to pick up homework. While he was there, an alarmed administrator took notice, prompting the school’s principal to go to the classroom and investigate. When the principal arrived, she reportedly discovered another student with tape on their face.

The mother told KVVU that her son said the face mask taping has gone on regularly since the beginning of the semester and that at least 5 other students have experienced it.

In a statement to the news outlet, Clark County School District said: “The district is aware of the isolated incident and is dealing with the employee through the proper channels. The principal proactively notified the family of the investigation.”

CCSD has a mask mandate in place for the 2021-2022 school year that requires all students over the age of 2 to wear face masks while indoors and on school buses, regardless of vaccination status.

The mother insisted she didn’t mind the mandate but argued young students should be given grace and not be publicly embarrassed for forgetting to wear masks.

“It’s crazy,” she complained, adding, “Corporal punishment in schools should not be happening.”

She is now reportedly considering moving her son to a different public school, or potentially a charter school.

Hospital debunks story that claimed ‘gunshot victims left waiting’ because of ivermectin overdoses


Reported by CHRIS ENLOE | September 05, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/hospital-debunks-ivermectin-overdose-story/

An Oklahoma hospital corrected the record Saturday after the mainstream media pushed a false story claiming “gunshot victims” had been turned away after experiencing a surge of patients who purportedly overdosed on ivermectin.

Rolling Stone published a headline that said, “Gunshot Victims Left Waiting as Horse Dewormer Overdoses Overwhelm Oklahoma Hospitals, Doctor Says.”

The story was built on a single interview that Oklahoma-based physician Dr. Jason McElyea gave to KFOR-TV. In that interview, McElyea claimed “the [emergency rooms] are so backed up that gunshot victims were having hard times getting to facilities where they can get definitive care and be treated” because people with COVID-19 are allegedly overdosing on ivermectin. The claim was widely circulated by Democrats and the mainstream media, including the New York Times (which linked to KFOR’s story), The HillNewsweekThe GuardianInsider, and even MSNBC host Rachel Maddow.

The hospital that KFOR stated McElyea was associated with — Northeastern Health System – Sequoyah — released a statement Saturday revealing that McElyea is “not an employee” there, and explained the hospital has not experienced a single case of ivermectin overdose.

Although Dr. Jason McElyea is not an employee of NHS Sequoyah, he is affiliated with a medical staffing group that provides coverage for our emergency room. With that said, Dr. McElyea has not worked at our Sallisaw location in over 2 months.

NHS Sequoyah has not treated any patients due to complications related to taking ivermectin. This includes not treating any patients for ivermectin overdose.

All patients who have visited our emergency room have received medical attention as appropriate. Our hospital has not had to turn away any patients seeking emergency care. We want to reassure our community that our staff is working hard to provide quality healthcare to all patients. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this issue and as always, we value our community’s support.

In an interview with KXMX-FM, hospital administrator Stephanie Six reaffirmed what the statement said.

“We at NHS-Sequoyah have not seen or had any patients in our ER or hospital with ivermectin overdose,” Six said. “We have not had any patients with complaints or issues related to ivermectin.”

“I can’t speak for what he has witnessed at other facilities but this in not true for ours,” she explained. “We certainly have not turned any patients away due to an overload of ivermectin related cases. All patients who have come into our ER have been treated as appropriate.”

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: CDC endorsed use of ivermectin … for Afghan refugees!


Commentator DANIEL HOROWITZ | September 03, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-cdc-endorsed-use-of-ivermectin-for-afghan-refugees/

“I have long been convinced that Nature has all the solutions we need to solve our past … that will be the primary source of the treasures and solutions that we seek.” ~Professor Satashi Omura, Nobel co-laureate for the discovery of ivermectin

Looking at 2019 CDC guidance, one has to wonder if one of the reasons why there is such a run on ivermectin is because our own government is using it. And no, not for horses, but for refugees. Yet these same government agencies are running a blood libel-style smear campaign against the drug and its users by misleading people into conflating it with a veterinarian version of the drug, leading many people to think it’s some sort of poison for humans. In the process, they are leaving thousands of COVID patients without any other options for treatment.

It’s not clear whether the hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees will be forced to get vaccinated like American international travelers, but one thing is clear: They will likely get the ivermectin that most Americans can no longer access. It turns out that in 2019, the CDC issued guidance for refugees from Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East to be given ivermectin pre-emptively for potential infections.

The CDC advises the International Organization for Migration (IOM) physicians who screen the refugees for departure, and U.S. doctors who treat them upon arrival, to prescribe “all Middle Eastern, Asian, North African, Latin American, and Caribbean refugees” with ivermectin and albendazole.

To the extent the government even screens refugees for COVID, will officials suspend ivermectin treatment for a refugee who has COVID alongside a parasitic infection? After all, we are told that somehow one of the safest drugs in the history of humanity suddenly turns unsafe if you want to use it for another ailment. Or perhaps Americans can self-identify as refugees and then obtain prescriptions for this lifesaving drug. The question now is whether the rest of the media that ignored ivermectin’s success for 17 months will continue to call the drug a “horse dewormer” even as it’s administered to Afghan refugees.

The revelation of this CDC guidance demonstrates that ivermectin is not some obscure drug, much less an animal drug that was used one time for humans in Africa many years ago. The agency feels it is needed today in most parts of the world. To suggest that it is not safe is a scandalous lie. Perhaps doctors will have to start punching in the prescription code for abortion or suggest it’s for an Afghan refugee in order to get the prescription filled:

In reality, anyone who thinks that somehow one of the safest and most successful drugs of all time cannot work for other ailments is woefully uninformed. I trust Professor Omura, the man who won the Nobel Prize for developing ivermectin for Merck, over the company itself, which now stands to benefit from an expensive drug it is developing, with which the cheap ivermectin, which is off patent, would interfere.

In March, Omura wrote in the Japanese Journal of Antibiotics that he hopes “ivermectin will be utilized as a countermeasure for COVID-19 as soon as possible.” Ten years ago, Omura observed: “Ivermectin has continually proved to be astonishingly safe for human use. Indeed, it is such a safe drug, with minimal side effects, that it can be administered by non-medical staff and even illiterate individuals in remote rural communities, provided that they have had some very basic, appropriate training.”

Any sampling of the internet will reveal a unique degree of reverence for this drug among all of the (pre-political) literature on ivermectin. For example, in 2017, Nature’s Journal of Antibiotics observed the following about the fact that ivermectin held promise outside use just as an-antiparasitic agent:

Today, ivermectin is continuing to surprise and excite scientists, offering more and more promise to help improve global public health by treating a diverse range of diseases, with its unexpected potential as an antibacterial, antiviral and anti-cancer agent being particularly extraordinary. …

Moreover, whereas ivermectin-resistant parasites swiftly appeared in treated animals, as well as in ectoparasites, such as copepods parasitizing salmon in fish farms, somewhat bizarrely and almost uniquely, no confirmed drug resistance appears to have arisen in parasites in human populations, even in those that have been taking ivermectin as a monotherapy for over 30 years.

As for the drug’s exact mechanism of action against COVID, Dr. Ryan Cole, a brilliant Mayo Clinic-trained pathologist, listed eight different mechanisms in an exclusive interview with TheBlaze:

1. Inhibits binding at ACE2 and TMPRSS2, keeping the virus from entering our cells.

2. Blocks alpha/beta importin (the virus cell taxi), keeping it from getting to the nucleus.

3. Blocks the viral replicase zipper (RdRp).

4. 3-Chimotrypsin protease inhibition (keeps the virus from assembling).

5. Ivermectin strengthens our natural antiviral cell activity by increasing our natural interferon production (this counters SARSCOV2 activity, which inhibits cellular interferon).

6. Decreases IL-6 and other inflammatory cytokines through NF Kappa Beta downregulation, taking the patient from a cytokine storm to calm.

7. Binds NSP14, necessary for viral replication, and blocks it (equals less virus).

8. Most important mechanism is inhibiting binding to CD147 receptor on red cells, platelets, lung, and blood cell lining. Ivermectin keeps the virus from binding here and decreases deadly clotting.

For those who want a more detailed explanation of each of these mechanisms, Dr. Cole has provided me with important links and videos, which I posted together in this twitter thread:

So, the next time you hear any media figures refer to ivermectin as an animal medicine, just remember that they are regarding people from three continents as something less than human. And now, they are treating every American – increasingly those who are also vaccinated – as subhuman beings who don’t deserve any treatment until it is too late.

Cash, COVID, and cover-up, part 2: The gain-of-function controversy


Reported by LEON WOLF, and, CHRIS PANDOLFO | September 01, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/cash-covid-and-cover-up-part-2-the-gain-of-function-controversy/

It is not accurate to say that Dr. Anthony Fauci has never faced tough or aggressive questioning during this pandemic. Although he has largely been fêted uncritically by the legacy media, he has on occasion faced tough or aggressive questioning when, for instance, he has been called to testify before angry Republican members of Congress, and in occasional interviews, he has been confronted regarding public health experts’ flip-flopping on the desirability of wearing face masks. And Fauci is certainly aware of criticism that has been raised against him online, because he often responds to it (albeit usually in friendly forums).

In all the times, however, that Fauci has been publicly questioned or doubted, he has kept his cool. At most, he has slightly raised his voice and spoken insistently, but he has generally not allowed his temper to show.about:blank

Except once.

On that one occasion, Fauci was testifying before a Senate Health Committee hearing, and his one singular explosion came in response to a question posited to him by Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky:

The specific suggestion that finally sent Fauci over the top was the idea that gain-of-function research, which was funded by the NIH, may have caused the pandemic. While the exchange was briefly noted on social media because of the unusual fervor of Dr. Fauci’s response, it largely passed beneath the waves of public attention. That is because, until very recently, almost no one outside the scientific community understood what gain-of-function research is or why it matters.about:blank

+++++++++

As the testy exchange between Fauci and Paul suggests, Fauci and his agency have engaged in some extremely fine hair-splitting about what, exactly, constitutes gain-of-function research. In bureaucrat-ese, it is entirely possible that Fauci believed he was answering Paul’s question truthfully because of some obscure distinction that would be lost on the average person.

For the purposes of this article, we will use Dr. Paul’s definition, which is the definition the ordinary person would attach to it: namely, any research that intentionally makes viruses more transmissible among mammals, and particularly among humans.

The ordinary person, for that matter, would likely be shocked that this kind of research has been going on at all. Probably, the ordinary person would be horrified to learn that for years, scientists have been monkeying around with deadly viruses that exist in nature for the express purpose of making them capable of infecting human cells. Scientists, however, have claimed that such research is necessary to allow them to develop treatments and preventive vaccines for these viruses, assuming that some of them will inevitably make the evolutionary jump to become transmissible among humans.

Whatever the possible benefits of gain-of-function research, it obviously comes with risk. And one particular experiment, conducted in 2011, involved so much obvious risk that even many research scientists began to raise the alarm about the possibility of a catastrophe if a lab accident occurred.about:blank

The research, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health and conducted in Rotterdam, Netherlands, and at the University of Wisconsin, involved experiments on the H5N1 strain of avian influenza, which had an astonishing estimated 60% fatality rate. The scientists involved had successfully made the virus transmissible via respiratory droplets among ferrets, which were the best simulation for human transmissibility. It was the first time this deadly bird flu was able to cause airborne infections in mammals.

As the Washington Post detailed in its in-depth examination of gain-of-function research and the safeguards on it that were established — and subsequently undercut by Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins — the bird flu experiments caused immediate concern. A peer reviewer of the confidential study flagged the experiments for the Obama administration, observing that if the details of these experiments were published, they could “provide a recipe for terrorists.”

Collins’ staff at the NIH assigned the agency’s biosecurity board to assess the risk from these experiments. Another of the scientists interviewed by the Post, who at the time served as chairman of the board, recalled that his colleagues were worried about publishing the gain-of-function study, since “you could kill 4 billion people in a flash, because these viruses go around the world.”

On Nov. 30, 2011, the board unanimously recommended that the “general conclusions” of the experiments be published but without “details that could enable replication of the experiments by those who would seek to do harm.”

“Fauci and Collins responded by working privately to reverse the biosecurity board’s recommendation — while publicly defending the need for the research, according to interviews and records,” the Post reported last week.

Indeed, Fauci, Collins, and their colleague Gary Nabel co-wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post defending the gain-of-function research, arguing the dangerous experiment was worth the risk and that “the scientists, journal editors and funding agencies involved are working together” to limit knowledge of how to engineer a deadly pathogen “to those with an established and legitimate need to know.” They argued that such experiments would be conducted in high-security labs, with safeguards to protect against accidental release.

The bureaucrats successfully lobbied the board to reverse its earlier recommendation, and after that, the full H5N1 gain-of-function study was published without redactions. From his position as director of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Fauci, in the years following, continued to throw support and taxpayer funding behind gain-of-function research projects.

But the publication of the study ignited heated debate in the scientific community over gain-of-function research, and pressure began mounting on the Obama administration to cut off federal funding for such experiments. The Department of Health and Human Services moved in 2013 to establish more oversight over NIH funding for such experiments, creating a committee that would review research proposals referred to it by the NIH. The contempt Collins and Fauci had for oversight of their work can be noted by the dismissive name they assigned to the new oversight board, which was dubbed the “Ferrets Committee” by Collins.

Additionally, high-profile lab accidents during this time involving anthrax and smallpox, as well as the Ebola virus scare in 2014, convinced the Obama White House that gain-of-function experiments were too controversial to continue. In October 2014, the administration announced a moratorium on funding for gain-of-function research for influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses.

And the leading expert on coronaviruses in the United States, if not the world, realized at that moment that federal funding for the gain-of-function experiments in his North Carolina lab had just dried up.

+++++++++

Dr. Ralph S. Baric is the William R. Kenan Jr. Distinguished Professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of North Carolina. As a world-renowned virologist and leader in the research field of coronaviruses, animal models, antibodies, and mutant strains of viruses developed in his lab are used in coronavirus labs around the country. A colleague once described Baric to NPR as “the big cheese” in his field.

He’s authored hundreds of scientific papers and since 1986 has received more than $93 million from NIAID to fund his various research projects. Baric’s work has included gain-of-function experiments, though he has repeatedly insisted over many years that he has never created new, more dangerous versions of viruses that can infect humans in his lab.

When the Obama administration’s moratorium on gain-of-function research went into effect, Baric was working on several projects in his lab. “It took me 10 seconds to realize that most of them were going to be affected,” he told NPR in November 2014.

Baric and others in his field pushed back against the federal government’s decision. As the Post reported, he wrote to the NIH’s biosecurity board that November that gain-of-function experiments “are a documented, powerful tool” for developing public health intervention methods to contain and control a potential pandemic. The goal of his research was to develop a universal vaccine that would protect against all potential viruses related to SARS. In his lab, he created artificial SARS-like viruses to explore how coronaviruses in the wild might evolve to attack human cells and study how vaccines might be developed that could teach human immune cells to fend off SARS-like diseases.

His arguments reached sympathetic ears at the NIH. Baric’s work received an exemption, and his various projects were allowed to proceed with federal funding.

Among those projects was a collaborative effort with China’s “bat woman,” Shi Zhengli, a lead researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. For years, Shi’s team had worked in the field to collect coronavirus samples from bat species. In 2012, her researchers collected a virus called RaTG13, which scientists now believe is the closest known relative of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19. It should be noted that Shi did not call it RaTG13 at the time — but more on that later. She had also discovered the genome of another new virus called SHC014, a close relative of the original SARS virus.

A June report from the MIT Technology Review recounted how Baric approached Shi in 2013 after a meeting and asked her for the genetic data on SHC014. He wanted to take the “spike” gene from SHC014 and transplant it to a copy of the SARS virus he already possessed in his lab. Doing so would create a new chimeric virus that would demonstrate whether the spike protein of SHC014 was capable of attaching to human cells. Shi agreed to collaborate, and the two scientists began working together.

A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence” was published by Baric and Shi in 2015. Using mice as test subjects, the researchers “generated and characterized a chimeric virus” by inserting the spike protein from SHC014, a Chinese rufous horseshoe bat virus, into the molecular structure of the 2002 SARS virus, creating a new pathogen. The acknowledgments of the study noted it was funded with grant money from Fauci’s NIAID and that “experiments with the full-length and chimeric SHC014 recombinant viruses were initiated and performed before the [gain-of-function] research funding pause and have since been reviewed and approved for continued study by the NIH.”

Five years after the publication of this study in Nature Medicine, on May 22, 2020, a stunning correction was added to Baric’s paper revealing that the viral sequence for the mouse-adapted SHC015-MA15 virus had not been deposited in the NIH’s genetic sequence database at the time that the study was published. Incredibly, the article was published without that genetic sequence, in apparent contradiction of the journal’s reporting standards.

Dr. Baric did not respond to a request for comment from TheBlaze on why he waited five years to make this correction.

A spokesperson for Nature Medicine said, “Maintaining the integrity of the scientific record is of primary importance to us as and as soon as we became aware of this issue we worked with the authors to publish a correction.”

+++++++++

Baric’s gain-of-function work was not the only study granted an exemption by the NIH. The Obama administration’s moratorium contained a clause granting exemptions “if head of funding agency determines research is urgently necessary to protect public health or national security.” At NIH Director Collins’ discretion, virtually every gain-of-function study that applied for an exemption reportedly received one. The moratorium existed only on paper, and officials at the NIH worked behind the scenes to have even those illusory restrictions on funding gain-of-function studies revoked.

They succeeded in 2017, when the long-ignored moratorium was officially lifted by the Trump administration. It was replaced with a new HHS oversight body called the Potential Pandemic Pathogens Control and Oversight (P3CO) Framework. This review board is supposed to critically evaluate requests for federal funding for research projects that involve enhancing deadly pathogens. But an April report from the Daily Caller revealed that some NIH research grants were evading review by the P3CO Framework.

Specifically, Fauci’s NIAID awarded $600,000 to the nonprofit group EcoHealth Alliance, which then provided that U.S. taxpayer money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to fund Shi’s bat coronavirus research.

That award to EcoHealth Alliance and its transfer to the Wuhan lab have been the subject of Sen. Rand Paul’s various tense exchanges with Fauci when the NIAID director testified before the U.S. Senate. In one exchange in March, Fauci stated under oath that the “NIH has not ever, and does not now, fund ‘gain of function research’ in the Wuhan Institute.”

But that’s not what State Department officials believe.

In late 2017, the State Department sent health and science officials from the U.S. Embassy in Beijing to Wuhan to investigate the WIV’s lab conditions after learning that Chinese researchers had discovered several new viruses in bat caves. These viruses had a spike protein that could potentially make them dangerous to humans, and U.S. officials were concerned that gain-of-function experiments were being conducted in the newly designated top-level biosafety laboratory (BSL-4) in Wuhan, Josh Rogin reported for Politico.

The embassy’s team met with Shi and would later report in a 2018 cable that the Wuhan lab “has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory.”

U.S. government officials would come to believe that Chinese labs were performing gain-of-function experiments “on a much larger scale than was publicly disclosed,” according to Rogin.

How did this happen? Well, after Shi collaborated with Baric between 2013 and 2015, the Chinese scientists on her team used the techniques she learned from Baric to continue gain-of-function studies on their own. Baric’s lab at UNC and Shi Zhengli’s at WIV became “more like competitors,” with both “in a race to identify dangerous coronaviruses, assess the potential threat, and develop countermeasures like vaccines,” according to the MIT Technology Review.

The problem is that Shi’s lab in Wuhan did not share the same safety protocols as Baric’s lab in the U.S. observes, as the State Department determined in its 2018 cable. And the Chinese government isn’t exactly transparent about the work its scientists are doing. If the Wuhan lab conducted gain-of-function experiments under unsafe conditions, the Chinese wouldn’t report that fact to the international community.

+++++++++

Against this backdrop, virologists in the United States confronted the emerging COVID pandemic in late 2019 and early 2020. And a cadre of scientists who had, for years, pooh-poohed the potential dangers of the research they had conducted and/or funded were met with an explosive revelation: A group of researchers, led by respected virologist Kristian Andersen, Ph.D., had studied the emerging genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) and had determined that it looked “potentially” genetically engineered.

Andersen’s email, which was sent on Jan. 31, 2020, at 10:32 p.m. to Fauci and Jeremy Farrar, stated, “On a phylogenic tree the virus looks totally normal and the close clustering with bats suggest that bats serve as the reservoir. The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at the the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.”

Andersen’s email to Farrar and Fauci set off a flurry of activity that will be discussed in great detail in the next part of this series, but before examining how the relevant scientists reacted, it is important to examine why.

Fauci, in particular, had been arguing publicly for years that gain-of-function research was safe, and he had furthermore acted to circumvent oversight of such research in ways that might provoke some uncomfortable questions, as demonstrated by the number of government agency heads who stonewalled Washington Post reporters who sought to assess exactly how much oversight had occurred over gain-of-function research during Fauci’s tenure.

If it turned out that this virus was, indeed, the result of a laboratory accident in a lab conducting a type of research that Fauci and others had been publicly insisting was safe, then the recriminations would be very severe indeed.

And if, even worse, that research had funded by a grant approved by Fauci’s agency, the end of that particular play would not be hard to predict: Not a single red cent would ever be allocated to anyone, public or private, for this kind of research for a long time — maybe ever again. In fact, forget whether such research would ever be funded, it might well become illegal. If the public at large became aware that scientists had been doing bizarre research to make viruses significantly more deadly than COVID transmissible, there is no telling how difficult the unwashed bureaucrats who were responsible for the tiresome “Ferrets Committee” might make all their lives.

And so, faced with the threat of the extinction of their entire profession, the world’s prominent virologists, joined by the man who was responsible for funding so many of them, sat down to formulate a response.

Cash, COVID, and cover-up, part 1: ​The questions we should have asked of Fauci about the origins of COVID-19


Reported by LEON WOLF and CHRIS PANDOLFO | August 31, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/cash-covid-and-coverup-part-1-the-questions-we-should-have-asked-of-fauci-about-the-origins-of-covid-19/

Less than two years ago, an outbreak of a new, flu-like virus that would eventually be known as COVID-19 began in Wuhan, China. Today, almost 5 million people globally have died from this pandemic, and we are no closer to understanding how it began.

Well, that’s not entirely true. We are closer, but only by virtue of being allowed to ask in public a rather inconvenient question: Was a foreign lab that received U.S. taxpayer funding for years responsible for the start of the spread of this pandemic?

For months, this question was considered publicly taboo, prohibited from discussion (except as a topic of derision as a wild-eyed conspiracy theory) by a group of scientists who were, incredibly, some of the same people who should have been under the most intense scrutiny. The bizarre tableau would not have played out in any other walk of life. If ExxonMobil had conducted drilling operations that resulted in a massive oil leak, the media would not have refused to investigate the cause of the leak because respected scientists who happened to be employed by ExxonMobil insisted that it was not ExxonMobil’s fault.

And yet, incredibly, that appears to be exactly what happened to the most significant question that has faced our generation. The very people who stood to lose the most were allowed to hastily exonerate themselves, and for months — when important information should have been uncovered — social media companies and the media actually covered for them and are still covering for them today.

The decision to rule this topic out of bounds was made in late January 2020, just a few days after the first cases of COVID-19 were detected in Washington state. Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has perhaps done more to shape coronavirus response policy than any other person in America, was a central figure in those discussions.

+++++++++

It is difficult, after all that has happened over the last two years, to remember a time when Dr. Fauci was not famous, but it is important to remember that when the discussions that would shape the investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic began, the men and women who conferred with him were not conferring with the celebrity who would soon come to dominate American media coverage. They were, rather, conferring with a bureaucrat — one whom a vast, overwhelming majority of Americans could not have picked out of a lineup when he was announced as a member of then-Vice President Mike Pence’s coronavirus task force on Jan. 29, 2020.

But just because he wasn’t famous doesn’t mean he wasn’t powerful. Not only is he literally the highest-paid employee of the entire federal government, but Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) provides billions of dollars for research projects in the United States and around the world. NIAID was responsible for doling out nearly $3 billion annually in federal taxpayer dollars to research scientists between fiscal years 2017 and 2019. In FY 2021, NIAID received an annual budget of $6,067,071,000. The agency plans to fund another $3.8 billion in research grants this year, 62% of its budget.

The director of NIAID wields enormous power and influence over which research projects receive that funding, which scientists will be paid to continue their work, and which therapies, vaccines, diagnostic tests, and other technologies get developed in the competitive field of infectious, immunologic, and allergic diseases. And Fauci is the longest-serving head of NIAID, having been appointed director in 1984 and supervising research both within and without the agency from that position for nearly four decades since.

So, while the average American might never have heard of Dr. Anthony Fauci prior to sometime in February or March 2020, the people who study viruses for a living certainly had. Not only had they heard of him, but they were also acutely aware that he was in charge of the funding upon which a significant portion of their livelihood depends. Risking the disfavor of Fauci was not a move many in the field of infectious disease research would make.

Another important individual in that field was Dr. Jeremy Farrar, director of the megacharity known as the Wellcome Trust. With an annual total disbursement budget of over $11 billion — a significant portion of which is spent on infectious disease research — Farrar also represented an enormously important gatekeeper of medical research funding. The Wellcome Trust had a financial endowment of £29.1 billion, or just over $40 billion, in 2020, making it the fourth wealthiest charitable foundation in the world.

Both Fauci and Farrar would play key roles in shaping the public response to questions about the origins of COVID-19. And they would serve — whether willfully or not — to stamp out questions that would have tended to implicate recipients of their funding largesse — and thus ultimately themselves. Somehow, very few people in the media found this worthy of curiosity, much less rigorous investigation.

Indeed, when Fauci finally faced aggressive questioning on the subject, from Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, CNN’s Jake Tapper exemplified the approach of most of the media by treating Paul’s questions as scandalous in and of themselves and not worthy of even being repeated on air. Thus has our watchdog media completely failed to fulfill its responsibility to hold powerful bureaucrats in government accountable.

+++++++++

Although the particulars of the lab-leak theory, as it would come to be called, would not be fleshed out for several months after the pandemic began, when COVID-19 introduced itself to the world in late 2019, it did not take long for a couple of salient facts to begin circulating on the internet. The first was that Wuhan, the epicenter of the COVID outbreak, was home to a virology lab that had been the subject of a scathing State Department report that blasted the lab for inadequate security procedures, saying the Wuhan Institute “has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory.”

The second was that one of the lab’s top scientists, Shi Zhengli, had for years led a team of researchers into the field to collect dozens of coronavirus samples in the wild. Her virus-hunting expeditions took her deep into bat caves, earning her the nickname “bat woman,” a fact that was of particular interest in early 2020 because Chinese scientists had published a paper showing the SARS-CoV-2 virus was 96% identical to a previously discovered bat coronavirus.

A video released by Chinese state media just weeks before the first official reports of COVID-19 cases in Wuhan also gained attention. The video showed Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention staff (not to be confused with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a separate lab) collecting virus samples from horseshoe and pipistrelle bats in caves found in China’s Hubei province. The video demonstrated that Chinese scientists had been handling bats and collecting virus samples similar to SARS-CoV-2, the COVID-19 pandemic was linked to Wuhan, and right there next to the city were a laboratory and a health institute that studied coronaviruses.

Given that the early scientific evidence strongly pointed to bats as the original host animal of what would become COVID-19, this led many to naturally wonder, “Could this lab have been the source of the pandemic?”

Topping it all off, the lab in question, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was funded by taxpayer dollars that were funneled to it via the nonprofit organization EcoHealth Alliance, whose president, Peter Daszak, is one of the leading scientific voices discrediting the possibility that the virus came from the lab. Daszak’s nonprofit received at least $15.2 million in grants from the National Institutes of Health since 2005, according to the NIH’s RePORTER website. Between 2014 and 2019, EcoHealth Alliance directed at least $600,000 in NIH sub-grants from Fauci’s NIAID to study bat coronaviruses in collaboration with the Wuhan lab, a fact confirmed by Fauci himself in testimony given to Congress.

In June, Daszak recused himself from a U.N.-partnered commission investigating the origins of COVID-19 because of his apparent conflict of interest. Meanwhile, Fauci served as a member of President Donald Trump’s coronavirus task force all through 2020, is now the top White House adviser on the coronavirus response, and continues to be sought after by the media as an expert authority on all things related to a pandemic that possibly has origins tied to research his agency funded.

It is almost unimaginable that the above series of facts alone did not lead to months of endless public interrogation of Fauci. Every media organization and governmental watchdog in the country should have immediately been calling for nonstop investigations — especially given the eagerness of the press to tar anyone connected with the Trump administration. The national media spent endless hours speculating, without any factual basis, about the contacts with Russia of every obscure member of Trump’s team. Surely they would have interest in whether the man who was fast becoming the face of the Trump response to coronavirus was complicit, even indirectly, with the release of the virus into the world?

It turned out they would not. Somewhere along the line, Fauci became synonymous with “science” for many liberals and other opponents of President Trump. Perhaps nothing shielded Fauci from criticism or even investigation more effectively than the fact that, while he was nominally a member of the Trump administration, he was erected in the minds of liberals as the COVID foil to Trump.

Fauci himself encouraged this deification, telling MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, “So if you are trying to get at me as a public health official and a scientist, you’re really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you’re attacking science. And anybody that looks at what is going on clearly sees that, you have to be asleep not to see that.” Fauci became the scaffolding upon which the entire edifice of COVID-fighting measures favored by Democrats was built, and to attack him was seen as an indication that you probably sided with the “anti-science” crazies who think the virus is fake.

And the story of how this prevented the press from questioning Fauci or anyone else associated with him about how this pandemic began is one of the most regrettable failures of investigative journalism in all of history. But even more bizarre, as evidence has begun to mount that the very people who set forth to immediately stamp out all discussion of the lab-leak theory were a) the very people who would be implicated if the lab-leak theory proved true and b) were beholden to Fauci, the press seems curiously uninterested.

Only recently have cracks begun to appear in the façade, such as last week’s surprising Washington Post article that finally began asking government officials in various health agencies some difficult questions about exactly what level of oversight was exercised over the increasingly risky research being funded by taxpayer dollars. A shocking number of government officials absolutely stonewalled even the Post’s inquiries.

This series is not intended to prove that the lab-leak theory is true. That can probably never be known with any certainty at this point, thanks largely to the intentional destruction of evidence by the Chinese government. But it is intended to ask questions that every person in the entire world should be interested in — and it seeks to encourage the public and the politicians who are theoretically accountable to them to demand answers that should have been demanded long ago.

+++++++++

Over the next days and weeks, this series will investigate what we know, what we don’t know, and what we may never know about the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Part 2 will examine the “gain of function” controversy and what we know about the research that was done on coronaviruses by Shi Zhengli, Ralph Baric, and others and the evidence regarding the structure of the virus that has led many to wonder if COVID-19 was, in fact, engineered in some way.

Part 3 will examine the early response to the pandemic by the group of scientists who would be responsible for shutting down any discussion of the lab-leak theory and the decision to control the message.

Part 4 will examine the scientific arguments put forth by opponents of the theory and the issues they have either glossed over or failed to examine.

Part 5 will track the effort that was made by social media companies to silence any questions about the theory as conspiracy theories.

Finally, part 6 will discuss the current state of knowledge and suggest a path forward for the debate.

The trail of suffering left across the globe by the COVID-19 pandemic and the attendant measures that have been undertaken to attempt to slow its spread are almost incalculable. Millions have died, millions more have suffered severe diseases, and almost everyone has been severely economically and emotionally impacted. Perhaps most devastatingly, so many of those who died during the pandemic had to die alone, isolated from friends and loved ones by fear of the contagion. The full downstream effects of this catastrophe cannot even be guessed at, and the possibility remains that the mutations of the virus may make it virtually undefeatable by vaccines in the long term.

In the face of all this human suffering, humanity deserves answers. We must do everything in our power to determine why this happened, so that we can do everything in our power to prevent it from happening again. The search for answers must be inexhaustible, and any person who might possibly be involved in any way should be an appropriate subject of aggressive investigation. After all that COVID-19 has done, humanity deserves no less. And it certainly deserves more than legacy media and social media companies have given it thus far. We will attempt to find those answers.

Judge reportedly stripped mother of parental rights because she’s not vaccinated: ‘I miss my son more than anything’


Reported by PAUL SACCA | August 28, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/mother-parental-rights-custody-vaccination/

A mother in Chicago claims that a judge stripped her of parental rights because she was not vaccinated against COVID-19.

“In what all parties agree is a very unusual and perhaps unprecedented step, a judge at Chicago’s Daley Center has stripped Rebecca Firlit of custody because she refuses to get a vaccination shot,” WFLD-TV reported.

Firlit says that she has not seen her 11-year-old son since Aug. 10, which is when she appeared in court via Zoom for a child support hearing along with her ex-husband. During the hearing, Cook County Judge James Shapiro allegedly asked Firlit if she had been vaccinated for COVID-19. She reportedly replied that she had not been vaccinated because she suffered bad reactions to other vaccines in the past.

Shapiro, a Democrat, then reportedly ordered Firlit be stripped of her parenting time until she gets vaccinated.

Since the ruling, Firlit said she hasn’t seen her son in person for over two weeks. She has purportedly only been able to speak to her son on the phone and on video calls.about:blank

“I miss my son more than anything,” Firlit told WFLD. “It’s been very difficult.”

“I think that it’s wrong. I think that it’s dividing families,” Firlit added. “And I think it’s not in my son’s best interest to be away from his mother.”

“It had nothing to do with what we were talking about. He was placing his views on me. And taking my son away from me,” Firlit said.

Annette Fernholz, Firlit’s attorney, said the judge overstepped his authority and noted that the boy’s father never brought up the concern about his ex-wife’s vaccination status during the hearing.

“In this case you have a judge, without any matter before him regarding the parenting time with the child deciding, ‘Oh, you’re not vaccinated. You don’t get to see your child until you are vaccinated.’ That kind of exceeds his jurisdiction,” Fernholz told the outlet.

“You have to understand the father did not even bring this issue before the court,” Fernholz added. “So it’s the judge on his own and making this decision that you can’t see your child until you’re vaccinated.”

Jeffrey Leving, the attorney for the boy’s father, reportedly admitted he was surprised by the judge’s decision, but supports the ruling.

“There are children who have died because of COVID. I think every child should be safe,” Leving told WFLD. “And I agree that the mother should be vaccinated.”

Firlit, who has been divorced for seven years, is appealing the court order. There is no timetable on when the appellate court will make its decision.

A spokesperson for Judge Shapiro told WFLD that they could not provide a comment at this time because of the ongoing nature of the case.

DANIEL HOROWITZ OP-ED: Horowitz: 15 studies that indicate natural immunity from prior infection is more robust than the COVID vaccines


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | August 25, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-15-studies-that-indicate-natural-immunity-from-prior-infection-is-more-robust-than-the-covid-vaccines/

It’s the 800-pound gorilla in the pandemic. The debate over forced vaccination with an ever-waning vaccine is cresting right around the time when the debate should be moot for a lot of people. Among the most fraudulent messages of the CDC’s campaign of deceit is to force the vaccine on those with prior infection, who have a greater degree of protection against all versions of the virus than those with any of the vaccines. It’s time to set the record straight once and for all that natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is broader, more durable, and longer-lasting than any of the shots on the market today. Our policies must reflect that reality.

It should be noted that this exercise is not even necessary now that our own government concedes that immunity from the vaccines, particularly the Pfizer shot, wanes each month. With the Mayo Clinic researchers suggesting, based on old data that likely got even worse since, that Pfizer’s efficacy against infection is only 42%, there is no reason to even attempt to compare this degree of immunity to the near-perfect immunity of prior infection, even against Delta. It should be obvious to any intellectually honest person that an unvaccinated individual with prior infection is exponentially safer to be around than someone who had the vaccines but not prior infection.

Remember, a significant portion of the population already got infected, and when the latest Delta wave is over in the South, the region will likely reach clear supermajorities of the population with immunity, as was found in India following the circulation of this very contagious strain of the virus.

Now consider the fact that studies have shown those with prior infection are associated with 4.4x increased odds of clinically significant side effects following mRNA vaccination. Thus, it is as scandalous as it is unnecessary to vaccinate those with prior infection, even if one supports vaccination for those without prior immunity. But as you can imagine, that would take a massive share of the market off the table from the greedy hands of Big Pharma.

To that end, it’s important to clarify once and for all, based on the current academic literature, that yes, people with prior infection are indeed immune, more so than those with vaccines. Here is just a small list of some of the more recent studies, which demonstrate the effectiveness of natural immunity — even from mild infection — much later into the pandemic than the study window of the vaccines:

1) New York University, May 3, 2021

The authors studied the contrast between vaccine immunity and immunity from prior infection as it relates to stimulating the innate T-cell immunity, which is more durable than adaptive immunity through antibodies alone. They concluded, “In COVID-19 patients, immune responses were characterized by a highly augmented interferon response which was largely absent in vaccine recipients. Increased interferon signaling likely contributed to the observed dramatic upregulation of cytotoxic genes in the peripheral T cells and innate-like lymphocytes in patients but not in immunized subjects.”

The study further notes: “Analysis of B and T cell receptor repertoires revealed that while the majority of clonal B and T cells in COVID-19 patients were effector cells, in vaccine recipients clonally expanded cells were primarily circulating memory cells.” What this means in plain English is that effector cells trigger an innate response that is quicker and more durable, whereas memory response requires an adaptive mode that is slower to respond. Natural immunity conveys much more innate immunity, while the vaccine mainly stimulates adaptive immunity.

2) Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, May 24, 2021, published in Nature

The media scared people last year into thinking that if antibody levels wane, it means their immunity is weakening, as we are indeed seeing with the vaccines today. But as Nature wrote, “People who recover [even] from mild COVID-19 have bone-marrow cells that can churn out antibodies for decades.” Thus, aside from the robust T-cell memory that is likely lacking from most or all vaccinated individuals, prior infection creates memory B cells that “patrol the blood for reinfection, while bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) hide away in bones, trickling out antibodies for decades” as needed.

It’s therefore not surprising that early on in the pandemic, an in-vitro study in Singapore found the immunity against SARS-CoV-2 to last even 17 years later from SARS-1-infected patients who never even had COVID-19.

3) Cleveland Clinic, June 19, 2021

In a study of 1,359 previously infected health care workers in the Cleveland Clinic system, not a single one of them was reinfected 10 months into the pandemic, despite some of these individuals being around COVID-positive patients more than the regular population.

4) Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle/Emory University, Washington, July 14, 2021, published in Cell Medicine

The study found that most recovered patients produced durable antibodies, memory B cells, and durable polyfunctional CD4 and CD8 T cells, which target multiple parts of the virus. “Taken together, these results suggest that broad and effective immunity may persist long-term in recovered COVID-19 patients,” concluded the authors. In other words, unlike with the vaccines, no boosters are required to assist natural immunity.

5) University of California, Irvine, July 21, 2021

The authors conclude: “Natural infection induced expansion of larger CD8 T cell clones occupied distinct clusters, likely due to the recognition of a broader set of viral epitopes presented by the virus not seen in the mRNA vaccine” (emphasis added).

6) University of California, San Francisco, May 12, 2021

Conclusion: “In infection-naïve individuals, the second dose boosted the quantity but not quality of the T cell response, while in convalescents the second dose helped neither. Spike-specific T cells from convalescent vaccinees differed strikingly from those of infection-naïve vaccinees, with phenotypic features suggesting superior long-term persistence and ability to home to the respiratory tract including the nasopharynx.”

Given that we know the virus spreads through the nasopharynx, the fact that natural infection conveys much stronger mucosal immunity makes it clear that the previously infected are much safer to be around than infection-naive people with the vaccine. The fact that this study artfully couched the choices between vaccinated naive people and vaccinated recovered rather than just plain recovered doesn’t change the fact that it’s the prior infection, not the vaccine, conveying mucosal immunity. In fact, studies now show that infected vaccinated people contain just as much viral load in their nasopharynx as those unvaccinated, a clearly unmistakable conclusion from the virus spreading wildly in many areas with nearly every adult vaccinated.

7) Israeli researchers, August 22, 2021

Aside from more robust T cell and memory B cell immunity, which is more important than antibody levels, Israeli researchers found that antibodies wane slower among those with prior infection. “In vaccinated subjects, antibody titers decreased by up to 40% each subsequent month while in convalescents they decreased by less than 5% per month.”

8) Irish researchers, published in Wiley Review, May 18, 2021

Researchers conducted a review of 11 cohort studies with over 600,000 total recovered COVID patients who were followed up with over 10 months. The key finding? Unlike the vaccine, after about four to six months, they found “no study reporting an increase in the risk of reinfection over time.”

9) Cornell University, Doha, Qatar, published in the Lancet, April 27, 2021

This is one of the only studies that analyzed the population‐level risk of reinfection based on whole genome sequencing in a subset of patients with supporting evidence of reinfection. Researchers estimate the risk at 0.66 per 10,000 person-weeks. Most importantly, the study found no evidence of waning of immunity for over seven months of the follow-up period. The few reinfections that did occur “were less severe than primary infections,” and “only one reinfection was severe, two were moderate, and none were critical or fatal.” Also, unlike many vaccinated breakthrough infections in recent weeks that have been very symptomatic, “most reinfections were diagnosed incidentally through random or routine testing, or through contact tracing.”

10) Israeli researchers, April 24, 2021

Several months ago, Israeli researchers studied 6.3 million Israelis and their COVID status and were able to confirm only one death in the entire country of someone who supposedly already had the virus, and he was over 80 years old. Contrast that to the torrent of hospitalizations and deaths we are seeing in those vaccinated more than five months ago in Israel.

11) French researchers, May 11, 2021

Researchers tested blood samples from health care workers who never had the virus but got both Pfizer shots against blood samples from those health care workers who had a previous mild infection and a third group of patients who had a serious case of COVID. They found, “No neutralization escape could be feared concerning the two variants of concern [Alpha and Beta] in both populations” of those previously infected.

12) Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, published in Journal of Experimental Medicine

Many people are wondering: If they got only an asymptomatic infection, are they less protected against future infection than those who suffered infection with more evident symptoms? These researchers believe the opposite is true. “Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals are not characterized by weak antiviral immunity; on the contrary, they mount a highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response,” wrote the authors after studying T cell responses from both symptomatic and asymptomatic convalescent patients. If anything, they found that those with asymptomatic infection only had signs of non-inflammatory cytokines, which means that the body is primed to deal with the virus without producing that dangerous inflammatory response that is killing so many hospitalized with the virus.

13) Korean researchers, published in Nature Communications on June 30, 2021

The authors found that the T cells created from convalescent patients had “stem-cell like” qualities. After studying SARS-CoV-2-specific memory T cells in recovered patients who had the virus in varying degrees of severity, the authors concluded that long-term “SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell memory is successfully maintained regardless of the severity of COVID-19.”

14) Rockefeller University, July 29, 2021

The researchers note that far from suffering waning immunity, memory B cells in those with prior infection “express increasingly broad and potent antibodies that are resistant to mutations found in variants of concern.” They conclude that “memory antibodies selected over time by natural infection have greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination.” And again, this is even before getting into the innate cellular immunity which is exponentially greater in those with natural immunity.

15) Researchers from Madrid and Mount Sinai, New York, March 22, 2021

Until now, we have established that natural immunity provides better adaptive B cell and innate T cell responses that last longer and work for the variants as compared to the vaccines. Moreover, those with prior infection are at greater risk for bad side effects from the vaccines, rendering the campaign to vaccinate the previously infected both unnecessary and dangerous. But the final question is: Do the vaccines possibly harm the superior T cell immunity built up from prior infection?

Immunologists from Mount Sinai in New York and Hospital La Paz in Madrid have raised serious concerns. In a shocking discovery after monitoring a group of vaccinated people both with and without prior infection, they found “in individuals with a pre-existing immunity against SARS-CoV-2, the second vaccine dose not only fail to boost humoral immunity but determines a contraction of the spike-specific T cell response.” They also note that other research has shown “the second vaccination dose appears to exert a detrimental effect in the overall magnitude of the spike-specific humoral response in COVID-19 recovered individuals.

As early as March 27, among the many accurate statements Dr. Fauci made before he became a political animal, he declared he was “really confident” in the immunity conferred by prior infection. That was long before 17 months of data and dozens of studies confirmed that. Yet, today, there are thousands of doctors and nurses with infinitely better immunity than what the vaccines can confer who are losing their jobs during a staffing crisis for not getting the shots. Just know that the big lie about natural immunity is perhaps the most verifiable lie, but it is likely not the only lie with devastating consequences we are being told about the virus, the vaccines, and alternative treatment options.

Parents Furious as Teens Forced to Wear COVID Ankle Monitors Warning Others to Stay Back


Reported By Grant Atkinson | August 24, 2021

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/parents-furious-teens-forced-wear-covid-ankle-monitors-warning-others-stay-back/

For the past year and a half, those of us who have felt the pandemic was being used as a tool to manipulate people have been labeled conspiracy theorists by the establishment media and leftist elites. As time goes on, more evidence emerges that seems to suggest we were right all along.

According to the Post Millennial, students at Eatonville High School in Washington were forced to wear ankle monitors in order to participate in athletics.

An anonymous mother who spoke to the outlet said she received a text from her 15-year-old daughter saying she was asked to wear a monitor at a school volleyball practice. When her daughter did not answer her subsequent texts and calls and no one at the school was able to answer her questions, the mother eventually drove to the school’s campus.

School employees told her that a meeting had been held the prior week to discuss the implementation of a monitoring program. It was “allegedly designed for contact tracing in the event of a positive COVID test of a student,” the Post Millennial reported.

Both unvaccinated and vaccinated students were reportedly told to wear ankle monitors. If someone tested positive for COVID-19, unvaccinated students who were identified as close contacts would be required to quarantine for 14 days, while vaccinated students would not.

The device is called TraceTag and is manufactured by a company called Triax, according to the Post Millennial.

“Being able to properly comply with social distancing guidelines is critical to containing and slowing the spread of COVID-19,” the company says in its description of the product.

“Additionally, having a log of all worker interactions for contact tracing, in the event that a worker is diagnosed with COVID-19, will help to accelerate the process for further containment and isolation.”

See, it’s no big deal. Why would you even have an issue with being forced to wear a tracking device? It’s for your own good.

The device also emits “a visual and audible alarm, so individuals know when to adjust their current distance to a proper social distance.” In other words, don’t get too close to someone if you don’t want your ankle monitor to sound the alarm.

Forcing students to wear these devices is a ludicrous idea on its face. Ankle monitors are meant for prisoners, not minors just trying to play school sports.

To make matters worse, the mother said she was never contacted about the program. The school’s head football coach told her forms were provided at the aforementioned meeting for those who wanted to opt out of the program, but the mother said she was never even informed that the meeting was taking place.

According to the Post Millennial, the school’s athletic director “acknowledged the error and apologized for the ‘slip up’ of not getting her consent.”

This was not just an innocent “slip-up.” It’s a symptom of the growing assumption that people should be forced to give up any number of basic rights in the name of public health.”

For months, the establishment media has been telling people they essentially have no right to choose whether they want certain substances injected into their bodies. If public and private employers are allowed to tell their workers what to put in their bodies, why wouldn’t school administrators be allowed to tell students what to attach to them?

The reality is that students in Washington state are being forced to wear ankle monitors. That is not a conspiracy theory — it’s real life. If we don’t stop this kind of invasive behavior now, there is no telling how far it will go.

Grant Atkinson, Editorial Intern

Grant is a graduate of Virginia Tech with a bachelor’s degree in journalism. He has five years of writing experience with various outlets and enjoys covering politics and sports.

New COVID variants Epsilon, Lambda may be resistant to vaccines, early lab studies show


Reported By Katherine Rodriguez | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

Updated Aug 05, 2021; Posted Aug 05, 2021 | https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2021/08/new-covid-variants-epsilon-lambda-may-be-resistant-to-vaccines-early-lab-studies-show.html

Virus Outbreak China
Early lab studies have shown that the Epsilon and Lambda variants have developed a resistance to vaccines. (Chinatopix via AP)AP

The Epsilon and Lambda variants of COVID-19 are “variants of interest,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and early studies show they have developed a resistance to vaccines.

Japanese researchers found the Lambda variant, which was initially discovered in Peru and is now spreading throughout South America, is highly transmissible and more resistant to vaccines than the initial COVID-19 strain.

The researchers warned in a paper posted July 28 that has yet to be peer reviewed that Lambda’s label as a “variant of interest” instead of a “variant of concern” might downplay the growing threat of the strain.

Meanwhile, the Epsilon variant that was initially discovered in California in 2020 is spreading in Pakistan and is proving to be resistant to vaccines, according to researchers.

Health authorities issued an alert after they discovered five cases of the Epsilon variant in Lahore, Pakistan. Medical experts there believe the vaccine-resistant strain is putting vaccinated people as well as unvaccinated people at risk, adding that the strain is just as transmissible as the Delta variant.

Despite these early studies, previous studies have shown vaccines, including those available in the United States, work against “variants of concern,” such as the Delta variant. The vaccines also prevent serious illness, hospitalization and death in most breakthrough cases where a fully vaccinated person tests positive for the coronavirus.

For example, a U.K. study published in May showed two doses of the Pfizer vaccine were 88% effective at preventing against symptomatic infection of the Delta variant and 96% effective against preventing hospitalization.


“Greatest Cover-Up of All Time” – House Foreign Affairs Committee Republicans Conclude Covid-19 Came From Wuhan Lab

By Julian Conradson | Published August 2, 2021

Read more at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/greatest-cover-time-house-foreign-affairs-committee-concludes-covid-19-came-wuhan-lab/

For over a year, the boot-licking media and corrupt public health officials have shilled for the Chinese, saying that the Covid-19 virus had nothing to do with the Wuhan lab and instead spread to humans through bats a local wet market.

Now, the over 70% of Americans who didn’t buy their lies are being validated.

An investigation by the House Foreign Affairs Committee into the origin of the Covid-19 outbreak has concluded that the virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology sometime just before September 12, 2019. 

It is the opinion of Committee Minority Staff, based on the preponderance of available information; the documented efforts to obfuscate, hide, and destroy evidence; and the lack of physical evidence to the contrary; that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a Wuhan Institute of Virology laboratory sometime prior to September 12, 2019.”

“We now believe it’s time to completely dismiss the wet market as the source.”

After the release of the report, McCaul called on Congress to sanction scientists at the Wuhan lab and also Chinese Communist Party officials for their role in withholding crucial information that killed over 4 million as part of the “greatest coverup of all time.”

He also asked them to subpoena Peter Daszak, the scientist who was involved in the research and development of the coronavirus in the US and China, for knowingly making false claims. Daszak ridiculously claimed the lab leak theory was xenophobic in a public letter at the beginning of the year.

Now is the time to use all of the tools the U.S. government has to continue to root out the full truth of how this virus came to be.

That includes subpoenaing Peter Daszak to appear before the House Foreign Affairs Committee to answer the many questions his inconsistent — and in some instances outright and knowingly inaccurate — statements have raised. It also includes Congress passing legislation to sanction scientists at the WIV [Wuhan Institute of Virology] and CCP [Chinese Communist Party] officials who participated in this coverup. This was the greatest coverup of all time and has caused the deaths of more than four million people around the world, and people must be held responsible.”

It was also confirmed that dangerous gain-of function research, which genetically alters a virus and can turn it into a bio-weapon, was being conducted at the lab under inadequate safety and security protocols. Once the virus had escaped the lab, public transport spread the virus throughout Wuhan and it rapidly made its way outside china due to the World Military Games taking place. Many of the athletes at the games reported feeling sick with flu like symptoms and returned home to their countries after the event which became early breakout hotspots. 

“Many of the athletes at the games reported feeling sick with flu like symptoms and returned home to their countries after the event which became early breakout hotspots.”

“Its release was due to poor lab safety standards and practices, exacerbated by dangerous gain-of-function research being conducted at inadequate biosafety levels, including BSL-2. The virus was then spread throughout central Wuhan, likely via the Wuhan Metro, in the weeks prior to the Military World Games. Those games became an international vector, spreading the virus to multiple continents around the world.”

The virus was then spread throughout central Wuhan, likely via the Wuhan Metro, in the weeks prior to the Military World Games. Those games became an international vector, spreading the virus to multiple continents around the world.”

Despite the unacceptable conditions at the lab and the research being banned by the USthe controversial practice was being funded by Dr. Fauci and the National Institute of Health using US taxpayer dollars – Which Fauci was just busted for lying about on capitol hill by Senator Rand Paul.

The report also found evidence that the virus jumped to humans much earlier than originally thought. It is now believed that the first lab workers were infected in late August or early September 2019, and spread the virus to central Wuhan. This is the earliest outbreak date given so far. Previously, the virus was thought to have originated sometime in November 2019.

The committee’s findings have confirmed the obvious: that Fauci and the other corrupt public health officials have been lying for over a year to downplay communist Chinas role in unleashing this pandemic on the rest of the world.

Fauci deserves to be more than fired, this megalomaniac and the rest of these sellouts should in jail already.

CHARLES RIXEY Op-ed: Who watches the watchmen? Fauci’s ‘noble lie,’ exposed


Commentary by CHARLES RIXEY | July 29, 2021

In our moment of greatest need, Science protected … itself

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/who-watches-the-watchmen-faucis-noble-lie-exposed/

Pool/Getty Images

The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer once wrote that truth goes through three stages:

First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Guess what’s next for us?

*****

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? — Who watches the watchers?

Six months ago, I began my first article on scientific censorship during COVID-19 by introducing Dr. Anthony Fauci as a surprise character who had emerged unexpectedly while I dug through what were then 83,000 FOIA emails, published by US Right-to-Know over the course of the last year: see files related to Ralph BaricLinda SaifRita ColwellColorado State/Rocky Mountain National Laboratory and the NCBI; other FOIA releases from Judicial Watch, BuzzFeed, and the Washington Post include NIH funding of the WIV and Dr. Fauci’s emails.

I’ve been trying for quite some time to get people to understand the full scope of the Dr. Fauci “situation,” but it’s clear that segments of our national leadership are preventing an honest and open inquiry into his actions because they fear the backlash or collateral damage that will result from the tarnishing of their sacred cow. It’s time Americans were told the truth: that the grant money sent to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) is merely a footnote in this narrative. After all, Dr. Fauci controls nearly $4 billion of annual grant funding for the NIAID, the institute within the NIH he has directed since 1984. Over 37 years, more than 50,000 research projects have been supported with more than $50 billion (conservatively) of taxpayer funds that have been doled out to them.

$4 billion of annual grant funding

Photo by STEFANI REYNOLDS/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

It’s reasonable to hold him accountable for the results of his organization’s efforts, but the direct funding received by the WIV for gain-of-function (GOF) research represents only a tiny fraction of Fauci’s involvement in enabling risky research. The 2017 repeal of the GOF ban was decided without the consultation of the Trump administration, even though news coverage during the pandemic blamed him for the decision. Neither Fauci nor his boss, NIH Director Francis Collins, bothered to clarify the record, which looks especially disgusting in the wake of persistent rejections of Sen. Rand Paul’s assertions (with accompanying evidence) that the NIH financially supported such research.

First, do no harm … to Fauci’s legacy

It’s important to plainly state that I’m aware of the intense politicization of virtually every aspect of the pandemic and the pandemic response. Since many readers may not be aware, I’ll point out that my specific motivation for building a COVID-19 website (later moved here to Substack) and speaking to a broader audience about the various facets of the pandemic was to offer unfiltered information to counter the disgusting polarization I observed:

I have chosen to offer this website as a forum for information about the current COVID-19 pandemic, in an effort to provide meaningful, factual and useful content during what will continue to be a destabilizing time. There is no indication that our media will soon get better at filling the knowledge void they’ve created; as a result, confidence in those who deliver our news has hit rock bottom at the exact moment in recent history when we need responsible media the most.

My past experience and current observations lead me to believe that the big picture of the pandemic is poorly understood, and there has been so much conflicting information floating around that it has been very difficult to see what awaits us beyond the immediate horizon. My goal is simply to provide resources so that each of us can approach the coming months with intention – as perspective widens, willpower to overcome circumstance increases. The opposite is also true, in that fear increases when awareness decreases, and in the aftermath of societal upheaval a vacuum appears that will be filled, by one voice or another.

Just as the Native American parable states, courage and fear are interrelated; now is the time to feed courage and starve fear.

My goal is to learn and prepare, because those who expect “normal” to return are going to be disappointed. The odds of future waves of infection are high, and a lot of changes will have to be made in order to keep the engine running once flu season arrives in the fall. The statistics paint a clear picture, in that the near-simultaneous global response saved millions of lives; it’s also clear that applying the same medicine several times will negate the economic prosperity that fuels innovation in medical technology. Being able to see a storm coming is meaningless if all you can do is watch and wait, and America’s economy has been even more critical during the last decade of malaise in a majority of the developed world. In particular, the last few years of higher growth gave a bigger cushion to land on, but after witnessing unemployment go from historically low to historically high in six weeks it would be foolish to expect us to fully recover before the re-emergence of a global peak in cases.

I feel obligated to reiterate my stance, because the nature and importance of the situation can’t be ignored any longer: Congress is now actively engaged in investigating the pandemic’s origins, and we must confront the truth if we are to gain meaningful insight that can help us prepare for future crises. There is no level of partisanship that justifies ignoring a tragedy of this magnitude.

‘Everything rises and falls on leadership’ — John Maxwell

It’s hard to place a dollar value on the impact of Fauci’s leadership decisions upon almost all aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is why it’s not difficult to understand the willingness of some to avoid a legitimate inquiry into the issue altogether. After all, he sits at the nexus of:

A) The NIH’s role in supporting the research and development of mRNA technology and new antiviral drugs like remdesivir, and the resulting conflicts of interest that the NIH continues to ignore.

B) His role in pushing those NIH-sponsored inventions; specifically, advocating for remdesivir on the basis of weak evidence while rejecting legitimate investigations into generic alternatives with no less statistical support, as well as …

C) … his role in obfuscating concerning data and censoring public debate over the risk/benefit evidence emerging about COVID-19 vaccines. Had Fauci been bluntly honest about the unknowns involving the new technology throughout the pandemic, Americans would still largely have assumed the risk — at least, assuming that antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) was not a likely outcome … oops.

D) His evolving stances on masking, lockdowns, school closures, and other non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI), largely the result of growing public awareness that those decisions have consistently been based upon reducing the accountability of cowardly officials, not the best interest of their constituents. (Note: This is a conclusion from my research focus last year, which I will return to once the origin issue allows me to do so.)

E) His refusal to address the blatant censorship of vaccine side-effect data — it takes a disturbing level of cynicism to witness the large-scale skepticism and uncertainty that has resulted from such censorship and then vilify those willing to speak up and blaming them for any future vaccine breakout, when one of the most likely causes would be ADE. ADE with SARS-CoV-2 would most likely result from the specific targeting of the mRNA vaccines, not vaccine hesitancy (in the absence of a simultaneous global administration of the shots, which was never feasible under the geopolitical and temporal constraints of the pandemic).

Each of those factors has contributed to the fading perception of Fauci as “America’s Doctor,” but each has also become a divisive litmus test for which the evidence for and against is hotly debated. My purpose here is not to offer judgment on those (self-evident) issues; rather, I want to highlight the fact that Dr. Fauci’s legacy includes elements far beyond the scope of my research — and the context of those debates is directly relevant for the proper framing of the failures illuminated here. The same hubris and gaslighting in defense of “Science” has plagued every facet of our government’s response to COVID-19.

My disgust doesn’t stem from casual reflection and an exaggeration of weak assertions to fan partisan flames. It stems from my analysis of 100,000 pages of FOIA documents, 1,000-plus research articles reviewed, and my own published analysis of the impact of Fauci’s censorship, which was the first of its kind.

My approach was external to science — from the perspective of a historian seeking to understand the “why” behind the further collapse of trust in our institutions during the pandemic. My conclusions were formed over six months of investigation and focused on the realization that one of the worst developments of the pandemic is the evaporation of public trust in scientists (see “Edifice Wrecks”). I’ve never sought to inflame conspiracy theories or ignore evidence in support of zoonosis, but I’ve personally entered into discussions with a half-dozen of the scientists highlighted below, and none of them ever addressed the emerging evidence that, under normal circumstances, would have been part of the open debate that Fauci pretends already took place.

Every additional moment spent in denial and suppression just adds fuel to the coming backlash, and thus far discussions have ignored what I believe is the largest and most consequential elephant in the room:

F) Fauci quietly but directly ensured that scientific censorship was implemented, in large measure to prevent public awareness of the extent of his role in GOF research and the controversies surrounding it. The evidence proves that, at the start of the pandemic, Dr. Fauci and many leading scientists moved to protect themselves — not us, who weren’t yet aware of the potential calamity at our doorstep. Fauci led the efforts to obstruct research into COVID’s origins, colluding with the president’s science adviser Kelvin Droegemeier and Wellcome Trust head Jeremy Farrar, to proactively undermine consideration of the evidence that directly tied their global research initiatives to the lab at the center of the COVID-19 pandemic.

To date, all of their efforts have been focused on preventing disclosure of embarrassing connections — not preventing another novel pathogen from sparking a global pandemic; to prevent future scrutiny, not future tragedy.

Scientists, if you’re struggling to understand the distinction between degrees of commitment to truth, I offer the example of Thích Quảng Đức, pictured here protesting the corrupt South Vietnam regime in a prologue to the Vietnam War:

Photo by Keystone/Getty Images

You see, the message for scientists who believe that a threat is existential is that words gain true meaning when they are supported by the actions and sacrifices of the speaker. What message are we supposed to derive from the COVID-19 pandemic?

I’d recommend pausing for reflection — on the image above, specifically — because what the world is beginning to see is that the scientific establishment made a mockery of the trust it had been given. The world’s leading experts in virology and public health called attention to a threat by setting the world on fire, rather than themselves — and then blaming us for being too simple to believe their noble lie.

Priorities

The baseline assumption of the public at large has been that Dr. Fauci has earned the benefit of the doubt thanks to his five decades of public service and consistency in defending establishment science — the admiration of which has risen nearly to cult worship in recent decades. The cognitive dissonance between appearance and reality has created a situation where trust in “Science” has reached its sacred peak at the exact moment when such trust is least deserved.

At the center of this incestuous arrogance is Dr. Anthony Fauci, the recipient of unquestioned adulation by those in the political sphere who have spent more than a century arguing that a Platonic “philosopher-king” ideal must be forced upon intellectually vacuous masses who, left to their own devices, would inevitably self-immolate.

Scientists reached new heights in the ivory tower when they warned us that man’s evil nature had left previous generations protected only by the horrific death equation of Mutually Assured Destruction.Setting aside the obvious complicity of scientists in the creation of nuclear weapons, trusting science over many decades has simply led to a new formulation of that Faustian bargain — Mutually Assured Corruption.

A study in scarlet

Before heading down the long and winding road, it’s important to explain what zoonosis is and why Fauci’s denial of basic facts simply kicks the accountability can down the road. Should we really be surprised that Dr. Fauci is “confused” by the definition of “gain of function”? After all, not that long ago, he also ridiculed the idea that the virus could have come from a lab before finally admitting that it was a statistical possibility.

Zoonosis in the context of viral emergence doesn’t mean a virus originally sprang from nature — all viruses do. It means that the jump from animals to humans happened in the wild, as the result of a fortuitous combination of mutations that allow a virus to survive the switch. If human intervention artificially encouraged the process of adaptation by experimentation, or simply by virtue of bringing a virus to a lab and increasing the odds of such exposure, then the origin of a viral pandemic is a lab.

What’s sickening about his tortured twisting of language is that Fauci knows this better than almost anyone; thus his lies aren’t born of ignorance. What he’s done is use his scientific gravitas to pretend that observers’ understanding of literal definitions is flawed because we are too ignorant to appreciate the complexity of the issues. The truth, however, is that our generation’s most prominent infectious disease expert is gaslighting the citizens of the country he swore an oath to protect (one could also use the term epistemic injustice).

*****

We begin this story on Jan. 31, 2020, on the eve of a four-day stretch that seemingly made true believers out of serious skeptics:

The brief exchange above was a precursor to a conference call the next day, Feb. 1, 2020, organized by Jeremy Farrar and Dr. Fauci for the explicit purpose of addressing the swirling rumors that had emerged following the publication of an Indian pre-print that alleged the discovery of inserts identical to sequence segments within the HIV genome.

As far as sparking the intense reaction, the proof is in the pudding — between the various collections of FOIA emails, the Indian paper and Zero Hedge commentary are explicitly mentioned. The purpose of this meeting was to address several aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 genome that pointed toward an artificial origin, by means of generating adaptive changes through passaging and/or direct manipulation of the genome. Immediately afterward, Baric’s 2015 paper was investigated and shared among Fauci, his assistant Hugh Auchincloss, and others.

There’s no reason to discuss the meeting’s purpose as a hypothetical — the Indian paper proposed a possible method of tweaking, and the Sirotkins’ paper and Adrian Bond’s arguments, as later magnified via Zero Hedge, discussed the general outline of how the WIV would have approached it, based on published experiments. The assembled experts on the conference call knew this, and they also knew — by Feb. 1, 2020 anyway — that Baric’s chimaera and the methods within that paper needed to be compared and considered to determine what to do next. I took it as quite likely that the reference to “backbone” directly stems from that paper.

In retrospect, it makes sense for there to be questions about the love child from that 2015 experiment, because the full sequence wasn’t added to the article’s supplementary files until May 22, 2020 — three months after that conference call. Given that the experiments immediately triggered renewed debate about gain-of-function research, less than a year after the GOF ban began, pretending that repeated corrections (in this case, relatively minor sequence segments) are acceptable for the world’s leading coronavirologist publishing a landmark paper in the world’s most prestigious journal is stupid.

Also completely obscured is the fact that at least one, and very likely all, of the people on the conference call were aware of the existence of the FCS (furin cleavage site), since Bill Gallaher had pointed it out on Jan. 29, 2020, and Robert Garry reiterated it (just a day before the conference call): see Analysis of Wuhan Coronavirus: Deja Vu – SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus / nCoV-2019 Evolutionary History – Virological. There is some confusion as to whether or not Garry actually made it onto the call, given a comment just prior, but further emails show that Garry’s input nonetheless was received by Feb. 2, 2020.

Feb. 2 was also the day that Marion Koopmans mentioned a “backbone” and an “insert.”

Thus, just like Zheng-Li Shi, the Proximals (the five editors of “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,”plus their running mates in the virological community) already knew about the existence of the FCS, certainly by the end of the conference call. If not, then they lied later about “nothing emerging to change their mind about the possibility of engineering.” Then, they said nothing for two weeks and let Etienne Decroly and Co. break the news. That’s pretty s**tty, since the first notions of asymptomatic spread were also arising, and the implications for many scientific disciplines, diplomatic interactions, and public health interventions are profound.

It’s even worse when you consider that 18 months later, they still can’t explain it — the Proximals refuse to respond to the fact that the FCS doesn’t exist within the sarbecovirus sub-genus that SARS-CoV-2 falls under. This is a problem, because members of the sub-genus are too distinct to recombine with the varieties of SARS-like viruses from other branches that do contain the FCS.

In sum, having gone through now 100,000 pages of FOIA emails and all 600-plus articles on my origin-only reference list, I’d be comfortable testifying that:

  1. The Proximals were gathered by Farrar and Fauci explicitly to compare emerging arguments with what was known of Baric’s work, the spectrum of experiments conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
  2. Whatever specifics they covered that were pulled from the Indian paper and Zero Hedge included elements from Baric’s experiments with SHC014.
  3. They were nervous about the claims within the Indian paper (even if not tied to HIV per se), even though it had already been pulled — it struck a nerve.
  4. They were concerned that unrestrained interest would lead back to them directly.
  5. They were concerned about transgenic mice (header for one discussion), the ZH article, the Indian retraction, a backbone, an insert, Baric/Shi’s SHC014 love child, and preventing further inquiries into all of them.
  6. They almost certainly also knew about the FCS on Feb. 2, 2020, but Garry might never have made it to the conference call, per the emails, so it’s possible that (if no one saw the Virological.com posting) this news had to wait until Feb. 3, 2020, when the Proximals were summoned again.
  7. Based on continuing conversations, the decision to censor might not have been formally made until Feb. 3, 2020.

Public alarm? No, that’s not the emotion they’re afraid of.

Why? Because the part that everyone is mostly missing is the far more important aspect of the Baric emails — one that got lost amid their 83,000 pages. The big news last fall was that Peter Daszak, et al., conspired to shape the narrative. Three months later, I found and pointed out that the biggest nugget had been missed. Sadly, it mostly stayed that way even after the Fauci emails, despite my efforts.

The Proximals’ Feb. 4, 2020, collusion efforts were spawned by the Feb. 3 OSTP meeting, of which the stated purpose was to combat “misinformation.” There were obviously still concerns among the Feb. 4 crowd, but they intentionally suppressed them for the OSTP letter. This wasn’t their own secret plan — Kelvin Droegemeier, the recipient of said letter, was a speaker at the meeting on Feb. 3, so they weren’t obfuscating for him or Fauci or the NASEM presidents in whose name the letter was being written.

That was a quick turnaround — this letter was emailed the morning of Feb. 3, 2020, and the meeting it called for took place that afternoon:

Note: NIAID Director Dr. Fauci coordinated this meeting with Kelvin Droegemeier, the presidential science adviser, and included WMD/PPP expert Chris Hassell and the National Academies’ policy director, Alexander Pope.

The meeting’s purpose:

In response to a request from OSTP, the NASEM will examine information and identify data requirements that would help determine the origins of 2019-nCoV, specifically from an evolutionary/structural biology standpoint. NASEM will also consider whether this should include more temporally and geographically diverse clinical isolates, sequences, etc. Although a widely-disputed paper posted on a pre-print server last week has since been withdrawn, the response to that paper highlights the need to determine these information needs as quickly as possible. As part of a broader deliberative process, this review will help prepare for future events by establishing a process for quickly assembling subject matter experts for evaluation of other potentially threatening organisms.

The outcome: This group slapped the table on what the narrative was going to be — not what the science indicated. They hid their conflicts of interest from the NSTC and the president; most still continue to fight tooth and nail to suppress that information. This esteemed group of virologists expended more effort and publications in advancing their cover-up than leading the charge against the exploding pandemic, until at least the summer of 2020.

The 2/1 attendees included:

  1. The world’s largest public (Fauci) and private (Farrar) grant money distributors, who organized the call; Farrar is also an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.
  2. Seemingly no GOF opponents.
  3. Nearly all of the major scientists with conflicts of interest related to the WIV who later published zoonosis materials.
  4. Francis Ross but no other HHS, DHS, or other executive branch officials.
  5. Ron Fouchier, famous for his Spanish Flu concoction.

The 2/3 meeting that decided to censor included:

  1. The policy head of the NASEM academies that controlled fellowship conferral and published “Science.”
  2. Heads of most of the most prestigious virology labs on the planet.
  3. The president’s science adviser/OSTP head.
  4. The HHS science adviser/PPP authority.
  5. A mandate to control the narrative.

Therefore, the signal was sent to all scientists that pursuing the lab origins angle meant career death (no academy membership), no funding (via Fauci or Ross or Farrar), no publication in the big four journals during the historic pandemic (NEJM, Science, The Lancet, and Nature — by virtue of their publishing of the tone-setting pieces), no executive patronage for things like generic drugs, etc.

The disparity between peer-reviewed articles and everything else is stark:

If sorted chronologically, the impact from February to May 2020 is even clearer.

It’s disgusting, and the extension of that censorship to all Americans just ices the cake.

Edifice Wrecks

I’ve pondered the contents of the emails that were redacted before release, but I can’t imagine what could possibly be redacted that is worth protecting. The West didn’t make COVID-19, even if it taught the Chinese how to do major aspects of it. But, these people did decide to lie from the start, then continued to do so after it exploded from 40 deaths to 4 million. It means that they refuse to call a spade a spade even now, and the prospect of China getting off scot-free as a direct result is horrifying. The protection of Fauci is a midterm election decision only, and that means the goal is to drag this out until the electoral damage can be mitigated. Anything that clarifies this to the public negates being worthy of redaction.

The recent congressional appearances by Fauci, however, have shown that he is willing to drag this fight out forever in defense of his legacy, and many politicians are sympathetic to his plight. Thus, it’s clear that better questions are needed to build the proper level of awareness among the public to the full implications of Fauci’s concerted effort to prevent that same public discourse he claimed to support in 2012. Below are the questions I would lead with, were I appearing at his future hearings.

10 questions for Fauci

1) Where did the buck stop? In 2014, who served as the final approval authority for Baric’s pending research, which ultimately allowed it to be grandfathered under the impending GOF ban? Why did the experiment not get forwarded to Chris Hassell’s committee for review?

Why did no one notice that the experiment included the use of humanized mice to increase human pathogenicity, which David Relman had asked Ralph Baric about directly in November 2014, when Baric denied any current research interest in that area?

Coincidentally, it was also the research that Zheng-Li Shi was in North Carolina working with Baric on, then immediately returned to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and continued in 2016.

2) Holding Dr. Fauci to his word — In 2012, Dr. Fauci called for an open, public debate on the GOF issue, saying that scientists should justify their research to the broader public any time the risks of such research carried a non-negligible probability of an accident that could affect them. Why then, in 2017, did the NIH rescind the GOF pause — without first engaging the public or its constitutionally elected president/representatives?

3) Secrecy — What did Peter Daszak tell Erik Stemmy and Alan Embry “off the record” on Jan. 8, 2020? When did they pass on the contents of that discussion to Dr. Fauci?

4) Redactions — When did you first learn of the existence of the furin cleavage site within the genome of SARS-CoV-2? What were the insert and backbone referred to by Marion Koopmans? Was the insert the FCS? Why were emails with the topic heading “humanized mice” redacted?

Let me “recombine” these queries into a single thematic question: Why did the world’s leading virologists/microbiologists and top American/U.K. officials refrain from releasing their knowledge of the existence of the FCS when they first learned of it? The FCS is so good at increasing pathogenicity that it’s the specific insertion typically added by labs worldwide for such experiments. In fact, much has been made of the omission of that specific segment of the genome in the WIV’s landmark paper introducing the likely connection between SARS-CoV-2 and its purported predecessor RaTG13.

What possible justification could there have been to ignore the FCS, other than limit discussion during the early phase of their censorship? And what effect might that have had on our doctors’ ability to characterize the virus?

5) Silence — Why did Victor Dzau and the other two academy presidents of NASEM ultimately remove the forceful pro-zoonotic statements inserted by Daszak et al. from the final version of their public letter to the OSTP? What reservations justified that decision, and why did they not speak out when censorship prevented the doubts of others from being published?

6) Selective Inclusion — Why was Robert Kadlec, the HHS assistant secretary for preparedness and response, not included in any correspondence with Jeremy Farrar or your gathered audience of world-renowned virologists? His deputy is the chair of the PPP oversight panel and he is an expert on C-WMD and biological weapons. The existence of any doubt in the possibility of a zoonotic source (doubts which you harbored) should’ve made his inclusion mandatory.

Instead, you shaped the information provided to those outside the scientific community.

7) Why were you and Francis Collins the only U.S. officials involved in the Feb. 1, 2020, conference call?

8) Subversion — Did you, Collins, or Droegemeier alert Matt Pottinger, Robert Redfield, President Donald Trump, or any member of the National Security Council to the substance of the Feb. 1, 2020, conference call, or the decision-making over the next three days that led to an unannounced censorship of non-natural origin hypothesis for the origin of SARS-CoV-2? Why not?

9) Diverging Narratives — Jeremy Farrar’s experts decided on natural origins of COVID-19 on March 17, 2020? So, Fauci and the presidential science adviser lied to us and President Trump in the OSTP letter on Feb. 7, 2020? And in “Proximal,” on Feb. 16, 2020, written by your future dream team? What was the basis of the Feb. 4, 2020, decision to reject a lab-leak origin and produce “Proximal Origin” — if no additional evidence was added to the Feb. 16 version prior to its March 17, 2020, online appearance in Nature?

Both Fauci and Farrar explained the general makeup and purpose of a “group of experts”:

By this point on Feb. 13, 2020, 10 days had passed since the “Proximals” and Fauci had held a second conclave, this time with the OSTP director, that was followed directly by a flurry of peer-reviewed letter, articles, and “collaboration” (collusion) to smother the scientific community with pro-zoonotic propaganda.

10) Prove It — Which evidence, specifically, led to the Proximals’ reversal from Feb. 1, 2020, to Feb. 4, 2020? The arguments made in the following weeks were pathetically unsubstantiated. If stronger evidence exists, why wouldn’t it have been shown?

The answer, of course, is that the driving force behind the shift had nothing to do with the quality or quantity of the supporting evidence.

Paved by good intentions

The only proper action for Dr. Fauci to take at this point is to resign immediately and apologize for prioritizing the suppression of embarrassing and extensive conflicts of interest, double standards, and political decisions masked as sound policy. Ideally, such a statement would include a call for the retraction of “Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” one of the most-read (and potentially most impactful) pieces of scientific propaganda published in at least a generation. Each of its five authors intentionally framed the COVID origin debate around “evidence” and “facts” that they couldn’t prove and a finality of their conclusions that the known facts couldn’t justify.

These actions are independent of the ultimate answer to the origin question, because the failures of leadership I’ve described are ethically and morally indefensible, regardless of China’s guilt or innocence in the sparking of the pandemic. Any remaining shreds of credibility left in the public’s perception of scientists must be salvaged by new leaders who are willing to do what needs to be done to clean the Augean Stables.

Sufficient evidence already exists for Congress to do the right thing moving forward. Given the enormity of the failures — and of the efforts to hide, censor, and destroy the credibility of anyone who spoke out against lockdowns, vaccines, masks, generic drugs, mRNA efficacy versus risks, and the curtailment of numerous constitutional/human rights in the last 18 months — it will take historic leadership to honestly converse with a righteously indignant citizenry (in the U.S. and everywhere else). We must accept that our current representatives have proven manifestly unqualified to assume such leadership — in the last six months, censorship has been expanding, not receding.

The COVID-19 pandemic has manifestly proven that there is no lie so “noble” that it overrides the rights and wisdom of a free and informed public. That doesn’t mean that the public will inherently do better.

It’s just acknowledging the inescapable conclusion — that we can’t possibly do worse.

*****

AUTHOR’S NOTE: This article details current historical research into COVID-19’s origins as part of the D.R.A.S.T.I.C. team of scientists, journalists, and researchers.

Recent news: D.R.A.S.T.I.C.’s research forms a large portion of the basis for investigations begun by the U.S. SenateHouse, and National Institutes of Health. Recent appearances and/or discussion on “60 Minutes,” “The Joe Rogan Experience,” Fox News, “Joe Rogan” (again)Bill Maher, and CNN.

All references for this and other articles are compiled under my research project The Arc of Inquiry Bends Towards EnlightenmentThe files include my statistical analysis of the impact of censorship on the search for the origin of SARS-CoV-2.

More than 100,000 pages of FOIA documents referred to here have been condensed into 173 pages of the most relevant selections in my appendix Prometheus ShruggedIt was here, last February, that the role of Dr. Fauci in ongoing academic censorship of COVID’s origin was first exposed. A chronological narrative of the events described throughout my research will included in a forthcoming volume of D.R.A.S.T.I.C.’s set of published collections of evidence.

Consider supporting the author at his Substack.

CDC Director Now Says ‘New Data’ Shows Breakthrough Cases in Vaccinated People Can Spread as Much Virus as Unvaccinated


Reported By Cassandra Fairbanks | Published July 28, 2021

Read more at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/cdc-director-now-says-new-data-shows-breakthrough-cases-vaccinated-people-can-spread-much-virus-unvaccinated/

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky is now saying that “new data” shows breakthrough cases in vaccinated individuals can spread as much virus as an unvaccinated person.

The CDC has now changed course yet again and is now calling for fully vaccinated Americans to wear masks indoors in places with “substantial or high” transmission — including “universal masking” in schools.

“In rare occasions, some vaccinated people infected with a delta variant after vaccination may be contagious and spread the virus to others,” Walensky said during a press briefing on Tuesday. “This new science is worrisome, and unfortunately warrants an update to our recommendation.”

Despite giving these new recommendations, the CDC director continued to demand that people go get vaccinated.

“Getting vaccinated continues to prevent severe illness, hospitalization and death, even with delta. It also helps reduce the spread of the virus in our community. Vaccinated individuals continue to represent a very small amount of transmission occurring around the country,” Walensky said.

The CDC had issued guidance earlier this month that suggested vaccinated students and staff were fine to go to school without masks.

“CDC recommends localities encourage universal indoor masking for all teachers, staff, students, and visitors to schools, regardless of vaccination status,” the CDC wrote in a summary of the new guidance. “Children should return to full-time in-person learning in the fall with proper prevention strategies are in place.”

Walensky claimed that the news that vaccinated people will still have to wear masks “weighs heavily” on her.

“This weighs heavily on me. I know at 18 months through this pandemic, not only are people tired, they’re frustrated,” Walensky said. “And I know, in the context of all that, it is not a welcomed piece of news that masking is going to be a part of peoples lives who have already been vaccinated.”

She claimed that vaccinated people will have to wear masks again due to people who opted not to take the jab — continuing to pit the nation against each other.

“This moment, and most importantly, the associated illness, suffering and death could have been avoided with higher vaccination coverage in this country,” Walensky said.

Walensky added that if more people don’t get vaccinated, the virus could mutate to “potentially evade our vaccines.”

Cassandra Fairbanks

Cassandra Fairbanks is a former leftist who came out in support of Donald Trump in 2016. She has been published in the International Business Times, RT, Sputnik, The Independent and countless other publications.

Results of Johns Hopkins Study Are All but Conclusive: People Pushing for Forced COVID Measures on Kids Are Fighting Against the Science


A child receives a shot in the stock image above.Commentary: A child receives a shot in the stock image above. (Melinda Nagy / Shutterstock)

Commentator Mike Landry | July 26, 2021

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/results-johns-hopkins-study-conclusive-people-pushing-forced-covid-measures-kids-fighting-science/

Get your children vaccinated for COVID. That’s the official position of experts at Johns Hopkins University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — at least for children 12 and over. But there are growing doubts as to whether all children need the COVID vaccines, including uncertainty from Johns Hopkins faculty member Marty Makary.

In an Op-Ed last week for The Wall Street Journal, Makary wrote that he and a research team reviewed about 48,000 cases of children under 18 reported to have COVID between April and August of last year.

“Our report found a mortality rate of zero among children without a pre-existing medical condition such as leukemia,” he added.

Got that? Among that sample, no individuals under 18 without pre-existing conditions died of COVID.

Not one.

Zero.

None.

Overall, the CDC has reported that 335 children with a COVID diagnosis have died.

“Yet the CDC, which has 21,000 employees, hasn’t researched each death to find out whether Covid caused it or if it involved a pre-existing medical condition,” wrote Makary, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Bloomberg School of Public Health and Carey Business School.

“I’ve written hundreds of peer-reviewed medical studies,” he said, “and I can think of no journal editor who would accept the claim that 335 deaths resulted from a virus without data to indicate if the virus was incidental or causal, and without an analysis of relevant risk factors such as obesity.”

Makary is not the only one who has raised questions about whether it’s really necessary to vaccinate children. Amid debate, the U.K., unlike the U.S. and Canada, has delayed vaccinating most children, according to the venerable British medical journal The BMJ.

On Friday, the journal published an article that indicated a government agency had recommended vaccinating 12- to 15-year-old children who had medical conditions (at-risk 16- and 17-year-olds already were eligible) or who were living with someone with immune system problems. In a point-counterpoint debate published in an edition of The BMJ earlier this month, three professors argued against vaccinating children, saying the risks outweigh the benefits and citing limited supplies of vaccines.

They referenced a U.S. CDC slide presentation that outlined the risk of myocarditis, mainly for young males, following vaccination. In boys aged 12 to 17, there were 56 to 69 cases of myocarditis per 1 million vaccine doses over a 120-day period, the CDC presentation said.

“… the risk of myocarditis, mainly for young males, following vaccination. In boys aged 12 to 17, there were 56 to 69 cases of myocarditis per 1 million vaccine doses over a 120-day period, the CDC presentation said. “

These instances may be rare. But they’re something that should go into parents’ decision-making process.

And that’s the key — parents ought to be the ones deciding whether or not their children will get vaccinated, not the government or any other parties that want to get involved. It’s up to the parents to evaluate the risks and benefits, and then decide what they want to do.

And the truth of the matter, as Makary’s research appears to show, is that for most children — not all, of course — COVID poses a much less serious risk.

It isn’t that COVID is something to take lightly (it’s not) or that children can’t get sick or die from it (they can, especially if they have pre-existing conditions). But politicians and others must be wary of pushing parents to just shut up and get their children vaccinated — the science simply isn’t on their side.

About the Commentator:

Mike Landry, Contributor,

Mike Landry, PhD, is a retired business professor. He has been a journalist, broadcaster and church pastor. He writes from Northwest Arkansas on current events and business history.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Data from India continues to blow up the ‘Delta’ fear narrative


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | July 22, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-data-from-india-continues-to-blow-up-the-delta-fear-narrative/

Rather than proving the need to sow more panic, fear, and control over people, the story from India — the source of the “Delta” variant — continues to refute every current premise of COVID fascism.

Whitlock dishes on his ESPN exit, Bill Simmons, John Skipper, Deadspin and the Undefeated

The prevailing narrative from Fauci, Walensky, and company is that Delta is more serious than anything before, and even though vaccines are even less effective against it, its spread proves the need to vaccinate even more people. Unless we do that, we must return to the very effective lockdowns and masks. In reality, India’s experience proves the opposite true; namely:

  1. Delta is largely an attenuated version, with a much lower fatality rate, that for most people is akin to a cold.
  2. Masks failed to stop the spread there.
  3. The country has come close to the herd immunity threshold with just 3% vaccinated.
  4. Most people are now getting cold-like symptoms from Delta, but to the extent countries hit by Delta suffered some deaths and serious illness, they could have been avoided not with vaccines and masks, but with early and preventive treatment like ivermectin.

In other words, our government is learning all the wrong lessons from India, and now Israel and the U.K. Let’s unpack what we know occurred in India and now in some of the other countries experiencing a surge in cases of the Indian “Delta” variant.

The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) recently conducted a fourth nationwide serological test and found that 67.6% of those over 6 years old in June and July had antibodies, including 85% of health care workers. This is a sharp increase from the 24.1% level detected during the December-January study. What we can conclude definitively is that strict mask-wearing (especially among health care workers) failed to stop the spread one bit. Yet now they have achieved herd immunity and burned out the virus with just 3% vaccination (now up to 6%) with roughly one-sixth the death rate of the U.S. and the U.K. and less than one-half that of Israel.

Immediately, naysayers will suggest that somehow India is vastly undercounting the deaths because it is a shabby third-world country. However, if we are to suggest that, it would mean that so much of the data from so many other countries we use for studies must be ignored. Also, it’s true that India is poor in some areas, but it is highly developed and has a very strong bureaucracy and administrative state throughout. There might be undercounting, but the notion that it can account for that wide a gap between India and the U.S./U.K. was always unlikely.

However, now that the Delta has spread to other countries like Israel and the U.K., we need not speculate who is right about India’s death rate. The fact that Israel and the U.K. have so many Delta cases yet so few deaths relative to the winter spread of the original strain demonstrates that Delta is likely much weaker and India’s numbers are probably close to accurate. Remember, most of India’s spread, unlike in the West, occurred with Delta, long after the ancestral strain that hit the West was gone. If it really was the bloodbath some are suggesting (a tenfold undercount of deaths, in their estimation), why is the data from the U.K. showing just the opposite?

The latest data from the U.K. show that the case fatality rate for the Delta is just 0.2%, much less than the others. And we need not speculate with generalized studies. The raw data shows that since May 1, there have been approximately 1,300 deaths in the U.K. out of roughly 1.1 million confirmed cases. But those are confirmed cases. The likely infection fatality rate is much lower because now more than ever, people are avoiding testing, and the U.K. media has been reporting for weeks that the symptoms of the Delta for most people appear more like a cold.

The Guardian reports that based on data from the app-based Zoe COVID symptom study, the symptoms being reported are mainly headaches and runny nose. “People might think they’ve just got some sort of seasonal cold, and they still go out to parties … we think this is fueling a lot of the problem,” said Tim Spector, a professor of genetic epidemiology at King’s College London, who is leading the work on the reporting app.

The U.K. media are trying to panic people about spreading a cold, but in fact, they are reporting good news! This virus has attenuated for most people to the point that they can’t even distinguish it from a cold, much less a flu. Thus, the fact that India achieved most of its immunity throughout the spread of the Delta variant actually lends a lot of credence to the fatality rate of one-sixth of that of the U.S. and the U.K., which experienced most of its deaths from the ancestral strain.

If you look at any chart from Scotland, which is now mainly over the curve, there is a complete decoupling of deaths from cases.

The same thing is being observed in Israel, which is slightly behind the curve. The country has had just 20 deaths so far in July, but again, 15 of them were of vaccinated individuals.

However, to the extent that there are cases, and the relatively rare serious cases, the vaccines have proven to be a bust in preventing them. The Western countries are relying on an exponentially higher vaccination rate than India with a much lower seroprevalence rate from infection. It’s simply not working. According to Israel’s Ministry of Health, the Pfizer vaccine efficacy against infection dropped 42% since the start of the inoculation drive in Israel, and efficacy against severe illness has dropped 60% among those vaccinated early on. Ditto for the United Kingdom.

In fact, in Israel, the case rates track almost perfectly with the percentage of those vaccinated stratified by age range.

Thus, the experience from India and the Delta variant teaches us the exact opposite of what the panic-mongers are pushing. Natural immunity, not vaccination, is king. Which explains the dichotomy between India and countries like Gibraltar. In Gibraltar, nearly every adult in the tiny country has been vaccinated, yet it has the third-highest per capita rate of infection in the world.

The same trend appears to be playing out in Cyprus:

In general, there is zero correlation between vaccination rates and better outcomes, and in fact, many Latin American countries with the highest vaccination rates have recently had high infection rates, and many eastern European countries with lower vaccination rates had many fewer cases than their vaccine-obsessed western European counterparts. Here in the U.S., San Francisco, which had a low infection rate until recently, has seen an explosion in cases, despite a 70% vaccination rate.

At the same time, as I chronicled last month in great detail, even within India, the states that used ivermectin to treat COVID experienced a much sharper and quicker drop in cases in May. Imagine if the Western world used ivermectin and many other treatment options pre-emptively and prescribed them at every testing station. That is how you flatten a curve.

The lesson is clear: The only way out of this is for most people to get it, and the best way to do that safely is to make sure early treatments with drugs like ivermectin are made available and to be used even preventively for vulnerable populations. If this is really about saving lives, rather than doubling down on all of the things that have failed and distorting data and history to comport with pseudo-science, they would try the one thing they have shunned until now – actually treating the virus before people have trouble breathing.CDC Director Rochelle Walensky is correct when she says, “Nearly every death, especially among adults, due to Covid-19 is at this point entirely preventable.” But the data and learned experience show that it’s not because of a lack of vaccines, but a lack of treatment.

Newly surfaced emails show Fauci’s agency gave grants for bat coronavirus research to US-Chinese scientists; Wuhan lab scrambled to find disinfectant


Reported by PAUL SACCA | July 09, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/wuhan-fauci-china-research-bat-coronavirus/

Newly surfaced emails show connections among a U.S. health agency headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, EcoHealth Alliance, and Chinese scientists. The recently exposed documents also show that researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were scrambling to find disinfectant and asked a National Institutes of Health official for help.

Judicial Watch obtained 301 pages of emails and other records from National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases officials who had connections with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. According to the documents that were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch, the NIAID gave at least nine grants to EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S. nonprofit organization focused on finding unknown viruses and infectious diseases in nature. EcoHealth Alliance reportedly used those NIAID grants to work with Chinese scientists on research such as probing the emergence of a bat coronavirus — years before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Judicial Watch lists the nine grants to EcoHealth Alliance from the NIAID, where Dr. Fauci has been the director since 1984:

  • One grant awarded each year between 2010 and 2012 to EcoHealth Alliance, working with Chinese collaborator Jinping Chen of Guangdong Entomological Institute, to study in China “Risk of Viral Emergence from Bats.”
  • One grant awarded each year from 2014 to 2017 to EcoHealth Alliance, working with Chinese collaborator Changwen Ke of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of Guangdong, in a project titled “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”
  • grant was issued in 2012 to EcoHealth Alliance, working with Xiangming Xiao of the East China Normal University, in a project titled “Comparative Spillover Dynamics of Avian Influenza in Endemic Countries.”
  • grant was issued in 2018 to EcoHealth Alliance, again working with Ke in the project called “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”

The recently emerged emails also show that scientists at China’s Wuhan lab were scrambling to find disinfectant for equipment, including positive pressure personnel suits.

The physical facilities of the Wuhan Institute of Virology were completed in January 2015, which made it China’s first biosafety level 4 laboratory. BSL-4 laboratories are “used to study infectious agents or toxins that pose a high risk of aerosol-transmitted laboratory infections and life-threatening disease for which no vaccines or therapies are available,” according to the U.S. Health and Human Services.

“Laboratory personnel are required to wear full-body, air-supplied suits, which are the most sophisticated type of PPE,” the HHS states of BSL-4 labs. “All personnel shower before exiting the laboratory and go through a series of procedures designed to fully decontaminate them before leaving.”

The emails from 2016 that were recovered by the FOIA request show a conversation where Wuhan Institute of Virology vice director Yuan Zhiming asked National Institutes of Health virologist Jens Kuhn for help getting disinfectant for the equipment in China’s potentially dangerous BSL-4 lab.

“I am writing to you to ask your help,” Zhiming wrote. “Our laboratory is under operation without pathogens, and we are now looking for the disinfectants for decontamination of airtight suits and surface decontamination indoor decontamination.”

“We have tried several ones do [sic] determine their antiviral efficacy and corrosion to pipeline and wastewater treatment equipment,” he continued. “Unfortunately, we have found a good candidate. I hope you can give us some help, to give us some suggestion for the choice of disinfectants used in P4 laboratory.”

Zhiming allegedly asks what kinds of disinfectants are effective for decontamination of airtight protective clothes, doors, the laboratory, infectious materials, and air decontamination. Zhiming concluded the email, “Best regards and looking forward to seeing you in Wuhan.” In a later email, Kuhn said he “personally” met Zhiming “in Wuhan twice.”

After news of the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, Zhiming purportedly wrote to Kuhn on March 20, 2020:

The 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak is a major challenge for global public health security. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 has been associated with serious acute respiratory distress syndrome with large number of patients’ hospitalization and relatively high mortality. We had a very hard time in combating the infection in Wuhan, the epicenter of the COVID-19 in China, and now we can see the situation goes in good direction, with no reported confirmed case, no reported suspected case in last two days here.

My colleagues and I, have been working on characterization of pathogens, antiviral screen, vaccine development, animal modeling since the early January this year, and some progresses have been made. I hope our understanding of the virus and the technology could be valuable in the global fighting to the virus.

There is also a February 2018 email from Dr. Ping Chen, the NIAID representative in China, discussing a “type of new flu vaccine using nano-technology from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Judicial Watch added that “the Chinese had blocked all Internet links to reports on the new technology.” This development allegedly prompted Chen to write a “night note” to U.S. government officials, which said, “The intranasal nano-vaccine can target broad-spectrum flu viruses and induces robust immune responses.”

In a January 2017 report to NIH colleagues, Chen mentioned the “Global Virome Project,” which described its mission as: “Stimulate the development of an innovative network of public, private, philanthropic, and civil organizations to detect the majority of our planet’s unknown viral threats to human health and food security to prepare for and stop future epidemics.”

Chen described the Global Virome Project and showed a link to Peter Daszak, the president of EcoHealth Alliance:

The purpose of the project is to identify viruses present in the wildlife with potential crossing over to humans, causing human infection and disease. Following the identification of the viruses is the development of vaccines to protect human population… One of the partners in this project is EcoHealth Alliance. Peter Daszak from EcoHealth Alliance is one of the leaders for the GVP project and he has NIAID grant from RDB looking at the coronaviruses in Bat populations in China in collaboration with Wuhan Institute of Virology.

CDC Recommends Schools Open Fully Immediately, Says Vaccinated Teachers And Students Don’t Need Masks


Reported by ANDERS HAGSTROM, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT | July 09, 2021

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2021/07/09/cdc-school-reopen-biden-vaccinated-students-masks-updated-guidance/

Louisville Schools Open For In-Person Learning
(Photo by Jon Cherry/Getty Images)

Schools in the U.S. should fully reopen to in-person learning in the fall and allow vaccinated teachers and students to not wear masks, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced Friday. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky stated in February that schools could safely reopen for in-person learning even if teachers and students haven’t been vaccinated, but President Joe Biden’s White House quickly walked back the statement. The CDC is now urging schools to reopen in the fall “regardless of whether all of the prevention strategies can be implemented at the school.”

The CDC does recommend physical distancing and masking for students and teachers who are not vaccinated, however.

A teacher welcomes students entering a classroom in a high-school of an Athens suburb on April 12, 2021, as students and teachers in Greece are required to use kits for self-administered Covid-19 test twice a week as the country reopens high-schools for students in the three final grades. (Photo by Louisa GOULIAMAKI / AFP) (Photo by LOUISA GOULIAMAKI/AFP via Getty Images)

A teacher welcomes students entering a classroom in a high-school of an Athens suburb on April 12, 2021, as students and teachers in Greece are required to use kits for self-administered Covid-19 test twice a week as the country reopens high-schools for students in the three final grades. (Photo by Louisa GOULIAMAKI / AFP) (Photo by LOUISA GOULIAMAKI/AFP via Getty Images)

When Walensky said much the same in February, White House press secretary Jen Psaki distanced the administration from her comments.

“The president — let me be crystal clear — wants schools to open,” Psaki said during a Feb. 4 press briefing. “He wants them to stay open. And he wants to do that safely. And he wants health and medical experts to be the guides for how we should do exactly that.”

“Dr. Walensky spoke to this in her personal capacity,” Psaki continued. “Obviously, she’s the head of the CDC, but we’re going to wait for the final guidance to come out so we can use that as a guide for schools around the country.”

Biden’s goal was to reopen “most” schools to in-person learning within his first 100 days in office, which the administration did not reach. Biden and the rest of his administration appeared to repeatedly contradict one another on which schools they wanted to open and what constituted reopening.

Psaki said Feb. 10 that the administration would consider a school “open” if it held in-person classes “at least” one day per week. Biden later called that statement “a mistake in communication” and said his administration is working to reopen schools in-person five days a week.

ARE WE GOING TO TRUST OUR CHILDREN, GRANDCHILDREN AND GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN TO THIS INCOMPOTANT MAN?

We Were Right: Experts Confirm COVID Deaths Massively Inflated, Actual Numbers Dramatically Lower Than Official Count


Reported by C. Douglas Golden  |July 8, 2021

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/right-experts-confirm-covid-deaths-massively-inflated-actual-numbers-dramatically-lower-official-count/

Imagine if someone had said these words in October:

“In the midst of everything COVID, people were sort of putting down that cause of death as COVID … It is important to go back and do this accounting to see if COVID was actually the cause of death.”

It would have taken five minutes for Snopes and PolitiFact to cancel this person entirely. They would have been branded a conspiracy theorist, a blackguard, a scoundrel. If they had any platform, it would be taken away posthaste. You could even make a case there would be Facebook and Twitter censorship involved — this being COVID-19 misinformation, after all.

But those words were spoken Friday by University of California San Francisco professor of medicine Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease expert. She was speaking to San Francisco’s KPIX-TV regarding the announcement that Santa Clara County, California, had revised its official COVID-19 death toll downward by 22 percent.

According to KPIX, the announcement was made after the county “refined its approach in reporting the data.”

Santa Clara County — home to San Jose in the heart of Silicon Valley — is the sixth-largest among California’s 58 counties in terms of population, with 1,927,470 residents, according to U.S. Census Bureau data compiled by Cubit.

This isn’t minor, in other words.

Before refining its approach, the county had recorded 2,201 COVID deaths. Now, that’s been reduced to 1,696.

“It is important to go back and do this accounting to see if COVID was actually the cause of death,” Gandhi said, according to KPIX.

“I think that transparent communication is an upside, I mean, in the sense that it’s true that if we did this across the nation, it would bring our death rate lower. A downside of that, could be that people will say, ‘Well, it wasn’t as serious as you said.’”

Gandhi added she thought this was going to encourage coronavirus vaccine holdouts to get vaccinated.

“Because a lot of people have kind of said, ‘I’ve heard people are dying anyway of COVID, what’s the point?’ And it is very important to say, ‘No, did they die of COVID or were they in the hospital for something else and they died of that?’” Gandhi said. “That helps people say, ‘Oh, the risk of breakthrough infection is so low I want to go ahead and get vaccinated.’ So I think it’s very good for vaccine hesitancy.”

Santa Clara County wasn’t the only county in California to reassess its data, either. According to KGO-TV, Alameda County revised its numbers downward in early June, saying it had an over-count of COVID deaths greater than 400 individuals. On June 4, the number of deaths in the Bay Area county attributed to COVID-19 dropped from 1,634 to 1,223. Alameda County, home to Oakland and Berkeley, is the seventh-largest in the state in terms of population with 1,656,754 residents.

“According to the Health Department, the 25% decrease was made to comply with the state’s definition of a COVID-19 death, which requires COVID-19 to be a direct or contributing factor or a situation in which it can’t be ruled out,” KGO reported.

“Alameda County previously included any person who died while infected with the virus in the total COVID-19 deaths for the County,” wrote Neetu Balram with the Alameda County Health Department in a news release dated June 4.

By way of example, Balram wrote:

“Using the older definition of COVID-19 deaths, a resident who had COVID-19 but died due to another cause, like a car accident, this person would be included in the total number of reported COVID-19 deaths for Alameda County. Under the updated definition of COVID-19 deaths, this person would not be included in the total because COVID-19 was not a contributing factor in the death.”

At the time, another doctor at the University of California San Francisco, epidemiologist Dr. George Rutherford, told KGO he was “betting it’s very specific to Alameda County, which had a lot of cases early on and had to do a lot of on-the-fly definitions and systems and now they are being brought into alignment.”

Gandhi apparently didn’t think that was the case after Santa Clara reported its revised total. KPIX reported that “Gandhi believes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may soon ask all counties to do the same as Alameda and Santa Clara Counties and that the nation could also see a drop in its COVID-19 death toll.”

This is what voices — mostly conservative voices — have been saying for over a year. Even raising the issue, however, got one branded as a conspiracy theorist.

Take the state of Washington. In May 2020, during a media briefing, Dr. Katie Hutchinson of the Washington State Department of Health announced that some people who obviously hadn’t died of COVID were being included in the state’s death totals.

“We currently do have some deaths that are being reported that are clearly from other causes,” Hutchinson said. “We have about five deaths — less than five deaths — that we know of that are related to obvious other causes. In this case, they are from gunshot wounds.”

If there were five deaths that they could identify as just being from gunshot wounds — out of 1,078 deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the state at the time — that still doesn’t speak well of the state’s reporting mechanisms. That means, as the conservative think tank Freedom Foundation pointed out at the time, there were likely individuals who died of other causes more anodyne than a gunshot wound who were being counted among COVID deaths.

Yet, Washington Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee blasted anyone who questioned whether there was over-counting going on.

“The problem is you got some people out there who are fanning these conspiracy claims from the planet Pluto,” Inslee said, according to KOMO-TV. “And it’s just disgusting what they’re trying to say of all these crazy deep-state malarkey. Who are kinda suggests that this not a problem in our state. I find that hard to accept with the number of dead in our state. So, that’s a problem. And I hope it gets resolved.”

This is such “deep-state malarkey” that jurisdictions now revising their COVID death toll downward include [checks notes] two famously liberal Bay Area counties in California, one home to Berkeley and the other the center of Silicon Valley. These stories were out there if you looked — individuals who died of gunshot wounds or motorcycle accidents that were counted as COVID victims. If you raised questions, however, you were branded a conspiracy theorist.

Even now, Gandhi seems to lament the fact Santa Clara County’s deaths have been revised downward: “A downside of that, could be that people will say, ‘Well, it wasn’t as serious as you said,’” she told KPIX.

Why would that be your reaction? And, perhaps more importantly, why would nobody with a brain be surprised to hear the same reaction from editors, politicians and members of the medical and scientific communities?

After a year of lockdowns based on an unholy alliance among untruthful media, scientists with zero sense and a power-hungry left, we’re left with the conclusion that big numbers drove public policy in a direction all of these entities wanted — in an election year when the left was tarring the sitting president with blame for all things COVID.

While the numbers weren’t ginned up to create a crisis that didn’t exist, it’s not as if politicians and scientists acted with alacrity to fix obvious deficiencies in reporting COVID deaths, either. Santa Clara and Alameda Counties are emblematic of how wrong some jurisdictions got it.

They’re not the only ones.

C. Douglas Golden, Contributor,

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he’s written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014.

@CillianZeal

Facebook

Censored COVID Vaccine Victims Demand Answers In Private Facebook Group


Reported by By Alicia Powe | Published July 6, 2021

Read more at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/censored-covid-vaccine-victims-demand-answers-private-facebook-group/

As Big Tech, the Biden Administration, Hollywood, politicians, employers and health care providers around the nation galvanize the public to undergo Covid vaccination, the number of casualties who have died or suffer life-threatening effects from the experimental mRNA injections continues to climb. Those who don’t want to be herded into the mass drug trial are told to just “get on with it” so we can “safely” move on with our lives.

Despite the unrelenting effort to censor “vaccine hesitancy,” thousands who are experiencing the vaccines’ ill effects are resorting to a private Facebook group to sound the alarm on the medical malpractice.

In post after post, over 25,900 members of the private Facebook group “The COVID 19 Vaccine Victims & Families Group” detail the horrific health abnormalities they have suffered, including strokes, blood clots, excessive bleeding, needle-like pain in their limbs and paralysis, after receiving Moderna, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines.

Mgid
Mgid

Irrespective of the heartbreaking testimonies, Facebook inserts a disclaimer on each of the group members’ posts to assure users the vaccines are “safe” and “effective.”

“COVID-19 vaccines go through many tests for safety and effectiveness and are then monitored closely,” the notification states, citing the World Health Organization.

The notification directs users to Facebook’s COVID-19 information Center, which promotes the vaccine and provides locations offering vaccines in each state.

According to the CDC’s own data, the number of deaths linked to vaccines skyrocketed in 2021.

According to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database, over 1,750 Americans died from vaccines during the first 3 months of 2021.

That number is now at 6,997.

Americans experiencing bizarre Covid vaccine injury have no legal recourse in a U.S. court of law. Drug companies have total immunity from liability if you die from their vaccines.

In February, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar of the outgoing Trump administration invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act declaring COVID-19 to be “a public health emergency warranting liability protections for covered countermeasures.” The 2005 law assures companies “cannot be sued for money damages in court” over injuries related to the administration or use of products to treat or protect against Covid until 2024, unless there’s “willful misconduct” by the company

The Food and Drug Administration, which provides and approves the pharmaceutical companies’ products for mass distribution, has sovereign immunity for authorizing the vaccine for emergency use.

“You also can’t sue the Food and Drug Administration for authorizing a vaccine for emergency use, nor can you hold your employer accountable if they mandate inoculation as a condition of employment,” CNBC reports.

Alicia Powe

Alicia is a multimedia reporter. Alicia has written for numerous outlets, including the Gateway Pundit, InfoWars, World Net Daily, Townhall.com and Media Research Center, where she exposed public corruption, fraud and abuse in government, media and Big Tech. She has a Bachelor of Science in Political Science from John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She served as a War Room analyst for the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee. She also served in the Correspondence Department of the George W. Bush administration. Alicia is originally from New York City and currently resides in Washington D.C.Tags: covid 19

Chinese scientists deleted key data that could help identify origins of COVID-19, study claims


Reported by CHRIS PANDOLFO | June 23, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/chinese-scientists-deleted-key-covid-data/

Chinese researchers appear to have deleted important data from a global database operated by the National Institutes of Health that could provide key insights into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, a preprint study claims.Preview Fearless with Jason Whitlock, talking about the biggest names in sports media. Colin Cowherd, Dan Le Batard, Jemele Hill, and more.

An American scientist recovered the deleted data from cloud storage and published his analysis Tuesday. The paper, “Recovery of deleted deep sequencing data sheds more light on the early Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 epidemic,” suggests that early virus samples from the Wuhan seafood market that until now have been the focus of most studies on the origins of the pandemic “are not fully representative of the viruses actually present in Wuhan at that time.”

The paper is not yet peer-reviewed, and its findings should not yet be considered conclusive. The recovered virus samples do not support either the “lab leak” hypothesis or the “natural origins” hypothesis of the origins of SARS-CoV-2, according to scientists who have examined the paper. But these scientists say it does suggest the virus was spreading in Wuhan earlier than the Chinese government claimed, and the paper’s author, Dr. Jesse Bloom, says his findings should reinforce skepticism that China has fully shared all relevant data on COVID-19.

Bloom, an influenza virus expert at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, also says his study should be a cause for hope that scientists can recover additional information about the early spread of SARS-CoV-2 without an international investigation.

In the course of his research into SARS-CoV-2, Bloom read a paper that analyzed data from a project by Wuhan University that sequenced 45 positive coronavirus cases from January and early February 2020. The Chinese study, which developed an improved technique to test for and diagnose COVID-19 cases, was peer-reviewed and published in June 2020.

The SARS-CoV-2 sequences obtained by the Chinese researchers were uploaded to the NIH’s Sequence Read Archive (SRA), a database for storing what are essentially maps of how viruses are built. These sequences can help scientists study how a virus originated and evolved over time, and such study may lead to knowledge that can prevent the next pandemic.

But when Bloom went to the SRA to examine the Chinese sequences, he found the data had been deleted. He explained in his paper that the SRA “is designed as a permanent archive of deep sequencing data.” The only circumstances under which data can be removed is if the original researchers make an email request to have it deleted, provide reasons for doing so, and have that request approved by SRA staff.

A spokesperson for the NIH told the Telegraph that the NIH had “reviewed the submitting investigator’s request to withdraw the data” in June 2020 and subsequently removed it.

“The requestor indicated the sequence information had been updated, was being submitted to another database, and wanted the data removed from SRA to avoid version control issues,” the spokesperson said. “Submitting investigators hold the rights to their data and can request withdrawal of the data.”

Bloom attempted to contact the Wuhan University researchers asking why they requested the data be deleted but did not receive a response. He noted in his paper that “there is no plausible scientific reason for the deletion” and suggested “it therefore seems likely the sequences were deleted to obscure their existence.”

Fortunately, he was able to recover some of the data from the Google Cloud, obtaining 34 early positive COVID-19 samples, and he was able to reconstruct partial viral sequences from 13 of them.

In a Twitter thread about his paper, Bloom explained why these sequences are crucial for understanding the origins of the virus.

“Although events that led to emergence of #SARSCoV2 in Wuhan are unclear (zoonosis vs lab accident), everyone agrees deep ancestors are coronaviruses from bats,” Bloom said.

“Therefore, we’d expect the first #SARSCoV2 sequences would be more similar to bat coronaviruses, and as #SARSCoV2 continued to evolve it would become more divergent from these ancestors. But that is *not* the case!” he continued.

“Instead, early Huanan Seafood Market #SARSCoV2 viruses are more different from bat coronaviruses than #SARSCoV2 viruses collected later in China and even other countries.

These findings suggest that the first virus samples from Huanan Seafood Market, originally suspected by scientists to be the source of viral outbreak, were not the earliest evolutions of the virus. That would mean SARS-CoV-2 was circulating before China reported its first confirmed COVID-19 case on Dec. 8, 2019, and did not necessarily originate in the wet market.

Reacting to this new information, University of California, Berkeley, Professor Rasmus Neilsen, a genomics expert, said the findings “are the most important data that we have received regarding the origins of Covid-19 for more than a year.”

Bloom said his work has several important implications.

“First, [the] fact this dataset was deleted should make us skeptical that all other relevant early Wuhan sequences have been shared,” he tweeted, noting that China ordered many labs to destroy early samples of the virus.

“Sequence sharing could be further limited by fact that scientists in China are under an order from the State Council requiring central approval of all publications,” he added.

The second major implication of this work is that “it may be possible to obtain additional information about early spread of #SARSCoV2 in Wuhan even if efforts for more on-the-ground investigations are stymied.”

Bloom explained in his paper that “it should be immediately possible for the NIH to determine the date and purported reason for deletion of the data set analyzed here, since the only way sequences can be deleted from the SRA is by an e-mail request to SRA staff.” He also suggested that SRA email records should be reviewed to determine if there were any more requests to delete early SARS-CoV-2 sequences from the database.

“Importantly, SRA deletions do not imply any malfeasance: there are legitimate reasons for removing sequencing runs, and the SRA houses >13-million runs making it infeasible for its staff to validate the rationale for all requests,” Bloom said. “However, the current study suggests that at least in one case, the trusting structures of science have been abused to obscure sequences relevant to the early spread ofSARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan.

“A careful re-evaluation of other archived forms of scientific communication, reporting, and data could shed additional light on the early emergence of the virus.”


Suicide attempts by teen girls spiked during COVID-19 pandemic: CDC

NEWSPAUL SACCA | June 12, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/suicides-teen-girls-covid-pandemic/

Suicide attempts by teen girls spiked during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Among the adolescent girls aged 12-17 years, the average weekly visits to the emergency department for suspected suicide attempts from February 2021 to March 2021 was 50.6% higher than the same period the year before, according to the CDC analysis. Boys were far less likely to show suicidal tendencies during the same time period; the number of emergency department visits for suicide attempts rose by 3.7% for males.

“In May 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, ED visits for suspected suicide attempts began to increase among adolescents aged 12–17 years, especially girls,” the CDC study found.

From late July to late August 2020, the average weekly number of emergency department visits for suspected suicide attempts among 12- to 17-year-old girls increased by 26.2% from the same time period the prior year.

“The study likely underrepresents the real number of suspected suicide attempts because Americans were hesitant to go to hospitals during the pandemic, in fear of contracting COVID-19,” according to CNBC. “In spring 2020, there was a 16.8% drop in emergency department visits among men and women aged 18 to 24 compared with the same time period a year prior.”

The study theorized that the stresses of the COVID-19 pandemic may have been toxic to the mental health of young people.

“Young persons might represent a group at high risk because they might have been particularly affected by mitigation measures, such as physical distancing (including a lack of connectedness to schools, teachers, and peers); barriers to mental health treatment; increases in substance use; and anxiety about family health and economic problems, which are all risk factors for suicide,” the CDC study said.

The CDC suggested that parents spending more time with children at home because of lockdowns may have tipped off adults to suicidal thoughts and behaviors of their children.

“The findings from this study suggest more severe distress among young females than has been identified in previous reports during the pandemic, reinforcing the need for increased attention to, and prevention for, this population,” the CDC said of the significant difference of suicide attempts by boys and girls.

States began implementing stay-at-home orders in March 2020, and by the end of March, 32 out of 50 states had locked down. The CDC noted that the increase in suicide attempts did not equate to more deaths. The suicide rate among young persons aged 15-24 from the third quarter of 2019 and the third quarter of 2020 “saw no significant change.” Earlier studies also found an alarming increase in suicide attempts and suicidal thoughts during the COVID-19 pandemic. A poll conducted in June 2020 by the CDC found that 25.5% of Americans ages 18 and 24 reported “having seriously considered suicide in the 30 days before completing the survey.”

In January 2021, a rash of suicides forced Las Vegas schools to reopen partially.

In Japan, suicides were up nearly 40% in October 2020 compared to the same period in 2019. Suicides by Japanese women spiked by 82.6% in October, compared to a 21.3% increase in suicides by men.

Drug overdose deaths in the United States surged during the coronavirus pandemic, reaching the highest totals since the opioid epidemic began, according to the CDC.

DEA: Mexican cartels selling meth disguised as adderall ‘to hook’ young Americans


Read more at https://saraacarter.com/dea-mexican-cartels-selling-meth-disguised-as-adderall-to-hook-young-americans/

This story was first published by The Dark Wire Investigation Foundation

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s New England office is warning that methamphetamine is being sold in American communities that resemble pills commonly used to treat Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

The agency says pills that look like adderall and ritalin are now being sold by the Mexican cartels and other drug dealers “to hook younger customers” on highly-addictive methamphetamine.

Since 2012, deaths involving psychostimulants, mainly methamphetamine, have increased each year, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. In 2019, the CDC recorded 16,167 deaths caused by psychostimulants.

Follow Jennie Taer on Twitter @JennieSTaer

Click here to read the original report on TheDarkWire.com

Puberty blockers stunt children’s bone growth, research finds


Reported By Brandon Showalter, Christian Post Reporter 

Unsplash/Mercedes Mehling

New research has revealed what doctors critical of transgender medicine have been saying for years, that puberty-suppressing drugs given to gender dysphoric youth stunt their bone growth.

Published in PLOS One last week, the study, “Short-term outcomes of pubertal suppression in a selected cohort of 12 to 15 year old young people with persistent gender dysphoria in the UK,” found that puberty blockers do not alleviate psychological distress regarding one’s gender by any measurable benefit. The study does claim, however, that the overall experience of the patients on the blockers was “positive.” The study followed a cohort of 44 children who had undergone the experimental treatment in the United Kingdom’s lone gender clinic with the National Health Service.

When the children completed chemical puberty blockade at age 16, the researchers found “reduced growth” in both height and bone strength. Additional research is necessary to say whether the weakened bones are irreversible, researchers said.

“In both cases (height and bone strength) there was some growth but less than would be expected during those years without hormonal suppression,” states the paper, which was published nine years after the research began.

Amid increasing visibility of gender identity policies and legislation, transgender activists and others have often asserted that such drugs are a mere “pause button” to allow children more time to decide whether to proceed with a full medicalized gender-transition, which includes cross-sex hormones and various cosmetic surgeries to appear more as the opposite sex.

Of the 44 children that the latest study followed, 43 went on to take cross-sex hormones. 

Dr. Michael Biggs of Oxford University, who has criticized the study’s methodology, said he found it “striking” that the youth who were tracked experienced no improvement in gender dysphoria.

“We would have expected a large positive placebo response, as these kids and their parents were desperate to get the drugs,” he said, as was reported in the UK Times.

In 2019, California endocrinologist Dr. Michael Laidlaw detailed in a Heritage Foundation panel the harms of gender identity medicine that Biggs had previously discovered through a freedom of information request. Biggs found that at the Tavistock gender clinic — which a U.K. high court ruled against in a recent judicial review — children that were treated at the facility reported greater self-harm with these particular medications, and girls exhibited greater emotional problems and dissatisfaction with their bodies.

In a Feb. 3 comment on the study on the PLOS One site, Biggs explained that “it is hard to square this finding with the authors’ claim that ‘pubertal suppression may be both a treatment in its own right and also an intermediate step in a longer treatment pathway.’” 

“Considered as a treatment in its own right, the suppression of puberty with GnRHa might be the only treatment provided by the NHS for which there is no objective evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks — as the authors themselves admitted in their statistical plan. The only justification for puberty suppression is to prepare a child for lifelong medicalization with cross-sex hormones and surgeries, with irreversible consequences for sexuality and fertility.”

Still, the Tavistock director, Dr. Polly Carmichael, who was part of the study, maintains that the research shows that “patient experience on the blocker is positive overall and there were no unexpected adverse events, but that more research is needed around this complex issue.”

The study’s acknowledgment of reduced bone strength dovetails with what doctors critical of the medicalization of gender have been saying for years about treating psychologically distressed youth with untested hormonal agents, children who are otherwise physically healthy.

In a 2018 interview about Lupron — a drug that is approved for and is routinely used to treat prostate cancer in men and endometriosis in women but is now being used to treat gender dysphoria in children despite lack of FDA approval for that purpose  — Dr. Quentin Van Meter, a pediatric endocrinologist from Atlanta, told The Christian Post of the numerous repercussions of using high-powered drugs to suppress normal puberty.

Unlike when a hormone blocker is administered to a child who is dealing with precocious puberty, another medical condition for which the drug has been formally approved, “when you give puberty blockers to a pubertal-aged child, what you’re doing is sideswiping them out of the physiological development that puberty is intended to create and facilitate,” Van Meter explained at the time.

“You are taking calcium out of the bones of girls which cannot be introduced later; you’re putting them at risk for osteoporosis. On top of that, you’re taking the ovaries and testicles, which have not yet started to mature to the stage of fertility, and you’re cutting them off at the knees, essentially making them sterile,” he said.

White House Launches Pilot Program To Ship Coronavirus Vaccines Directly To ‘Select’ Pharmacies


Reported by CHRISTIAN DATOC, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT | February 02, 2021

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2021/02/02/white-house-pilot-program-distribution-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccines-pharmacies-funding-zients/

White House coronavirus response coordinator Jeff Zients announced a number of changes to the federal government’s COVID-19 response policies Tuesday, including the launch of a new pilot program shipping vaccines directly to pharmacies across the U.S.

Furthermore, Zients noted that President Joe Biden has approved Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to backdate reimbursement for states’ pandemic responses dating back to the beginning of the pandemic. He estimated the policy change would cost between $3-5 billion, but would not require Congress to allocate additional funds in the next coronavirus stimulus package.

WATCH:

During a question-and-answer session following the announcement, Zients clarified that roughly 6,500 pharmacies will receive a total of 1,000 vaccine doses when the program launches Feb. 11. The government chose the initial participating pharmacies based on location. The administration is targeting areas far removed from current vaccination sites, and will plan on increasing both the amount of doses shipped to pharmacies and the total number of pharmacies in the program as Pfizer and Moderna scale up vaccine production.

World Food Program head warns of potential famines of ‘biblical proportions’ in 2021


Reported By Samuel Smith, U.S. Editor 

World Food Programme Executive Director David M. Beasley (middle) and U.S. Ambassador Kip Tom visit South Sudan on July 23, 2019. WFP/Giulio d’Adamo

The head of the World Food Program believes that 2021 could see “famines of biblical proportions” as the economic struggles of COVID-19 may hamper global responses to food shortages caused by military conflicts, the rise of Islamic extremism and locust infestations. 

In an interview late last year with The Christian Post during a visit to Washington, D.C., WFP Executive Director David Beasley, a former Republican governor of South Carolina, expressed concern for the funding problems that could be in store for 2021. Despite receiving historic levels of funding and leading the food-assistance branch of the United Nations to a Nobel Peace Prize since he took the helm in April 2017, the 63-year-old Beasley warned the fiscal realities of the COVID-19 pandemic could lead to a decrease in funding at a time when as many as 270 million could be pushed to the brink of starvation.

“When I joined the WFP, the number of people on the brink of starvation versus general hunger was 80 million people,” he explained. “There is a technical term for that. But it was 80 million marching toward starvation. That number spiked, went up to 135 million at the end of [2019] primarily because of manmade conflict, compounded on top of that with climate extremes and destabilized or fragile governments. On top of that, COVID comes and the number we anticipated based upon economic deterioration and because of COVID decisions is now 270 million people that are marching to the brink of starvation.”

Last April as governments worldwide were enacting policies to respond to the pandemic, Beasley told the U.N. Security Council that funding shortfalls caused by the pandemic could cause “multiple famines of biblical proportions within a short few months.”

“I think it could be much bigger. It depends on how you define biblical proportions,” Beasley told CP. “In the generic sense, 2021 is going to be catastrophic unless we receive extraordinary financial support. I made a comment back in late 2019 that 2020 was going to be the worst humanitarian year since World War II. I would lay out the reasons why. Then before 2020 hit, desert locusts came on top of that, and then COVID came into the scene.”

“If we did not get the support we need and certain international actions were not taken, there would be famines of biblical proportions and destabilization and migration,” he added. “The international community responded very significantly in 2020. That has been very good and we have been able to avert famine this year.”

The director stressed that the problem for 2021 lies in the fact that government budgets for 2020 were largely set in 2019 based on strong economic indicators before the pandemic hit. WFP receives its funding in contributions from world governments as well as individual donations. In 2019, it assisted over 97 million people in 88 countries.

“With strong economic outlooks, great performance indicators, we had good budgeting,” he said. “That was good news. Then, COVID hits. The wealthy nations passed economic stimulus packages — between $11 and $17 trillion worth economic stimulus packages — to help jumpstart the economy and keep things going without having a major economic depression because of the lockdowns and shutdowns.” 

Beasley said he was concerned by some of the decisions some governments were making in response to COVID.

“[L]eaders at that time were making decisions about COVID in a vacuum, not understanding the economic ripple effect when you just lock things down, without understanding the supply logistics and all these different dynamics,” he said.

You cannot make decisions about COVID in a vacuum. We have to work it together and we can minimize death and destabilization and migration.”

In November, Beasley met with U.S. lawmakers, White House and State Department officials about the global situation, saying that “there is a lot of bad stuff out there right now.”

“In spite of what you might read in the press about the U.S. backing down of its multilateral commitment, as to the World Food Program, the United States is stepping up in a big way,” Beasley assured. “When you turn on the television and read any news, it appears that the Republicans and Democrats are fighting over anything and everything. But when I come to town and ask to meet, they lay down their differences and their guns and they make peace on this issue. I call it the miracle … because the Republicans and the Democrats come together.”

The former lawmaker said that Jesus used food as a “weapon of peace in a lot of different contexts.”

“We say we use food as a weapon of peace around the world and we have even used food in Washington,” he said. “If it works here, it will work everywhere.” 

When Beasley took the job in 2017, the annual budget for the agency was about $5.9 billion, with just less than $2 billion coming from the U.S. According to Beasley, the WFP raised upwards of $8.4 billion in 2019, with about $3.5 billion coming from the U.S.

“I was also able to get funding up from Germany, the U.K. and others,” he said.

After assisting nearly 100 million people suffering from acute food insecurity and hunger in 2019, the WFP was the recipient of the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts to combat hunger and generate better conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas. According to The Norwegian Nobel Committee, the WFP acts “as a driving force in efforts to prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war and conflict.” Beasley recalled the day he was informed the WFP won the Nobel Prize.

“Very rarely am I speechless. That was one of the few moments,” he said. “I was in Niger that day. We had just been in the field out in a pretty rough area with extremist groups on all sides. We were working on access issues. When we don’t have access, they use food as a weapon of recruitment. Somebody comes busting in the door and says ‘We won!’ I was like, ‘You got to be kidding me.’”

As hunger is often used as a weapon of war, Beasley believes that  “we can end hunger” if “we can end the wars.”

Another major driver of hunger in 2020 has been a record infestation of crop-destroying desert locusts across several countries in East Africa and the Middle East. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization warned last month that “new locust swarms are already forming and threatening to re-invade northern Kenya” while “breeding is also underway on both sides of the Red Sea, posing a new threat to Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, and Yemen.”

“We have done a lot of work and a lot of work to be done. There is a lot of distraction because of obvious things. We are making headway but we are not out of the woodwork yet,” Beasley said of the WFP’s locust response. “COVID has really [delayed] that progress. All the money we were going to put into desert locusts, you can imagine, everyone is fighting for every dollar now. But the locusts are not resolved and the locusts are moving.” 

With millions on the brink of starvation, Beasley cited the “least of these” passage from Matthew 25 to state that “Jesus is making a clear point here.”

“Every human being is made in the image of God. Every human being is created in the image of the Almighty,” he said. “But when we deny that human support and love, then we are denying the Almighty. I look at everybody being equal and everybody is the same. Everybody on Earth has a right to [eat].” 

US official: ‘Growing body of evidence’ coronavirus came from Wuhan lab


A top United States official said recently that the “most credible” theory for how the coronavirus pandemic started is that the pathogen escaped from a Chinese laboratory. U.S. deputy national security adviser Matthew Pottinger told British parliamentarians last week that even Chinese leaders have started to acknowledge that the virus did not originate in the Wuhan wet market as initially reported. Instead, he said, it likely escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology located just 11 miles away.

“There is a growing body of evidence that the lab is likely the most credible source of the virus,” Pottinger said during a Zoom conference about China, according to the Daily Mail. “Even establishment figures in Beijing have openly dismissed the wet market story.”

Whether the virus escaped by “leak or accident,” he could not confirm.

The theory has been widely disseminated since earlier this year, when citizen investigators used publicly available information to make the case.

Reporters noticed all-too-coincidental job openings posted by the lab in November and December 2019 — right as mysterious pneumonia-like cases were popping up in Wuhan — which requested scientists to come “research the relationship between the coronavirus and bats” and indicated that help was needed to handle a dangerous leak.

That is not to mention the fact that the lab was the first in all of China to achieve BSL-4 clearance, or the level of bioresearch safety required to study the world’s most dangerous pathogens. Though some thought that clearance was granted prematurely.

Shortly after the discovery of the job postings, a pair of leaked State Department cables from 2018 found that U.S. officials visiting the lab were so concerned about its “serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators” in concert with its study of “SARS-like coronaviruses in bats” that they felt the need to notify the U.S. government.

According to the Daily Mail, Pottinger’s confidence in the theory comes as a result of conversations the U.S. has had with a whistleblower from the Wuhan lab.

“I was told the US have an ex-scientist from the laboratory in America at the moment,” said former Tory Party leader Iain Duncan Smith, who attended the meeting. “That was what I heard a few weeks ago.”

“I was led to believe this is how they have been able to stiffen up their position on how this outbreak originated,” he added.

Pottinger’s comments come as a team of experts from the World Health Organization prepare to travel to Wuhan to investigate the pandemic’s origins, though some critics fear the investigation won’t reveal anything given the organization’s coziness with China.

MN Senator/Physician Blows Whistle: The Bizarre, Non-COVID Types of Deaths Being Blamed on COVID


Reported By Michael Austin | Published December 21, 2020

In a video released on Friday, two Minnesota lawmakers called for a full audit of all death certificates marked as COVID-19 deaths.

In the video, state Rep. Mary Franson and Sen. Scott Jensen revealed their own findings after look over thousands of “death certificate data points” and found that the number of COVID deaths was being inflated by roughly 40 percent.

According to Rep. Franson, the investigation uncovered various un-COVID related deaths being counted as COVID deaths, including a freshwater drowning and a vehicle fatality, among others.

Back in April, Jensen had criticized the Minnesota Department of Health for following federal guidelines outlining when doctors should characterize a death as due to  COVID-19, the Star Tribune reported.

READ THE REST OF THIS REPORT AT https://www.westernjournal.com/mn-senator-physician-blows-whistle-bizarre-non-covid-types-deaths-blamed-covid/

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Horowitz: Comprehensive analysis of 50 states shows greater spread with mask mandates


For months, we’ve been lectured to by the political elites that cases of coronavirus are spreading too quickly and that we must wear masks to stop the spread. The obvious fault with their act of desperation is that they can no longer mask the fact that most parts of the country have already been fully masked for months — long before the ubiquitous spread this fall.

Researchers at RationalGround.com, a clearinghouse of COVID-19 data trends run by a grassroots group of data analysts, computer scientists, and actuaries, did an analysis of all 50 states divided by those that had mask mandates and those that did not. Justin Hart, co-founder of the website, posted the results in a Twitter thread and shared with me the data analysis:

They studied the number of cases over a 229-day period from May 1 through Dec. 15 and divided the results of the two study groups by days with mask mandates and days without mask mandates. The non-mandate data group includes both states that never had a mandate and those that did at some point, but data set included only the days they did not have a mask mandate.

The results: When comparing states with mandates vs. those without, or periods of times within a state with a mandate vs. without, there is absolutely no evidence the mask mandate worked to slow the spread one iota. In total, in the states that had a mandate in effect, there were 9,605,256 confirmed COVID cases over 5,907 total days, an average of 27 cases per 100,000 per day. When states did not have a statewide order (which includes the states that never had them and the period of time masking states did not have the mandate in place) there were 5,781,716 cases over 5,772 total days, averaging 17 cases per 100,000 people per day.

The reverse correlation between periods of masking and non-masking is remarkable.

The 15 states that did not have a statewide mask mandate for the duration of this analysis were Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming.

Importantly, for purposes of this study, the analysts gave the mask mandate states a 14-day grace period from the time of implementation in order to begin counting cases against mask efficacy. This gives time for the existing spread from the original policy to become obsolete, in order to more accurately assess the efficacy of the mandate. Proponents of the mask mandate might suggest that mask mandates were often imposed once cases already spread quickly, so there is a negative bias of increased cases in those areas (or times) that had mandates in place. However, there was no evidence of any reduction in cases or even better outcomes many weeks later. In fact, Ian Miller, one of the researchers at RationalGround.com, found that three counties in Florida (Manatee, Martin, and Nassau) that allowed the mandate to expire after having implemented it had fewer cases per capita than those counties that kept the mandate.

Nor has the mandate worked in states where it was implemented long before the surge in cases began.

California is the ultimate example of a state that had a mask mandate in place forever — long before its turn for spread hit in earnest.

The simple reality is that there is no legitimate data showing the mandates worked.

My first question when reading this analysis was that perhaps there is a bias in case counts against those areas with mask mandates because, by definition, most areas without them are more conservative and tend to have lower population density. After all, dense areas seem to be associated with more spread, and therefore, those areas must be judged by a different standard.

First, it’s important to recognize that over the past few months, as the virus has spread rapidly to the low-population states and counties, the gap between the urban and rural areas has really closed as the virus appears to be giving everyone equal treatment. Also, included in the top-line number of 17 cases per 100,000 in the non-mask states are also the larger states that did eventually adopt a mandate, but had prior days without the mandate in which the cases were counted among the non-mandate data set. Thus, the study is more apples-to-apples than simply taking places that never had a mandate vs. those that always did over the entire study period.

More fundamentally, this study analyzed Florida by county data and shows no correlation between mask mandates and fewer cases, even adjusting for population density. Gov. Ron DeSantis has notoriously declined to issue a statewide mandate in the Sunshine State; however, of the 67 total counties in Florida, 22 have implemented an executive mask order at some point during the study period. Two of them (Miami-Dade and Osceola) were in effect for the entire period, while the other 20 began in the spring, summer, or fall.

What are the results?

When counties did have a mandate in effect, there were 667,239 cases over 3,137 days with an average of 23 cases per 100,000 per day. When counties did not have a countywide order, there were 438,687 cases over 12,139 days with an average of 22 cases per 100,000 per day.

Did population density play a role?

When you isolate only the top 12 most populous counties in the state (>500,000), eight of them had effective mask orders implemented at some point during the study period, and four never had a countywide order (Brevard, Lee, Polk, and Volusia). When the eight did have an order in effect, there were 24 cases per 100,000 a day. On the other hand, during the days when mandates were not in place (which is never in four counties, and some weeks in seven of the other eight except for Miami-Dade), there were 17 cases per 100,000 per day.

We can turn the numbers upside down and inside out, but no matter how we examine them, there is no evidence of masks correlating with reduced spread. If anything, the opposite is true. And it sure as heck is not because of a lack of compliance.

It’s self-evident that the virus does what it does naturally and follows a very mechanical pattern regardless of state policies.

The burden is on those who want to violate the Constitution with such a draconian mandate for the rest of our lives to present affirmative evidence that their religious symbol works. The phony “fact checkers” will always find ways to show that we can’t prove beyond a shadow of doubt that masks will never work. But while they force us to prove 100% that they don’t work, mandates don’t have to prove any efficacy at all, even as 2-year-olds are forced to have their faces covered on planes.

We used to all scoff at the Islamic fundamentalist for believing that if they just waged jihad a little harder, they’d earn their 72 virgins. Well, those people can learn a thing or two about faith from the mask fundamentalists who believe it’s never too late for masks to magically stop a virus after months of failure.

Small Businesses Like Mine Didn’t Cause COVID, But Governments Are Making Us Pay For It


Small Businesses Like Mine Didn’t Cause COVID, But Governments Are Making Us Pay For It

Back in 2000, I left my job in San Francisco working for an entrepreneur named Bruce Carlisle. From scratch, Bruce had co-founded an online advertising agency named SFInteractive, eventually growing the business to 200 employees. I successfully started his analytics department, and then flew the coop. Los Angeles was calling me, and I’ve never looked back. The day I left, I made a pact with myself to never work for anyone else. I saw what Bruce had created and set out to create something of my own. Outside of a short stint working for the city of Malibu and a Christmas gig at Williams Sonoma in L.A., that’s exactly what I’ve done.

In 2003, my wife and I were expecting our first child, and we hadn’t figured out how to pay for her arrival yet. We were both freelancing reading movie scripts for film companies. It was enough for the two of us, and a lot of fun, but we didn’t have enough steady income to raise a family.

A wise acquaintance once said to me, “Every baby comes with its own basket of bread.” Interesting idea, I thought. Sometime after, almost on cue, my old roommate from New York reached out and asked if I knew anyone who could sell French tours on the internet to Americans.

After some serious convincing on my part (I’d never worked in travel before), my roommate vouched for me and we got the contract. Our business and child arrived at virtually the same time. We were off to the races.

For almost 20 years now my wife, Laura, and I have run Link Paris, a small boutique French travel company. We’ve had our ups and downs, but we survived the great recession in 2008, the aftermath of the terror attacks in Paris in 2015 and 2016, and the reality of giant competitors eventually moving into our niche.

On the upside, we’ve served more than 80,000 happy customers and in 2014 we were voted the “Best Online Tour Operator” by the French Government Tourist Office. We truly love this business and our customers.

Our No. 1 product is a day trip from Paris to visit the landing beaches in Normandy. It is a destination every American should see if he or she visits France. We are very proud to have helped so many people visit this hallowed ground.

Now, here we are, 10 months into COVID. Our revenue is down more than 99 percent. We’ve had a total of two clients since March — a father and daughter who were receiving medical treatment in Paris. They, and others like them, are among the very few Americans allowed abroad.

We’re still standing, but how much longer can we? How much longer can any disrupted small business last? We are hurting in my industry and many others.

This is a horrible virus and I fully understand and support the fight against it. The worry is that the government is implicitly saying to us, and a million other small businesses, that we’re simply collateral damage of the pandemic. “Yes, you had a decent life, but that is over now. You need to accept your limited prospects and move on. Tough break. But, you know, the virus.”

Yes, there has been some aid. The Paycheck Protection Program helped, and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan helped even more. But, after ten months of zero revenue, it isn’t enough.

To complicate matters, the Small Business Administration lowered the maximum EIDL loan amount from $500,000 to $150,000 in April — although not before people like Rep. Ilhan Omar’s husband, Tim Mynett, and others got their loans approved for the full amount.

Mynett’s company made $2.2 million this year from Omar’s reelection campaign. Where exactly did he suffer an “economic injury?” I’m sure there are many examples on the other side of the aisle as well. This isn’t a partisan issue, but the point is the same: the well-connected aren’t just barely getting by — they’re thriving.

Indeed, we wouldn’t have even received the EIDL loan if it hadn’t been for a Reddit user who helped us, along with a thousand other people, resubmit our application. When I originally submitted, I’d had made an error, and the SBA was so overwhelmed at the time that amending an application was near impossible — until I found the EIDL subreddit and an anonymous user named Cue378. He (or she) knew exactly what to do and we got it fixed. When someone else started a GoFundMe page for this person as a thank you, more than $100,000 was raised.

In the end, we received a loan. We are grateful for it, but compare it to the $500 million credit facility that our main competitor (Trip Advisor) initiated, and it’s essentially nothing. That is the unintended, or intended, consequence of all of this. The big and connected are getting much stronger, while the small are having their dreams destroyed.

No small business could’ve prepared for this. What started as “15 days to slow the spread” has turned into something far different. I get it — six weeks to beat the Germans in World War I turned into four long years of trench warfare. Things change.

But Washington needs to give small businesses a genuine, real chance to survive. Big business may do the heavy lifting, but we make up 45 percent of America’s GDP. Small business is the lifeblood of this economy. Don’t let us bleed dry.

John Romano is the co-founder and operator of LinkParis.com, a small boutique French travel company.

JOHN HOPKINS STUDY CONFIRMS WHAT WE’VE BEEN SAYING FOR MONTHS ABOUT COVID


Read more at https://steadfastclash.com/the-latest/john-hopkins-study-confirms-what-weve-been-saying-for-months-about-covid/

Something that we have suspected for a long time has been confirmed. The death toll from COVID-19 has not resulted in a real spike in deaths this year. In fact, we’ve seen the number of deaths from other causes like heart disease and other medical conditions go down. This is no coincidence. There is a reason for this happening. A study by Johns Hopkins University supports this.

What makes this very strange and extremely suspicious is that not long after it was published on the internet, it was removed. However, most things that go onto the internet are never deleted, you’ve just got to know how to find them…and we did.

According to the study,

When Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins, looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.

This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years. Interestingly, the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19. This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.

The CDC classified all deaths that are related to COVID-19 simply as COVID-19 deaths. Even patients dying from other underlying diseases but are infected with COVID-19 count as COVID-19 deaths. This is likely the main explanation as to why COVID-19 deaths drastically increased while deaths by all other diseases experienced a significant decrease.

We’ve known this all along. The numbers that we see are not real. Yes, there are real deaths from COVID, but it’s not these extraordinarily high numbers that we are being fed.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: