Larry Elder Discusses the whole “Bleach” incident that the media blew up and took WAAAY out of context. And how dumb the Left must be to interpret any part of what the President said as ingesting or injecting caustic material – like Ross. (I include some video of differing modern day units that process blood with UV light at the 3:05 mark.)
BEFORE getting to some of the fun stuff, my post on the Bleach incident: “Trump Then Clarified His Remarks | Clorox Bleach Injections“. Here is a cataloging of the UV Light technology that is a hundred years old, and, the entire point here is not to promote anything below as a cure, it is merely to point out as usual Trump is ahead of the MSM with actual technology to support his randomized statements.
But as you will see from the videos, this is “disinfecting light” brought into the body to fight the Coronavirus, something the AP wrote recently about:
Cedars-Sinai-Developed ‘Healight’ Medical Device Platform Technology Being Studied as a Potential First-in-Class COVID-19 Treatment (ASSOCIATED PRESS)
LOU DOBBS discussing it:
The President and his people probably got inundated with companies contacting them with technology they have been working on. If you take this into account, the portion where Trump said Dr. Birx and others would look into that makes more sense in context. The Presidents people have probably been brainstorming on all this.
To WIT…
I first heard (read) about this via RUSH LIMBAUGH, to which I excerpt from his transcript:
….Now, folks, it has long been known that ultraviolet light (UV) kills viruses and bacteria. This is known for a long time. The problem is that if it’s unfiltered, ultraviolet light is dangerous to humans and to human cells. What you have to do is filter out the dangerous UVC, ultraviolet C, leaving what’s called ultraviolet A light.
Then it becomes safe for human use. It has proven in the lab by a bunch of companies that at the right wattage and the right duration, ultraviolet A light is effective at killing a variety of viruses and bacteria — including the coronavirus. Ultraviolet A will kill the coronavirus. There is now a company making a product called Healight, H-e-a-l-i-g-h-t.
It was developed at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles. The Healight is actually a catheter and is used on patients who are intubated, who have a breathing tube. So what happens is that the catheter, the Healight (that’s its brand name) is embedded with small LED lights that emit ultraviolet A in a specific way.
The Healight is inserted into the breathing tube of an intubated patient, and the light emitted from those days LEDs kills a wide variety of viruses and bacteria. The company that is behind the creation of this contraption has a video explaining and showing how it works. The video is largely text, what I just told you.
There is a graphic. There is a little video showing the devices — the catheter — actually being inserted in the breathing tube of an intubated patient. They’re intubated, then they turn the LED lights on, and they graphically replicate what happens. The bottom line is it’s in its early stages and phases…..
I also — a day earlier — posted on other UV Light technology as an example of possibilities of what Trump was clumbaly trying to get out of his mind to his words. AGAIN, just because I am posting this does not mean I am endorsing this… AND, in fact, I include a warning.
Dr. Kristi Wrightson is conducting a study to assess the ability of UV light to reduce the severity and duration of flu symptoms. The UV light device that she uses is called UVLrx, also a Santa Barbara company:
Dr. Wrightson found that patients’ symptoms resolve within 1-2 treatments with improvement in upper respiratory symptoms such as cough, sore throat as well as generalized symptoms such as increase in energy, decrease in body aches and fever.
Here is the WARNING about the above:
The idea of using UV light to treat infections started with a Nobel Prize – using UV light to treat tuberculosis infection of the skin. This, of course, is an external use. Using UV light to treat the blood had its heyday in the 1950s, but fell out of favor without leaving much of a paper trail behind….. UV light can cause tissue damage, as anyone who has suffered a sunburn can attest. What damage is being done with the UV light from this device, and can it have any clinically significant effect on infections at a dose that is safe for the tissue? These are unanswered questions. (SCIENCE BASED MEDICINE)
WIKI has an interesting “history” portion on its page regarding this and simply state: “This procedure fell out of favor in the late 1950s, at a time when antibiotics and the polio vaccine were becoming widely used. Since then it has been sidelined as a type of alternative and complementary medicine.” There is also a long article on this at the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health (Ultraviolet Irradiation of Blood: “The Cure That Time Forgot”?).
But, since this is an older technology and it seems the safest way to do this to blood is like the old way, outside the body. Here are some modern machines THAT DO THIS OUTSIDE THE BODY:
Trump did follow up the statements after a question came from a reporter by saying: “It wouldn’t be through injections, you’re talking about almost a cleaning and sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work, but it certainly has a big affect if it’s on a stationary object.” This is proof he wasn’t telling people to drink or injects disinfectant. But all the media likes to post is a paragraph from minutes earlier by President Trump to spread a false narrative. Trump said during that whole speech that he isn’t a doctor, it would be handled or administered by a doctor, and that they are seeing if it is even effective.
This story is multiplied at many sites, but I like LEGAL INSURRECTION’S “inflection.” Here is the meat of their post, and I will include others sites after the excerpt (I will emphasize):
This is why when Donald Trump became president I told friends to always listen to his full remarks. Everyone knew the MSM would twist his words to make him sound evil and stupid.
The MSM and liberals on Twitter did just that yesterday. They claim Trump suggested people inject themselves with disinfectants in order to cure the Wuhan coronavirus.
So, I’m going to ask Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing when we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute. AND IS THERE A WAY WE CAN DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT BY INJECTION INSIDE OR ALMOST A CLEANING? Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful.
If Trump did not include the “or almost a cleaning” then yes I could see how people would think he meant an actual injection. Even then, come on, people. Use your freaking brain.
But ABC News reporter Jon Karl asked Bryan if there is any “scenario that could be injected into a person.”
Of course, Bryan said they “don’t do that within that lab at our labs.”
Trump then clarified his remarks because people are stupid:
“IT WOULDN’T BE THROUGH INJECTIONS, you’re talking about almost a cleaning and sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work, but it certainly has a big affect if it’s on a stationary object.”
Some other good posts follow:
Don’t Believe the Blue Checks: Here’s the Context to Trump’s Comments About UV Light and “Injecting” Disinfectant (RED STATE)
FACT CHECK: No, Trump Did Not Tell People To ‘Inject Themselves With Disinfectant’ Or ‘Drink Bleach’ (DAILY WIRE)
Fake News: Trump Didn’t Tell People to Inject Bleach or Lysol Into Their Veins to Fight Coronavirus (PJ-MEDIA)
‘Sit This One Out’! CNN’s Chris Cuomo Apparently Forgets That He’s Probably The Last Person Who Should Bust Trump Over Covid19 And Disinfectants (TWITCHY — SEE BELOW)
>>>Cristina Cuomo Says She Treated Her Coronavirus With Clorox Baths, Vitamin Drips: Experts React (USA TODAY)
I do have to say though, there are some pretty funny Twitter stuff about the whole thing.
Ezekiel Emanuel, adviser to presidential candidate Joe Biden and Obamacare architect, just called for a 12-to-18-month lock-down to battle COVID-19, asking us to abandon our livelihoods, religious services, and “contact with friends and extended family.” He claims we have “no choice” and that the alternative is hundreds of thousands of deaths. He has also said that COVID-19 is a “great argument for universal health care coverage.” His plan is politically motivated — and deadly.
BONUS:“The more sophisticated leftists almost certainly imagine a collapse of the American economy. They don’t fear this, they embrace it, à la the Cloward-Piven strategy: destroy the social welfare system to force America into a socialized mode. Having the economy collapse, with the governing remaining as the only source of funds and food, will only speed that outcome. (AMERICAN THINKER)
Dennis Prager brings up a challenge about deaths made about the U.S. compared to the rest of the world. Then he challenges his guest Dr. Joel Hay (BIO) regarding Sweden. Good stuff to memorize and have ready to respond to people who think this stuff is accurate. See my post on this: “Infectious Thoughts On ‘The RONA’”.
(A quick note, I am not saying we should have done nothing, please do not infer that from what is below. However, I am saying that pushing the shutting down of our infrastructure for anything past two or three weeks ~ is ~ dubious at best.)
As An Aside, this is one of the most important article I believe regarding this whole “pandemic” issue we are dealing with. While it focuses on New York City, this is multiplied ad infinitum around our nation and globe. I would highly recommend this article at CITY JOURNAL:
My computer is down, and its a brand new build (something I did surely found out it is a bad motherboard). But my phone is allowing me opportunity to expand on some thinking. In a conversation about reopening Minnesota I had the other morning. I will include the conversations end below the raw numbers and pics. Take note I start with my old numbers of THE RONA’S estimated infection rates, with newer studies, as well as some HERD IMMUNITY stats/commentary. Enjoy number crunchers. I will add some other Faceboook posts as well.
INFECTION RATES
This portion was the earliest idea to how widespread the virus was. People would continuously mention the KNOWN infection rate of Covid-19 to the KNOWN death rate from Covid. And then in the same breath compare those stats to the ESTIMATED flu infection rate to the SOMEWHAT KNOWN flu death rate. And then they would say “see, Covid-19 is more deadly.” But I wanted to compare the same stats… so this was my way of referenced “estimations” to the infection rate of Covid-19. These were the two referenced numbers:
There are probably 25 to 50 people who have the virus for every one person who is confirmed. (Dr. Makary BIO|YAHOO)
Now, as the testing for antibodies is getting under way, we are finding confirmation for the above numbers. Here are some articles to make the point (as well as some media) HERE ARE SOME IMPORTANT THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND regarding the Santa Clara County information….
Closer to the publishing date of the information garnered from the 3,300 volunteers getting the antibody test in Santa Clara County, there were 32-deaths attributed to the Coronavirus, or, THE RONA. So what we can assume is that as the death toll rises over a time-line, so does the infection rate. Here is what the REASON.COM ARTICLE notes closer to the studies publishing date:
Between 48,000 and 81,000 residents of Santa Clara County, California are likely to have already been infected by the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, suggests a new study by researchers associated with Stanford University Medical School. The researchers tested a sample of 3,330 residents of the county using blood tests to detect antibodies to determine whether or not they had been exposed to the coronavirus. If the researchers’ calculations are correct, that’s really good news. Why? Because that data will help public health officials to get a better handle on just how lethal the coronavirus is, and if researchers are right it’s a lot less lethal than many have feared it to be.
Currently, the U.S. case fatality rate, that is, the percent of people with confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19 who die, is running at 5.2 percent. But epidemiologists have known that a significant proportion of people who are infected are going undetected by the medical system because either they don’t feel sick enough to seek help or are asymptomatic. For example, recent research in Iceland suggests that about 50 percent of people infected with the virus have no symptoms.
In the new study, the researchers sought residents through Facebook to whom they could administer the antibody tests. The results were an unadjusted prevalence of coronavirus antibodies of 1.5 percent. After making various statistical and demographic adjustments, researchers calculated the likely prevalence ranged from 2.49 to 4.16 percent. At the time that these tests were administered, there were about 1,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases and 32* deaths from the disease in Santa Clara County. The upshot is that “these prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50- 85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases.”
Using these data, the researchers calculated the infection fatality rate, that is, the percent of people infected with the disease who die: “A hundred deaths out of 48,000-81,000 infections corresponds to an infection fatality rate of 0.12-0.2%,” they report.* That’s about the same infection fatality rate the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates for seasonal influenza…..
COVID-19 Lethality Not Much Different Than Flu, Says New Study: Possible really good news from a population screening antibody test study in Santa Clara County, California (REASON | ABC NEWS)
Why A Study Showing That Covid-19 Is Everywhere Is Good News: If millions of people were infected weeks ago without dying, the virus must be less deadly than official data suggest (ECONOMIST)
Medical Experts Appear on ‘Life, Liberty, and Levin’ to Urge Leaders to Reopen America (PJ-MEDIA)
LA Study: Virus May Be More Widespread, Less Deadly Than Thought (NEWSMAX)
TWITTER: Andrew Bostom
@AlexBerenson “We find strong evidence that COVID-19 is widespread (>28 million) in the US but don’t panic.”
Yes. Reduces case-fatality ratio to ~0.1% https://t.co/DgmM1wDdqx
I mention to people that with all the precautions many states are forcing on its population they are retarding the rate of HERD IMMUNITY… which is important.
HERD IMMUNITY
Important because Dr. Fauci mentioned during one of his briefings that this is coming back in the winter season. But because we have chosen as a nation to not allow for normal contact that nature demands of us, we will be dealing with this at a higher rate than say Sweden.
Our governor, Gavin Newsom, thinks he “sounds” scientific — but has no idea [apparently] what or how to achieve “herd immunity.” Here is a MERCURY NEWS article discussing the issue statements by our “fearless” governor:
“The prospect of mass gatherings is negligible at best until we get to herd immunity and we get to a vaccine,” Newsom said. “So large-scale events that bring in hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of strangers altogether across every conceivable difference, health and otherwise, is not in the cards based upon our current guidelines and current expectations.”
The article mentions no large gatherings until Thanksgiving… but then the flu and Covid-19 season starts again. Are we shutting down our economy (bars, restaurants, small businesses, etc) and flights, beaches, etc., in the 2020-2021 season? (THANKFULLY “Attorney General William Barr warned that states could find themselves in hot water from the Justice Department if their coronavirus lockdowns go ‘too far’.” | BREITBART)
Why Simply Waiting For Herd Immunity To Covid-19 Isn’t An Option: Waiting for enough people to catch the coronavirus could take a very long time (MIT TECH REVIEW)
Sweden Resisted A Lockdown, And Its Capital Stockholm Is Expected To Reach ‘Herd Immunity’ In Weeks (CNBC)
Sweden has allowed nature to provide a natural defense to future Covid-19 outbreaks. By doing so, the next time this comes around (2020-2021) Sweden will be the most prepared out of the Western Nations. Bravo Sweden, and they took the idea that destroying their economy was not the wisest of choices.
JOHN STOSSEL
UNCOMMON KNOWLEDGE BONUS
March 27th
April 17th
Steve and I agree on a lot, I do not wish to put Steve here in a bad light… he is a guy that I would probably enjoy conversation with over a beer or two (or three):
EXCERPT FROM FACEBOOK CONVO
(ME)
Steve W — you do know Steve that the same amount of death from and infection due to Covid-19 exists under the trend line of doing nothing and the most strict quarentine rules…. right? In other words, we are not saving lives. And, in fact, we have made it worse for our economy next fall/winter because it is coming back as it makes its rounds around the world.
(STEVE W)
Sean Giordano I have heard that said but not seen it from a credible source. So I think that is false.
(ME)
Steve W what is false?
(STEVE W)
Sean Giordano “the same amount of death from and infection due to Covid-19 exists under the trend line of doing nothing”
(ME)
Steve Wallace now you are saying don’t listen to Dr. Fauci?
Many bemoan Trump for not listening to him (even though he has), and some I meet do not support Fauci in the idea that this was to elongate the process as to not put any undue stress on our health care system. Even though he clearly announced multiple times this was the reason to do so
WORLD ECONOMIC FORUMmentions the following, and all the graphs of the United States shown by Doctors Fauci and Birx have all used this idea as well (graph below from CDC and WEF)
CHRIS WALLACE: All right. You talk about slowing the virus down. You talk a lot, and I’ve very used to this now, you can either have a bump like this of cases or you could make it maybe the same total cases, but it’s a much more gradual and slower and longer curve. I want to put up some numbers. We have in this country about 950,000 hospital beds, and about 45,000 beds in Intensive Care Unit. How worried are you that this virus is going to overwhelm hospitals, not just beds, but ventilators? We only have 160,000 ventilators. And could we be in a situation where you have to ration who gets the bed, who gets the ventilator?
DR. FAUCI: OK. So let me put it in a way that it doesn’t get taken out of context. When people talk about modeling where outbreaks are going, the modeling is only as good as the assumptions you put into the model. And what they do, they have a worst-case scenario, a best-case scenario, and likely where it’s going to be. If we have a worst-case scenario, we’ve got to admit it, we could be overwhelmed. Are we going to have a worst-case scenario? I don’t think so. I hope not.
What are we doing to not have that worst-case scenario? That’s when you get into the things that we’re doing. We’re preventing infections from going in with some rather stringent travel restrictions. And we’re doing containment and mitigation from within. So, at a worst-case scenario, anywhere in the world, no matter what country you are, you won’t be prepared. So our job is to not let that worst-case scenario happen.
(…. STILL ME….)
STEVE W for you not to understand the goal of all this, and then get on here sharing insights is itself insightful. I am not blaming you STEVE… I just see this fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying factors and goals of this whole endeavor of bending the curve as applicable to MANY A PERSON in these discussions here and elsewhere on social media. I am giving you, in fact, the most respectful benefit of a doubt, but am merely in conversation with you at this moment. This conversation is just multiplied (others are having) across social media many fold. Blessings to you and yours friend. Yet, this foundational view is not known well by others… that is, the reason behind flattening the curve as well as the data underneath the trend line.
(CLICK TO ENLARGE)
Here I wish to switch gears a bit and start to discuss another “info graphic” post from MY SITES FACEBOOK I shared with my readers. And since the entire idea behind “flattening the curve” was to keep the health and hospital system working well by not getting inundated all at once, this should have lasted two or three weeks. Not as long as it has — our economy is important too! Damnit!
CAPACITY OF THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM
The following was compiled after a conversation I had on Facebook. It touches on some of the issues above. Enjoy
I note the bell curve because many are under the false impression we are doing this to “save lives.” This was never the case.
The quarantine was to lessen the apex of the bell curve as to not put pressure on the hospital/health system. The same amount of people in the elongated “quarantine bell curve” (the trend-line) would die and get sick. In other words, the same statistics exist below the line (POWERLINE). Here is a site cataloging the hospitalizations for the rona that POWERLINE used – US CORONAVIRUS HOSPITALIZATIONS …they used both the CDC site and this one, but the CDC site has lower hospitalizations, so they opted for the most updated numbers. WHICH AS OF APRIL 21ST STAND AT 84,292 HOSPITALIZATIONS FROM JANUARY TILL NOW. This is important, because, the flu season of 2017-2018 we saw 810,000 hospitalization, and our health system didn’t collapse. Nor did the Swine Flu of 2009-to-2010, which saw 60-million American infected and 300,000 hospitalizations.
This then may explain why all the field hospital’s the ARMY CORE OF ENGINEERS built are being dismantled without a single bed being used.
The panic and fear among the people who cannot be bothered to read the actual statistics about this pandemic is what should concern most preppers. In fact, this virus has been so overhyped that the Army’s field hospital in Seattle, an “epicenter” of the pandemic has closed after three days without seeing one single COVID-19 patient. According to a report by Military.com, the hastily built field hospital set up by the Army in Seattle’s pro football stadium is shutting down without ever seeing a patient. [….] The decision to close the Seattle field hospital comes amid early signs that the number of new cases could be hitting a plateau in New York, the epicenter of the coronavirus epidemic in the U.S., and other states. At a news conference Friday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said, “Overall, New York is flattening the curve.” — ZERO HEDGE (see: MILITARY TIMES | DAILY CALLER)
Unlike the Mercy, the Comfort is treating COVID-19 patients on board as well as patients who do not have the virus. The ship has treated more than 120 people since it arrived March 30, and about 50 of those have been discharged, said Lt. Mary Catherine Walsh. The ship removed half of its 1,000 beds so it could isolate and treat coronavirus patients. [The Mercy has seen 48 patients, all non-Covid related] (THE STAR)
And literally handfulls of patients on the Comfort (New York City) and the Comfort (Los Angeles) — *see comment below. There was never a shortage of respirators (NATIONAL REVIEW), and we may surpass the 2018-to-2019 flu death rate, but come nowhere close to the 2017-to-2018 flu death rate:
(CLICK TO ENLARGE)
And it seems that we are reaching a plateau with The Rona, so there is good news in this regard (POWERLINE).
* Here is a comment from the Military Times article from a few days ago:
So, why did we spend all that Taxpayer’s money to move the Comfort to NYC and all the added Military medical personnel to staff the Javitt’s Center? Because Cuomo was crying WOLF.
“So far, the thousands of beds provided by a converted convention center and a hospital ship have not been needed, but the extra personnel are coming in handy for the city’s civilian hospitals.
About 200 doctors, nurses, respiratory therapists and others are working in New York’s medical centers, where bed space has not been overwhelmed, but where hospital-acquired coronavirus cases have sidelined civilian staff.”
Throughout history, personal liberty, free markets, and peaceable, voluntary exchanges have been roundly denounced by tyrants and often greeted with suspicion by the general public. Unfortunately, argues Dr. Walter E. Williams, Americans have increasingly accepted the tyrannical ideas of reduced private property rights and reduced rights to profits, and have become enamored with restrictions on personal liberty and control by government.
In the course of a long and heated campaign in politics and in the media during the early twenty-first century, claiming that there was rampant discrimination against black home mortgage loan applicants, data from various sources were cited repeatedly, showing that black applicants for the most desirable kind of mortgage were turned down substantially more often than white applicants for those same mortgages.
In the year 2000, for example, data from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights showed that 44.6 percent of black applicants were turned down for those mortgages, while only 22.3 percent of white applicants were turned down.1 These and similar statistics from other sources set off widespread denunciations of mortgage lenders, and demands that the government “do something” to stop rampant racial discrimination in mortgage lending institutions.
The very same report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which showed that blacks were turned down for conventional mortgages at twice the rate for whites, contained other statistics showing that whites were turned down for those same mortgages at a rate nearly twice that for “Asian Americans and Native Hawaiians.”
While the rejection rate for white applicants was 22.3 percent, the rejection rate for Asian Americans and Native Hawaiians was 12.4 percent.2But such data seldom, if ever, saw the light of day in most newspapers or on most television news programs, for which the black-white difference was enough to convince journalists that racial bias was the reason.
That conclusion fit existing preconceptions, apparently eliminating a need to check whether it also fit the facts. This one crucial omission enabled the prevailing preconception to dominate discussions in politics, in the media and in much of academia.
One of the very few media outlets to even consider alternative explanations for the black-white statistical differences was the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which showed that 52 percent of blacks had credit scores so low that they would qualify only for the less desirable subprime mortgages, as did 16 percent of whites. Accordingly, 49 percent of blacks in the data cited by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution ended up with subprime mortgages, as did 13 percent of whites and 10 percent of Asians.3In short, the three groups’ respective rankings in terms of the kinds of mortgage loans they could get was similar to their respective rankings in average credit ratings.
But such statistics, so damaging to the prevailing preconception that intergroup differences in outcomes showed racial bias, were almost never mentioned in most of the mass media. With credit ratings being what they were, the statistics were consistent with Discrimination IA (judging each applicant as an individual), but were reported in the media, in politics and in academia as proof of Discrimination II, arbitrary bias against whole groups.
While the omitted statistics would have undermined the prevailing preconception that white lenders were biased against black applicants, that preconception at least seemed plausible, even if it failed to stand up under closer scrutiny. But the idea that white lenders would also be discriminating against white applicants, and in favor of Asian applicants, lacked even plausibility. What was equally implausible was that black-owned banks were discriminating against black applicants. But in fact black-owned banks turned down black applicants for home mortgage loans at a higher rate than did white-owned banks.4
[1] United States Commission on Civil Rights, Civil Rights and the Mortgage Crisis (Washington: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2009), p. 53.
[2]Ibid. See also page 61; Robert B. Avery and Glenn B. Canner, “New Information Reported under HMDA and Its Application in Fair Lending Enforcement,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, Summer 2005, p. 379; Wilhelmina A. Leigh and Danielle Huff, “African Americans and Homeownership: The Subprime Lending Experience, 1995 to 2007,” Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, November 2007, p. 5.
[3]Jim Wooten, “Answers to Credit Woes are Not in Black and White,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, November 6,2007, p. 12A.
[4]Harold A. Black, M. Cary Collins and Ken B. Cyree, “Do Black-Owned Banks Discriminate Against Black Borrowers?” Journal of Financial Services Research, Vol. 11, Issue 1-2 (February 1997), pp. 189-204. Here, as elsewhere, it should not be assumed that two unexamined samples are equal in the relevant variable& In this case, there is no reason to assume that those blacks who applied to black banks were the same as those blacks who applied to white banks.
Thomas Sowell, Discrimination and Disparities, Revised and Enlarged Edition (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2019), 88-89 (added references).
With Michelle Obama recently railing on White Americans for “white flight” from her Chicago neighborhood as a kid, Larry explains his experience with the same phenomenon growing up in Los Angeles. However, he describes a very different experience with the issue of race relations, and it’s not as black and white as one would think.
BACKGROUND CHECKS
To take an extreme example of Discrimination 1b, for the sake of illustration, if 40 percent of the people in Group X are alcoholics and 1 percent of the people in Group Y are alcoholics, an employer may well prefer to hire only people from Group Y for work where an alcoholic would be not only ineffective but dangerous. This would mean that a majority of the people in Group X — 60 percent in this case — would be denied employment, even though they are not alcoholics.
What matters, crucially, to the employer is the cost of determining which individual is or is not an alcoholic, when job applicants all show up sober on the day when they are seeking employment.
This also matters to the customers who buy the employer’s products and to society as a whole. If alcoholics produce a higher proportion of products that turn out to be defective, that is a cost to customers, and that cost may take different forms. For example, the customer could buy the product and then discover that it is defective. Alternatively, defects in the product might be discovered at the factory and discarded. In this case, the customers will be charged higher prices for the products that are sold, since the costs of defective products that are discovered and discarded at the factory must be covered by the prices charged for the reliable products that pass the screening test and are sold.
To the extent that alcoholics are not only less competent but dangerous, the costs of those dangers are paid by either fellow employees who face those dangers on the job or by customers who buy dangerously defective products, or both. In short, there are serious costs inherent in the situation, so that either 60 percent of the people in Group X or employers or customers— or all three groups— end up paying the costs of the alcoholism of 40 percent of the people in Group X
This is certainly not judging each job applicant as an individual, so it is not Discrimination I in the purest sense of Discrimination Ia. On the other hand, it is also not Discrimination II, in the sense of decisions based on a personal bias or antipathy toward that group. The employer might well have personal friends from Group X, based on far more knowledge of those particular individuals than it is possible to get about job applicants, without prohibitive costs.
The point here is neither to justify nor condemn the employer but to classify different decision-making processes, so that their implications and consequences can be analyzed separately. If judging each person as an individual is Discrimination 1a, we can classify as Discrimination 1b basing decisions about groups on information that is correct for that group, though not necessarily correct for every individual in that group, nor necessarily even correct for a majority of the individuals in that group.
A real-life example of the effect of the cost of knowledge in this context is a study which showed that, despite the reluctance of many employers to hire young black males, because a significant proportion of them have criminal records (Discrimination 1b), those particular employers who automatically did criminal background checks on all their employees (Discrimination 1a) tended to hire more young black males than did other employers.1
In other words, where the nature of the work made criminal background checks worth the cost for all employees, it was no longer necessary to use group information to assess whether individual young black job applicants had a criminal background. This made young black job applicants without a criminal background more employable than before.
More is involved here than simply a question of nomenclature. It has implications for practical policies in the real world. Many observers, hoping to help young black males have more employment opportunities, have advocated prohibiting employers from asking job applicants questions about a criminal record. Moreover, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sued employers who do criminal background checks on job applicants, on grounds that this was racial discrimination, even when it was applied to all job applicants, regardless of race.2Empirically, however, criminal background checks provided more employment opportunities for young black males.
[1] Harry J. Holzer, Steven Raphael, and Michael A. Stoll, “Perceived Criminality, Criminal Background Checks, and the Racial Hiring Practices of Employers,” Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 49, No. 2 (October 2006), pp. 452, 473.
[2] Jason L. Riley, “Jobless Blacks Should Cheer Background Checks,” Wall Street Journal, August 23, 2013, p. All; Paul Sperry, “Background Checks Are Racist?” Investor’s Business Daily, March 28, 2014, p. Al.
Thomas Sowell, Discrimination and Disparities (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2018), 23-25 (added references).
Rich or poor, most people agree that wealth disparities exist. Thomas Sowell discusses the origins and impacts of those wealth disparities in his new book, Discrimination and Disparities in this episode of Uncommon Knowledge.
Sowell explains his issues with the relatively new legal standard of “disparate impact” and how it disregards the American legal principle of “burden of proof.” Sowell and Robinson discuss how economic outcomes vary greatly across individuals and groups and that concepts like “disparate impact” fail to take into account these variations.
They chat about the impact of nuclear families on the IQs of individuals, as studies have not only shown that children raised by two parents tend to have higher levels of intelligence but also that first-born and single children have even higher intelligence levels than those of younger siblings, indicating that the time and attention given by parents to their children greatly impacts the child’s future more than factors like race, environment, or genetics. Sowell talks about his book in which he wrote extensively about National Merit Scholarship finalists who more often than not were the first-born or only child in a family.
Sowell and Robinson go on to discuss historical instances of discrimination and how those instances affected economic and social issues within families, including discrimination created by housing laws in the Bay Area. They discuss unemployment rates, violence, the welfare state in regards to African American communities, and more.
Thomas Sowell discusses how we got into the current economic disaster that developed out of the economics and politics of the housing boom and bust.
This is an older topic that was freshly visited by the Sage of South Central (Larry Elder) because of a caller calling him disingenuous. I edit his segment on it — directly below — and add links to many resources for further study. Enjoy, and please, pass along to Democrat friends and family that have a skewed view of this ~ blaming corporations, banks, or Wall Street.
The line-up of video used in the above Larry Elder audio is as follows:
Here is some of the resources I have previously posted on my site — bringing them to one place for the furtherance of putting liberals in their place.
AEI Scholar Peter J. Wallison Talks Housing Crisis ~ Larry Elder interviews Peter J. Wallison, a lawyer and the Arthur F. Burns Fellow in Financial Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. He specializes in financial markets deregulation.
This is a good montage proving what is being attributed to the Democrats:
The following are very similar in substance (much of the video used at least). However, it is commented on and reordered a bit to make varying points that differ substantially:
This is merely a caller into the Michael Medved explaining succinctly the issue: Best Call of the Week. Likewise, here is a 30-second rebuttal by Larry Elder of the issue on his radio show: A Quick Rebuff to Freddie Fannie Charge. And finally here is Judge Andrew Napolitano’s speaking to the issue:
I hope this helps people settle old conversations.
Thomas Sowell asks three questions of the left with a claim that it is rare that the answers are readily available. This video frames the housing market crash from 2008 and challenges those on both the Right and Left. When a social policy is adopted and becomes a top priority – asking honest questions is the only way of ensuring you remain objective. The radical left today appears to run into difficulty when those same questions are asked. I certainly don’t agree with all of Sowell’s positions on every topic, but the questions are worthy of being asked.
How the democrats caused the financial crisis: starring Bill Clinton’s HUD secretary Andrew Cuomo. From Carter through Obama… banks didn’t want to be seen as racist, and ACORN w/ Obama pushing for more “affirmative action loans,” caused the Housing crisis.
Old news, Democrats will scoff. But if you’re like me and lost the equivalent of years of work in the 2008 meltdown, you might still be interested in who was responsible. The truth is coming to light:
In a just-released book, former FCIC [Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission] member Peter Wallison says that a Democratic Congress worked with the commission’s Democratic chairman to whitewash the government’s central role in the mortgage debacle. The conspiracy helped protect some of the Democrats’ biggest stars from scrutiny and accountability while helping justify the biggest government takeover of the financial sector since the New Deal.
Wallison’s sobering, trenchantly written “Hidden in Plain Sight: What Really Caused the World’s Worst Financial Crisis and Why It Could Happen Again” reveals that the Democrat-led panel buried key data proving that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and other federal agencies pushed the housing market over the subprime cliff. The final FCIC report put the blame squarely on Wall Street.
In 2009, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appointed her California pal Phil Angelides, a long-time Democrat operative, to lead the commission. The fix seemed to be in, and Wallison’s account of the inner workings of the 10-member body confirms it.
See IBD for details on how the phony $10 million probe came up with the predetermined verdict that free enterprise caused the collapse, which in reality was the result of the federal government inflicting Affirmative Action on the mortgage industry.
Happened almost 8 years into George W”s watch after controlling both Houses from 95-07. Hogwash and you know it!
My Response (edited):
…He (Bush and the Republicans) tried multiple times to change the now apparent issue…. 17-times to be exact:
2007 August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)
August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President’s warnings and calls on him to “immediately reconsider his ill-advised” position. (Eric Dash, “Fannie Mae’s Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism,” The New York Times, 8/11/07)
[….]
September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions “why weren’t we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years.” (Dawn Kopecki, “Fannie Mae, Freddie ‘House Of Cards’ Prompts Takeover,” Bloomberg, 9/9/08)
Conservative-Republican ideals ~ [if] allowed to be implemented into law would have stopped this. And as Clinton clearly stated:
And as other video from committee meetings show, the first being Republicans bringing to light the issue:
As well as Democrats BLOCKING legislation that Republicans were trying to impose to stop the failure:
A phlebotomist working at Roseland Community Hospital said Thursday that 30% to 50% of patients tested for the coronavirus have antibodies while only around 10% to 20% of those tested have the active virus.
Sumaya Owaynat, a phlebotomy technician, said she tests between 400 and 600 patients on an average day in the parking lot at Roseland Community Hospital. Drive-thru testing is from 9 a.m. to noon and 1 to 4 p.m. each day. However, the hospital has a limited number of tests they can give per day.
Owaynat said the number of patients coming through the testing center who appear to have already had coronavirus and gotten over it is far greater than those who currently have the disease.
“A lot of people have high antibodies, which means they had the coronavirus but they don’t have it anymore and their bodies built the antibodies,” Owaynat told Chicago City Wire.
Antibodies in the bloodstream reveal that a person has already had the coronavirus and may be immune to contracting the virus again.
If accurate, this means the spread of the virus may have been underway in the Roseland community – and the state and country as a whole – prior to the issuance of stay at home orders and widespread business closures in mid-March which have crippled the national economy….
A hat-tip to an unnamed friend from Facebook who didn’t want to post a DAILY WIRE article on her Facebook for fear of retaliation…
…At a hospital in Chicago, a non-randomized sample found that 30-50% of patients tested for COVID-19 have antibodies in their system, suggesting they already had the virus and have potential immunity.
“A phlebotomist working at Roseland Community Hospital said Thursday that 30% to 50% of patients tested for the coronavirus have antibodies while only around 10% to 20% of those tested have the active virus,” Chicago City Wire reported Thursday.
“Sumaya Owaynat, a phlebotomy technician, said she tests between 400 and 600 patients on an average day in the parking lot at Roseland Community Hospital. Drive-thru testing is from 9 a.m. to noon and 1 to 4 p.m. each day. However, the hospital has a limited number of tests they can give per day,” the report detailed. “Owaynat said the number of patients coming through the testing center who appear to have already had coronavirus and gotten over it is far greater than those who currently have the disease.”
“A lot of people have high antibodies, which means they had the coronavirus but they don’t have it anymore, and their bodies built the antibodies,” Owaynat told Chicago City Wire.
[….]
An antibody test study is reportedly underway in California by researchers at Stanford University.
“Researchers at Stanford Medicine are working to find out what proportion of Californians have already had COVID-19. The new study could help policymakers make more informed decisions during the coronavirus pandemic,” KSBW 8 News reported. “The team tested 3,200 people at three Bay Area locations on Saturday using an antibody test for COVID-19 and expect to release results in the coming weeks.”
This study mentioned at Stanford was brought up in conversation last week by my oldest son, and we are all (as a family) curious if the most vulnerable already had it as my father-in-law was pretty sick a few months back. Here is Victor Davis Hanson speaking to this issue with reference to the Stanford study as well (VDH is part of the Hoover Institution).
This article from PATCH is a bit critical of Hanson, but all-in-all, the common sense factor is there for me. Let me just say I am not convinced by the rejection of something stated without a refutation of the evidences mentioned. Chicago is already disproving Patch’s “expert input,” plus, I do not have to be an evolutionary biologist to critique neo-Darwinian theory, nor a woman to discuss the factual ending of a human life in the womb.
I am a fan, however, of this CLASSIC statement by William F. Buckley:
“I would rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2000 people on the faculty of Harvard University.”
(See also this MERCURY NEWS article on what Stanford has and is doing):
….“When you add it all up it would be naïve to think that California did not have some exposure,” Hanson told KSBW 8.
Stanford researchers took blood samples from approximately 3,200 volunteers in Santa Clara County on Friday and Saturday according to The Stanford Daily.
The test will show whether someone has been infected with the virus, including those who experienced mild or no symptoms, Stanford Associate Professor of Medicine Eran Bendavid told The Stanford Daily.
“It’s hard to stand up in this epidemic and say, ‘Look, we really don’t know if this epidemic is impending Armageddon,'” Bendavid said. “In order to know and reduce that uncertainty, you need numbers.”
Hanson believes the numbers could show that more Californians have been exposed to the virus than was previously known.
“One less-mentioned hypothesis is that California, as a front-line state, may have rather rapidly developed a greater level of herd immunity than other states, given that hints, anecdotes, and some official indications from both China and Italy that, again, the virus may well have been spreading abroad far earlier than the first recorded case in the U.S. —and likely from the coasts inward,” he wrote in a March 31 National Review column.
“So given the state’s unprecedented direct air access to China, and given its large expatriate and tourist Chinese communities, especially in its huge denser metropolitan corridors in Los Angeles and the Bay Area, it could be that what thousands of Californians experienced as an unusually “early” and “bad” flu season might have also reflected an early coronavirus epidemic, suggesting that many more Californians per capita than in other states may have acquired immunity to the virus.”…
…In my home state of Colorado, “Health officials now believe the new coronavirus was circulating in Colorado as early as mid-January, about six weeks before the state even had the ability to test people for the disease.” These individuals, if extremely sick, might test negative for influenza and other known viruses, yet might still have a rough course just as the current COVID-19 patients are experiencing.
Again, if cases were circulating in the U.S. in mid-January, first cases were a month or two earlier, some symptomatic, some asymptomatic, but all below the radar.
Where were these first patients coming from? U.S. Customs and Border Protection reports, “Some 14,000 people flew into the U.S. from China each day — almost 5 million for that year.” Let me repeat, 14,000 people each day.
This was likely higher during the Christmas holidays with American students studying in China, and vice versa, returning home in December, then back to school in January. How many of these young people were asymptomatic carriers, bringing the Wuhan virus to parents, grandparents, and their professors?…
FIRST and FOREMOST, I wish to set up the two audios well, as, I think the articles linked are MUST READS, and they describe the possibility of the post by OLD SCHOOL PATRIOT(Col Allen West, BTW) So, here is the description portion used for both Rush Limbaugh audios:
First, let’s lay up the main story with some earlier observations via the WASHINGTON TIMES:
Coronavirus May Have Originated In Lab Linked To China’s Biowarfare Program (WASHINGTON TIMES, January 26th — follow the two links that say “HERE” — also LINKED BELOW):
Coronavirus Lab Escape Theory Advances (WASHINGTON TIMES, April 8th)
CNN has an interesting story as well regarding some arrests of Harvard University faculty that may be involved in bolstering the lab in Wuhan’s research:
Harvard Professor Among Three Charged With Lying About Chinese Government Ties (CNN, January 28th)
And finally — NATIONAL REVIEW notes an arrest by Border Patrol and detailing of suspicious activity in transporting SARS and MERS in and out of our country:
Border Patrol Stopped a Chinese Biologist Carrying Viable SARS, MERS Viruses at Detroit Airport in 2018 (NATIONAL REVIEW, March 30th)
…It cannot be debated, we have been hit with a massive biological agent. The question is not whether there was intent, but rather the level of intent. Sure, there are such things as coincidences, but in this specific case, nah. The indicators, trends, and warnings all lead to a simple, and reasonable, deduction.
Wuhan to Shanghai = 839 km Wuhan to Beijing = 1,152 km Wuhan to Milan = 8,684 km Wuhan to NY = 12,033 km
The coronavirus started in Wuhan, yet there has been no major effect of Chinese coronavirus in nearby Beijing or Shanghai. Yet, there have been many deaths in Italy, Iran, European countries, and America. All business areas of China are now safe, so declared by the Communist Chinese government.
America is not just blaming China without a reason. The virology lab that does research on bats that carry the coronavirus is in Wuhan. The Chinese Army’s biological research lab is in Wuhan. The university that is connected to the Harvard University biology and chemistry professor who was arrested in January is the Wuhan University of Technology. As for the two doctors who treated the first cases of the Wuhan coronavirus, one is dead, the other is missing.
Even today, India is locked down, yet all the cities of China are open. China has also announced the opening of Wuhan beginning April 8th. Not a single leader in China has tested positive for the deadly coronavirus.
The virus has ruined many economies around the world. Many have had to close their borders in an attempt to contain and control the spread of the coronavirus. Thousands have lost their lives, millions have been exposed to this pestilence, countless people have been locked in their homes, and many countries have placed their citizens on lockdown.
The coronavirus originated in the city of Wuhan in China. We are told its origin is out of a wet market. Yet, these same wet markets remain open. Did someone release one of the lab bats into the local wet market? The Wuhan coronavirus has now reached every corner of the world, but the virus did not have deadly consequences in China’s capital of Beijing nor China’s economic capital of Shanghai, located in close proximity to Wuhan itself.
Or maybe it has and we just do not know about it?…
I found this post compelling due to the odd — to say the least — activity surrounding these viruses and this lab in Wuhan. Fact Checks of the story from January are rushed to a judgement based on incomplete evidence and a theory that it is a bio-weapon, strictly speaking. Here are two article refuting such nonsense (via the January Washington Times article):
Experts Know The New Coronavirus Is Not A Bioweapon. They Disagree On Whether It Could Have Leaked From A Research Lab (BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENCES, March 30th)
The Proximal Origin Of SARS-CoV-2 (JOURNAL NATURE, March 17th)
All this is VERY interesting indeed!
This whole adventure is a key time for Democrats to try and defeat Trump by various means. One being vote by mail and early voting (all harvested of course). Here are some articles about this:
Voting by Mail Is a Terrible Democrat Idea that Invites Fraud (BREITBART)
Voter Fraud Is A Huge Problem In The Democratic Party (LIFESITE NEWS)
Voter Fraud – Guess Who? (RPT) — older post regarding Democrats voting fraudulently – in general
Coronavirus: Arizona Democrats Push for All-Mail Voting in 2020 Election (BREITBART)
Democrats Want To Use The Coronavirus Relief Bill To Seize Control Of Elections (WASHINGTON EXAMINER)
Citing Coronavirus Threat, Texas Democrats Sue To Expand Mail-In Voting (TEXAS TRIBUNE)
Democrats Introduce Bill To Expand Early And By-Mail Voting (HUFFPOST)
ALL THAT BEING SAID, here are the two audios I think are relevant considering the above:
China Back To Normal (Limbaugh Part 1)
Rush Limbaugh notes that the media, some “scientific acolytes,” and political figures seem to want to hurt Trump bad enough that they would root and actively work against our economy. But the reason I am using this audio is also to bolster the idea that it almost seems to be a purposeful manipulation against Europe and the Americas. Not saying this was virus was released purposefully (see PART 2 below), but that if an accident, it seems to be used to benefit China. Not a conspiracy as much as an observation. This description will essentially be the same for Parts 1 and 2…
Rush Refutes MSM’s Conspiracy Charges (Part 2)
A caller floats a plausible theory that segues into a response to the Media (and Democrats and #NeverTrumpers) saying he [the MahaRushdi] said the virus was a Chinese chemical bio-weapon unleashed on the U.S. purposefully. This is a good example of how the media and the “fact checkers” distort reality.
I am updating this post with recent events — the above is “orthodox humor,” the below is of a more serious [secular] matter. (The above is technically MORE serious, as the watering down of the Gospel Message would be more “life-threatening through all eternity.”)
Many churches are offering drive-thru prayer — and one church is even planning a drive-in service with a jumbotron — as congregations are no longer able to meet in person for large gatherings to limit the spread of the coronavirus outbreak.
Troy Brewer, senior pastor of 5,000-member OpenDoor Church in Burleson, Texas, in Fort Worth area, told Fox News the circumstances may hinder their outreach globally but now is the time to focus on the local community.
“We want to love people, bless people, and we want to pray,” Brewer said. “We want to be available to people and serve them.”…
RIGHT SCOOPhas an article detailing how a county in Los Angeles is stopping drive through churches:
…Notice San Bernardino county is banning actions where people actually stay in their cars. The first is a “drive-up” church service, where people stay in their cars as they attend an outdoor church service. The other is “driving parades”, where people just drive by someone’s home in a line and wave in order to celebrate a birthday party or some other kind of event.
Basically, if you go out for any non-essential service, you risk being fined or put in jail! And if you do go out for essential services, you must wear a face covering or, again, risk a fine or jail time.
I’m all about trying to get people to stay at home to halt the spread of the coronavirus. But threatening people with jail time or a huge fine when they are protected in their vehicles or for not wearing a mask is just ridiculous and fascistic. Welcome to the People’s Republic of San Bernardino.
