Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘COVID-19’

Unintended Consequences: Vaccine Mandates Are Flipping Voter Registrations And Driving Political Change


BY: ASHLEY BATEMAN | SEPTEMBER 08, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/08/vaccine-mandates-are-flipping-voter-registrations-and-driving-political-change/

lawyer testifying before council meeting

Author Ashley Bateman profile

ASHLEY BATEMAN

MORE ARTICLES

A devout Christian, father, and African-American, Michael Anderson didn’t feel represented by either party and until Jan. 31 of this year, remained politically unaffiliated. But a series of events has led him to align with and campaign alongside conservatives in one of North Carolina’s most liberal counties.

Anderson is an attorney for a Big Tech company in Charlotte. Headquartered just a few miles across the border in South Carolina, his company claims the fifth largest internet footprint in the United States. Higher-ups have a stated goal of widespread “influence.” They are making good on that goal.

On Nov 18, 2021, the CEO stood before an all-employee meeting at the Charlotte location and declared for the “greater good of humanity” it was no longer enough to segregate the workers who had not received a Covid-19 vaccine. They had to be removed entirely. The entire company had been working remotely for nearly two years at that point, Anderson said. The announcement came just before the holidays.

“Hundreds of people found out that day they would be fired unless they submitted to the mandate without an approved medical or religious exemption,” Anderson said.

Anderson reached out to co-workers via an internal Slack channel sharing his concerns and received a flood of responses expressing stress and fear.

“I’ve worked in some difficult places with some difficult people and that was the most difficult week of my career,” Anderson said. “I grew up in a single-parent family below the poverty level. Single mothers [were contacting me]. Pregnant women were contacting me to see whether they could receive a medical exemption. There were so many inequities and unjust consequences to this poorly thought out, draconian mandate.”

About 60 employees linked up. “All these people [losing their jobs] are super high-performing, hardworking people, some who have been in the company for 15-16 years,” Anderson said. “I asked the CEO to change the policy, the director of diversity, the General Counsel; I couldn’t change their minds.”

Anderson began using his legal expertise to assist exemption-seekers. Alongside like-minded freedom fighters, he developed a coalition, ByManyOrByFew, to inform, educate and connect voters.

“I thought we ought to do something to fight against these policies and funnel people toward politicians who were freedom-minded,” he said.

But Anderson didn’t stop there. Within weeks of the company announcement, he decided to run for a North Carolina House seat in Mecklenburg, one of the most Democratic counties in the state. Choosing a party affiliation by now was a no-brainer.

In preparation to testify before the South Carolina House and Ways subcommittee on December 7, 2021, for a workplace vaccination bill that could eventually impact the North Carolina arm of the company he works for, Anderson reached out to both political parties. Not one Democrat would respond, but many Republicans fighting for individual rights did. “Forty-four Caucasians were fighting to protect my rights,” he said.

Vaccines historically have a disparate impact on minorities. Anderson references the Tuskegee Experiment, as one horrific example. He saw history repeating itself with the Covid-19 vaccine, led by a Democratic president.

“When you had these vaccine mandates come out, I placed the blame at the feet of President Biden,” Anderson said. “Although his mandates were ultimately unsuccessful, a lot of companies were encouraged and enabled to have their own vaccine mandates and a private company has a lot more flexibility compared to the government. As a result, by their terms, that caused systemic, institutional racism because it has a disparate impact on minorities.”

That is who Anderson specifically wants to champion; and who Democrats continuously fail to support or outright harm with disastrous policies. Even with the CDC’s recently updated vaccine guidelines, Democratic leaders like Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser are pursuing policies that hurt miniorities disproportionately, like a vaccine mandate that would bar 40 percent of D.C. black teenagers from in-person learning.

“My district is 60 percent African American, 20 percent Latino,” Anderson said. “The reason why I like that and that’s where I want to be is not only because I am African American, there’s no demographic flipping faster from Democrat to Republican than Latino. And if you look at the vaccine mandates, there is no race that was hurt worse than African Americans.”

Minority voters have been impacted by other far-left policies, and are expressing their discontent at the polls. A recent interview by NPR with political scientist Ruy Teixeira revealed how Democrats are driving minority voters to flip partisanship, especially in the Latino population. 

“…[T]he ultra-progressive wing of the Democratic Party privileging criminal justice reform over public safety,” has become a major concern of minority voters, Teixeira said. “People want to be safe from crime, and that includes a lot of nonwhite voters. It is not a matter for them of choosing between the two, but rather above all, you’ve got to keep our community safe.”

Anderson’s opponent for NC House District 99, Democratic Rep. Nasif Majeed, supported the “ultra-progressive” defunding of the Charlotte police in his previous campaign. Charlotte now has only 1,600 police officers for a city of 1 million people. Three hundred defections or retirements are expected in the near term and salaries start as low as $40,000. A lack of manpower has resulted in unanswered 911 calls and crimes below a felony going entirely unaddressed. “Social justice warriors” are crippling police response, according to local law enforcement.

Democrats’ leftist ideologies ruin cities and Anderson wants to get his town back on track, but he knows reform isn’t possible alongside current Democrats in North Carolina’s House, who hold a majority in the legislature. 

A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Anderson grew up below the poverty level in a biracial, single-parent home. Progressive policies pressed during the pandemic are driving inequity that entrap and eliminate those the far-left claim to champion, he said. He feels there is no place for him in the Democratic Party right now.

Through door-to-door campaigning, he’s found that many registered Democrats in Charlotte agree.

“I ask people what issues they need represented and how the system is failing them,” Anderson said. “You have to have conversations with people to know.”

Empowered by a Democrat president, Democrat House, and a coalition of Democrat governors, Covid-19 tyranny has driven a new type of minority leader like Anderson to represent an increasingly diverse Republican party — one that engages in the political battle and fights for the now tenuous freedoms once taken for granted.


Ashley Bateman is a policy writer for The Heartland Institute and blogger for Ascension Press. Her work has been featured in The Washington Times, The Daily Caller, The New York Post, The American Thinker and numerous other publications. She previously worked as an adjunct scholar for The Lexington Institute and as editor, writer and photographer for The Warner Weekly, a publication for the American military community in Bamberg, Germany. Ashley is a board member at a Catholic homeschool cooperative in Virginia. She homeschools her four incredible children along with her brilliant engineer/scientist husband who lives in Virginia.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: New study shows Sweden’s decision to keep schools open was all gain, no pain


Commentary by Daniel Horowitz | June 14, 2022

Rad more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-sweden-schools-open-study-2657506412.html

They did this under the guise of science and saving lives. We now have a generation of children who are delayed in language, social skills, and educational attainment, while overburdened with mental, emotional, and behavioral ailments. And yet it was all done for absolutely nothing – no gain, all pain. This has been appallingly obvious since schools were shut down and then children masked in 2020, but a new study from Sweden – the global control group – demonstrates the scope of this crime with unmistakable clarity.

A study by Swedish researchers published in the International Journal of Educational Research found that in this Nordic country, “word decoding and reading comprehension scores were not lower during the pandemic compared to before the pandemic.” This is simply astounding, given what we have witnessed in almost every other country. The researchers analyzed 97,000 Swedish primary school children from 248 different municipalities, 1,277 schools, and 5,250 classrooms.

Just contrast this to a McKinsey study that analyzed more than 1.6 million K-12 students in over 40 U.S. states that found that students were, on average, five months behind in mathematics and four months behind in reading. An investigation by WBFF’s Project Baltimore from the local Fox affiliate found that 62% of middle schoolers in Baltimore County had one or more failing grades by the third quarter of the 2021 school year, up a whopping from 35% from before the shutdowns. Investigators also found that 41% of Baltimore high schoolers had a grade-point average of 1.0 or below, an increase of 24% since before the school closures in March 2020. The education situation in a state like Maryland is so dire that 81 percent of all Maryland students tested last year in grades three through five were not proficient in math, and 76 percent were not proficient in English language arts.

It makes you wonder if Swedish kids might outshine American children one day in English in addition to their native language! What was the secret to their success? They simply followed science and morality and kept schools open without dystopian plexiglass and masks. There was no fearmongering, social isolation, learning impediments, or learning stoppages. And of course, there is no evidence that a single child died from COVID as a result of schools being open. All gain and no pain.

In the light of international studies on reading skills in younger students during the pandemic, we conclude that the decision to keep schools open benefitted Swedish primary school students. This decision might also have mitigated other potentially negative effects of school closures, especially for students from more disadvantaged backgrounds.

Never before in our history has there been such a grave policy promulgated by government that was known up front to have no benefit but induced cataclysmic damage. It’s not just the learning disorders that are plaguing a generation of kids. 2021 paper in the Lancet found, based on data from 204 countries, a 27.4% increase in major depressive disorders globally, accounting for an additional 53 million cases. Additionally, researchers found a 25.6% increase in cases of anxiety disorders, accounting for another 76 million cases globally.

One cannot possibly quantify the long-term effects to society of driving such a ubiquitous mental and emotional health crisis. According to the CDC, a third of high school students reported poor mental health during the pandemic, and 44% said they “persistently felt sad or hopeless.”

What is going to become of those kids? Many of them will live unproductive and sad lives, but many others will die young. A paper published recently in JAMA found that the rate of drug overdose deaths doubled among adolescents during the pandemic. In 2019, the overdose fatality rate among adolescents was 2.36 per 100,000, very consistent with the previous decade. In 2020, it shot up to 4.57 per 100,000, and for the first six months of 2021, the rate increased another 20%, to 5.49 per 100,000.

Kids should never have been made to feel anxious about the virus or about the response to it because it should never have affected them. It was known early on that not a single one of Sweden’s nearly 2 million children died of COVID during the initial wave in the spring of 2020 when Sweden kept its schools open (without mask requirements) and the rest of the world shut their schools.

Rather than admitting their mistake and committing to never shutting down schools again, governments are once again foisting a policy with all pain and no gain on the youngest of children. Later this week, the FDA will likely approve Moderna’s and Pfizer’s outdated shots on babies and toddlers, for a virus that never harmed them. We have never pushed novel therapies on children, especially those who already have numerous documented problems, for something that poses such a low risk, especially when the vaccine is outdated and doesn’t work for the variants circulating today.

As of June 3, there were already 49,878 children (ages 0 to 17) reported in VAERS who have experienced an adverse event from one of the COVID jabs. 7,547 of the childrenwere hospitalized, and 125 died. Remember, this is for a virus that no longer exists in that original form and from which there was a near-zero risk to children.

Between March 2020 and December 2021, according to researchers from the U.K. Health Security Agency, even among the rare documented pediatric COVID deaths, 56% of those under age 20 “were due to unnatural causes or due to causes unrelated to COVID-19.” Even among the remaining 81 deaths in the entire country under age 20, 75% had significant co-morbidities. Yet we are giving them a novel therapy Pfizer itself admitted is associated with hundreds of adverse maladies based on de facto zero risk, just like we shut down their classes, socially isolated them, and mummified their faces for the same nonexistent risk. What will it take to suspend these immoral experiments on our children?

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Portugal as an enduring embarrassment of the failure of the mass vaccination campaign


Commentary by Daniel Horowitz | June 09, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/portugal-as-an-enduring-embarrassment-of-the-failure-of-the-mass-vaccination-campaign-2657482411.html/

Next week, the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet to likely offer emergency use authorization for Moderna and Pfizer’s biological products to be injected into babies as young as six months old. No amount of evidence demonstrating negative efficacy and enormous side effects will factor into its decision. Never mind the fact that there never was an emergency for young children to begin with, and there certainly isn’t one now.

Yet the FDA will undoubtedly approve a shot that has failed and is outdated – so much so that two weeks later, it will meet about updating the formula for new variants, of course, after having injected the outdated formula into the arms of babies and toddlers. One data point that certainly will be missing from the meeting is the observation about Portugal.

According to Statista, Portugal has the highest vaccination rate of any country in Europe aside from the tiny island of Malta. Nearly every adult is vaccinated in this nation of 10.3 million, 94% of all people (including young children) have received at least 1 dose, and 70% have received boosters. In fact, the New York Times ran an article about Portugal last year, noting that “there is no one left to vaccinate” there.

Yet, Portugal now has the highest case rate and COVID death rate per capita in Europe and the second highest COVID fatality rate in the world behind Taiwan, according to Our World in Data.

Here is the case rate map of Europe:

And here is the death rate map:

At 2,293 cases per 1 million individuals, as of June 7, Portugal’s 7-day rolling average case rate is seven times greater than that of the United States and is now higher than the worst peak of cases in America. Moreover, it’s not that Portugal never had a big wave – it has already experienced a peak in the winter that was three times as great as the worst days in the U.S. So even after many people already had the virus, officials keep testing positive for the virus despite – or perhaps, because of – the near universal vaccination rate.

It is true that Portugal has a high rate of testing, but not that much higher to account for exponentially higher case rates. As of June 1, Portugal’s positivity rate was nearly four times that of the U.S.

Then there are the COVID deaths. At 4.1 deaths per million, Portugal is now far outpacing all the other European countries with high case rates by over 60%. Its current death rate is more than four times that of the U.S. This simply should not be happening now that everyone is vaccinated and everyone who is vulnerable is boosted if the shots are anywhere near as effective as we are told.

The Portugal News reported that between May 24 and May 30, the southern European nation “recorded 175,766 infections, 220 deaths associated with COVID-19, and an increase in hospitalizations and intensive care.” Health Minister Marta Temido said last week that “Portugal is probably the European country with the highest prevalence of this sub-lineage and this partly explains the high number (of cases) we are seeing.”

But that really doesn’t explain it. Why would Portugal have a much worse problem with these variants than the country in which they were first detected — namely South Africa? Is this not a fulfillment of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche’s warning that the sub-optimal evolutionary pressure of these shots, originally designed for the Wuhan strain, would work against the body for future variants?

Let’s a take a look at South Africa’s BA.4/BA.5 wave from late May as compared to Portugal’s? Can you even detect it?

South Africa’s recent peak, which is now over with, was one-twentieth the size of Portugal’s – and this is after Portugal already had exponentially more cases from the previous wave. However, even as it relates to death rates, the afflicted country is outpacing South Africa.

Keep in mind that Portugal is still experiencing higher death rates even after having already incurred a lot of deaths from the original pool of vulnerable people during the first winter. It simply makes no sense for Portugal to be experiencing this many deaths with Omicron, which does not replicate well in the lungs. Remember, while Portugal has run out of people to vaccinate, according to the New York Times, less than a third of South Africans are vaccinated with very few having had boosters. Also, South Africa’s life expectancy is 18 years lower, and 20% of the population has AIDS.

For how much longer is the FDA going to be allowed to ignore a year’s worth of signals not just indicating cataclysmic safety concerns but negative efficacy – and downright perpetuation – of the virus? Just look at this week’s Walgreens COVID-19 testing index, and you can once again see that higher positivity rates are associated with those with more shots, especially as time goes on.

The mendacity of obfuscating the truth about these shots has gotten so ludicrous that the media and medical associations are now chalking up the rash of sudden cardiac deaths among young people as an unexplained “sudden adult death syndrome.” And now they want to inject these products into the final group of unvarnished children. What does that say about who we are as a people if we let it happen?

In the New York Times article from October crowing about “no one left to vaccinate” in Portugal, Laura Sanches, a Portuguese clinical psychologist, is quoted as bemoaning the fact that Portugal doesn’t “really have a culture of questioning authorities.” Well, here in America, we once did have such a culture. Reagan once said that “freedom is the right to question, and change the established way of doing things,” an understanding “that allows us to recognize shortcomings and seek solutions … to put forth an idea, scoffed at by the experts, and watch it catch fire among the people.” Will we finally exercise that freedom?

Mandatory Face Coverings’ Only Purpose Was Promoting Fear


REPORTED BY: HRAND TOOKMAN | APRIL 21, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/21/mandatory-face-coverings-only-purpose-was-promoting-fear/

woman in a face mask

A lot of people will claim the masks were about establishing and maintaining control. That’s fair, but it wasn’t their primary purpose.

Author Hrand Tookman profile

HRAND TOOKMAN

MORE ARTICLES

Now that a judge has stayed the federal mask mandate on public transportation, it’s important to have an honest accounting of what this entire mask situation was truly all about. A lot of people will make a lot of claims. A tiny sliver will continue to claim mask mandates actually helped mitigate the spread of Covid-19. They will be the outliers because, in terms of stopping the spread of Covid or any other virus, wearing a mask is the equivalent of doing a rain dance: it might make you feel better, and some quacks will tell you it works, but ultimately it does nothing except make you look foolish and give you a false sense of security. (Vaccine mandates were the modern equivalent of burning witches at the stake.)

It was all so stupid and foisted on us by people we’re supposed to trust, which is why we need this honest accounting of what it was really all about. A lot of people will claim the masks were about establishing and maintaining control. That’s fair, but it wasn’t their primary purpose. The primary purpose of the mask mandates was to make every person who wore one a walking advertisement for fear. If you were wearing a mask, then you were doing your job, because you had given up your right to free expression and replaced it with one, constant sentiment: “I’m afraid, and you should be too.”

That was the main purpose of the masks. That’s why they wanted everyone to keep wearing them. It was about control, yes, but far more than that, it was about promoting fear. That’s why they lied about the threat Covid poses. That’s why they inflated the number of deaths, counting so often all who died with as having died from. That’s why they convinced so many Americans that the threat of hospitalization or death is exponentially higher than it actually is. (For the record, the survival rate for Covid is 99.7 percent for unvaccinated adults, 99.9 percent for vaccinated adults, and 100 percent for unvaccinated children.)

All they did the entire time was work as hard as they could to promote as much fear as possible, and masks were an excellent weapon they could force on you to help spread their message of constant fear, division, and dehumanization. The mask stripped you of your right to free expression and replaced whatever you wanted to communicate with one single piece of speech: “Be afraid.”

That was the primary purpose. That’s why they were all so fired up about it. That’s why they were all so desperate for you and everybody else to wear them.

It’s important we have our heads around that because it will help us avoid letting them do it again in the future. It wasn’t just about control. It wasn’t just about dividing and dehumanizing us. It wasn’t just about turning us against each other and forcing us to deny science so we could devastate each other’s social, psychological, and emotional health.

All of those were welcome byproducts to the “public health experts” and other elites who to this day claim masking provides value. But the primary purpose was to promote fear, and to stifle your speech and expression so you perpetually signaled that fear to everyone else.

You were obedient, yes. But more than that, you were afraid. That was the message, whether you wanted to send it or not. It was the primary reason they made everyone wear them, and it’s important we never let them do that to us again.


Hrand Tookman is a Cleveland, Ohio native with a background in interpersonal communications. He writes with an objective of exposing media bias, and inspiring unity in defiance of so many forces today that thrive off of division.

Doctors: Biden Administration’s Dangerous Push for Trans Treatments for Kids Falsifies Science


REPORTED BY: JANE ROBBINS | APRIL 19, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/19/doctors-biden-administrations-dangerous-push-for-trans-treatments-for-kids-falsifies-science/

pride parade

HHS isn’t run by honest medical professionals. It’s in the grip of ideologues determined to destroy troubled children.

Author Jane Robbins profile

JANE ROBBINS

MORE ARTICLES

The nation’s public-health establishment lost all credibility during the Covid era by either ignoring or politicizing scientific data. But health bureaucrats seem to have learned nothing. With respect to the highly charged issue of gender dysphoria, they continue to substitute politics for science when necessary to advance the leftist narrative.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently released an official document designed to enshrine experimental medical interventions as the standard treatment for transgender-identifying children. Prepared by HHS’s Office of Population Affairs (OPA), the document is a political statement unmoored from actual medical research.

According to Gender-Affirming Care and Young People,” medical interventions such as puberty-blocking drugs, wrong-sex hormones, and surgical mutilation are “crucial to overall health” of young people confused about their sex. (For what it’s worth, OPA falls under the supervision of Dr. Rachel Levine, a man who identifies as a woman.) The document complements a proposed rule announced by HHS in March, mandating insurance coverage for such “gender-affirming care.”

But the claims made in HHS’s new release have been deftly dismantled by an organization of physicians and scientists who still care about reality, and about ethical medical practice. The Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine (SEGM which exists “to promote safe, compassionate, ethical and evidence-informed healthcare for children, adolescents, and young adults with gender dysphoria”  points out that HHS’s discussion is deeply misleading and indeed dangerous. SEGM identifies seven serious misrepresentations of fact crammed into the two-page HHS document. Most of these involve cherry-picking, distorting, or simply ignoring the results of studies on the many facets of so-called gender-affirming treatment.

HHS Mischaracterizes Studies

For example, HHS flatly mischaracterizes a study that failed to find any benefits of “social transition” (presenting oneself as the opposite sex, with a new name, hairstyle, dress, etc.). As SEGM notes, the HHS document cites that study for the opposite conclusion, “wrongly assert[ing] that social transition improves functioning.” HHS presumably assumes readers won’t read the actual study and thus will accept the agency’s false claims about its findings.

SEGM identifies other falsifications of the supposed mental-health benefits of wrong-sex hormones and surgeries. HHS’s “claims of benefits coming from cherry-picked studies do not hold up when the entire body of evidence is properly evaluated in a systematic and reproducible way,” according to SEGM.  

The design of the studies cited by HHS made it impossible to link medical interventions and improved mental health, SEGM observes. By contrast, multiple European studies “concluded that there is a lack of convincing evidence for the mental health benefit for children and adolescents of either puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.”

SEGM notes, in fact, that the Swedish health authority warned that “the risks of puberty suppressing treatment . . . and gender-affirming hormonal treatment currently outweigh the possible benefits, and that the treatments should be offered only in exceptional cases.”

HHS ignored all this research, which would have led honest medical professionals to at least acknowledge the scholarly debate about the wisdom of these interventions. But HHS isn’t run by honest medical professionals. It’s in the grip of ideologues determined to drive troubled children and their families into the clutches of the trans industry.

Dishonest Use of Data on Suicide

SEGM also criticizes the HHS document for dishonesty about the related issue of suicide among trans-identifying youth. In claiming alarmingly high rates of suicidal ideation in this population — a claim routinely used to pressure desperate parents into consenting to dangerous medical interventions — HHS relies only on “a low quality, non-probability online survey.”

In fact, SEGM reports, “recent research from one of the world’s largest pediatric gender clinics estimated the rate of suicide in trans-identified youth as 0.03% over a 10-year period, which is comparable to youth presenting for care with mental health problems.”

Even more critically, despite HHS’s strong implication that drugs, hormones, and surgeries reduce suicide rates, SEGM clarifies that “no study to date has demonstrated that transition reduces the rate of serious suicide attempts.” Is HHS afraid that telling the truth about suicide will make parents less likely to place their troubled children on the trans-industry conveyor belt?

Puberty Blockers Are Not Fully Reversible

The mendacity of HHS extends beyond misrepresenting or ignoring studies. For example, the document states, without supporting citation, that puberty blockers are fully reversible (i.e., natural puberty will resume once the drugs are discontinued). But SEGM warns about the utter dearth of research supporting this claim. In fact,

concerns have been raised that puberty blockers are psychologically irreversible (since over 95% of all treated youth proceed to cross-sex hormones), that they may harm bone development, may permanently alter the brain, that it is not yet known how they affect other vital organs, all of which undergo significant structural changes during uninterrupted puberty.

Once again, public-health agencies in Europe are more honest. As SEGM reports, Britain’s National Health Service says that “[l]ittle is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.”

But ignoring the risks of these interventions is HHS’s modus operandi. SEGM calls out the HHS ideologues for mentioning only the supposed (in some cases imaginary) benefits of interventions while failing to mention documented risks to bone development, cardiovascular health, and the mental health of patients who later regret their transition decisions.

Sterility Expected After Trans Treatments

SEGM particularly targets HHS’s failure to mention the effect on reproductive health, which is supposed to be the focus of Levine’s Office of Population Affairs. “When puberty blockers are administered in early puberty and followed by cross-sex hormones,” SEGM notes, “sterility is expected.”

HHS is silent about this potentially devastating consequence. Nor does it acknowledge the “serious ethical questions about whether adolescents can be considered competent to waive their future reproductive rights at an age when they are unlikely to be able to appreciate or predict the importance of fertility to their adult selves.”

Ethics, it appears, is not HHS’s strong suit.

HHS also misleads in stating that mutilating surgeries are “typically used in adulthood or case-by-case in adolescence.” In fact, as SEGM notes, draft recommendations from the influential (though highly politicized) World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) urge broad availability of mastectomies to patients at age 16.

Even worse, patients as young as 13 had their healthy breasts removed as part of a study funded by the National Institutes of Health – i.e., by you and me through our tax dollars. The HHS bureaucrats who prepared this report surely knew this, but distort the facts.

This HHS document, then, is a farce. As SEGM summarizes, HHS inadequately reviewed the scientific literature, issued “biased recommendations that do not acknowledge the low quality of evidence,” failed to solicit input from professionals and patients whose experiences contradict the government narrative, and utterly ignored possible alternatives to medical interventions, such as psychotherapy. The result:

This incomplete representation of the relevant issues is likely to mislead the public to believe that this is the best and only alternative, particularly when no other alternatives are mentioned. The public is also likely to erroneously assume that the risks of affirmative care are low. Patients and families are not capable of providing valid informed consent when the information they receive is inaccurate and incomplete

If the public-health establishment wants to rehabilitate its tattered reputation after the Covid debacle, this isn’t the way to do it. Health policy is too important to be entrusted to political hacks.


Jane Robbins is an attorney and a retired senior fellow with the American Principles Project in Washington DC. In that position she crafted federal and state legislation designed to restore the constitutional autonomy of states and parents in education policy, and to protect the rights of religious freedom and conscience. She is a graduate of Clemson University and the Harvard Law School.

Media Blackout: Nasal Spray that is 99% Effective Against COVID-19 in its Phase 3 Clinical Trial – Now Approved in India, Israel, Bahrain, Indonesia & Thailand


Reported By Jim Hoft | Published February 25, 2022

Read more at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/02/media-blackout-nasal-spray-99-effective-covid-19-phase-3-clinical-trial-now-approved-india-israel-bahrain-indonesia-thailand/

The Canadian pharmaceutical company SaNOtize Research & Development Corp., (SaNOtize), and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited (Glenmark), announced earlier this month the successful outcomes of a nasal spray in its Phase 3 clinical trials and now approved by India’s drug regulator as a treatment for adult patients with COVID-19 who have a risk of progression of the disease. TrialSite is the first to report on this.

“The study confirmed that SaNOtize’s Nitric Oxide Nasal Spray (NONS) represents a safe and effective antiviral treatment that shortens the course of COVID-19, and could prevent the transmission of COVID-19,” according to their news release.

The SaNOtize Nitric Oxide Nasal Spray (NONS) is designed to kill the Covid-19 virus in the upper airways, preventing it from incubating and spreading to the lungs. It contained anti-microbial properties with a direct virucidal effect on Covid-19.

Read their news release published at Business Wire and below:

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm study at 20 clinical sites across India that evaluated 306 patients, NONS reduced the SARS-CoV-2 log viral load in COVID-19 patients by more than 94% within 24 hours of treatment, and by more than 99% in 48 hours as compared to saline control.

Treatment also demonstrated, in the high-risk group (n=218), a statistically significant greater proportion of patients who achieved a combination of clinical and virological cure, based on the World Health Organization (WHO) Progression Scale. Moreover, the median time to negative PCR, in this group, was 4 days in the treatment group compared with 8 days in the control. Test subjects included patients infected with different variants, likely including Delta and Omicron. There were no significant adverse health events recorded in the Phase 3 trial, or in over 500 subjects treated so far with NONS in clinical trials.

The reduction in log viral load corroborates the reduction of viral load in the UK Phase 2 trials (a reduction of 95% in 24 hours and 99% in 72 hours), conducted in March 2021 by Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and Berkshire and Surrey Pathology Services, and published in the Journal of Infection in August 2021.

“These results definitively substantiate the safety and efficacy of NONS in the fight against COVID-19,” said Dr. Gilly Regev, SaNOtize Co-Founder and CEO. “We are thrilled to be able to provide COVID patients with an affordable product that has been shown to deliver a faster cure. And with the proven safety profile of NONS, we look forward to this becoming the first line of treatment and potentially defense for COVID infection worldwide.”

The SaNOtize treatment is designed to kill the virus in the upper airways, preventing it from incubating and spreading to the lungs. It is based on nitric oxide (NO), a natural nanomolecule produced by the human body with proven anti-microbial properties shown to have a direct effect on SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The pharmacology, toxicity, and safety data for NO use in humans has been well-established for decades. The NO molecule released from NONS is identical to the one delivered in its gaseous form to treat persistent pulmonary hypertension, or Blue Baby Syndrome, in newborn babies.

With the receipt of manufacturing and marketing approval from India’s drug regulator, SaNOtize’s strategic partner, Glenmark, will launch NONS commercially in India under the brand name FabiSpray®. The approval is for the treatment of adult patients with COVID-19 who have a risk of progression of the disease, which includes either persons over the age of 45, non-vaccinated people and/or those with comorbidities. Glenmark entered into an exclusive long-term strategic partnership with SaNOtize in August 2021 to manufacture, market and distribute NONS for COVID-19 treatment in India and other Asian markets including Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Nepal, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste, and Vietnam.

NONS has a marketing authorization as a Class I Medical Device in the EU. NONS is also approved and being sold in Israel, Thailand, Indonesia, and Bahrain, under the name enovid or VirX.

“As viral load is an important determinant of disease severity and transmission of COVID-19 infection, demonstration of reduction in the viral load is expected to have significant clinical consequences from a patient and community perspective,” said Dr. Monika Tandon, Senior Vice President and Head – Clinical Development, Global Specialty/Branded Portfolio for Glenmark. “In the current scenario, with new emerging variants exhibiting high transmissibility, this novel product provides a useful option in the world’s fight against COVID-19.”

Glenmark will submit the clinical trial data for publication in a peer-reviewed journal in order to share its findings.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Trials – Details

  • Patients in the Glenmark Phase 3 clinical trial in India self-administered a dose of 2 sprays per nostril, six times a day for a seven-day treatment period, along with standard supportive care.
  • The primary and secondary outcome measures demonstrated the efficacy and safety of the NONS treatment arm over the control arm, which was administered normal saline nasal spray as placebo in double-blind manner.
  • The trial also included a subgroup analysis for patients with a high risk of disease progression, including either non-vaccinated patients, patients in middle- and older-age groups, and/or patients with co-morbidities.
  • Reduction in log viral load in the NONS group was statistically significant and superior to the control group in the full population and high-risk population (p < 0.05). Similar results were seen in the un-vaccinated group. The primary endpoint was achieved and confirmed in all analyses.
  • Significantly higher proportion of patients became negative on the RT-PCR test in the NONS group as compared to the placebo group. The time to virological cure was four days in the NONS group and eight days in the placebo group (p < 0.05).
  • A significantly higher proportion of patients demonstrated a 2-point clinical status improvement on the WHO Progression Scale, the most clinically validated point system used in clinical trials, in the NONS group as compared to the placebo group in the high-risk group (p < 0.05).
  • Data suggests role of NONS in prevention of COVID-19, which is consistent with a faster viral reduction.
  • NONS was safe and well tolerated by all patients who were part of the clinical trial. There were no reports of moderate or severe or serious adverse events or death in the study. An independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) concluded that NONS was safe in COVID-19 patients.

“NONS destroys the virus, blocks entry into the nasal cavity and halts replication of the virus, which rapidly reduces viral load. This is important because viral load has been linked to infectivity, poor health outcomes and complications from Long COVID,” said Dr. Chris Miller, Chief Science Officer and co-founder of SaNOtize. “Amid evidence of waning efficacy for some vaccines and higher breakthrough rates, there is currently a lack of an antiviral therapy that is effective against COVID-19 and its variants that can be made widely and affordably available to the public. This is what makes NONS a critical weapon in ending the pandemic and preventing future outbreaks.”

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.

The Centers for Disease Control’s Lies Have Destroyed Its Legitimacy


REPORTED BY: Dr. GREGG SCHMEDES | FEBRUARY 22, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/02/22/the-centers-for-disease-controls-lies-have-destroyed-its-legitimacy/

Centers for Disease Control headquarters

On August 6, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control released a report that the agency claimed showed “Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection.” This assertion came amidst a public battle with Sen. Rand Paul, as the CDC released this data from Kentucky, Paul’s home state.

Yet after indisputable scientific evidence continued to pile up in favor of natural immunity, the CDC finally capitulated on January 19, 2022, recognizing the superiority of natural immunity over vaccination alone: “Between May and November 2021, people who were unvaccinated and did not have a prior COVID-19 infection remained at the highest risk of infection and hospitalization, while those who were previously infected, both with, or without prior vaccination, had the greatest protection.”

The CDC’s reversal came after its previous discounting of natural immunity caused mass layoffs, nursing home resident isolation, and hospital staffing shortages. It must not be forgotten or overlooked, and the CDC must be held accountable.

Last summer, guided by the CDC, President Biden claimed, “If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in the IC unit, and you’re not going to die.” Biden also spread misinformation about vaccinations preventing the spread of Covid-19 by stating, “You’re not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations.” 

Who is harmed the most by health misinformation produced by our president and his agencies? Those with low health literacy. Our rich-poor gap is growing in this country and lying about health issues only exacerbates it.

A Positive Test Doesn’t Always Mean Infectiousness

A deeper dive into the August natural immunity study reveals methodology that can be recognized as illogical, even to those without medical experience. The CDC researchers created two groups. The case group included people who tested positive in 2020 and then tested positive again during a two-month window in 2021. The control group included people who had a positive test in 2020 without another positive test during this artificial two-month window.

The study observed that non-vaccinated group registered a positive test 34.4 percent of the time, compared to 20.3 percent of fully vaccinated individuals. The CDC falsely defined the case group’s second positive test as a “reinfection.” This is the central lie of the study. This data conveniently omitted data on people actually becoming symptomatic or what a common person would call “reinfected.”

To illustrate this point, consider if a Covid-recovered person comes into contact with Sars-Cov-2 in their community. They might test positive on a PCR test. Their body can remember the virus, fight it off, and the person never becomes ill. However, shortly after the exposure, a PCR swab can detect bits of genetic material (even if it’s unviable virus). Therefore, this study could be more of a reflection of people’s likelihood of re-exposure to Sars-Cov-2, not reinfection, as the CDC claimed.

By conflating exposure and reinfection, the CDC misled the public. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky stated, “This study shows you were twice as likely to get infected again if you are unvaccinated. Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious Delta variant spreads around the country.”

This guidance came when mounting evidence indicated Covid vaccines quickly lose their effectiveness against infection and transmission, which the CDC loathed to admit. Unfortunately, Walensky’s guidance undermined the credibility of the CDC for generations to come.

As a physician, it’s frightening that a public health official made a policy recommendation based on such a flawed study. We should encourage critical thinking and scientific skepticism, but such a blatantly flawed study design should not be tolerated in our leading health institutions.

Not an Isolated Incident for the CDC

This isn’t the only time the CDC has been caught misleading the public. Drawing ire from the medical community, the was an uncontrolled study of students in Arizona that Walensky referred to in discussing the CDC’s mask guidance for schools. This study defined a “covid outbreak” as “two or more” positive lab tests among students or staff. So, if your school had two asymptomatic third graders, you’ve got a “covid outbreak” on your hands. Even worse, the study weighted such an “outbreak” equally to a school with dozens of symptomatic teachers or students. According to the CDC, two equals 50—at least for “covid outbreaks.”

In a Georgia study that actually had a sufficient control arm, the CDC minimized the fact that there was no statistically significant difference between masked and unmasked student groups. They’ve also minimized the importance of diet and exercise during the pandemic. They failed to effectively communicate evidence-based, life-saving outpatient treatment protocols. The list goes on.

Why This Matters So Much

How does minimizing natural immunity cause harm in the real world? There are at least three deadly repercussions.

First, many hospitals following the CDC’s guidance mandated that only vaccinated health-care workers be allowed to work at their facilities. This means naturally immune health-care workers were wrongly excluded from the workforce. Based on a toxic lie fabricated by the CDC, hospitals continue to experience staffing shortages, contributing to the hospitalization overcapacity narrative they’ve used to demonize the unvaccinated.

Second, the same problem arose for nursing homes, where seniors were denied visitation rights from unvaccinated, naturally immune family and friends, even though less protected vaccinated people were allowed in. Lack of care workers also prevents patients from being discharged from hospitals to care facilities.

Third, the natural immunity lie also stripped countless Americans of their health coverage and livelihoods. During the delta wave, for example, a worker at Los Alamos National Laboratories was fired from his job for religiously objecting to vaccination, despite working entirely from home and having recovered from a previous Covid infection. The CDC now admits this worker’s immunity provides protection superior to that of his co-workers who had merely vaccine-induced immunity at that time. He lost his job while the less protected did not. By denying natural immunity’s superiority to vaccine-induced immunity, how many others have been fired and lost health-care access the moment we need our population to be at its healthiest?

Punishing People We Should Have Praised

Naturally immune people should have been identified early in the pandemic as the most protected, ushered into hospitals and nursing homes to serve our vulnerable, and certainly should have been allowed to keep their jobs. By refusing to acknowledge the harms of lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccination, the CDC has brought everlasting shame to itself. There is clear evidence these types of interventions carry measurable risk. A better approach would have been to honestly discuss the risks and benefits with the public, much like I discuss surgical risks and benefits with my patients. This is the very tenet of informed consent, and better communication always results in a better relationship.

Americans need an unbiased, incorruptible, and credible CDC that provides reliable and scientifically sound public health guidance. These lies have de-legitimized and undermined public confidence in the institution of the CDC itself.

The consequences of lying about Covid-19 will spill into other areas of health care. Millions of Americans have lost trust in our hospitals and institutions and are now resorting to “under the table” health care. In health care, loss of trust equals lack of access. The CDC must return to the basics of evidence-based medicine to overcome its crisis of legitimacy.

A Scandal for Every Month: The Biggest Botches, Failures, And Mess-Ups of Joe Biden’s First 12 Months in Office


REPORTED BY: ELLE REYNOLDS | JANUARY 20, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/20/a-scandal-for-every-month-the-biggest-botches-failures-and-mess-ups-of-joe-bidens-first-12-months-in-office/

Joe Biden in his office

Joe Biden has been in the Oval Office (or that weird set in the Eisenhower building’s South Court auditorium with the greenscreen windows) for a year now, and he’s already managed to make his short presidency known for a long line-up of scandals, botches, and slip-ups.

It’s too hard to narrow the list down to one top failure, although his disgracefully handled Afghanistan withdrawal may be the most sobering and inflation may be the one that played the biggest role in Biden’s tanking approval ratings. Even though Biden’s mess-ups tally up to far more than 12, it’s not hard to remember a Biden-enabled disaster for every month of the septuagenarian’s first year at the stern … or in the basement.

January: Biden’s Radical First Week

On his first day in office, President Joe Biden signed a list of radically left-wing executive orders, including an order requiring that schools must ignore the biological differences between male and female students from the athletic field to the bathroom if they wish to continue receiving federal funding. In Biden’s first week, Press Secretary Jen Psaki also signaled the administration’s plans to reinstate federal funding for abortions around the world with the reversal of the Mexico City policy, and the new president canceled the Keystone XL pipeline.

As Tristan Justice reported at the time, “Biden’s first 48 hours in office have launched the new administration with 17 executive orders, more than were issued in the first month of their presidencies by Donald Trump, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton combined.”

February: Biden’s CDC Worked to Keep Schools Closed

In February, Biden’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced strict reopening guidelines that would keep many schools around the country shut down. “Only K-12 schools in cities and areas with low or moderate virus transmission can fully reopen for in-person learning, as long as physical distancing and mask-wearing is enforced,” Jordan Boyd reported on Feb. 12. “Any transmission rate beyond what is designated as moderate requires hybrid learning or ‘reduced attendance,’ limiting which children are allowed in the classroom at the same time.”

On the same day, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky admitted that far-left teachers unions that have worked to keep students out of school buildings over the course of the Covid pandemic had influence when the CDC created its school reopening guidelines.

March: Working With Corporations to Create Vax Passports

As The Washington Post first reported, the Biden White House spent the month of March plotting with corporations to develop a “vaccine passport” system to force Americans to show their Covid papers in order to participate fully in society. “The passports are expected to be free and available through applications for smartphones, which could display a scannable code similar to an airline boarding pass,” the Post noted.

April: Biden Debuts Radical Social Spending Plan

At the end of April, Biden announced his “American Families Plan,” a list of far-left spending priorities, many of which would become hallmarks of his struggling Build Back Bankrupt agenda. The goals of the proposed $1.8 trillion spending spree included extending government schooling fully into preschool and two years of taxpayer-provided community college.

May: More Unsavory Hunter Exploits Emerge

Scandal follows President Biden’s troubled son Hunter around, as the country learned when the New York Post published damning information recovered from a laptop the younger Biden allegedly left at a repair store in late 2020. But further revelations about Hunter’s exploits emerged in May of last year, adding to the pile of unsavory behavior that may implicate the president himself.

New emails from Hunter Biden’s suspected laptop published on May 26 by the Post show that Joe Biden “met with Ukrainian, Russian and Kazakhstani business associates of his son’s at a dinner in Washington, DC, while he was vice president” in April 2015.

“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent some time together,” wrote executive Vadym Pozharskyi of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, where Hunter sat on the board.

Other emails published by The Daily Mail in May revealed that Hunter Biden bragged he “smoked crack with [former D.C. Mayor] Marion Barry” when he was a student at Georgetown University.

June: Record-Setting Crisis at the Southern Border

Biden’s crisis at the Southern border has been setting records all year, but it was in June that apprehensions surged past 1 million for fiscal year 2021 and border crossings were at the highest levels since 2006. In May alone, “170,000 people were captured, marking a 20-year high,” Gabe Kaminsky reported at the time. June also saw the border state of Texas declare an emergency over Biden’s border crisis, which the president helped cause by reversing Trump-era stances like the “Remain in Mexico” policy.

As the crisis raged, Biden’s border czar Vice President Kamala Harris couldn’t be bothered to visit the actual U.S.-Mexico line, snapping “I haven’t been to Europe” when reporters pressed her on the topic. She finally caved and scheduled a trip, but only after former President Donald Trump announced his plans to visit.

July: Bragging about Working with Big Tech to Silence Dissent

In July, the Biden administration bragged about colluding with Big Tech to shut down perspectives with which the regime disagreed. In a press briefing on July 15, Psaki touted the administration’s policy of “flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.” A few days later, Psaki admitted there was nothing “off the table” in the effort to smear dissent as “misinformation” and have it removed from social media.

August: Bungled Afghanistan Withdrawal

August saw the largest-scale disaster on Biden’s watch so far, when the administration’s disorganized withdrawal from Afghanistan left 13 American service members dead and thousands of American citizens and allies stranded under Taliban control.

From the administration’s decision to vacate Bagram Air Base before evacuating Americans from the country, to leaving weapons and equipment to fall into the hands of the Taliban, to Biden taking an out-of-touch, hollow victory lap after the service members’ deaths and while Americans remained stranded, to the administration’s ongoing decision to ignore the allies still behind enemy lines, every action taken by the Biden team was a disaster. In the same month, the administration carried out a drone strike targeted at ISIS operatives that actually killed at least 10 civilians, seven of whom were children.

Americans won’t soon forget the harrowing images of desperate people trampling each other in the chaotic race to the Kabul airport, of people clinging to aircraft landing gear and falling helpless from the sky, or of a lone helicopter leaving the roof of the American embassy. There is blood on Biden’s hands, and our allies won’t soon forget it either.

September: Biden Lies to Undermine His Own Border Patrol Agents

After a photo of U.S. Border Patrol agents on horseback was misconstrued by Democrats and their media allies to falsely accuse agents of “whipping” criminals, Biden promised to make his own CBP employees “pay” and the White House banned agents in Del Rio, Texas from using horses going forward.

“It was horrible to see. To see people treated like they did. Horses running them over people being strapped. It’s outrageous,” Biden claimed, even though the photographer who took the viral photo insisted he’d “never seen them whip anyone.”

October: Biden’s Ed Secretary, DOJ Collude with NSBA to Smear Parents as Domestic Terrorists

On Sept. 29, the National School Boards Association sent a letter to the White House asking Biden to use the FBI and other federal law enforcement to target parents using terrorism laws. A few days later on Oct. 4, in response to the letter, Attorney General Merrick Garland directed the FBI and federal attorneys to investigate and address “a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.”

As it turns out, however, Biden’s own Education Secretary Miguel Cardona appears to have secretly requested the letter from NSBA, presumably to use as a pretense for the administration’s push to target parents unhappy with public schools’ closures, mask mandates, and extremist LGBT and critical race theory curricula.

November: That Tyrannical, Unconstitutional OSHA Vax Mandate

After issuing a September press release threatening a vaccine mandate for private businesses with 100 or more employees, Biden’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) released an emergency temporary standard on Nov. 4 that would require businesses to comply by Jan. 4 or incur fines of up to $14,000 per violation.

The Supreme Court struck this down in January, of course, and the Biden administration knew it was flagrantly unconstitutional all along — but exploiting the delays of the judicial system allowed the administration to bully many corporations into compliance anyway. Never mind the fact that the Biden administration had promised during the campaign that it wouldn’t mandate the Covid vaccine.

December: Supply Chain and Inflation Nightmare

December saw the climax (so far) of Biden’s joint inflation and supply chain crisis, dually caused by the administration’s radical spending and Democrats’ Covid lockdowns. As Americans faced shortages and shipping delays during their Christmas shopping, the Department of Labor released its November figures revealing 6.8 percent year-to-year inflation, or “the largest 12-month increase since the period ending June 1982.”

December’s inflation numbers were even higher, clocking in at 7 percent.

Bonus: January 2022: Compared Filibuster Defenders to George Wallace, Jefferson Davis

In a Jan. 11 speech urging the U.S. Senate to ditch filibuster rules in order to pass his radical and unconstitutional federalization of election laws, President Biden compared his agenda’s critics — which include Democrat Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — to former Alabama Gov. George Wallace and Confederate leader Jefferson Davis.

“Do you want to be the side of Dr. King or George Wallace? Do you want to be the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor? Do you want to be the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?” Biden said. Comparing his critics to notorious segregationists isn’t a good way to start year two of the Biden era.

Who knows what new scandals and embarrassments await the Biden administration in 2022? For the sake of the country, we can hope for fewer than in 2021, but it’s clear the administration has a failed track record only one year in.


Elle Reynolds is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

10 Lies Biden Told During His First Press Conference in Months


REPORTED BY: JORDAN BOYD | JANUARY 19, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/10-lies-biden-told-during-his-first-press-conference-in-months-2656436639.html/

Joe Biden at formal press conference 1/19/22

President Joe Biden hosted his second solo press conference ever on Wednesday but his attempts to clearly communicate how he plans to fix a country plagued with COVID-19, crime, rising prices, empty shelves, and more were nothing less of a disaster. Not only did Biden, who was once heralded as the chief unifier of the country, use the presser to repeat rhetoric trashing Republicans, he also did his absolute best to put lipstick on the pig that is the struggling U.S. economy. Unfortunately, no amount of lipstick or whoppers can cover Biden’s terrible and devastating approval rating.

Biden concluded his initial speech by claiming that “the best days of this country are still ahead of us not behind us,” but his optimism is unfounded. Recent polling suggests that only 26 percent of Americans believe the country is headed in the right direction. The majority, however, are left wondering whether Biden will work to fix the myriad of crises he created.

Here are the 10 lies Biden told during his Wednesday press conference.

1. The Nation’s Problem Is COVID

“I know there’s a lot of frustration and fatigue in this country. And we know why: COVID-19, Omicron it has now been challenging us in a way that, it’s the new enemy,” Biden said.

Not only is COVID-19 a virus that’s been around for years now, therefore not making it a “new enemy,” but it’s also not the only thing plaguing voters’ lives or minds. As a matter of fact, while Biden parades around the Capitol encouraging Democrats to abolish the filibuster and legalize illegal voting practices, he’s failing to address the ongoing Southern border crisis, empty shelves, and rising urban crime.

2. Wages Are Up

Early in his speech, Biden claimed that American wages are up. What he failed to address is that real wages have decreased most of the months he’s been in office. Even in months when wages were up, Americans were forced to dig deeper in their pockets to cover their climbing gas, energy, and grocery bills.

3. Biden Created Jobs

Biden tried to circumvent the nation’s economic turmoil by claiming that he created more jobs to stimulate the economy. He ignored, however, the role the government played in creating the recession that caused job loss in the first place. And on the role his own administration played in lining the pockets of Americans with federal cash, Biden was mum.

4. The Supply Chain Crisis Isn’t That Bad

Biden hardly addressed the ongoing supply chain crisis, leading to the often popular #bareshelvesBiden hashtag, and the nation’s rising inflation which continues to plague voters’ lives as they begin considering who to vote for in the 2022 midterms.

The president hinted that the “empty shelves being shown on television” were misleading but even he admitted that they are “a few [percentage] points below what it was before the pandemic.”

5. Inflation Was Already A Thing Before I Took Office

Biden claimed that inflation was increasing long before he assumed office, but as recent reports indicate, inflation in the U.S. surged to 7 percent in December 2021, the highest level since 1982.

6. Republicans Want To Steal Minorities’ Right To Vote

In an effort to promote his campaign to initiate a federal takeover of elections, Biden claimed that Republicans want to take away minorities’ rights to vote.

“No matter how hard they make it for minorities to vote, I think you’re going to see them willing to stand in line and … keep them from being able to vote,” Biden said. “I think you’re gonna see the people they’re trying to keep from being able to show up, showing up and making the sacrifice that needs to make in order to change the law back to what it should be.”

7. Schools Aren’t Closed

“You say we’re not going to go back to closing schools. You said that just moments ago, yet they’re closing in some areas. What do you say to those teachers and principals and parents about school closings?” one reporter asked. “And what can your administration do to help make up for learning loss for students?”

“First of all, I put in perspective the question you asked, very few schools are closing,” Biden claimed. “Over 95 percent are still open.”

Yet, since the rise of Omicron in the U.S., reports of schools closing across the country have also risen leaving working parents desperate for in-person learning once more. Thousands of schools that were scheduled to reopen following Christmas break opted for virtual learning until well into January due to panic over COVID-19 spread.

8. Build Back Better Will Save Americans Money

During the conference, Biden repeated the lie that his Build Back Better legislative package “would actually lower or reduce inflation.”

This falsehood has been debunked numerous times but that didn’t stop the president from claiming that his legislation, which actually costs trillions of dollars, won’t cost taxpayers a dime.

9. White House Reporters Are The Most Informed Americans Of All Time

Biden told the White House press pool that they are “more informed than any group of people in America.”

While the statement will probably score him points with openly partisan press pool members, it’s far from the truth.

For more than a year, corporate media reporters who covered Biden’s rise to the presidency and his subsequent time in the White House have overlooked the administration’s failures to laud the Democrat for being a “moral, decent man.” They’ve wasted their precious Q+As with the president on softball questions framed in a positive light, while also failing to ask key ones. They let Biden ramble and frequently fail to point out the obvious lies lacing his winding answers.

10. I Didn’t Compare My Democrat Colleagues To Racists

Biden denied that he compared Democrat filibuster holdouts Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona to confederate leaders.

“I did not say that they were going to be George Wallace or Bull Connor,” Biden claimed. “I said we’re gonna have a decision in history.”

Just last week, however, Biden asked “Do you want to be the side of Dr. King or George Wallace? Do you want to be the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor? Do you want to be the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?”

“This is the moment to decide, to defend our elections, to defend our democracy. If you do that you will not be alone,” Biden said.


Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: The danger of the momentum behind N95 respirators


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | January 20, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-the-danger-of-the-momentum-behind-n95-respirators/

Were the cloth masks just for psychological training purposes to get us to the main course of obsequious servitude to the gods of Fauci?

It took nearly two years, but the “public health experts” are finally admitting what industrial hygienists knew from day one: Masks do not work against airborne viruses. Yet rather than immediately remove these draconian restrictions – including masking 2-year-olds on airplanes and schoolchildren for hours on end in many states – they are seamlessly gliding into the new position of promoting N95 respirators. Following the inveterate patterns of the past two years, they use the failure of their first position to their advantage to further panic people into blindly following their next recommendation … until that becomes a mandate as well.

On Jan. 2, former FDA administrator Scott Gottlieb, the media’s go-to “expert” on all things pandemic, admitted what we all knew since 2020 but that got us banned from social media for saying so. “Cloth masks aren’t going to provide a lot of protection, that’s the bottom line,” said Gottlieb on Meet the Press. “This is an airborne illness. We now understand that, and a cloth mask is not going to protect you from a virus that spreads through airborne transmission.”

Well, some of us knew that early on in the pandemic.

Two days later, the New York Times ran an article telling people where to get N95s, states began mailing out N95 variations, and the CDC put out a new message, which between the lines, gives the impression that if you are not wearing an N95, you don’t really have protection. The Biden administration plans to distribute millions of them to local pharmacies. But is there really any evidence that the same people who were wrong about masks are now suddenly connected to God’s word when it comes to respirators? And who says it is safe for people to wear something like that for long periods of time, which until now required rigorous testing, medical exams, and training?

Yes, N95s, unlike masks, actually meet the standard for PPE in hazardous environments. But for which sort of hazard? Not an airborne respiratory virus. Stephen Petty, a certified industrial hygienist and hazardous exposure expert, sent me a copy of an N95 usage label made by 3M that he enlarged into an infographic. It turns out the company’s own disclosure blows up the myth of using an N95 for viral protection.

The label confirms what everyone understood prior to the mask mania of COVID: Neither masks nor N95 respirators can stop aerosols, certainly not viral ones, which are much smaller than bacteria. What’s truly revealing is that the label recommends against relying on them for source protection even against asbestos particles, which are on average 5 microns – 50 times larger than SARS-CoV-2 virions.

A large randomized controlled trial published just months before the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 — before masking became a political and social control tool — showed no benefit to N95s over surgical masks in terms of protection against the flu. “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” concluded the authors of the large trial, published in JAMA on Sept. 3, 2019.

Also, remember, that most people are not wearing sealed N95s. They wear the respirators loosely on their faces as they do surgical masks. Also, many of them are the Chinese version KN95s. Even the CDC admits, “About 60% of KN95 respirators NIOSH evaluated during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 did not meet the requirements that they intended to meet.”

The same study (Shah et.al.) that found just 10% and 12% reduction in aerosols for cloth and blue surgical masks respectively, actually found that KN95s worn improperly with 3mm gaps between the face and the respirator, as most people wear them, only offer 3.4% filtration efficiency – less than the cloth masks.

And remember, these studies are all conducted in labs, not in the real world, where no study has shown a statistically significant benefit to masks, and the basic epidemiological data has disproven the efficacy for two years.

Take Austria, for example, where they have been mandating N95 respirators in stores. Can you spot the efficacy?

The notion that children can properly wear a form-fitted N95 that effectively seals is both absurd and dangerous. And anything else will absolutely not work. There’s clearly an inverse relationship between safety and efficacy. The only thing that might possibly work will cause danger, which is why the federal government has long mandated very specific criteria for wearing respirators.

“While some misrepresent N95s as masks, they are actually respirators and will require one to follow the OSHA requirements for respirators under the Respiratory Protection Standard (RPS) 29 CFR 1910.134 (e.g., written program, medical clearance, initial fit testing, annual fit testing, no facial hair, worker training),” said Petty in an interview with TheBlaze. Stephen Petty has served as an expert witness in hundreds of industrial hazardous exposure court cases and now serves as a witness for those bringing lawsuits against irresponsible mask mandates. Here is a list of OSHA requirements, per Petty’s presentation, that would have to be met for usage of N95 respirators:

There’s a good reason why these requirements were put in place by OSHA. To the extent one actually properly seals an N95 respirator to the face (which few will do), it causes significant medical concerns. Here are some findings from an extremely exhaustive qualitative and substantive evaluation of 65 mask studies by German researchers:

In nine of the 11 scientific papers (82%), we found a combined onset of N95 respiratory protection and carbon dioxide rise when wearing a mask. We found a similar result for the decrease in oxygen saturation and respiratory impairment with synchronous evidence in six of the nine relevant studies (67%). N95 masks were associated with headaches in six of the 10 studies (60%). For oxygen deprivation under N95 respiratory protectors, we found a common occurrence in eight of 11 primary studies (72%).

Thus, to the extent anyone could achieve a meaningful degree of efficacy against virus particles with a respirator – something yet to be proven – it will come at a terrible cost. Even with regular masks, before our public health officials lost their minds (and hearts), it was understood that they are not harm-free. Here is a write-up from the Missoula, Montana, city health department recommending against the use of masks during wildfire season in Montana:

Masks are uncomfortable (they are more comfortable when they are leaky – but then they do not provide protection). They increase resistance to airflow. This may make breathing more difficult and lead to physiological stress, such as increased respiratory and heart rates. Masks can also contribute to heat stress. Because of this, mask use by those with cardiac and respiratory diseases can be dangerous, and should only be done under a doctor’s supervision. Even healthy adults may find that the increased effort required for breathing makes it uncomfortable to wear a mask for more than short periods of time. Breathing resistance increases with respirator efficiency.

The Montana Department of Health emphatically writes in bolded letters that N95s that seal are the only things that might help against smoke particles (which are around 1 micron, 10 times larger than most viral virions), but warns of health risks. “Note that respirator masks should be a last resort, as they are difficult to fit correctly, decrease oxygen intake, are hot, and can easily leak when worn improperly.” They go on to add, “People who are not physically fit may experience difficulty going about daily tasks due to reduced oxygen intake. It is more important to have enough oxygen than to have clean air – if you are using a respirator and feel faint, nauseous, or have trouble breathing, take the mask off.”

On the Washington Department of Health’s website guidance for wildfires, it is made clear that “masks are not approved for children” and that “it is harder to breathe through a mask, so take breaks often if you work outside.” The Sacramento County Department of Health Services states, “N95 respirator can make it more difficult for the wearer to breathe due to carbon dioxide buildup, which reduces the intake of oxygen, increased breathing rates, and heart rates.”

Just a year ago, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky swatted down the idea of wearing N95s. “They’re very hard to breathe in when you wear them properly,” Walensky said. “They’re very hard to tolerate when you wear them for long periods of time.”

Thus, whether we are talking about masks or N95s, it’s quite evident that they are either unsafe or ineffective. They can often be both unsafe and ineffective, but they can never be effective without being unsafe, unless worn by the right person with the right training in limited environments for short periods of time.

And this is just the scope of physical harm. One speech therapist in Palm Beach County is seeing a 364% increase in referrals from pediatricians for babies and toddlers with speech delays. “It’s very important that kids do see your face to learn, so they’re watching your mouth,” said a clinic director and speech-language pathologist at the Speech and Learning Institute in North Palm Beach.

How our governments can mandate something this immoral and illogical on our bodies indefinitely without due process, evidentiary standards, or a constitutional interest balancing test is astounding. Every state needs a constitutional amendment explicitly banning this from ever happening again. Biden promised 100 days of mask-wearing, but we are now approaching a full year without any end in sight.Just remember, if a government can criminalize our breathing without due process, what can it not do to us without recourse?

9 Times Sen. Ron Johnson Triggered the Left — And Turned Out to Be Right


Reported BY: KYLEE ZEMPEL | JANUARY 14, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/14/9-times-sen-ron-johnson-triggered-the-left-and-turned-out-to-be-right/

Ron Johnson in the Senate

Sen. Ron Johnson is not planning his Senate retirement anytime soon. The Wisconsin lawmaker is running for reelection, he announced this week, at which the corrupt media predictably came out, guns blazing.

CNN’s Chris Cillizza, for instance, announced that the “Senate’s leading conspiracy theorist is running for another term,” and The Nation ran an article calling him an “off-the-deep-end” senator.

But while attention-seeking pundits attack Johnson for opinions that don’t conform to the left-wing narrative (opinions held among many Americans outside the Beltway, by the way), his opinions are often proved to be exactly right. There’s quite a long list of “Ron John” statements and actions that, after sending the media into a tizzy and Big Tech giants into a censorship spree, have held up quite well over time. Here are some of them.

Jan. 6

During a February 2021 hearing to examine the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, Johnson condemned the violence then went on to read an eyewitness account of the day’s events. Originally published in The Federalist, it detailed the presence of provocateurs in the crowd and confusion among many of the pro-police “MAGA” protesters who didn’t attend the rally to perpetrate violence.

The media lost it, ignoring his condemnation of the violence to smear Johnson as a conspiratorial nutjob. CNNNew York Daily NewsDaily BeastThe Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and even the Washington Examiner ran articles attacking him as “deranged.”

Yet the account Johnson read was entered into the record without objection from lawmakers of either party. And since then, instead of learning more information about Jan. 6 that refutes eyewitness accounts of “provocateurs,” Americans have been treated to political playacting (including literal musical theater) from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s sham commission, more hyperventilating from the media, and repeated stonewalling from the FBI on questions about potential provocateurs caught on video, such as Ray Epps.

Johnson was also ahead of the game on the Capitol Police component of Jan. 6, including pushing to correct the media and Capitol Police’s lies about what happened to the late Officer Brian Sicknick.

COVID Shots

Johnson has been a consistent voice for those who don’t feel they have one on Covid shots and the mandates that accompany them. He’s given Americans a forum to discuss their firsthand adverse shot reactions, for which he’s been smeared in the corrupt media as “fundamentally dangerous” and as a peddler of “misinformation.”

In November 2021, YouTube suspended Johnson’s channel for the fifth time for seven days for a video of a panel on vaccine-related injuries, labeling it “Covid misinformation.” Yet we know adverse reactions do occur.

In April 2021, when Johnson questioned forcing every American to get vaccinated and slammed the idea of pushing vaccine mandates on citizens, Anthony Fauci came after him on MSNBC — which other outlets amplified, calling the senator an “idiot anti-vaxxer.”

Fast-forward to 2022, and Johnson has been vindicated: Even with a federal vaccine mandate in place, case numbers are up higher than ever; and even the triple-vaccinated are still contracting and spreading the virus.

Early COVID Treatment

Big Tech has twice censored the sitting U.S. senator by nuking videos discussing early Covid treatments. In February 2021, YouTube removed videos of sworn testimony from Dr. Pierre Kory about early treatments. Then in June, YouTube suspended Johnson’s account for one week for remarks he made about early Covid treatments in Milwaukee.

Shutting down scientific inquiry and debate is inherently anti-science, however, as scientists who dissent from some of the questionable Covid conventional wisdom have pointed out.

“For science to work, you have to have an open exchange of ideas,” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, has said of this type of censorship. “If you’re going to make an argument that something is misinformation, you should provide an actual argument. You can’t just take it down and say, ‘Oh, it’s misinformation’ without actually giving a reason. And saying, ‘Look it disagrees with the CDC’ is not enough of a reason. Let’s hear the argument, let’s see the evidence that YouTube used to decide it was misinformation. Let’s have a debate. Science works best when we have an open debate.”

[LISTEN: Sen. Ron Johnson Has Some Questions For The ‘Covid Gods’]

‘Rona Vaccines for Kids

In October 2021, Wisconsin radio host Dan O’Donnell’s YouTube account was suspended after he posted an interview with the senator about opposing vaccine mandates for kids.

We didn’t have to wait for ground-breaking scientific discovery on this one; we’ve known since the beginning of the pandemic that children are at almost zero risk of dying from coronavirus, and now we know that Covid shots don’t prevent people from contracting nor spreading the virus. Johnson was scientifically spot-on to oppose vaxx mandates for children, given children’s near-zero risk from a bout with Covid versus the potential risks of shot complications.

Hunter Biden

Corporate media ginned up all types of attacks when Johnson, as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, dug into the Biden family corruption linked to Hunter Biden.

The New York Times described it using the “Russian disinformation” moniker. Time Magazine smeared him as the Senate’s “one-man Biden prosecutor.” And the Washington Post described Johnson’s investigation as a nakedly partisan ploy to get Donald Trump re-elected.

This was all a distraction from the fact that Johnson and Sen. Chuck Grassley successfully revealed millions of dollars in questionable financial transactions between Hunter Biden and his associates and foreign individuals, including the wife of the former mayor of Moscow and people with ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

Biden associate Tony Bobulinski confirmed aspects of the report after its release.

Climate Change

Johnson triggered the media in July when he mouthed to a Republican group that climate change is “bullsh-t.” The corporate media went berserk, with CNN and Chris Cuomo calling Johnson a climate change “denier.”

The senator has reinforced repeatedly that he doesn’t deny that the climate is changing, but rather that he isn’t an “alarmist” and doesn’t buy Democrats’ apocalyptic predictions.

Big surprise, plenty of data backs this up. The American Enterprise Institute has documented 50 years of failed doomsday predictions by so-called “experts” in the corrupt media and Democrat Party. For instance, ABC claimed in 2008 that Manhattan would be underwater by 2015. In 2011, The Washington Post claimed that cherry blossoms would bloom in winter.

Climate genius Al Gore also predicted in 2008 that five years later the North Pole would be free of ice. And in 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., predicted that Miami would be underwater in a few years. Yet in 2022, Miami is still very much above ground.

Mouthwash

Last month, Johnson noted a number of simple things Americans can do to keep themselves heathy, such as taking Vitamin D, Vitamin C, and zinc, and gargling mouthwash to reduce viral load if they get COVID.

He was swiftly berated in print and on-air by the likes of MSNBC’s Rachel MaddowHuffPostThe Washington Post, and Rolling StoneForbes said Johnson’s “Advice Exemplifies The Rising Tide Of Anti-Science,” and MSNBC’s Joy Reid called him a “fool” and a “public health menace.”

Johnson’s mouthwash claim about viral load is supported by scientific research, however, such as this study. Additionally, Dr. Bruce Davidson, a faculty member of the Georgetown Department of Otolaryngology, conducted a study on the use of antiseptic mouthwash to control coronavirus, published in the American Journal of Medicine, and found that mouthwash can help protect people from Covid-19 pneumonia.

Even FackCheck.org had to admit, “Johnson is right that mouthwashes ‘may’ reduce the virus’ ability to replicate in people.”

Natural Immunity

On July 14, Johnson claimed natural immunity is “as strong if not stronger than vaccinated immunity,” against which WaPo deployed its fake fact-checkers.

“Fact-checker” Salvador Rizzo gave it “four Pinocchios” (an analysis that Johnson’s team eviscerated), and WaPo’s bogus fact-checker-in-chief Glenn Kessler called it one of the “Biggest Pinocchios of 2021.”

Johnson’s claims, however, come straight out of a pair of studies that confirmed natural immunity is stronger than COVID vaccine-acquired immunity. The pre-print Israeli study found that people with natural immunity could be 13 times less likely to contract the virus than those who were solely vaccinated, contradicting CDC findings.

Martin Kulldorff, an epidemiologist and biostatistician who was a professor at Harvard Medical School for a decade, dissected and compared the CDC study and the Israeli pre-print and explained why the latter is more reliable.

Russiagate

Johnson’s years-long involvement in getting to the bottom of the Russia hoax and the Ukraine phone call impeachment is enough to fill a book (see hereherehereherehere, and here), but suffice it to say that, true to form, the media were relentless, and the right was pretty much right about everything. In fact, the truth about that story is likely far worse than most have heard. Here’s hoping Johnson continues to pursue that truth using the powers of a U.S. senator.


Kylee Zempel is an assistant editor at The Federalist. She previously worked as the copy editor for the Washington Examiner magazine and as an editor and producer at National Geographic. She holds a B.S. in Communication Arts/Speech and an A.S. in Criminal Justice and writes on topics including feminism and gender issues, religious liberty, and criminal justice. Follow her on Twitter @kyleezempel.

Stunning new data shows risk of death from Omicron is 91% lower than Delta, CDC-funded study says


Reported by PAUL SACCA | January 13, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/omicron-variant-compared-delta-cdc-study/

The Omicron variant of COVID-19 is far milder than Delta, according to a new study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The eye-opening data revealed that those infected with the Omicron variant are 91% less likely to die than those who are infected than the Delta strain.

The clinical study was conducted by Kaiser Permanente Southern California health care system – which operates 138 medical offices and 13 medical centers, plus has an affiliation with 37 community hospitals in Southern California. The study analyzed 52,297 Omicron cases and 16,982 Delta cases in Southern California between Nov. 30, 2021, and Jan. 1, 2022.

The study found that those infected with the Omicron variant were 53% less likely to have symptomatic hospitalization, had 74% less chance of being administered to the intensive care unit, and had a 91% lower risk of death compared to individuals with the Delta variant. Only one person of the more than 52,000 people with Omicron died, versus 14 deaths in the 16,982 with Delta. In addition, there were zero patients with Omicron who required mechanical ventilation, according to the research.

“Hospital admissions occurred among 235 (0.5%) and 222 (1.3%) of cases with Omicron and Delta variant infections, respectively,” the authors of the study said.

Patients infected with Omicron had a median duration of hospital stay of three fewer days than those with Delta.

“During a period with mixed Delta and Omicron variant circulation, SARS-CoV-2 infections with presumed Omicron variant infection were associated with substantially reduced risk of severe clinical endpoints and shorter durations of hospital stay,” the authors of the study concluded.

The CDC-funded study – which has not yet been peer-reviewed – did not reveal the ages of those who died or their vaccination status. On Wednesday, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky shared the study on Twitter.

Despite the promising news, Walensky tempered the optimism by saying, “While less severe, #Omicron is much more transmissible & we are seeing the unprecedented impact. Over 1M cases in a day, 99% of counties with high transmission & strained healthcare systems. Protect against #COVID19: get vaccinated + boosted, wear a mask & stay home if sick.”

While speaking at a White House Covid-19 Response Team briefing on Wednesday, Walensky said public health officials will monitor “deaths over the next several weeks to see the impact of Omicron on mortality.”

“Given the sheer number of cases, we may see deaths from Omicron, but I suspect the deaths we’re seeing now are still from Delta,” the CDC head revealed.

The Omicron strain became the dominant variant in mid-December and now accounts for an estimated 98.3% of all new cases, according to CDC data. There were 829,209 cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. on Jan. 12 compared to 90,024 cases on Dec. 12.

On Tuesday, Dr. Anthony Fauci acknowledged how transmissible the Omicron variant is and said nearly everyone will contract it.

“Omicron, with its extraordinary, unprecedented degree of efficiency of transmissibility, will ultimately find just about everybody,” Fauci told J. Stephen Morrison – senior vice president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Those who have been vaccinated … and boosted would get exposed. Some, maybe a lot of them, will get infected but will very likely, with some exceptions, do reasonably well in the sense of not having hospitalization and death.”

Also on Tuesday, U.S. Food and Drug Administration acting commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock said that “most people are going to get COVID.”

“I think it’s hard to process what’s actually happening right now, which is: Most people are going to get COVID,” Woodcock said at a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing. “And what we need to do is make sure the hospitals can still function, transportation, you know, other essential services are not disrupted while this happens.”

Wisconsin Parents Join National Crusade To Wrestle Their Kids Back From Left-Wing Government Schools


Reported BY: KYLEE ZEMPEL | JANUARY 11, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/11/wisconsin-parents-join-national-crusade-to-wrestle-their-kids-back-from-left-wing-government-schools/

Wisconsin parents town hall with Rebecca Kleefisch

WAUKESHA, Wis. — The banquet hall buzzed with impassioned chatter as parents, friends, first-time school board candidates, and other locals congregated for a Saturday morning town hall that felt more like a strategy session. After two major public school districts, Milwaukee and Madison, shut down yet again and blamed COVID, parents were fired up. Talk of critical race theory, leftist administrators, mask mandates, and school shutdowns hummed through conversations with the kind of first-hand animation that could propel once-complacent Wisconsin parents into a movement of activists capable of unleashing an unquenchable red wave in the Dairy State. They saw what happened in Virginia, and now they want to bring it home.

Former Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, who’s now running to unseat Democrat Gov. Tony Evers in November, organized the event. Although Kleefisch is in campaign mode, the overarching energy of the gathering wasn’t as much, “Help get me elected,” as it was, “How can we get more of you elected?”

Calling All Parents

“We need more parent activists. This is that important,” Kleefisch said while moderating a panel of concerned moms-turned-activists.

One of those moms was Scarlett Johnson, a mother of five who, after discovering the apathy in the Mequon-Thiensville School Board, decided she needed to run for a seat.

“We just started paying closer attention,” Johnson said to the room of eager fellow parents. “I hadn’t attended school board meetings. I vote, but I never voted for a school board candidate.”

But that all changed this last year. Johnson said she and a group of other moms started getting together and doing their research. When they did, they found toxic racial propaganda in their kids’ classrooms, such as teachers assigning books like Robin DiAngelo’s “White Fragility.” The moms started making phone calls and sending emails to school officials. “It started a movement,” Johnson said.

In the course of her run for school board, Johnson said she’s been called a white supremacist and received death threats, but noted, “I’m still here, I’m still fighting.”

Kylee Zempel/The Federalist

No Room for Apathy

Parents aren’t just fired up about nefarious actors in the school systems, however. They’re also on the lookout for complacent school board members and district officials. Another mom on the panel, Alyssa Pallow, is getting involved simply because her school board doesn’t seem to really know anything about dangerous ideologies such as critical race theory. Kleefisch agreed, stressing to parents that they don’t have to wait to get involved until one of their kids cracks a textbook or assignment that makes their jaw drop open. “It can be that you’re horrified by the apathy,” Kleefisch said.

“It snowballs,” said another mom, Amber Schroeder, regarding parent activism. “You will inspire people to get involved.” Schroeder and Johnson worked together in the Mequon-Thiensville district to organize a recall election of four school board members.

“People are afraid to do it alone,” Schroeder continued. “Once you realize you’re not alone, a lot more people get involved. … If you build it, they will come.”

A Time for Choosing

Other parents have been shocked to watch their children become casualties in the left’s Covid crackdowns. Mattie Allen stressed the importance of school choice after her kids had a horrible academic year due to lockdowns. Allen’s son spent his first year in school doing it virtually, “which was horrendous,” she said. Her daughter spent one year at Milwaukee Public Schools, where her GPA plummeted, and it was “one of the worst years.” Thanks to school choice, they’re now in a charter school with just one grade per class. “Their school is so open, and I love it,” Allen said, noting that her daughter’s GPA is back up, she’s on the honor roll, and she’s playing volleyball.

But some families aren’t so fortunate. One of Allen’s friends who is stuck with her kids in Milwaukee Public Schools is watching the district once again shut down. This single mom has a first-grader and a third-grader, meaning she had to switch to third shift just so she could fulfill the roles of both teacher and provider. She’s “up all day, up all night,” Allen said, getting choked up. “How do we give all moms that [school choice] option?”

[WATCH: Meet The Parents: How The Moms And Dads Of Loudoun County Took Back Virginia]

Maggie Vinopal, a mom in the Eau Claire school district, has also had enough with the COVID madness, saying school officials are weaponizing Statute 252, a state quarantine law, to punish and quarantine unvaccinated kids. Her healthy seventh-grade daughter has been quarantined four different times for a total of 14 schools days, despite coronavirus posing almost zero risk of severity to healthy children. Anyone who tests positive for COVID-19 is required to “isolate,” Vinopal told The Federalist. But when students come into contact with a positive case, only the unvaccinated have to “quarantine,” despite the ability of the vaccinated to contract and spread COVID.

On the very first day of school, Vinopal’s daughter was seated at the same lunch table as a vaccinated student who later tested positive and had to isolate. While the vaccinated students at the table were allowed to proceed as normal, Vinopal’s daughter was required to quarantine and provide proof of a negative test.

Jumping in the Ring

Covid nonsense like this is what inspired people like first-time Waukesha School Board member Kelly Piacsek to run. When a number of people decided to “abuse our children in the name of science, I got really mad,” said Piacsek, who is now known for holding firm on a decision to end a harmful federally-funded school lunch program in the face of vicious and dishonest attacks. “That’s what motivated me.” Running for school board is “absolutely worth it,” she told parents. “We’ve got to take this on because we have a front-row seat to the consequences.”

Piacsek inspired people like Slinger parent Bill Brewer to run for his school board. Brewer, a veteran, has lived in Slinger for approximately 18 years. He coaches youth football there and is now involved in the league’s leadership. But the school board’s apathy and lack of urgency against dangerous ideologies have prompted him to get involved.

“Marxism doesn’t come and punch you in the face in round one. It creeps in,” Brewer said.
“I just can’t have that, not for my community, not for these kids. They deserve better.”

Rebecca Kleefisch Campaign

Brewer said his strategy isn’t so much a campaign “as a giant, three-month listening tour.”

“Once I get elected, that’s not going to stop,” Brewer said.

That seems to be the Kleefisch campaign strategy too. Rather than spending two hours rattling off campaign promises, the gubernatorial candidate opened the floor on Saturday for parents to voice their concerns and asked attendees to fill out cards with the top three issues that matter to them to help guide her policy. That’s more than these weary parents have gotten from Evers, who has worked to keep parents in the dark. In December, the governor — who was the state superintendent of public instruction for a decade — vetoed education transparency legislation that would have required districts to publish classroom materials online. This anti-parent action from Evers followed his school-closing impulse that kept kids home and tanked their academic advancement.

“We need you to be successful and aggressive,” Kleefisch rallied, encouraging the parents fighting in local races. If the energy in the Waukesha banquet hall was any indication, these parents won’t have any problem with that.


Kylee Zempel is an assistant editor at The Federalist. She previously worked as the copy editor for the Washington Examiner magazine and as an editor and producer at National Geographic. She holds a B.S. in Communication Arts/Speech and an A.S. in Criminal Justice and writes on topics including feminism and gender issues, religious liberty, and criminal justice. Follow her on Twitter @kyleezempel.

No, Those Who Pushed Lockdowns Can’t Hide from the Consequences Now


Reported BY: JOY PULLMANN | JANUARY 11, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/11/the-people-who-brutalized-children-to-grab-emergency-powers-are-not-experts-theyre-evil/

Boy wearing mask while playing baseball

Americans are starting to feel the increasing collateral damage from our unprecedented, ineffective, and ill-advised Covid lockdowns. It was known before March 2020 that lockdowns would cause lifelong and avoidable damage to billions, yet the world’s ruling classes who claim to have earned their place atop a “meritocracy” strenuously demanded such damage be inflicted especially on children and other vulnerable people.

This ruling class used all their massive financial, communications, and government powers to ensure these tragic outcomes, even though anyone who was an actual expert—or, like me, just someone who reads and has common sense—predicted this false “cure” would hurt worse than the disease.

Now that people are beginning to more deeply feel the foreseeable evil consequences of ruling class responses to a novel virus, that ruling class is pulling what propaganda experts call a “limited hangout.” That’s admitting to bits of the truth in order to re-establish yourself as a credible authority while attempting to keep the whole truth hidden.

So we have outlets such as The Atlantic and The New York Times, which have throughout the Covid era worked as government butt-coverers, now publishing articles admitting that lockdowns and continued rolling blackouts of school instruction is irrevocably damaging Americans, especially children and even more especially the poorest. The kids, as I pointed out in April 2020 and numerous times thereafter, will never as a generation recover.

Now that the damage is done, major corporate media organizations have decided to pivot to acknowledge just enough of the truth to cover their complicity. The Atlantic, for example, last week published an article titled “America’s Covid Rules Are A Dumpster Fire” (It took you two years to figure out what was apparent within the first month?).

CNN’s Brian Stelter recently did a segment acknowledging the foreseeable “mental health crisis” from lockdowns that is causing suicides, ruining marriages, putting formerly perfectly normal kids into rocking fetal positions, and erasing the credibility of formerly mostly ignored “public health experts” at institutions like the Centers for Disease Control and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Stelter made multiple statements that have gotten numerous conservatives punished by and erased from social media, such as that “Covid zero is…an impossibility” and “the CDC has turned into a punchline.”

Where was Stelter a year and a half ago, when data reflecting the exact same outcomes were also plentiful? Heck, Stelter was still legitimizing Covid panic one month ago, when CNN and other news organizations reinstituted lockdown measures amid omicron panic they helped inflame. Six months ago, Stelter was indicating Fox News had “blood on its hands” for reporting less hysterically than all the other major media organizations about Covid.

Clearly, Democrats are becoming ensnared by their own trap, and they’re trying to get out with this public reversal of their messaging. The limited hangout is afoot.

Brave NYT truth-teller David Leonhardt also recently published an article and an accompanying tweetstorm on the topic.

“The number of E.R. visits for suspected suicide attempts by 12- to 17-year-old girls rose by 51 percent from early 2019 to early 2021, according to the CDC,” he tweeted.

“Data now suggest that many changes to school routines are of questionable value in controlling the virus’s spread. Some researchers are skeptical that school closures reduce Covid cases in most instances. Other interventions, like forcing students to sit apart from their friends at lunch, may also have little benefit,” he noted in the article.

No sh-t, Sherlock. So why did The New York Times run hit pieces on Trump medical advisor Scott Atlas for being one of the few scientists courageous enough to point this long-ago known data out more than a year ago, when the damage could have been mitigated? Why did Stanford University colleagues and formerly respected medical journals, boosted by corporate media attack campaigns, try to discredit Atlas and colleagues such as Dr. Jay Bhattacharya for saying things The New York Times, Atlantic, and CNN are admitting now?

Why did the CDC punish world-renowned vaccine scientist Dr. Martin Kulldorff for publicly disagreeing with them on vaccine safety? Why does Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook shadowban nearly every Federalist article on anything touching Covid-19, and why did they spend two years on massive information suppression campaigns against scientists, politicians, podcasters, and just ordinary citizens who had some questions, contrary data, and objections to elites’ demanded Covid response?

Because it was politically expedient to sacrifice science, Americans’ civil rights, human lives, and the world’s future then, and it is not politically expedient to face the consequences for that choice now. And they think nobody can or will hold them accountable for their deadly and despicable lies.

All the misery these too-late admittals underscore appears to be true, but it also could have been prevented. CNN and The New York Times not only did nothing to help prevent this kind of irreversible damage, they willingly, even gleefully, participated in this completely unwarranted mass abuse of Americans. The left lied, children committed suicide.

The corporate left’s morally abominable Covid propaganda operation demands justice. The people who could and should have known, and in fact likely did know, that lockdowns would harm millions of innocents while not protecting the vulnerable can never be trusted again.

Did any of these people tell the truth back when it could have saved the generation that comprises the world’s future? Nope. They not only watched it happen, they cheered it on and viciously ostracized all who told the truth.

All these people have erased all their moral authority and their claims to expertise. The same goes for all the education “experts” and “leaders” who didn’t spend the last two years screaming at the top of their lungs that school shutdowns are a stupid, scientifically unwarranted, and evil idea. Yes, that’s basically all of them.

Experts who knowingly allow mass child abuse because they don’t want to harm their careers are not experts, they are cowards. They deserve not one ounce of public trust or even to retain their jobs. They certainly should have no public funds nor authority over any portion of the upbringing of American children.

Not one parent or elected official should give these education and public health “experts” the time of day. In a time of dire need, these keepers of the nation’s children and controllers of billions in public funds piled American children on a funeral pyre, lit it on fire, and cheered as it burned. Requiring that they find a more honest line of work would be an act of mercy.

These “experts” and “leaders” have shown themselves to be grossly incompetent at discharging their crucial public trust and duties. They should be relieved of those duties as soon as possible. If state lawmakers will not do it, citizens must. If they do not, they are also complicit cowards and also deserve to be sanctioned and socially shamed for their willingness to sacrifice the most vulnerable for their personal comfort.

For a long time now, American parents have registered deep dissatisfaction with the public schools they feel forced to stick their kids in. Even before lockdowns, unscientific and education-damaging forced masking in schools, ridiculous repeated quarantines of healthy kids, and rolling “brownouts” of in-person schooling, polling shows most American parents wish they didn’t feel like the public schools in their ZIP code were their only option.

After all this incompetence-imposed life chaos, the current surge of parent outrage at local school board meetings is only the tip of the spear. As more evidence emerges of the unnecessary harms we knew beforehand would result from lockdowns, public anger will only grow. It won’t be limited to schools, either.

If more exciting school board meetings, primaries for craven politicians, and parents yanking funding from schools that don’t serve them are what it takes to run every one of these moral cretins out of every position of power they’ve abused throughout their careers, then go, Americans, go. Do it for the kids. Our future will remember who stood up for the truth, lives, and liberties, and who made billions of precious humans needlessly suffer.


Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Her bestselling ebook is “Classic Books for Young Children.” Sign up here to get early access to her next book, “How To Control The Internet So It Doesn’t Control You.” Mrs. Pullmann identifies as native American and gender natural. She is also the author of “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books. In 2013-14 she won a Robert Novak journalism fellowship for in-depth reporting on Common Core national education mandates. Joy is a grateful graduate of the Hillsdale College honors and journalism programs.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Why did Scotland experience a spike in infant deaths?


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | January 11, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-why-did-scotland-experience-a-spike-in-infant-deaths/

One of the most durable public health trajectories over the past 50 years has been the consistent decline in infant mortality in countries with first-world health care. Yet in September, Scotland experienced such a spike at least in neonatal deaths that it rivaled levels not seen since the 1980s. What on earth would cause such a sudden bizarre spike? Nobody seems to have the answer — nor do they want to study all of the potential culprits.

In September, Public Health Scotland announced that 21 newborns had died that month, triggering an investigation because the numbers rose above an upper control limit for the first time in four years. According to the Herald Scotland, “the figure for September – at 4.9 per 1000 live births – is on a par with levels that were last typically seen in the late 1980s.”

As you can see from the Public Health Scotland (PHS) data, the upper control limit was breached in September, which PHS believes “indicates there is a higher likelihood that there are factors beyond random variation that may have contributed to the number of deaths that occurred.” After all, the five-year average appears to be about 2.2 per 1,000 live births, so September’s numbers are more than double the average.

Although the incidents of neonatal death tend to fluctuate every other month, the levels appear to be elevated, on average, without the usual intermittent dips below the baseline throughout the entire year of 2021. This is astounding given how much the general trend of infant mortality has declined since the 1980s.

Based on media reports, it appears that the entirety of the public health investigation revolved around whether COVID itself was the culprit of the unusual number of neonatal deaths. The problem is that we didn’t see any of this death in the first year of the pandemic. Also, it was only infants who seemed to experience a sharp increase in death, the least likely cohort to be affected by the pandemic.

In December, PHS announced that based on preliminary findings, it has no evidence that COVID was the culprit. “There is no information at this stage to suggest that any of the neonatal deaths in September 2021 were due to Covid-19 infection of the baby,” said PHS, according to the BBC. “Likewise, preliminary review does not indicate that maternal Covid-19 infection played a role in these events.”

Well, that’s pretty obvious, but what is the culprit for such an unusual trend?

“Preliminary information on prematurity suggests that the number of babies born at less than 32 weeks gestation in September 2021 was at the upper end of monthly numbers seen in 2021 to date. This may contribute to the neonatal mortality rate, as prematurity is associated with an increased risk of neonatal death.”

But why would that cause neonatal deaths not seen since the 1980s, and why would there be more prematurely born babies?

With so many other vaccine safety signals being seen, there is no desire to even look at the possibility that an experimental shot that was not studied in pregnant women – yet was widely distributed to them – had something to do with it. We have no idea what caused this spike, but here’s why any logical person would commence an inquiry around the shots.

  • We know that this shot has caused menstrual irregularities like we’ve never seen before. A University of Chicago survey sought to recruit 500 women with menstrual irregularities in order to study the cause and effect, and instead, researchers got 140,000 submissions. One study found that 42% of women experienced heavier bleeding, while only 44% reported no changes to their menstrual cycles. A whopping 66% of post-menopausal women experienced breakthrough bleeding. This all goes to show how the 20,000 menstrual irregularities reported in VAERS are a joke because the system only captures a fraction of the adverse events.
  • As of Dec. 31, there were 3,511 miscarriages reported to VAERS. Remember, this is something that is extremely hard to pin on the vaccine, so the fact that so many felt they could report it demonstrates there is likely a woeful underreporting rate. Here is the presentation from Open VAERS, which shows the number of reported miscarriages peaking around August/September in the United States.

Does any of this mean we can conclusively say the shots are causing reproductive issues? No. But there certainly are a lot of safety signals that should be followed up on rather than dismissed. I asked Dr. James Thorp, a Florida-based OB/GYN and maternal-fetal medicine specialist with over 42 years of experience, if he was concerned about these signals. “To the extent of a broad statement that menstrual irregularities are usually minor issues is a true statement,” he said. “However, in the context of the massive increase in menstrual irregularities associated with the vaccine, there are very serious potential implications. It supports the cumulative evidence that the jabs’ lipid nanoparticles concentrate in the ovaries and affect/infect/expose ALL ovum to the LNP and cargo mRNA [and] is extremely serious.”

Thorp notes that the LNPs can be inflammatory and they likely penetrate every area of the body and, by extension, the fetus. “The lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) easily pass through all the natural barriers that God created in the human body. LNPs are extremely small spherical particles with an outer lipophilic (fat-soluble) membrane containing the mRNA cargo. There may be billions of LNPs in the COVID-19 jab that do not remain in the deltoid muscle; they are readily dispersed throughout ALL bodily tissues, easily pass through the maternal blood-brain barrier, the placental barrier, and the fetal blood-brain barrier.”

Thorp observes that whereas men continuously make more sperm throughout their lives, women have a finite number of eggs, which means that “every single one is exposed to the LNPs for life.”

Previous studies have shown nanoparticles to be a source of fetal inflammation. “Nobody knows the potentially catastrophic results of this,” warns Thorp. “In my area of expertise of maternal-fetal medicine, we have researched for decades on the catastrophic effect of inflammatory processes that may occur in the fetus and may result in miscarriage, fetal malformation, fetal death, neonatal death, infant death, permanent major newborn damage, permanent major autoimmune damage, permanent cognitive damage, permanent impairment of the immune health, and unleashing of infections and cancers.”

Just how concerning is the VAERS data so far? Dr. Thorp created a chart to compare the rate of miscarriages and fetal deaths (defined together as “pregnancy loss”) per month reported to the system for the COVID shots as compared to all other shots.

As you can see, we have seen 50 times the rate of reporting per month of miscarriages for this vaccine than the other vaccines put together. Thorp mentioned on my show that lest people think he opposes vaccines, he particularly recommends the flu and pertussis vaccines to his pregnant patients. You can see the rate of reporting for pregnancy loss among those shots is very low.

Now look at the rate of fetal malformations that have been reported to VAERS for COVID vaccines as compared to others.

Thorp requested that anyone who had the jab pushed on her in her pregnancy and believes she has suffered adverse effects in herself, her pregnancy, or her newborn to please contact him at jathorp@bellsouth.net.

Given that Scotland seemed to have experienced the most obvious safety alarm signal, why aren’t they looking into any of this? Well, in the richest of ironies, Glasgow Royal Fertility Clinic, one of the top fertility clinics in Scotland, has announced it will not serve any women without the shot. Why do they so badly not want a control group from which to study?

Health ‘Experts’ Finally Admit Masks Control People, Not Viruses


Reported BY: KYLEE ZEMPEL | JANUARY 05, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/05/health-experts-finally-admit-masks-control-people-not-viruses/

masks worn by Joe Biden (speaking) and Anthony Fauci

We’ve been censored. Hollered at by Karens in the grocery store and sometimes even outdoors. We’ve been lectured, demonized, scoffed at, and called murderers and rubes — all for the sin of ignoring mask security theater and daring to show the lower half of our faces in public. That’s why it’s just remarkable to hear the experts now admit that the same face coverings required in so many establishments and localities are not stopping any virus from spreading.

CNN medical analyst Leana Wen, who was previously president of abortion giant Planned Parenthood, said so on the network — and not only in reference to the current variant, as if new data has suddenly justified a change in guidance. She explicitly said cloth masks haven’t been effective since the dawn of the Wuhan virus.

“Cloth masks are not appropriate for this pandemic. It’s not appropriate for omicron, it was not appropriate for delta, alpha, or any of the previous variants either, because we’re dealing with something that’s airborne,” Wen said.

“Don’t wear a cloth mask,” she said in another segment, going so far as to call them little more than “facial decorations.”

It isn’t just one floating head on CNN. In a letter to Capitol Hill staffers, the attending physician reportedly announced the end of blue surgical masks, cloth masks, and gaiters, ordering that “the more protective KN95 or N95 masks” must now be worn.

“…[S]urgical masks are NO LONGER ENOUGH for an airborne virus that’s transmitting as fast or faster than any virus known to mankind,” tweeted a paranoid professor from the University of Colorado at Boulder. The Washington Post jumped in too.

And here’s the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spilling the beans that a surgical mask “is not considered respiratory protection.”

WebMD piled on also, urging Americans to discard the kind of cloth face masks worn by busybody fellow shoppers while they lecture the unmasked to cover their faces. Those aren’t good enough and never have been.

This is now the wisdom imparted by the experts, that the sweaty, flimsy, itchy muzzles that have been forced on schoolchildren, healthy athletes, socially distant employees, grocery-shopping moms, and even their toddlers are “not appropriate.” They’re nothing more than “facial decorations” against a virus that’s in the air and can’t be contained.

It’s almost like conservatives have been reading the available scientific studies and saying this since the beginning, like herehereherehereherehere, and here. Maybe sweat-soaked cloth masks in the gym actually aren’t great for your health, many on the right suggested. My 3-year-old’s mask that she can’t stop touching probably isn’t keeping her healthier, others thought. Yet the response from the left to this pushback was routine scorn and censorship.

Amazon banned a book by former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson that discussed the scientific evidence that mask mandates are ineffective. Big Tech weaponized fake fact-checks to choke out The Federalist’s science-backed reporting on masks. Former White House COVID Task Force advisor Dr. Scott Atlas was banned from publishing references to scientific mask studies, as CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dr. Sanjay Gupta cheered Twitter on. Google-owned YouTube infamously nuked a June interview of Atlas.

Yet now, the left’s “experts” are going on network television to announce that we must stop wearing the cloth and surgical masks that have become synonymous with COVID morality, and they’re announcing that actually we’ve known these masks have been “inappropriate” all along.

Americans are just supposed to take this. In response to the gaslighting, they’re just supposed to obediently discard the cloth masks they’ve been berated and coerced into wearing and instead go buy some stronger mask to protect God-knows-who from this wave of a virus that manifests as the common cold for even the vast majority of the yet-unvaccinated.

While in many sane areas of the country, masks have long been an afterthought, that’s not the reality for other Americans. Mask mandates still prevail in too many places, with the entire state of Oregon tossing around the idea of a “permanent” mask mandate.

Other authoritarian pockets such as Madison, Wisconsin, just never let their temporary mandates expire. Of course, these mandates don’t require any particular kind of face covering. So as Wen said, the masks are nothing more than “facial decorations,” meaning the mandates are nothing more than political theater.

The gaslighting is enough to drive anyone absolutely mad, but with the experts’ admission that most of our masks aren’t cutting it, they’ve also admitted something far more consequential. These masks and the mandates that accompany them have never been about controlling a virus. They’ve always been about controlling people.


Kylee Zempel is an assistant editor at The Federalist. She previously worked as the copy editor for the Washington Examiner magazine and as an editor and producer at National Geographic. She holds a B.S. in Communication Arts/Speech and an A.S. in Criminal Justice and writes on topics including feminism and gender issues, religious liberty, and criminal justice. Follow her on Twitter @kyleezempel.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: 6 important COVID data points that destroy the prevailing narrative


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | January 03, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-6-important-covid-data-points-that-destroy-the-prevailing-narrative/

When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health, that of the family, but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community. And in other words, you become a dead end to the virus.” ~Dr. Fauci, Face the Nation, May 16, 2021

“Negative efficacy.” Get used to that term, because every day more data suggests we are already in the vaccination twilight zone of all pain and no gain – just as with the lockdowns.

It is tearing humanity apart. COVID fascism is the most serious human rights threat we’ve faced in our lifetimes, and the latest science and data demonstrate that it’s all built upon a false premise. While people tuned out the news over the holiday week, many have missed the growing incontrovertible evidence that not only is there risk and zero benefit to taking any of the COVID shots, but there is actually negative efficacy against the virus. In other words, not only does it put you on the hook for known and unknown short-term and long-term injury without stopping COVID, it now, actually, makes you more vulnerable to COVID.

As you read these latest points, just remember that this is the injection for which police in Europe are now using dogs and batons against those protesting it. All these human rights abuses for a shot that, especially with the new variant, has become moot.

1) 96% of all Omicron cases in Germany among vaccinated: The respected Robert Koch Institute reported last week that among the 4,206 Germans infected with Omicron for whom their vaccination status was known, 95.58% were fully vaccinated. More than a quarter of them had booster shots. Given that the overall background rate for vaccination in Germany is 70%, this means that the shots now have a -87% effectiveness rate against Omicron.

2) Omicron among vaccinated outpacing unvaccinated by 28% in Ontario: The government in Ontario posts continuous data on case rates by vaccination status. The fact that the vaccinated have rapidly overtaken the unvaccinated in new infections demonstrates a clear negative effect of the shots against Omicron.

3) In Denmark, 89.7% of all Omicron cases were among fully vaccinated: As of Dec. 31, just 8.5% of all cases in Denmark were unvaccinated, according to the Statens Serum Institut. Overall, 77.9% of Denmark is fully vaccinated, and Omicron seems to hit younger people for whom there is a greater unvaccinated pool, which indicates clear negative efficacy. Even for non-Omicron variants, the un-injected composed only 23.7% of the cases.

4) Just 25% of the Omicron hospitalizations in the U.K. are unvaccinated: Not only are the vaccinated more likely to contract Omicron, but they are likely more at risk to be hospitalized. While American hospitals put out unverifiable information about “nearly everyone seriously ill with COVID being unvaccinated,” the U.K. continues to put out quality continuous data that shows the opposite. According to the U.K.’s Health Security Agency’s latest “Omicron daily overview,” just 25% of those in the hospital with suspected Omicron cases are unvaccinated.

Although that is roughly in line with the percentage of unvaccinated overall in the U.K., we know that Omicron cases are overwhelmingly among younger people who have a greater share of the unvaccinated. Dr. Abdi Mahamud, the WHO’s incident manager for COVID, said last week that Omicron has not hit most of the elderly yet.

According to the latest U.K. vaccine surveillance report (p. 21), between 32% and 40% of the age groups under 40 are unvaccinated. Which means that, with a 25% hospitalization rate, the unvaccinated are very possibly underrepresented in the Omicron hospitalized population, which again indicates negative efficacy to the shots.

5) 33 of 34 hospitalizations in Delhi hospital were vaccinated: The Indian Express reported that 33 of the 34 people hospitalized for Omicron in Delhi’s Lok Nayak hospital were fully vaccinated. Two of them received the booster shot. While some of them were international travelers, it’s important to remember that India has a much lower vaccination rate than the West. This is another small indication that not only might one be more likely to get Omicron after having gotten the shots, but possibly could be more vulnerable to hospitalizations, very likely due to some form of antibody dependent disease enhancement (ADE).

6) Vaccinated exponentially more likely to get re-infected with COVID: new preprint study from Bangladesh found that among 404 people re-infected with COVID, having been vaccinated made someone 2.45 times more likely to get re-infected with a mild infection, 16.1 times more likely to get a moderate infection, and 3.9 times more likely to be re-infected severely, relative to someone with prior infection who was not vaccinated. Although overall re-infections were rare, vaccination was a greater risk factor of re-infection that co-morbidities!

Hence, the findings of this first-in-its-kind study harmonize with what a Public Health England survey found in October; namely, that the vaccines seem to erase a degree of N (nucleocapsid) antibodies generated by prior infection in favor of narrower S (spike) antibodies. “Recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination,” stated the week 42 report from the U.K. (p. 23).

This finding also correlates with what researchers from Mount Sinai in New York and Hospital La Paz in Madrid found last year – that the second dose of the vaccine “determines a contraction of the spike-specific T cell response.” In that report, researchers already observed 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.”

At this point, how is there any benefit, much less a net benefit, from the shots? There are currently 21,000 deaths reported to VAERS, along with 110,000 hospitalizations and over 1 million total adverse events. Most deaths and injuries are never reported to VAERS. Now that the efficacy is, at best, a wash and at worst negative, why are we not discussing the short-term and long-term liabilities of the shots?

Remember, the VAERS numbers don’t even begin to quantify the long-term concerns, such as cancer and auto-immune diseases. A heavily redacted analysis of the Pfizer shot (p. 16) from the Australian Therapeutic Goods Agency (TGA) flatly conceded, “Neither genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies were performed.”

Consider the fact that the CEO of Indiana-based life insurance company OneAmerica, which has been around since 1877, revealed last week that the death rate among 18- to 64-year-old Hoosiers is up 40% from pre-pandemic levels. That is four times above what risk assessors consider catastrophic. Yes, some of this has been due to the virus, but given the age group, OneAmerica CEO Scott Davidson said that most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths. Brian Tabor, the president of the Indiana Hospital Association, who spoke at the same news conference as Davidson, said that Indiana hospitals are flooded with patients “with many different conditions.” Any wonder what those ailments are if not COVID itself? Indeed, those who say the injections are a “medical miracle” are correct, just not in the way they meant it.

South Africa study suggests Omicron infection could boost immunity against Delta variant


Reported by CHRIS PANDOLFO | December 28, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/south-africa-study-suggests-omicron-infection-could-boost-immunity-against-delta-variant-2656172040.html/

Preliminary findings from a study suggest that infection with the Omicron variant of coronavirus could boost a person’s immunity against the more severe Delta variant.

South African scientists at the Africa Health Research Institute in Durban examined 33 unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals who had contracted the Omicron variant, Reuters reported. They found that people who were infected with Omicron developed enhanced immunity to the Delta variant. Their immunity was even stronger if they had previously been vaccinated against COVID-19. The study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, also finds that Omicron could displace Delta as the dominant coronavirus variant.

“The increase in Delta variant neutralization in individuals infected with Omicron may result in decreased ability of Delta to re-infect those individuals,” the study’s authors said.

Researchers found that neutralization of Omicron increased 14-fold over 14 days after participants were enrolled in the study. They also found there was a 4.4-fold increase in neutralization of the Delta variant. The study’s authors explained the results are “consistent with Omicron displacing the Delta variant, since it can elicit immunity which neutralizes Delta making re-infection with Delta less likely.”

Scientists are optimistic that if Omicron proves to cause less severe disease than Delta, the pandemic may finally end. The ultimate question is whether Omicron is less pathogenic compared to Delta. “If so, then the incidence of COVID-19 severe disease would be reduced and the infection may shift to become less disruptive to individuals and society,” the authors wrote.

There is reason for hope. The wave of Omicron cases experienced in South Africa quickly subsided within weeks after it was first reported, even though only 48.3% of the population is fully vaccinated, according to Our World in Data. Alex Sigal, a professor at the Africa Health Research Institute in South Africa, explained on Twitter Monday that if Omicron behaves as observed in South Africa, it will “help push Delta out” and possibly lead to the end of COVID-19 disrupting our lives.

Previous studies from South Africa have indicated there is reduced risk of hospitalization and severe disease in people infected with the Omicron variant compared with Delta, though the authors caution that some of this is likely due to high population immunity, Reuters reported.

COVID-19 hospitalizations in the U.S. have risen in recent weeks as Omicron variant cases have surged, causing new daily average case records in several states. As of Monday morning, more than 71,000 COVID-19 patients were hospitalized across the U.S., according to the Department of Health and Human Services. At the height of the Delta variant surge this year, more than 100,000 people were hospitalized with COVID-19, according to UPI.

“Brain Bleeds, Heart Attacks in Younger 50-Year-Olds. No Doctor Will Admit This Is from the Vaccine. They Won’t Make the VAERS Re­port.” – Southern California Nurse


Reported By Joe Hoft | Published December 27, 2021

Read more at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/brain-bleeds-heart-attacks-younger-50-year-olds-no-doctor-will-admit-vaccine-wont-make-vaers-report-southern-california-nurse/

A report coming out of Southern California notes that nurses are beginning to speak out about COVID vaccine concerns and observations.

The Conejo Guardian reports:

Ventura County nurses from differ­ent sectors and specialties are coming forward to blow the whistle on what they deem serious lapses in local health care practices, mostly related to COVID-re­lated protocols, “vaccine” mandates and politically and financially motivated bul­lying of medical staff, which these health care workers say is seriously compromis­ing the general quality of local care.

The Guardian spoke with multiple nurses of various ages and at different stages in their careers, all of whom work in medical care settings or hospitals in Ven­tura County. Each preferred to speak un­der a pseudonym for now. Each described seriously declining standards of care, at­mospheres of intimidation and fear in hospitals, and distrust and disillusionment among medical professionals.

“Before COVID, nurses, staff and the community were confident in treatment modalities and in doctors’ competencies,” says one nurse. But now, “People are con­fused.”

“They’re very confused,” agrees a veter­an Ventura County nurse. “I think doctors are confused.… I don’t think the commu­nity’s confident. I’m not.… Because where’s the truth?”

Most shocking, perhaps, is how doctors and administrators refuse to re­port the rising number of unexplained medical problems in otherwise healthy people as potential adverse reactions to COVID-19 experimental vaccine shots. To suggest that these shots are the cause of any medical problem — or that they are contributing to the alarming rise in non-COVID-related hospital popula­tions — invites professional ridicule.

The report continues:

Angela, a nurse for more than 25 years, confirms that in her hospital’s emergency room, they say they are seeing more heart problems in young adults, which are never reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Re­porting System (VAERS) as potential ad­verse reactions to COVID “vaccinations.”

Another nurse, Jennifer, says ER nurs­es privately say they are seeing “all the clot­ting, bleeding and things you would expect from the vaccine six months later — brain bleeds, heart attacks in younger 50-year-olds. No doctor will admit this is from the vaccine. They won’t make the VAERS re­port.”

When Daniel asked fellow nurses and practitioners if they report to VAERS, they looked at him like, “What’s that?”

“I’ve seen people in their thirties [with these problems], and the doctor’s just like, ‘Oh, you have s—y genes,’” he says. “I’m like, are you kidding me?”

In an updated article, more nurses are speaking out:

After the Conejo Guardian’s report on alarming trends in Ventura County hospitals, more nurses have come forward to affirm the rise in unexplained heart problems, strokes and blood clotting in local vaccinated patient populations. They also say doctors refuse to consider that these could be adverse reactions to Covid shots.

Sam, a critical care nurse at an ICU in a Ventura County hospital, came forward because, “I’m tired of all the B.S. that’s going on,” he told the Guardian. “It’s crazy how nobody questions anything anymore.”

Americans in the medical community are beginning to speak up.  It is insane that the status of patients does not include whether the patient was vaccinated for COVID or not.  This is common sense and should be the law.

Joe Hoft

Joe Hoft is the twin brother of TGP’s founder, Jim Hoft, and a contributing editor at TGP. Joe’s reporting is often months ahead of the Mainstream media as was observed in his reporting on the Mueller sham investigation, the origins of the China coronavirus, and 2020 Election fraud. Joe was a corporate executive in Hong Kong for a decade and has years of experience in finance, IT, operations and auditing around the world. The knowledge gained in his career provide him with a unique perspective of current events in the US and globally. He has ten degrees or designations and is the author of three books. Joe is currently co-host of the morning radio show in St. Louis at 93.3 “Tomorrow’s News Today”. His new book: ‘In God We Trust: Not in Lying Liberal Lunatics’ is out now – please take a look and buy a copy. @joehoft

Swedes Are Implanting Microchip Vaccine Passports. It Won’t Stop There


Reported BY: JOE ALLEN | DECEMBER 23, 2021

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2021/12/23/swedes-are-implanting-microchip-vaccine-passports-it-wont-stop-there/

A skinput system projecting tech onto a person's arm

Last week, the world glimpsed a future in which vaccine passports are implanted under the skin. A viral video from South China Morning Post profiled a Swedish start-up hub, Epicenter, that injects its employees with microchips.

“Right now it is very convenient to have a COVID passport always accessible on your implant,” its chief disruption officer, Hannes Sjöblad, told the interviewer. Oddly enough, he repeatedly spoke of chipping “arms” when we clearly see a woman opening doors with her hand.

Two years earlier, Sjöblad told ITV, “I want us humans to open up and improve our sensory universe, our cognitive functions. … I want to merge humans with technology and I think it will be awesome.”

Naturally, some Christians see the Mark of the Beast. In a sane world, the idea of having your hand chipped to access public goods or private property—to receive a mark in order to “buy, sell, or trade”—should alarm anyone, regardless of religious persuasion. The same goes for using an implanted brain-computer interface to access the digital realm, as Elon Musk plans to do with Neuralink.

Yet for a growing fringe, this invasive tech isn’t just desirable. It’s already normal. Presently, some 5,000 Swedes use implanted radio frequency identification (RFID) chips to open doors, pay cashless, present medical records, access concert venues, and ride public transportation. According to Ars Technica, as of 2018 an estimated 50,000-100,000 people worldwide have microchip implants, primarily in their hands.

A 2019 analysis in Nature reported about 160,000 people have deep brain stimulation devices implanted in their heads. Currently, this is only done out of necessity to treat disorders like epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease, or even addiction and depression. Of these devices, only 34 are true brain-computer interfaces. However, with current advances in technology, enormous injections of capital, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) recent approval, that number will rapidly climb.

Hurtling Toward a Hybrid Humanity

Enthusiasts say they aim to propel these technologies from healing to enhancement. In 2018—the same year Biohax gained international attention for chipping thousands of Swedish hands—MIT Technology Review boosted it with the fawning headline: This company embeds microchips in its employees, and they love it.”

Since the first human-grade RFID implant was patented in 1997, followed by FDA approval in 2004, subdermal microchips have become just another device in a growing cyborg toolkit. Drawing on that cache, the Internet of Bodies paradigm has gained enormous traction among the medical establishment. At the extreme end, the concept of natural-born humanity is to be abolished.

For more than six decades, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has funded Human 2.0 projects, with particular interest in brain-computer interfaces. Citing these and many other human-machine hybrids, the World Economic Forum’s chairman Klaus Schwab recently spelled out his vision of civilizational transformation. His widely read books—“The Fourth Industrial Revolution” (2016) and “The Great Reset” (2020)—both describe inexorable progress toward total technocracy. The same idea emerges in a 2019 government analysis by Policy Horizons Canada, entitled “Exploring Biodigital Convergence.” According to the authors, “Digital technology can be embedded in organisms [and today] biotechnology may be at the cusp of a period of rapid expansion—possibly analogous to digital computing circa 1985.” Its success will hinge on sweeping surveillance. The document goes on to describe tracking chips, wearable bio-sensors, internal organ sensors, Web-connected neurotech, swallowable digital pills—merging body and brain with the digital beehive.

Last spring, the UK’s Ministry of Defense published the jarring study, Human Augmentation: The Dawn of a New Paradigm.” The authors promise this “will become increasingly relevant, partly because it can directly enhance human capability and behaviour, and partly because it is the binding agent between people and machines.” Surveying today’s cyborgs, they write, “Once inserted, these ‘chips’ can…replace many of our keys and passwords, allowing us to unlock doors, start vehicles, and even log onto computers and smartphones.”

All the above authors fret over ethics in a perfunctory fashion, but most accept the “inevitable” fusion of man with machine. If military strategists, corporate elites, and government officials are taking this prospect seriously, so should we.

The New Normal Is Total Digitalization

For people with any sense at all, the notion of having a microchip jabbed into your hand (or your head) triggers animal revulsion. Disturbing as it may be, a more immediate concern is the widespread use of non-invasive biometric systems.

Wherever the New Normal takes hold, access to society is granted or denied on the basis of arbitrary “health and safety” concerns. Today, it’s masks or vaccine status. Tomorrow, it could be ideology. Authorities don’t have to chip you if they can simply scan your smartphone and tell you to get lost, or lock you in your dwelling pod whenever “the numbers” rise.

To cite one common example among many, the biometric company Clear rode the Patriot Act to prominence. Today, Clear is contracting to provide biometric and QR code-based vaxxports to fully jabbed citizens on the go. It won’t stop there. Not without a fight. As Clear’s CEO Caryn Seidman-Becker told CNBC last year, “Just like screening was forever changed post-9/11, in a post-Covid environment you’re going to see screening and public safety significantly shift. But this time it’s beyond airports. It’s sports stadiums, it’s retail, its office buildings, its restaurants.”

Taking a more cerebral angle, tech mogul Bryan Johnson founded Kernel to develop non-invasive brain-scanning helmets to enhance your health and happiness. The devices can also gather users’ neurological data. Last summer, Johnson told Bloomberg Businessweek that by 2030 he’d like to put his BCI helmets in every American household. These people want to completely transform our mental and physical spaces. It isn’t even a secret. They want some form of transhumanism, whether they use the term or not. It’s past time to smash their devices.

America Cannot Let This Happen

One by one across the globe, canaries are falling dead in the digital coal mine. We see implanted vaxxports in Sweden, lockdowns for the unvaccinated in Austria and Germany, and yes, quarantine camps in Australia. The Untact program in South Korea is specifically designed to replace human interaction with social robots and the Metaverse. At the pandemic’s outset, American writers at The Atlantic and CNN urged U.S. leaders to adopt Chinese authoritarianism. Their wish is beginning to come true.

While I doubt any population will be forcibly chipped like wayward housecats—at least not in the near future—no nightmarish policy is truly off the table. In the past 21 months, the United States has seen mandated mRNA gene therapies, QR code-based vaccine passports, mass deletion of supposed “misinformation,” and even drone surveillance to monitor social distancing. Meanwhile, more young adults died from fentanyl overdoses than from any transmissible disease.

If the biosecurity state can force you to wear an obedience mask to buy groceries, what can’t they do? Resist their measures at every turn. Drag these people down from the seats of power. Dismantle the structures they’ve already put in place.

I’m no absolutist. Tools are tools, and every naked ape needs one. For the most part, I couldn’t care less if techno-fetishists chip themselves or refashion their appendages. Had their subculture remained on the fringe, I’d still find such people fascinating. But that’s not what’s happening. Riding waves of germaphobia—the ultimate organic disruption—tech titans and their think tank ministers are establishing a secular religion. The world’s wealthiest men, wielding the most powerful tools on earth, are erecting inescapable systems of control. We can’t combat them if we don’t acknowledge what they are.

Scientism is their faith. Technology is their sacrament. Their cult is a cyborg theocracy. Even if they rain fire from the sky with the press of a button, never bend the knee to their silicon gods.


Joe Allen is a fellow primate who wonders why we ever came down from the trees. For years, he worked as a rigger on various concert tours. Between gigs, he studied religion and science at UTK and Boston University. Find him at www.joebot.xyz or @JOEBOTxyz.

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Change of Heart in San Francisco

A.F. BRANCO on December 22, 2021 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-change-of-heart-in-san-francisco/

Once an advocate for anti-Law & order policies, the San Francisco mayor breed is now sounding more like President Trump.

San Francisco Mayor Breed
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Season’s Greeter

A.F. BRANCO on December 23, 2021 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-seasons-greeter/

Fauci says you should ask for proof of vaccination before allowing family members in to celebrate Christmas.

Paper Proof for Fauci
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021.

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated</a> – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!</strong>

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: The country that ‘succeeded’ against COVID with masks has the highest case rate in the world


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | December 07, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-the-country-that-succeeded-against-covid-with-masks-has-the-highest-case-rate-in-the-world-theblaze-2655944084.html/

Those who believe in the freedom of bodily autonomy are celebrating a slew of recent court rulings enjoining the Biden administration’s injection mandate. However, no GOP state attorney general has bothered to fight the equally immoral, illogical, and inhumane mask mandates that are still in place. Despite nearly two years of evidence that strict mask-wearing has zero effectiveness in stopping the spread, the mandates on 2-year-olds on planes and in many schools still continue. Slovakia is a perfect case study of the mask mendacity.

On May 13, 2020, the Atlantic published an article lauding Slovakia for, at the time, having the lowest per-capita COVID death rate in Europe. The article’s prediction should now be the laughingstock of the world:

When this pandemic ends, and when the reckoning over how the world responded invariably begins, Slovakia will likely be among those highlighted as a success story, whereas the United States—which was supposed to be the country best prepared for such a crisis—will be remembered as among those that suffered the worst. How Slovakia was able to flatten its curve comes down to more than just quick decision making and the widespread adoption of face masks. Perhaps the greatest lesson to be learned from Slovakia is of the value of leading from the front.

Slovakia was so worried about masks that the country even got Taiwan to donate hundreds of thousands of these useless cloths as part of a bilateral trade agreement.

Well, that was before Slovakia’s first winter wave. One can excuse people for mistaking low spread at the time for mask efficacy rather than the fact that the country just didn’t get its turn yet. But for countries to continue this inhumane mandate despite what we now know demonstrates that masks are not a means to public health but an end in themselves of tyranny.

At over 2,000 new cases per million per day, according to Our World in Data, Slovakia now has more cases per capita than any country in the world. To put this in perspective, that is almost three times the level of the winter peak in the U.S., a country that has not exactly performed well in the pandemic!

It’s true that some individual states closer to the size of Slovakia have had more severe waves. However, even the worst counties in the upper Midwest are tracking about 1,200 new cases per million per day.

And here is the epidemiological curve presented by the inimitable Ian Miller, juxtaposed to policy solutions:

It’s not just Slovakia. Wherever you turn in Europe, both masks and vaccine mandates have failed miserably, and the spread is now worse than ever. Belgium is now six weeks into the new mask mandate, and it has more cases than ever before, even though the Belgians already suffered one of the deadliest waves in all of Europe. Oh, and 87.4% of adults are vaccinated.

To begin with, the CDC, as late as May 2020, was citing the 10 randomized controlled trials that showed “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.” The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford also summarized six international studies that “showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.”

The only randomized controlled trial studying mask efficacy against COVID published last year was the now famous Danish study that failed to show any meaningful reduction in spread from mask-wearing. Then, several months ago, the media trumpeted a large study done in Bangladesh that seemed to show efficacy. Well, now that the authors have released the actual data, we see that indeed no such claim can be made from the study. It turns out that out of over 340,000 individuals over a span of eight weeks, there were only 20 fewer cases of COVID detected in the mask group over the control group – 1,106 symptomatic individuals confirmed seropositive in the control group and 1,086 such individuals in the treatment group.

Even these results are hard to interpret because of numerous confounding factors. University of California Berkeley professor Ben Recht critiqued the study as follows:

This study was not blinded, as it’s impossible to blind a study on masks. The intervention was highly complex and included a mask promotion campaign and education about other mitigation measures including social distancing. Moreover, individuals were only added to the study if they consented to allow the researchers to visit and survey their households. There was a large differential between the control and treatment groups here, with 95% consenting in the treatment group but only 92% consenting in control. This differential alone could wash away the difference in observed cases. Finally, symptomatic seropositivity is a crude measure of covid as the individuals could have been infected before the trial began.

Given the numerous caveats and confounders, the study still only found a tiny effect size. My takeaway is that a complex intervention including an educational program, free masks, encouraged mask wearing, and surveillance in a poor country with low population immunity and no vaccination showed at best modest reduction in infection.

In other words, you can now add this to a list of 400 studies compiled by the Brownstone Institute that fail to find any correlation between public policy interventions and better pandemic outcomes.

It’s not OK for Republican-controlled states to continue to ignore the facts that masks are inhumane and they simply don’t work. Consider the fact that Head Start has now mandated masks on 2-year-olds, many of whom have special needs. Oregon has moved to make its mask mandate permanent. Why are no red state governments at least suing against the federal mandates, and why are so few red states even banning mask mandates within the states?

The courts are all political. They only responded to the lawsuits against the vaccine mandate when they saw robust political opposition within the political branches of the red states. They see no such opposition regarding the mask mandates. Thus, absent a unified effort from state attorneys general, they are unlikely to respond to a handful of individual lawsuits. The same legal rationale denying the feds the power to force vaccines also denies them the power to cover our breathing holes. But the courts only respond to political momentum.If nearly two years of masking failing to work anywhere is still not enough to end the most invasive human mandate of all time, then we truly are no longer a free people.


Pastor in Nepal sentenced to 2 years in prison for saying prayer can heal COVID-19

By Anugrah Kumar, Christian Post Contributor| Sunday, December 05, 2021FacebookTwitterEmailPrintMenuComment61

Pastor Keshab Acharya
Pastor Keshab Acharya | Morning Star News

A court in Nepal has sentenced a pastor to two years in prison under the country’s harsh anti-conversion law for merely saying that prayers can heal COVID-19, according to reports. The District Court in Dolpa this week sentenced Pastor Keshab Raj Acharya to two years in prison and a fine of $165 (20,000 Rupees) for suggesting on social media that prayer could bring healing from the coronavirus, the U.S.-based persecution watchdog International Christian Concern said in a statement.

Pastor Acharya was first arrested on March 23 last year from his home in Pokhara, Gandaki Pradesh Province, on charges of spreading false information regarding COVID-19. Though he was released about a fortnight later, he was rearrested moments later on charges of “outraging religious feelings” and “proselytizing.” After more than three months in prison, he was released on July 3, 2020, after paying bail equal to about $2,500.

In a viral video published on the internet, Pastor Acharya prayed in front of his congregation, saying, “Hey, corona — you go and die. May all your deeds be destroyed by the power of the Lord Jesus. I rebuke you, corona, in the name of Lord Jesus Christ. By the power or the ruler of this Creation, I rebuke you. … By the power in the name of Lord Jesus Christ, corona, go away and die.”

William Stark, ICC’s regional manager for South Asia, said: “For more than a year, authorities in the Dolpa District have seemed bent on convicting Pastor Acharya of something and punishing him for simply being a Christian pastor. Since the new constitution was adopted in 2015, Nepalese Christians have been concerned that Article 26 and its enacting laws would be used to target their community.”

Stark added that “Nepal’s sweeping anti-conversion law must be repealed if religious freedom is truly a right to be enjoyed by the country’s citizens.”

After his release last July, Acharya had told Morning Star News that it was a “very difficult” time for him.

“I would think of my little children and my wife, and I would cry out to the Lord in prayer. I would look up at Him in hope that if it is in His will that I should be put through this, He would get me out of this,” he said at the time.

Acharya told the outlet he believed government officials and police worked together against him. “They were laying a thorough plan to make sure I would stay in the jail for a longer period.”

Senior Counsel Govinda Bandi, who was defending the pastor, told the U.K.-based Christian Solidarity Worldwide at the time that his repeated arrest was a “very worrying sign of the trajectory of religious freedom in this country.”

“The police are clearly acting outside the scope of the constitution and without any regard to the rules of criminal procedure,” Bandi said. “There seems to be a concerted effort to use the draconian provisions in the Penal Code to target him that will also threaten the wider minority community with penal sanctions for practicing their religion or belief. Furthermore, the whole allegation against him, is forged on unfounded and prejudiced allegations. This is without a doubt a targeted persecution and a travesty of our justice system.”

Christians have been under attack since before the promulgation of the country’s new constitution in September 2015. Low-intensity blasts occurred in two churches in east Nepal around the time. Pamphlets promoting Hindu nationalism were found at each of the churches and a nationalist group, Hindu Morcha Nepal, issued a press statement calling for Christian leaders to leave the country and for Christian converts to return to Hinduism. The constitution establishes Nepal as a secular country but also effectively bans evangelism, as it states that no one is allowed to make an attempt to convert people of other religions to his or her own. It also calls for the protection of Hinduism, the majority religion.

Article 26 (3) of the constitution states: “No person shall behave, act or make others act to disturb public law and order situation or convert a person of one religion to another or disturb the religion of other people…such an act shall be punished by law.”

Hindu nationalist groups in Nepal allege that Hinduism is under threat as more people could be converted into Christianity. They have been calling for the exclusion of the term “secularism” — which in the South Asian context means equal treatment of all religions by the State — from the charter of Nepal, which was a Hindu monarchy until 2006.

Persecution watchdog Open Doors USA ranks Nepal at No. 34 on its World Watch List of 50 countries where it is most difficult to be a Christian.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Lord of the Sand-Flies

A.F. BRANCO on November 30, 2021 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-lord-of-the-sand-flies/

Dr. Fauci says you shouldn’t be allowed to criticize him because as he says “I am science”.

Fauci, I Am Science
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021.

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – At Your Command

A.F. BRANCO on November 29, 2021 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-at-your-command/

Fearing outrage and retribution from China, W.H.O. Change the name of the new COVID variant from Xi to Omicron.

XI Variant Now Omicron
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

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?”

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Irish county with 99.7% vaccination rate has highest COVID case rate


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | October 28, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-irish-county-with-99-7-vaccination-rate-has-highest-covid-case-rate/

With 99.7% of adults in the Irish county of Waterford having received the COVID shots, they have the highest per-capita case rate of COVID anywhere in the country. Are they now going to suggest it’s the fault of the 0.3%?!

The Irish Times reported last week that with one Waterford city district at a 14-day incidence rate of 1,486 cases per 100,000 of the population, Waterford has the highest incidence rate of anywhere in Ireland. The COVID case rate is three times the national average, which in itself has been increasing steadily in recent weeks, despite 91% of Irish adults being vaccinated. However, Waterford takes the cake.

“Waterford has the highest rate of vaccination in the country with 99.7 per cent of adults over the age of 18 (as registered in the last census) fully vaccinated,” reports the Irish Times. “The county has gone from having one of the lowest rates of Covid-19 infection in Ireland to one of the highest.”

How can a vaccine that is this leaky, and apparently even counterproductive, continue to be pushed on a population even if it had zero side effects? How many more examples of this do we need to see?

According to Our World in Data, most Irish began to get vaccinated in April/May, which is exactly when we saw a reversal of fortunes, with more cases than we’ve seen in months.about:blank

What else have we seen rise at the same time? You got it. COVID cases.

about:blank

And no, it’s not just mild cases. Ireland has the highest number of people in the hospital with COVID since March, and the trajectory is getting worse. This is with the highest vaccination rate in the EU – over 90% of those over 16 – and it’s particularly bad in the most vaccinated county of Ireland. The state’s chief medical officer, Dr. Tony Holohan, said he was “increasingly worried about the rising incidence of the disease nationwide” and that the primary focus “must be to protect the most vulnerable from Covid-19.” He then proceeded to blame the unvaccinated! Gee, if just 9% of those over 16 in the country are unvaccinated and just 0.3% in the worst area, what percentage of the vulnerable do you think are not vaccinated?! And wasn’t the vaccine designed to protect “the most vulnerable?”

At some point, there is nowhere to run or hide from the botched vaccine that not only fails to stop transmission, but causes viral immune escape and makes more virulent variants. A recent analysis of the emergent A.30 strain published in Nature shows that “the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 variant A.30 is heavily mutated and evades vaccine-induced antibodies with high efficiency.” This is what happens when you “shoot at the king and miss,” so to speak, by fighting a virus with weak, narrow-spectrum, and waning antibodies. We’ve gone backward. U.K. data already shows that the vaccinated are infected at a greater rate per capita – in some cohorts twice the rate – for every age group over 30.

It’s becoming clear that not only does this vaccine create greater transmission, but it also fails to protect against critical illness, especially for those who need the protection the most. Even the studies that continue to rely on old data – before the vaccines fully waned – show that the protection against critical illness doesn’t really work for the immunocompromised.

new study from Sweden published as a preprint in the Lancet claims that the vaccine efficacy against serious illness is still holding up. There’s just one catch. “The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months, although not for men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities,” conclude the authors. Well, isn’t that why we needed a vaccine in the first place? Even the Swedish study shows that after 210 days, there is zero efficacy against symptomatic infection, after which there seems to be negative efficacy. Researchers found just 52% efficacy against severe illness in all men after six months, which means you can no longer count on it for protection.

It’s also important to remember that many people in Sweden – more than most other countries – already had the infection, possibly asymptomatically. So, it’s possible that the efficacy of the shots is being overstated because some of those people benefited from natural immunity.

Thus, where are we nine to 12 months after the shot? Negative efficacy against symptomatic infection for all, as witnessed by the hard data in places like the U.K. and Ireland, and very low and spotty efficacy for serious illness, going down to zero for those who need it the most. But this is not cost-free. Who is to say that the effectiveness against severe illness won’t go negative as well, following some sort of pattern of antibody dependent disease enhancement? Moreover, who’s to say more mass vaccination of children and boosters for adults won’t create even more viral immune escape that will strengthen the virus and subject people to the risks of the shots without even protecting them for another month against these new self-perpetuated mutations?

This week, the Irish parliament was issued a “stark” warning from health officials about the growing threat of the virus. During sane times, policy leaders would reject the definition of insanity by engaging in introspection and changing course from existing failed policies. Yet in their warped minds, no matter how much the vaccines make the virus worse, you can always vaccinate more! So long as there is a single human being who didn’t receive the latest number shot, there’s always a way to project the viral enhancement on those who didn’t create it.

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.

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.

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

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Unleashed

A.F. BRANCO on October 13, 2021 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-unleashed/

People are moving on and living their lives in spite of Dr. Fauci’s contention.

Fauci and Football
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

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.”

Joe Biden’s Vaccine Mandate Doesn’t Exist. It’s Just A Press Release


Reported By Joy Pullmann | OCTOBER 7, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/joe-bidens-vaccine-mandate-doesnt-exist-its-just-a-press-release-2655247218.html/

Yes, we’ve heard all about Joe Biden’s alleged vaccine mandate for private companies employing 100 or more people. It was all over the news even before he announced it on September 9. His announcement has jeopardized the employment of millions of Americans and increased worker shortages in critical domains such as health care.

There’s only one problem. It’s all a mirage. Biden’s so-called vaccine mandate doesn’t exist — at least, not yet. So far, all we have is his press conference and other such made-for-media huff-puffing. No such rule even claiming to be legally binding has been issued yet.

That’s why nearly two dozen Republican attorneys general who have publicly voiced their opposition to the clearly unconstitutional and illegal mandate haven’t yet filed suit against it, the Office of the Indiana Attorney General confirmed for me. There is no mandate to haul into court. And that may be part of the plan.

According to several sources, so far it appears no such mandate has been sent to the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs yet for approval. The White House, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Department of Labor haven’t released any official guidance for the alleged mandate. There is no executive order. There’s nothing but press statements.

Despite what you may have been falsely led to believe by the media fantasy projection machine, press statements have exactly zero legal authority.

“There is nothing there yet that gives employers any mandate,” Stephanie McFarland, spokeswoman for the Indiana Occupational Safety and Health Administration, told me Oct. 6. “The president made an announcement on this asking OSHA to do it, but we’ve not yet seen anything come from it yet,” she also said. When the state agency gets any further information, she said, they’ll review it.

To impose the public perception of a mandate, the Biden administration is following an unusual rule-making process it also employed earlier this year, called an emergency temporary standard (ETS). The spring ETS rule took nearly six months to issue. Meanwhile, companies are telling reporters their vaccine mandates will have at the latest December deadlines. (For those who can’t calendar, that’s four months after Biden’s non-existent mandate was proclaimed. According to OSHA, an ETS takes up to six months to go into effect after the initial mandate is issued in the Federal Register — which, again, for the proclaimed 100-employee mandate hasn’t happened yet.)

Lawyers for big business were blunt about their love for this mandate mirage: “Everybody loves this cover,” Minneapolis employment lawyer Kate Bischoff told Bloomberg Law in September. “Many were already looking down the road at doing this, but the fact that they get to blame Biden is like manna from heaven.”

Using the ETS procedure instead of normal federal rule-making processes both allows the Biden administration to push its demands faster and without any public input or requirement of responding to public input, which is normally required of even legally laughable federal rule-making like this one would be. That is part of why ETS rules have been overwhelmingly overturned in courts.

“OSHA has used that legal authority only 10 times in 50 years,” David Rivkin Jr. and Robert Alt wrote in the Wall Street Journal in September. “Courts have decided challenges to six of those standards, nixing five and upholding only one.”

There are many other reasons any federal vaccine mandate would be obviously illegal and unconstitutional, Rivkin and Alt write, including that “The states have plenary police power to regulate health and safety. Congress has only those limited powers enumerated in the Constitution. That wouldn’t include the authority to impose a $155 fine (today’s equivalent of the $5 at stake in Jacobson) on an individual who declines to be vaccinated, much less to prevent him from earning a livelihood.”

But who needs the Constitution when you have an American people conditioned for compliance with even wildly outlandish things the screen people insist they must think and do?

Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal published a letter from Bruce Atkinson making several excellent observations about the nonexistent mandate, including the following:

The mandate’s nonexistence shields the Biden administration from legal challenges that may ultimately restrict the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s authority. Yet the mandate is still effective at compelling industries and companies into compliance, as it leaves room for any eventual issuance to target noncompliant entities. This implied cudgel is particularly effective on industries and companies that are dependent on federal spending or the goodwill of federal regulators. The nonexistent mandate also allows so-inclined state and local governments and companies to issue their own mandates, seemingly in lockstep with Washington.

The Biden White House has been well-served by presenting a nonexistent mandate as a done deal.

Now, let me see, what presidential administration does all this remind you of? Why, that of Mr. “Pen and Phone” himself, Barack Obama.

His also wildly unconstitutional Deferred Action for Child Arrivals was simply a two-page memo, for example, but it is still allowing some 616,000 people to simply ignore major U.S. laws, and could easily be reinstated by courts as litigation continues nearly a decade later. It seems that, given such unchecked gains from openly lawless actions Democrats have turned into standard operating procedure over the years, Joe Biden feels free to reduce that constitutional contempt to simply a phone now.

What this “government by press release” also allows is for Republicans like Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb to complain about Biden’s tyranny while using zip, nada, zilch of their elected authority to stop it. Holcomb has used the same executive rule-by-decree throughout the lockdown era without effective restraint by a supermajority-Republican state legislature, even telling the press churches were required to deliver Christ’s Body and Blood his way while quietly keeping that part out of his executive orders, surely because government dictating religious exercise is obviously unconstitutional and would quickly have generated lawsuits.

All this allows weak Republicans and evil Democrats to shadowbox each other for the cameras while ordinary Americans suffer under their abdicated leadership. By the time Republican attorneys general get around to filing lawsuits over any eventually issued legal documents that fulfill Biden’s promises, the vast majority of people not wanting government to force them into medical procedures will likely be unemployed, forcibly injected with treatments that have almost no track record, forced from their education paths, provided with fake documents like these citizens are beneath COVID-rule-exempt illegal aliens, and all the rest.

This is how weak Republicans keep letting Democrats go right on gleefully disemboweling our rights just like they have nearly 50 million of the American unborn. Gee, thanks, “public servants.” Tell me another one about how you love American liberties and the Bill of Rights. I’ll believe that when I see you sacrificing anything substantial to fight for them.

What Democrats are doing as Republicans stand down yet again is a moral and constitutional abomination. Not even the fig-leaf pose of a pen signing balderdash-filled documents is needed for today’s Democrats. Whatever they say, you do. You have no rights or say in the matter, no possibility for objecting to even them forcibly injecting things into your own body and the bodies of your children.

These people believe they are royalty, and too many Americans are acting like they’re these losers’ serfs instead of citizens endowed by God with inalienable rights, including the right to consent — through elected representatives, not never-elected dictatorial bureaucrats — to rules that restrict our rights, everyday lives, and human dignity.

Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Her newest ebook is a design-your-own summer camp kit, and her bestselling ebook is “Classic Books for Young Children.” Sign up here to get early access to her next full-length book, “How To Control The Internet So It Doesn’t Control You.” A Hillsdale College honors graduate, @JoyPullmann is also the author of “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books.

Dr. Fauci declares Americans should ‘give up’ individual freedom ‘for the greater good of society’


Reported by CHRIS ENLOE | October 04, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/fauci-americans-give-up-individual-freedom/

Dr. Anthony Fauci declared last week that people hesitant to receive the COVID-19 vaccine should “give up” their individual freedoms “for the greater good of society.”

After delivering a lecture via livestream at McGill University, which is located in Montreal, Fauci fielded several questions. One question asked Fauci how to approach “the value of individual freedom within the context of this global pandemic.”

First, Fauci took the opportunity to bash Fox News and other right-leaning media outlets. Then, he bashed individual freedom, framing vaccination as one’s responsibility toward others.

“I think what people have to appreciate, that indeed you do have personal liberties for yourself and you should be in control of that,” Fauci began. “But you are a member of society, and as a member of society, reaping all of the benefits of being a member of society, you have a responsibility to society.”

“I think each of us, particularly in the context of a pandemic that’s killing millions of people, you have got to look at it and say, ‘There comes a time when you do have to give up what you consider your individual right of making your own decision for the greater good of society,'” he explained.

“There is no doubt that that’s the case,” Fauci added.

The importance of vaccination, Fauci later explained, is that unvaccinated people “inadvertently” and “innocently” transmit COVID-19 to people who are vulnerable to hospitalization or death. He compared living unvaccinated to a person recklessly driving 95 mph on a highway.

“If I get hurt, that’s my problem. No! It’s somebody who you might kill’s problem, also,” Fauci said.

Earlier in the interview, Fauci said people opposed to the vaccine need to be convinced to get vaccinated by a “trusted messenger,” suggesting clergymen, family members, and sports figures.

During an interview on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” Sunday, Fauci said “it’s just too soon to tell” whether Americans should gather together for the Christmas holiday.

“We’ve just got to concentrating 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.

In that same interview, Fauci praised California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who last week announced all California students age 12 or older will be required to get vaccinated. Fauci implied every state should follow Newsom’s lead.

“People need to realize that having a vaccine requirement for schools is not a new, novel thing that is very peculiar or specific to COVID-19. We’ve been doing this for decades,” Fauci said. “My own children could not have gone to school if they had not gotten vaccinated with the measles, mumps and rubella. So when we see pushback on that, it’s as if this never happened before. It’s actually ongoing with other vaccines. So, let’s do it with a virus that’s very, very serious.”

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?”

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Life in Amerika

A.F. BRANCO on September 22, 2021 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-life-in-amerika/

A vaccine mandate over a virus with over a 99% survival rate means we’re no longer a free country.

Vaccine Mandate Tyranny
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021.

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 –  $5.00 –  $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

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?

CHRIS PANDOLFO and LEON WOLF Op-ed: Cash, COVID, and cover-up, part 3: ‘You will have tasks that must be done’


Commentary by CHRIS PANDOLFO and LEON WOLF | September 16, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/cash-covid-and-cover-up-part-3-you-will-have-tasks-that-must-be-done/

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

On Jan. 27, 2020, EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak sent an email to Dr. David Morens, a subordinate of Dr. Anthony Fauci at NIAID, that contained a not-very-subtle warning. Fauci had not yet been appointed to former President Donald Trump’s Coronavirus Task Force and was thus largely unknown to the public at large at this point. Daszak would later become perhaps the most prominent public scientific figure in the world to denounce the lab-leak theory.

He was also, perhaps not coincidentally, the link between U.S. taxpayer dollars and research funded at the Wuhan Institute of Virology — it was through his EcoHealth Alliance that the WIV had received NIAID grants.

As the coronavirus pandemic was emerging in Wuhan and scientists began looking for the source of the outbreak (some of whom were considering the possibility that the virus might have leaked from the WIV), Daszak alerted Morens to a rather explosive fact: The NIAID had, in fact, been funding the WIV indirectly. Not only that, Daszak provided Morens with a handy list of talking points that Fauci could use, if he saw fit, if he was asked about what, exactly, the NIAID had been funding at the WIV.

“Great info, thanks,” Morens replied. “[Dr. Fauci] doesn’t maintain awareness of these things and doesn’t know unless program officers tell him, which they rarely do, since they are across town and may not see him more than once a year, or less.”

It is reasonable to assume that, prior to this point, Fauci may not have personally known that NIAID had funded research at the WIV that any reasonable person would have concluded constituted gain-of-function research. However, he certainly knew after this heads-up from Daszak — who was aggressively shaping the public message even this early in the pandemic.

+++++++++

The first officially reported human cases of COVID-19 were identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, although there is evidence the virus was circulating and infecting people at the Wuhan Institute of Virology before December. At the beginning of the month, patient zero, a 55-year-old man from Hubei, went to the hospital with pneumonia-like symptoms. Though the outbreak would later be traced to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, patient zero had not been there. In the next few weeks, more patients would present themselves to the hospital with similar symptoms, and on Dec. 8, 2019, the Wuhan City Health Committee and the World Health Organization reported that 41 people had been tested and confirmed positive for a new viral disease that would come to be called COVID-19.

Reports of this novel coronavirus were of immediate interest to Drs. Fauci, Baric, Daszak, and the other virologists, researchers, and public health officials who had dedicated their lives to studying, controlling, and preventing infectious disease. Their jobs, after all, were to guide the public response to a pandemic. But the circumstances surrounding the outbreak of the virus, and the possible, though unproven, connection of its origins to dangerous gain-of-function research — which those involved had an ideological and financial stake in — created a conflict of interest that perhaps motivated their public statements and compromised their official response to COVID-19.

To say that the government has not been voluntarily forthcoming about its response to the COVID-19 pandemic would be to engage in massive understatement. Only a bevy of repeated FOIA requests filed by media and nonprofit organizations, combined with the incessant prying of the DRASTIC internet sleuths, have uncovered as much information as we now have. And what we have represents only a small fraction of the total: enormous portions — perhaps the majority — have been redacted, including entire lengthy emails.

We, ordinary members of the public, remain largely in the dark about what these men and women did and said to each other as they scrambled to formulate a public response to the largest public health emergency in recent memory. For that matter, it seems that another key person appears to have been kept in the dark: former President Donald Trump, who was, if you will recall, the boss of virtually all the government officials involved in these communications. And yet, one searches through these hundreds of pages of released emails in vain for any indication that the president was consulted or even informed about deliberations that were occurring regarding how his administration would handle what would come to be his defining crisis.

While we might know but little of the full picture, what we do know does not look good. In the early days of the pandemic, a group of scientists led by Fauci, Farrar, and Daszak held a number of teleconferences and meetings, over which there remains a blanket of almost total secrecy. The end result of these initial teleconferences is that all the participants would emerge to publicly declare the lab-leak theory a conspiracy, including some (like Dr. Kristian Andersen), who had just days earlier announced that the virus looked potentially engineered.

In the months following these internal discussions, Fauci, Dasak, and other public officials and influential members of the scientific community would coordinate a messaging campaign to discredit the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from the Wuhan lab. Discussion of the lab-leak theory would be shut down in public spaces by their repeated insistence that such questions were conspiracy-theory, fringe ideas that promote disinformation during a global pandemic.

They instead advanced the hypothesis that COVID-19 had natural, or zoonotic origins — that the virus began in some animal host, possibly bats or pangolins, and evolved to become transmissible among humans. This became the prevailing narrative accepted by the media, and those who questioned its truthfulness were smeared as conspiracy theorists and in some cases de-platformed by tech companies for contradicting the opinions of respected, scientific experts and organizations — read: the views endorsed and promoted by government officials like Fauci.

Here is how the plan unfolded.

+++++++++

The chain began in late December 2019. On Dec. 31, 2019, at 8:16 a.m., Dr. Baric emailed Daszak with the subject line, “RE: have you heard any news on this? maybe as many as 27 cases with 7 severe in wuhan—ards like pneumonia.” The email contained an update from ProMed, an email list that provides readers all over the world with crowdsourced disease alerts, on the latest news regarding an emerging pneumonia-like disease reported in Wuhan.

Daszak, a zoologist, was the leader of the only U.S.-based nonprofit organization researching coronavirus evolution and transmission in China. He is also a strong proponent of and fundraiser for gain-of-function research. For years, his organization has received federal funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health and its sub-agency the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to support research on bat coronaviruses conducted in China. He was on friendly terms with Wuhan researcher Dr. Shi Zhengli, as well as NIAID Director Fauci, and had contacts with both of their colleagues.

He replied to Baric indicating that his EcoHealth colleague Hongying Li was feeding him information on the pneumonia cases in what appeared to be real time. Daszak’s emails were made public as part of a records request from U.S. Right to Know.

On Jan. 6, 2020, Daszak replied to an email from Erik Stemmy, the program officer for the Respiratory Diseases Branch Division of Microbiology and Infections Diseases at NIAID, indicating that he had some off-the-record information on the viral outbreak in China. Chinese scientists on Jan. 12 published the genetic sequence of the virus causing the outbreak. EcoHealth Alliance analyzed the Chinese data and determined the virus was related to SARS. Daszak wrote another email to Stemmy informing him that the new virus is “close to SARSr-CoV Rp3 that we published from our past NIAID work. This came from a Rhinolophus bat in S. China.” He added that Baric was “already working to reconstruct and rescue the virus in the lab from the sequence, so he can do further work on it.”

It would appear that Daszak had early access to information Shi’s research team wouldn’t make public until Jan. 23, when they reported the genetic sequence for SARS-CoV-2 was 96.2% similar to a previously discovered bat coronavirus called RaTG13. Daszak confirmed as much in another Jan. 9 email exchange with NIAID senior scientific adviser Dr. David Morens, who had emailed Daszak asking if he had any “inside info on this new coronavirus that isn’t yet in the public domain.”

“Yes — lots of information and I spoke with Erik Stemmy and Alan Embry yesterday before the news was released,” Daszak replied. “Erik is my program officer on our coronavirus grant specifically focused on China.” These emails were obtained by Judicial Watch.

Later in a Jan. 27 email, Daszak sent Morens talking points on EcoHealth Alliance’s work with the Wuhan lab for Fauci to mention “when he’s being interviewed re. The new CoV.” He highlighted that NIAID had been funding research at the Wuhan lab through EcoHealth Alliance for “the past 5 years” and that the work involves identifying “cohorts of people highly exposed to bats in China” and determining “if they’re getting sick from [coronaviruses].”

Daszak also pointed out the “results of our work,” which included the discovery of “SARS-related CoVs that can bind to human cells (Published in Nature), and that cause SARS-like disease in humanized mouse models.” He was referring to Baric and Shi’s 2015 collaborative gain-of-function study.

From the beginning, Daszak sought to influence the messaging around his work in China, casting it in the most positive light.

“Great info, thanks,” Morens replied. “[Dr. Fauci] doesn’t maintain awareness of these things and doesn’t know unless program officers tell him, which they rarely do, since they are across town and may not see him more than once a year, or less.”

The early work of scientists to identify SARS-CoV-2 and trace its origins inevitably attracted the attention of the media. Science magazine published an article on Jan. 31 detailing those efforts, covering Shi’s work and leaning in to the emerging hypothesis that the virus occurred naturally in bats and made the leap to infect humans. The article also briefly discussed “conspiracy theories” linking China’s coronavirus research to weapons research. At the time there were unsubstantiated claims that China engineered the virus at the Wuhan lab as a bioweapon, but soon the “conspiracy theory” label would be expanded to any suggestion that the virus originated in the lab, no matter how credentialed those promoting the idea were or how carefully they avoided drawing conclusions.

The Science article did note that there were concerns about the Wuhan lab’s security and gain-of-function research. Dr. Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University and a critic of gain-of-function experiments, was quoted suggesting that data on SARS-CoV-2 was “consistent with entry into the human population as either a natural accident or a laboratory accident.”

The mere suggestion that it was possible for COVID-19 to come from a laboratory accident drew immediate, fierce attack from Daszak.

“Every time there’s an emerging disease, a new virus, the same story comes out: This is a spillover or the release of an agent or a bioengineered virus,” Daszak told Science. “It’s just a shame. It seems humans can’t resist controversy and these myths, yet it’s staring us right in the face.”

This unjustified, angry reaction to a reasonable point was a prelude to what was to come.

+++++++++

At 8:43 p.m. on Jan. 31, the Science article was emailed to Dr. Anthony Fauci, who in turn forwarded it to several of his NIH colleagues and associates, including Dr. Jeremy Farrar, the director of the London-based Wellcome Trust megacharity, and to Dr. Kristian Andersen, a respected virologist at Scripps Research. Fauci’s emails were made public via a Freedom of Information Act Request from BuzzFeed News.

Andersen, who had studied the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2, wrote back praising the article but adding an astounding claim: He had analyzed the genetic sequences from China and determined that “some of the features (potentially) look engineered.” He told Fauci that “after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory,” before adding that “those opinions could still change.” According to reporter Nicholas Wade, Eddie is Edward C. Holmes of the University of Sydney, Bob is Robert F. Garry of Tulane University, and Mike is Michael Farzan at Scripps Research.

Andersen would later walk back what he said privately, claiming that he and other scientists strongly considered the lab-leak possibility before evidence convinced them that the natural origins theory was more likely.

But in that moment, Fauci was told the unanimous opinion of several well-respected virologists was that the virus causing a growing pandemic was possibly engineered. The fact that the viral outbreak happened just 20 miles away from a laboratory conducting coronavirus research, research his agency may have funded, put him into action.

The next morning, Saturday, Feb. 1, Fauci sent an urgent email to NIAID principal director Hugh Auchincloss, writing, “It is essential that we speak this AM. Keep your cell phone on … read this paper as well as the e-mail that I will forward to you now. You will have tasks today that must be done.” Attached was a copy of Baric’s and Shi’s 2015 collaborative gain-of-function study, which stated in its acknowledgements that it was funded by NIAID and exempted from a moratorium on funding for gain-of-function research that was in effect at the time. Fauci also forwarded the study to the Wellcome Trust’s Farrar. Fauci told Farrar the study was “of interest to the current discussion.”

Auchincloss replied a few hours later: “The paper you sent me says the experiments were performed before the gain of function pause but have since been reviewed and approved by NIH. Not sure what that means since Emily is sure that no Coronavirus work has gone through the P3 framework. She will try to determine if we have any distant ties to this work abroad.”

NIAID was tied to that work. Documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that NIAID awarded a 10-year grant to Peter Daszak to study bat coronaviruses in the East, and that between 2014 and 2019, $826,300 had been sub-awarded by EcoHealth Alliance to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Did NIAID fund an experiment at the Wuhan lab that engineered this new SARS-like virus? This would be the question on Fauci’s mind as he prepared for a teleconference later that day with well-known and highly respected global virologists to discuss the emerging pandemic.

+++++++++

The teleconference was organized by Jeremy Farrar, who like Fauci is an enormously important gatekeeper of billions of dollars for medical research. Information to be discussed on the call would be “shared in total confidence and not to be shared until agreement on next steps,” a Feb. 1 email blast Fauci received explained. Farrar would lead the conference and present the “introduction, focus, and desired outcomes.” Andersen would be summarizing what he and the other virologists had analyzed about the virus. What was said exactly is unknown, as an email summary of the call was redacted, as well as notes taken by Ron Fouchier, the Dutch scientist who authored a highly controversial gain-of-function study in 2011.

What is known is that following this conference call, the public campaign against the lab-leak theory intensified. Many of the participants who voiced concerns that the virus looked engineered abruptly changed their positions.

Andersen, for example, was recruited by Daszak to consult on drafting a “statement in support of the scientists, public health and medical professionals of China.” Just four days after writing to Fauci about the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 virus looks “engineered,” Andersen in a Feb. 4, 2020, email recommended to Daszak that the statement “be more firm on the question of engineering.”

“The main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to the virus being somehow engineered with intent and that is demonstrably not the case,” he wrote, reversing his position.

Farrar, meanwhile, was contacted by NIH Director Francis Collins on Feb. 2 about the need to get in touch with World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “Let me know if I can help get through his thicket of protectors,” Collins wrote to Farrar, copying Fauci on the email. “Really appreciate us thinking through the options …,” he said in another email, before a redacted line.

Later that day, Farrar emailed Fauci and Collins, writing: “Tedros and [WHO representative in China Dr. Bernhard Schwartländer] have apparently gone into conclave … they need to decide today in my view. If they do prevaricate, I would appreciate a call with you later tonight or tomorrow to think how we might take forward.” At the end of the email, Farrar wrote “meanwhile” and included a link to a ZeroHedge article published that day that reported on claims that COVID-19 was engineered in the Wuhan lab.

The very next day, Tedros delivered a speech to the WHO executive board stating the need to “combat the spread of rumors and misinformation.”

“We have worked with Google to make sure people searching for information about coronavirus see WHO information at the top of their search results,” Tedros said. “Social media platforms including Twitter, Facebook, Tencent, and TikTok have also taken steps to limit the spread of misinformation.”

On that same day, ZeroHedge was banned from Twitter for publishing a “coronavirus conspiracy theory.”

The campaign was beginning to work.

Meanwhile, Daszak worked in the background to recruit more colleagues and associates to sign his statement, which was intended to authoritatively discredit the lab-leak hypothesis. In emails, Daszak wrote that he wanted the statement to “not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person” but rather to be seen as “simply a letter from leading scientists.” He also emphasized how important it was “to avoid the appearance of a political statement.”

Baric, a leading gain-of-function researcher, was also consulted for the draft, but Daszak told him it would be best if he didn’t add his name to it “so it has some distance from us and therefore doesn’t work in a counterproductive way.” Baric agreed in reply, writing, “otherwise it looks self-serving and we lose impact.”

Likewise, Andersen did not sign the final product. He later claimed in a since-deleted tweet that he didn’t attach his name to the letter “because I (+ coauthors) found it premature to conclude there was no lab leak without carefully analyzing available data first.” He has never explained why it was not “premature” for him to help draft the statement.

The completed statement was published in the Lancet on Feb. 19 with 27 prominent public health scientists signing on to condemn “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”

The importance of this event cannot be overstated.

The Lancet letter was instrumental in shaping the media narrative condemning all discussion of the lab-leak theory as conspiratorial, fringe, and otherwise harmful. To quote a landmark Vanity Fair article about the investigation into the origins of COVID-19, Daszak’s Lancet letter “effectively ended the debate over COVID-19’s origins before it began.”

Farrar, also a signatory of the Lancet statement, was working behind the scenes to discredit the lab-leak hypothesis, too. A spokesman for his office told the Daily Mail in June that Farrar recruited five scientists to author a letter to the scientific journal Nature Medicine that would argue for the natural origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Two of those scientists, Andersen and Holmes, attended the Feb. 1 teleconference and had before that conference believed the virus looked “potentially” engineered.

Incredibly, Farrar admits to the fact that he signed the Lancet letter even though, by his own estimation, he was “50-50” on the question of the lab-leak theory after the Feb. 1 teleconference with Fauci, and he further admits now that he cannot definitely make a statement one way or the other. Perhaps most astonishingly, Farrar’s memoir “Spike,” which discusses his ruminations at length about the lab-leak theory, fails to even mention the Lancet letter or his signature on it.

Not content with relying on the Lancet letter, the scientists who were involved in the mysterious Feb. 1 teleconference launched other avenues of attack. On Feb. 26, 2020, Emerging Microbes and Infections published another influential article titled, “No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2.” The paper was written by Shan-Lu Liu, Linda J. Saif, Susan R. Weiss, and Lishan Su. Christian Drosten, Germany’s leading COVID-19 expert and a participant in Farrar’s conference call, sits on the editorial board for EMI. This paper, if possible, represented an even more obvious exercise in wagon-circling and hiding conflicts of interest.

Lishan Su, it should be noted, was a colleague and coworker of Dr. Ralph Baric at UNC up until 2020, a fact not mentioned in the paper even though the primary purpose the paper served was to exonerate Baric and his work. Even more astonishingly, Baric was consulted beforehand about what the paper should say. According to emails unearthed by U.S. Right to Know, Baric was provided with an advance copy of the paper by Su and asked for comments and revisions.

Perhaps understanding how bad such an arrangement would look, Baric responded to Su’s request that he review the paper by saying, “sure, but I don’t want to be cited in (sic) as having commented prior to submission.” Su agreed to keep Baric’s name out of the paper, and Baric agreed to redline the paper that would exonerate him. Bizarrely, Baric attempted to claim in one comment that the SHC014-MA15 virus that he created with Shi decreased the pathogenicity of the virus, rather than increased, as it clearly did. Baric’s comment confused the authors of the EMI paper, who ultimately rejected that particular edit.

The paper was finished on Feb. 13, 2020, and Shan-Lu Liu, who also serves as EMI’s editor-in-chief, wrote a bizarre email recommending publication of what he described as “timely commentary… perfectly written” from himself to … himself.

Unsurprisingly, the paper, which never disclosed Baric’s involvement, was published a couple weeks later.

But between the time the article was finalized and the time it was published, the paper’s authors privately expressed doubts to each other about its conclusions, even as EMI was rushing to expedite publication of the commentary and waiving customary publication fees. Shan Lu acknowledged to Weiss in a Feb. 16 email that they “could not rule out the possibility” that the virus escaped from the lab, which led to changes to the paper that focused on refuting the idea that the virus had been engineered in a lab, as opposed to merely having escaped from the lab. But some of the papers’ authors continued to harbor doubts about this possibility, as well.

On Feb. 16, Weiss emailed Shan-Lu Liu, still expressing her “doubt” that the virus was engineered in the lab, but noting regarding the distinctive furin cleavage site, “lineage B Bat viruses generally do not have the furin site.”

Five days later, Shan Lu responded, “Susan, I completely agree with you, but rumor says that furin site may be engineered. Importantly, the virus RNA sequence around the furin site (288 nt), before and after, has 6.6 % differences, but with no amino acid changes at all.”

Weiss then responded, “Henry and I have been speculating- how can that site have appeared at S1/S2 border- I hate to think to [sic] was engineered- among the MHV strains, the cleavage site does not increaser pathogenicity while it does effect entry route (surface vs endosome) . so for me the only significance of this furin site is as a marker for where the virus came from- frightening to think it may have been engineered[.]”

None of these doubts or concerns would be mentioned when, five days later, the paper, “No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2,” was released.

+++++++++

On Mar. 6, Andersen emailed Fauci, Farrar, and Collins announcing that his letter had been accepted by Nature Medicine and would be published shortly. He encouraged them to provide comments or suggestions about the paper or its press release. Two days later, Fauci replied, “Nice job on the paper.”

This third article, “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” was published March 17. Farrar’s name was not attached to it. “We do not believe any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible,” the authors wrote, in what would became the most-cited scientific document discrediting the lab-leak hypothesis. National media outlets seized on the letter, often referring to it as a “study,” as the final word on COVID-19’s origins. Anyone who offered a contrary opinion, including President Donald Trump, was dismissed as ignorant, anti-science, conspiracy-minded, and racist as far as the media were concerned. And they’d be censored on social media too.

The Proximal Origins letter was championed by opponents of the lab-leak theory.

Daszak used the letter in interviews and on social media to forcefully attack “conspiracy theorists” calling for investigations into the Wuhan lab.

Fauci, who by now was the chief spokesman for the White House at the daily coronavirus response briefings and the nationally recognized face of the government’s pandemic response, endorsed the letter on April 18 and publicly rejected the lab-leak hypothesis. Fauci did not mention that he was involved with the authors.

In an email after that press briefing, Daszak wrote to Fauci with glowing praise for his remarks.

“I just wanted to say a personal thank you on behalf of our staff and collaborators, for publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID-19 from a bat-to-human spillover, not a lab release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” Daszak wrote.

“From my perspective, your comments are brave, and coming from your trusted voice, will help dispel the myths being spun around the virus’ origins,” he added.

Daszak was thrilled because the most important and influential voice during the pandemic said that “science” had determined SARS-CoV-2 was not engineered in a lab. As far as he knew, the lab-leak theory was defeated. The United States government would support that conclusion in an April 30 statement endorsing the “scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified.”

The actual evidence presented by the “Proximal Origins” paper, however, was almost farcically thin. The bulk of the paper discussed the basis for a possible zoonotic origin of the virus — which will be discussed in greater detail in subsequent parts of this series. As for the scientific evidence discrediting the possibility that the virus was engineered, Andersen and his fellow authors raised exactly two points.

First, the paper claimed, “While the analyses above suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may bind human ACE2 with high affinity, computational analyses predict that the interaction is not ideal7 and that the RBD sequence is different from those shown in SARS-CoV to be optimal for receptor binding7,11. Thus, the high-affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding solution to arise. This is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not the product of purposeful manipulation.”

Stripped of dense scientific language, the authors essentially argue that, while SARS-cov-2 is extremely effective at infecting human cells, it is not as effective as it could be, and thus if someone was trying to engineer a virus that was as infectious as possible, they would have done better. This may or may not constitute “strong evidence” that the virus was engineered specifically as a bioweapon, but it ignores the fact that viruses are engineered by the scientists who perform gain-of-function research for a whole host of reasons, including to develop vaccines and treatment modalities. It also ignores the somewhat obvious fact that a person who was, in fact, seeking to create a bioweapon might want to maintain some plausible deniability that it was not, in fact, an intentional bioweapon.

Second, the paper claimed, “Furthermore, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used. However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone.” This contention, however, is definitely four words too short, because it fails to finish, “that we know of.” The idea that the genomic database — particularly of backbones that might have been generated in Wuhan — can be relied upon for completeness is absolutely ludicrous given what we know now. For just one example, the infamous chimeric virus created by Baric and Shi in their 2015 paper was “inadvertently” not uploaded to any databases until after the current pandemic began and people began asking uncomfortable questions.

But, while the actual contentions of the paper were laughably weak, they were hidden behind a patina of dense scientific lingo and an air of authority and certainty, which was enough to convince the media and social media companies.

+++++++++

There were still voices arguing that the lab-leak theory shouldn’t be dismissed. Trump drew fire for contradicting his administration with claims that he had seen evidence that COVID-19 originated in the Wuhan lab. When the media demanded the president offer proof, he said he was “not allowed” to share the evidence with them. Already antagonized by the president, the national media doubled down on their efforts to declare him a liar, as well as anyone who agreed with him.

In the months following, Fauci and other public health officials continued to dismiss the lab-leak theory as a conspiracy theory. In May, Columbia University virologist and Proximal Origins author Ian W. Lipkin thanked Fauci for his “efforts in steering and messaging.”

As summer drew to a close, the lab-leak theory appeared to be thoroughly discredited. Gain-of-function research was safe. In August 2020, NIAID awarded 11 new grants with a total first-year value of $17 million to 10 participants for a global network to investigate viruses and other deadly pathogens emerging in the wild. Kristian Andersen and Peter Daszak, who worked with Fauci on messaging about the origins of the coronavirus, were among the recipients of this funding.

Only recently, more than a year after the beginning of the pandemic, is discussion of the lab-leak theory permitted in the mainstream because proponents of the natural origins theory have been unable to prove their claims. In May 2021, several influential scientists including Dr. Ralph Baric, the leading coronavirus researcher in the United States, signed a letter in Science magazine calling for a full investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. The letter acknowledged that both the natural origins and lab-leak theories “remain viable” and that the two theories “were not given balanced consideration” at the onset of the pandemic.

Further demonstrating that discussion of the lab-leak theory is now officially acceptable, a declassified summary of a U.S. intelligence report on the origins of the coronavirus requested by President Joe BIden and released last Friday did not draw definitive conclusions but left open the possibility that the virus was leaked from the Wuhan lab.

Discussion of both theories should be welcomed, as it is of paramount importance to learn how the coronavirus pandemic began so that a future pandemic can be prevented or stopped before millions of lives are lost.

What is troubling is that there was no obvious, science-based reason for any of the officials and scientific experts involved to want to prevent public discussion of the theory last year after the onset of the pandemic. Preventing public discussion of alternate theories of the virus’ origin served no scientific purpose at all. It did not advance our understanding of the virus or how to treat it.

There is, however, a clear political purpose to preventing discussion of the lab-leak theory, one that served the interests of the scientists involved in promoting and funding coronavirus research in China and, to the shame of journalists responsible for holding the powerful accountable, one that went unscrutinized for more than a year as the pandemic raged.

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.

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.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Bubble Boy

A.F. BRANCO on August 3, 2021 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-bubble-boy/

People are growing more and more distrustful of Dr. Fauci and what he has to say.

Flip Flop Fauci

Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 –  $5.00 –  $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Superspreader In Chief

A.F. BRANCO on July 30, 2021 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-superspreader-in-chief/

Biden’s open border policy has become a major super-spreader event while he imposes more restrictions on American citizens.

Joe Biden is A Super Spreader
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021.

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 –  $5.00 –  $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

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

Damning US intelligence says researchers at Wuhan lab hospitalized with COVID-like symptoms in fall 2019


Reported by CHRIS ENLOE | May 24, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/damning-us-intelligence-wuhan-lab-covid-symptoms/

Xiong Qi/Xinhua via Getty Images

Three researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick enough with COVID-like symptoms in November 2019 that they required hospitalization, according to a damning American intelligence report.

The intelligence, which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal on Sunday, adds weight to the Wuhan lab leak theory, which suggests the COVID-19 pandemic originated inside China’s only Biosafety level-4 laboratory.

The intelligence is particularly significant because it suggests COVID-19 was spreading in China much earlier than China has admitted. China’s communist government traced patient-zero to a man who became sick on Dec. 8. But if researchers at the Wuhan lab were hospitalized one month prior, the virus was likely spreading even earlier than previously believed.

One official familiar with the intelligence described it as “of exquisite quality.”

“The information that we had coming from the various sources was of exquisite quality. It was very precise. What it didn’t tell you was exactly why they got sick,” the official told the Journal.

Another official told the Journal that while the intelligence was potentially significant, it needed further corroboration to be definitive. The intelligence corroborates a fact sheet released by the State Department in the final days of the Trump administration, which cited classified intelligence and suggested COVID-19 may have escaped from the Wuhan lab via infected researchers. That report said, “U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both Covid-19 and seasonal illnesses.”

China’s Foreign Ministry bucked the intelligence, and continued to suggest COVID-19 originated in the United States. “The U.S. continues to hype the lab leak theory,” the foreign ministry told the Journal. “Is it actually concerned about tracing the source or trying to divert attention?” China’s communist government has infamously refused transparency with investigations surrounding the pandemic’s origins.

“The Wuhan Institute hasn’t shared raw data, safety logs and lab records on its extensive work with coronaviruses in bats, which many consider the most likely source of the virus,” the Journal noted.

China has pointed to wet markets in Wuhan as the source of the pandemic. A spokeswoman for the National Security Council reiterated concerns about the pandemic’s origins, but declined to comment further.

“We continue to have serious questions about the earliest days of the Covid-19 pandemic, including its origins within the People’s Republic of China,” the spokeswoman said. “We’re not going to make pronouncements that prejudge an ongoing WHO study into the source of SARS-CoV-2. As a matter of policy we never comment on intelligence issues.”

The Wuhan lab leak theory has been widely denounced as a conspiracy theory despite a lack of evidence disproving the possibility. In fact, aside from equally plausible origination theories, only the World Health Organization has said it was “extremely unlikely” COVID-19 came from the laboratory. But their conclusion came after a rushed investigation in which access to critical data was tightly controlled by Chinese authorities.

Indeed, 18 high-profile scientists published a letter this month calling for more investigations into the lab leak theory, saying, “Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable.” The group even responded to the WHO’s conclusion, which they rebuked because, as they explained, the WHO did not give the Wuhan lab leak theory “balanced consideration,” writing, “Only 4 of the 313 pages of the report and its annexes addressed the possibility of a laboratory accident.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the White House chief medical adviser, also said this month that he is no longer convinced COVID-19 originated naturally.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Horowitz: The biggest COVID lie right now: No immunity from prior infection


Why should the estimated one-third of Americans who have already contracted the virus still be treated like ticking time bombs? How much longer will the government get away with denying the science behind immunity from infection?

The isolation of all human beings as a strategy to deal with this virus began with the novel assumption of mass asymptomatic spread, a hypothesis now disproven by studies on transmission. Now, the mandatory masking and isolation are continuing without question based on a shocking lie that the one-third of the country who have already gotten the virus – despite the masks and lockdowns, by the way – are not immune to the virus.

As more and more studies have come out showing that prior infection confers long-lasting immunity – not just the 90 days we are told by the government – the purveyors of panic and tyranny have sought to use the focus on several supposedly new variants to deny the presumed immunity from prior infection. However, a new comprehensive study from Harvard Medical School and Boston University researchers should put this latest myth to rest.

The researchers took blood samples from people who had the virus from March 3 to April 1, 2020, long before the new variants were discovered, which allowed them to presume they all had the original Wuhan strain. They found the S-specific memory B cells “conferring robustness against emerging SARS-CoV2 variants” – the U.K. (B117) & South African (B1351) variants.

“Loss of protection against overt or severe disease is not an inevitable consequence of a waning serum antibody titer,” wrote the authors. “This atlas of B cell memory therefore maps systematically a crucial component of the long-term immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

In other words, the inherent immune system full of B cells (in addition to T cells) provides robust immunity not just long after the antibody titers wane from the original infection, but also against emerging strains of the virus.

There has been much discussion over whether the vaccine confers immunity against the new variants, but the more important fact is that previous infection confers such immunity, as is the case with nearly every virus. Indeed, cases have plummeted in South Africa and England precisely since the new variants have been discovered, which would be difficult without natural immunity from the prior waves working against the new variants.

In Denmark, the U.K. variant composes roughly three-quarters of all cases, yet the country is averaging one death per day over the past 7 days. The same holds true for a number of states in America.

A retrospective observational study of 14,840 COVID-19 survivors in Austria found just a 0.27% reinfection rate during the second wave. “Protection against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection is comparable to the highest available estimates on vaccine efficacies,” concludes the study, published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation.

It’s also important to remember that, as with other viruses, immunity doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t test positive again, but that you won’t experience serious symptoms even if you do. The goal is not to prevent colds and flus, but to pre-empt serious illness and death. “With follow‐up on mortality available until December 23, only one 72‐year‐old woman died two days after her tentative re‐infection diagnosis,” observed the authors of the Austrian study. “She was not hospitalized and according to her medical records her cause of death (‘acute vascular occlusion of an extremity with rhabdomyolysis’) was not causally attributed to COVID‐19.”

As the Los Angeles Times reported already in February, with an estimated 35% of Americans already infected (up to 50% in Los Angeles!), “the biggest factor” driving the plummeting of cases “paradoxically, is something the nation spent the last year trying to prevent.” That is herd immunity. As illogical as it was to lock down all Americans last year, regardless of whether they were sick, it’s downright insane to continue masking people who already had the virus AND have no current symptoms.

We’ve already learned from reams of medical research that asymptomatic individuals rarely drive outbreaks. Coupled with already having been infected, the likelihood of a recovered COVID patient both getting the virus and transmitting it is so low that it makes further masking of these people unconscionable.

With this thought fresh in your mind, now consider the insane abuse our government continues to foist upon kids by masking them seven hours a day in school. You can have a child who already had the virus and currently has no symptoms, yet he is still forced to wear a mask. What’s worse, with mass testing of children, yet extremely low rates of infection in recent weeks, the chance of false positives is extremely high. Last week, Professor Jon Deeks, a biostatistician from the University of Birmingham, told the U.K. Telegraph, “It seems likely that over 70% of positive test results are false positives, potentially many more.”

So, children continue to be masked or even removed from school with no symptoms, based on faulty testing, predicated on a false assumption of mass asymptomatic spread – when so many of them already have immunity. In other words, this cycle can go on forever.

Just how big a lie is mass asymptomatic spread? Last month, the Federalist’s Georgi Boorman trenchantly observed how the CDC mistakenly admitted that its entire premise of masking and isolating asymptomatic people is based on a lie. While finally acknowledging in its Jan. 29 report the fact of insignificant levels of spread in schools, the CDC let the following genie out of the bottle:

“Children might be more likely to be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 than are adults. … This apparent lack of transmission [in schools] is consistent with recent research (5), which found an asymptomatic attack rate of only 0.7% within households and a lower rate of transmission from children than from adults. However, this study was unable to rule out asymptomatic transmission within the school setting because surveillance testing was not conducted” (emphasis added).

So, when it comes to explaining why children rarely spread the virus, the CDC settled on the principle that children usually get infected asymptomatically, which means very little transmission! That would apply to adults who don’t have symptoms, too, but the CDC will never concede that point. In fact, the low rate of transmission in that study includes both asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic cases. Nevertheless, despite the CDC admitting that kids, especially young kids, are not vectors of spread, it updated its guidance to continue recommending that children as young as two, aka babies, wear masks at child care facilities except for when they are eating and sleeping!

Which raises the question: With so many people already having had the virus and feeling healthy, what is the legal justification for using the police power of quarantine against those people? There is none, and there never has been a legitimate constitutional authority, yet they’ve done it anyway. In other words, if we don’t end this tyranny now, it will never end, because quarantine and masking are no longer a means but an end.

New medication to treat COVID-19 could quickly turn pandemic on its head: ‘It may be the holy grail’


Fox News medical contributor Dr. Marc Siegel said over the weekend that experimental drug molnupiravir could “be the future” of coronavirus treatment, according to a Monday report from Fox News. Siegel predicted the at-home therapeutic, which could hit the U.S. market in four to five months, could be enough to turn the pandemic on its head and prove to be the “holy grail” of COVID-19 treatment.

On Sunday’s “Fox & Friends Weekend,” Siegel said, “It may be the holy grail on this because it was just studied in phase two trials and it literally stopped the virus in its tracks. And there wasn’t any virus found in the patients that were studied.”

First-stage testing on the drug, which is from Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, showed “promising signs of effectiveness in reducing the virus in patients,” the outlet noted. The drug, according to Fox, would be used at home as a five-day treatment, not unlike how Tamiflu is prescribed to combat the effects of influenza.

“This might be the future once the vaccine really gets control over the pandemic and we just start seeing isolated cases,” he said. “By then, this drug might be ready and this might be the drug for over the next several months.”

Siegel has also predicted that the United States will be “free of the coronavirus pandemic by the summer.”

“This is the very first pill that we have that’s something that we might be able to use in our armamentarium against COVID as a therapeutic,” he added.

On Saturday, Mint reported that the antiviral drug causes quick reduction in the virus.

In a statement from the companies, William Fischer, associate professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, said, “The secondary objective findings in this study, of a quicker decrease in infectious virus among individuals with early COVID-19 treated with molnupiravir, are promising and if supported by additional studies, could have important public health implications.”

“At a time where there is unmet need for antiviral treatments against SARS-CoV-2, we are encouraged by these preliminary data,” Wendy Painter, chief medical officer of Ridgeback, added in the statement.

Andrew Cuomo’s COVID Reign Has Been Devastating, And It’s Time For A Reckoning


Reported by Mike Lawler  15, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/andrew-cuomos-covid-reign-has-been-devastating-and-its-time-for-a-reckoning-2650539894.html/

Andrew Cuomo’s COVID Reign Has Been Devastating, And It’s Time For A Reckoning

A few weeks ago, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, without a hint of self-awareness, said, “Incompetent government kills people. More people died than needed to die in COVID.” Sadly, I couldn’t agree more.

While many in corporate media glorified Cuomo’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, helping create a cult of personality for him among Democrats across the country, an examination of his decision-making reveals that he failed New Yorkers on many fronts.

Cuomo was given near-unilateral emergency powers to tackle the pandemic, with the state legislature forfeiting all decision-making and responsibility to the governor and his team. Thus, Cuomo’s decisions and the repercussions of his actions fall squarely on his shoulders. First, and most jarring, is the revelation that the Cuomo administration’s decided to cover up the true cost of their Department of Health order on March 25 that sent COVID-positive patients back into nursing homes. That fateful order was subsequently deleted from the state’s Department of Health website in the beginning of the cover-up by the Cuomo administration.

Following that order, tens of thousands of nursing home residents lost their lives and the Cuomo administration moved into overdrive on blocking transparency efforts, shutting down inquiries at every turn, and even releasing a phony report absolving them of any responsibility. Two weeks ago, we learned in a report by New York Attorney General Tish James, a Democrat, that Cuomo’s administration hid the true cost to lives of this non-scientific order, under-counting nursing home deaths by almost 50 percent. Just this weekend, we learned the Cuomo administration intentionally hid and withheld information from federal authorities.

We need a full, thorough, and independent investigation with subpoenas to Department of Health Commissioner Howard Zucker, the governor’s staff, and the governor himself.

It also speaks volumes that for months on end, the governor stonewalled transparency efforts by families that lost loved ones while mocking their efforts. His cruelty in this regard was on full display in January when he said “Who cares?” when asked about the death toll.

We care, governor. Those families deserve answers and justice.

Second, Cuomo’s administration forced out many of the public health experts who should have been developing New York’s vaccine plan, deciding instead to recruit expensive consulting firms. This led to an incredibly slow, ineffectual, and confusing rollout of the vaccine. My legislative office is still receiving daily calls from seniors older than 80 who simply cannot get an appointment no matter how hard they look.

While media outlets continue to sing Cuomo’s praises, the reality on the ground is that his top-down, Soviet-esque management style has hampered the efficacy and speed of the vaccine rollout, tying local health departments in knots. Every county health department in New York already has a mass vaccination plan, yet the governor refused for weeks to let them use those plans, instead of forcing them into the system created by his high-priced and high-brow consulting firms, all at taxpayers’ expense.

Third, Cuomo’s extensive lockdowns and subsequent non-scientific decisions to limit capacity in houses of worship shut down indoor dining, and restrict in-person learning (even temporarily) have hurt millions more. Setting unconstitutional caps on houses of worship was rejected by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision, a case that shouldn’t have been necessary in the first place. Many houses of worship, spanning all types of faiths, were already setting limits on themselves to ensure the health and safety of their worshippers. Recommending that they be shut down or capped was ludicrous, and an affront to the basic right to freedom of religion in our nation.

Another group whose lives and livelihoods have been destroyed by Cuomo’s insatiable desire for control is restaurant owners and restaurant workers. Shutting down indoor dining in New York City made zero sense at the time, with people being infected at less than 1.5 percent (lower than the state positivity rate) when dining indoors. Now, Cuomo has reopened dining when the infection rate has climbed significantly.

These decisions are not being made based on science, but what the governor “feels” is the right move. That is a recipe for disaster that cannot be allowed to continue. Cuomo’s actions are driven by his need for control, his ego, and his ability to legislate freely, as Democrats in the state legislature have completely abdicated all their duties as a co-equal branch of government.

Finally, it’s clear that New York students are rapidly falling behind other students around the globe. The lack of in-person interaction and learning is having devastating impacts on our children’s academic and social futures, as they are not learning the important lessons we all learned in grade school. To the governor’s credit, he didn’t outright ban in-person learning, but he certainly hasn’t been a champion for it either. Hybrid-learning programs are still leaving our kids behind, and his silence on this subject is deafening. I’d hazard a guess he’s spent more time bashing former President Trump at his press conferences than he has talked about the needs of our students.

In short, the governor’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic has been nothing short of disastrous for the millions of New Yorkers who call the Empire State home. While CNN, MSNBC, and other major news outlets remain busy pumping up Cuomo’s ego and image to the American public, Americans need to hear that his decisions cost tens of thousands of New Yorkers their lives, hundreds of thousands of students their educational advancement, and millions of New Yorkers their livelihoods.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Mike Lawler is a member of the New York Assembly.

Tag Cloud