Larry Elder Dissects Doc Rivers Emotional Comments (+ Hodge Twins)

Los Angeles Clippers Coach, Doc River’s, displayed some major myths as facts, and spreads these lies in emotive ways. Just another day in the neighborhood for The Sage of South Central.

THE HODGE TWINS as well commented on Doc Rivers tears:

 

A Quick Facebook Soirée

This was a statement made on my Facebook by a very left leaning chap that visits this sites FB site here-n-there:

  • Putin’s puppet and lawlessly hacked in puppet tRump who conspired to kill over 180,000 Americans and insulted the U.S. armed forces at calling war heroes losers and suckers as a treasonous POS deserves to suffer the extreme punishment guidelines of U.S. Constitutional law and the extreme punishment guidelines of the U.S. armed forces that tRump betrayed as a way of amusing his pimp Putin.

Here was my response:


RPT RESPONDS


Ahh, where you been Walt? Missed your Lefty take on life.

COVID:

In 1969 the population was 207,659,263. 116,000 Americans died from the Hong Kong Flu (H3N2)… our country did not grind to a halt. We should not have sheltered in place but kept going like Sweden. But the main point is this:

  • According to the latest immunological studies, the overall lethality of Covid-19 (IFR) in the general population ranges between 0.1% and 0.5% in most countries, which is comparable to the medium influenza pandemics of 1957 and 1968. (SWISS POLICY RESEARCH)

In 2019 the U.S. population was roughly 328.24 million.

LOSERS & SUCKERS:

I posted on the Atlantic article here (The Atlantic’s WWI Hit Piece — Anonymously Sourced Of Course). I updated it to show that 10-people have gone on the record to refute the main claim of the Atlantic about WWI. These people were either with the President when this conversation took place, or others were intimately involved with the facts of the case.

RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE:

  • USA Today examined each of the 3,517 Facebook ads bought by the Russian-based Internet Research Agency, the company that employed 12 of the 13 Russians indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for interfering with the 2016 election. It turns out only about 100 of its ads explicitly endorsed Trump or opposed Hillary Clinton. Most of the fake ads focused on racial division, with many of the ads attempting to exploit what Russia perceives, or wants America to perceive, as severe racial tension between blacks and whites…. (LARRY ELDER)

This is why people say the election was not changed by Russian interference. Ted Kennedy (the conscience of the Senate) approached Soviet Russia and asked for help to defeat Reagan. That is still one of the worse cases I have heard to date.

Happy Sunday Walt, RPT

Is “Social-Justice,” Justice?

(**From late 2011) Dennis Prager opines in short about how the Left changes things (in this case, “Justice”) — be hyphenating a word or core value.

“Social Justice” is a term you hear almost every day. But did you ever hear anybody define what it actually means? Jonah Goldberg of the American Enterprise Institute tries to pin this catchall phrase to the wall. In doing so, he exposes the not-so-hidden agenda of those who use it. What sounds so caring and noble turns out to be something very different.

 

Crime Stats via Larry Elder (Updated)

Has there been an epidemic of police killing black people in the United States recently? Does the number of these deaths have anything to do with the crime rate in the black community? And what does the death of George Floyd have to do with white people kneeling recently? Larry Elder takes a closer look at these topics.

This is Larry at his best. He refutes the mantras sprouting up again by the angry Left and the MSM.

After the Ahmaud Arbery shooting, LeBron James said Black people are “literally hunted” every day they go outside. Larry decides to look at the statistics to find out how dangerous it really is for Black people when it comes to violence in the community.

“I don’t know where Ice Cube lives, but he doesn’t live in the hood…” Larry responds to Ice Cube’s Tweet which appears to incite violence toward the police

With the Democratic Party presidential campaigns going full steam, a number of candidates have argued that systemic racism has infected America since its foundation. Larry takes a look at former President Obama and his transition from saying that race wasn’t important to fully embracing identity politics. Larry also looks further into how disadvantaged Black Americans truly are and finds some interesting information.

Systemic Racism in Modern America? Larry Elder makes the case for the exact opposite. Listen to the full segment here.

Larry Interviews Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute.

After a caller leaves a message mentioning the 72-police officers being put on leave for “racist” comments on their social media sites, Larry Elder brings some rational stats into the conversation. Let me also say, all I have read so far is that these offices said some racist, Islamophobic, and disparaging comments. I bet a good amount of these comments were stuff the PC-Police “think” are these things, but are are not. See Larry’s article entitled, “Criminal Behavior, Not Racism, Explains ‘Racial Disparities’ in Crime Stats“.

Larry Elder has predicted this for years! With police officers in the eye of the political correctness storm, these police are obviously protecting themselves by “playing it safe.” What is known as “passive policing.” In the neighborhoods where this is happening, there have been crowds disrupting police arrests, lawsuits threatened, and criminal charges against police have been promised. So rather than endure a career ending move, they are circling the wagons. Rightly so.

This consequence is WHOLLY lain at the feet of Democrats. 100%

  • “The real racial bias: Cops more willing to shoot whites than blacks, research finds” (WASHINGTON TIMES)

Here are the first couple segments of Larry’s show… where he uses stats and facts (from the newest study as well in the NYTS ARTICLE by the Harvard economist to LAY-DOWN-THE-LAW about blacks being shot by officers. Enjoy!

An interesting article can be found here on the shooting by the Saint Anthony, MN, Police Office (AMERICAN SPECTATOR)

Here is LARRY ELDER setting the record straight with stats:

Let’s start with 2014, the last year for which there are official records. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the police killed 261 whites and 131 blacks. The CDC also found that from 1999 to 2013, the police killed almost twice the number of whites compared to blacks, 3,160 and 1,724, respectively.

Activists promptly note that whites account for nearly 65 percent of the population and that, therefore, one would expect whites to comprise most of those killed by cops. And we are told that blacks, while 13 percent of the population, represent a much greater percentage of those killed by cops. Institutional, systemic, structural racism!

Here’s what those promoting the “police disproportionately kill black people” narrative consistently omit. Whites, despite being almost 65 percent of the population, disproportionately commit less of the nation’s violent crime – 10 percent. Blacks, at 13 percent of the population, disproportionately commit more violent crime. As to murders, black commit nearly half. Yet whites are 50 percent of cop killings.

Criminology professor Peter Moskos looked at the numbers of those killed by officers from May 2013 to April 2015 and found that 49 percent were white, while 30 percent were black. “Adjusted for the homicide rate,” says Moskos, “whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.” So if anything, whites have more to complain about than Mr. Williams….

(Read more at WND’s article by LARRY ELDER)

Crowder Takes John Oliver’s Police Video To The Tool Shed

Steven addresses John Oliver’s latest anti-police tirade, demonstrating the #BlackLivesMatter narrative simply doesn’t line up with the facts.

Are They Or Aren’t They Protesting the Flag?

Since the death of George Floyd, athletes and activists have been saying that Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling protests were misunderstood and that they were never about the American flag. However, Kaepernick’s reasoning back when he first took a knee in 2016 say otherwise. Join MRCTV’s Nick Kangadis for a new edition of Out Of Left Field where he’ll remind everyone that his protest was, at least in part, about the American flag for Kaepernick. If you’re sick of being talked down to like you don’t understand what’s going on, Kangadis dishes out a little common sense, reason and logic that are typically non-existent when people become too self-righteous about a cause.

An Empty Attack On Faith: “Scientists Read More”

I was cruisin, the WWW (in this case, a group on Facebook)… and I came across this “blurb (picture to the right). Now, I do not post this to “brag,” but I post this as a confirmed bibliophile and someone who plans on an eternity of learning truth.

Here is a blurb from my bio:

I have interests, and most of them pertain to reading and learning as a hobby.  My home library is well over 5,000 books (politics, religions, philosophy, economics, environment, history, origins, apologetics, etc… all non-fiction stuff my wife h-a-t-e-s), and about 600 DVDs dealing with much of the same (a lot of formal debates are in this collection). (A partial tour is in the video below [low-rez 2005].)

  • This is a recovery from my Vimeo account and was made with a low-rez camera in 2005 as a package to help my admission into a seminary. One day I will run through my library with the high resolution of today. One day.

I also want to note that while I am posting pics just on two sections of my library, this is repeated in all my categories — like: history, philosophy, world religions, cults, occult, apologetics, politics, civics, current affairs, economics, etc., etc. This first example is of Islam, a sliver of my world religious section (you can click to enlarge if so inclined):




And this is my section related to the reason to this post… note that many works in the collection are textbooks and/or works countering creation and Intelligent design or books by evolutionists on various subject within said paradigm. And yes, that is a pallet of books to the right of my packed-up portion of my library:

— these are two rows of books deep on most shelves —


BOOKS


Here are some of the shelves and books of this section of my library from the picture above (take note as well that I own many of the often quoted and used National Geographic, Nature Journal, Scientific American, and other magazines/journals):













Also, here is some of the atheist/theist debates, creationist/evolutionist debates, etc in DVD:


DVDs






 

Trump Acted Quickley On Coronavirus (TIMELINES PART DEUX)

A friend – in response to a challenge, posted multiple stories about Trump’s response to the Coronavirus to my single post detailing the timeline of the Trump admins response here: Trump Acted Quickley On Coronavirus (TIMELINES)

This was his firing away as if to make a point:

JIM

  • 10 times Trump and his administration were warned about coronavirus (AXIOS)
  • Trump’s daily briefings warned about COVID-19 at least a dozen times before the US outbreak, but he ‘failed to register’ the threat (BUSINESS INSIDER)
  • Trump was warned in January of Covid-19’s devastating impact, memos reveal (THE GUARDIAN)
  • Trump Was Warned About Virus Threat In More Than A Dozen Intelligence Reports In January, February (KAIESER HEALTH NEWS)
  • Trump Received Intelligence Briefings On Coronavirus Twice In January (NPR)
  • Trump Aide Warned Early on of Deadly US Coronavirus Outbreak (VOA NEWS)

(The italicized articles are completely debunked by information below – the others are highly questionable, the ones that have unnamed sources that is, and other portions of them are called into question by the timeline below.)

Besides the obvious question of, “which Western leader do you look to as a shining example of reacting in January to the crisis?” I could have easily responded to these papers who spread stories from a single anonymous source as if they are all different stories based on different [again, unnamed] sources, which, their practice of has undone almost all their stories [one example, another, and another] on the Russian Collusion Hoax, like this,

  • Memory Hole: What the Media Wants You to Forget About Their Biased Coronavirus Coverage (PJ-MEDIA)
  • The Media’s Top Lies and Spins About COVID-19 (REAL CLEAR POLITICS)
  • The Top 10 Lies About President Trump’s Response to the Coronavirus (PJ-MEDIA)
  • The China Virus Pandemic: COVID-19 Response and Recovery (PATRIOT POST)
  • Pollak: Democrats Pushed Impeachment While Coronavirus Spread (BREITBART)
  • China hid extent of coronavirus outbreak, US intelligence reportedly says (CNBC)
  • China deliberately hid coronavirus, admonished whistleblowers (WASHINTON TIMES)
  • Fauci points to China for late realization coronavirus was his ‘worst nightmare’ (WASHINGTON EXAMINER)
  • China admits to destroying coronavirus samples, insists it was for safety (NY POST)
  • China confirms US accusations that it destroyed early samples of the novel coronavirus, but says it was done for ‘biosafety reasons’ (BUSINESS INSIDER)
  • China pressured WHO to delay global coronavirus warning: report (NY POST)
  • China’s president Xi Jinping ‘personally asked WHO to hold back information about human-to-human transmission and delayed the global response by four to six WEEKS’ at the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, bombshell report claims (THE DAILY MAIL)

MY OWN SITE:

However, this does nothing to prove or disprove a point. So, I merely went to the first point made in his first linked article at AXIOS, quoting the NYTs:

AXIOS:

On Jan. 18, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar first briefed Trump on the threat of the virus in a phone call, the New York Times reports. Trump made his first public comments about the virus on Jan. 22, saying he was not concerned about a pandemic and that “we have it totally under control.”

NEW YORK TIMES:

Even after Mr. Azar first briefed him about the potential seriousness of the virus during a phone call on Jan. 18 while the president was at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Mr. Trump projected confidence that it would be a passing problem.

“We have it totally under control,” he told an interviewer a few days later while attending the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. “It’s going to be just fine.”

(NEW YORK TIMES)

Now, much like the Left’s favorite thing to do, they take Trump out of context and use this false context to create a straw man and then bludgeon it. Why did Trump say it was going to be fine? Because, according to the WALL STREET JOURNAL, Alex Azar “oversold his agency’s progress in the early days and didn’t coordinate effectively across the health-care divisions under his purview.” Trump could only report what Alex told him on the 18th.

But this January 18th discussion is not proven to have even taken place, all we have again are unnamed sources: Azar told several associates that Trump thought his warnings were ‘alarmist’, according to The Washington Post” (DAILY MAIL). And again, NEWSMAX discusses that WALL STREET JOURNAL article, saying:

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar waited weeks to brief President Donald Trump on the coronavirus threat and oversold the progress of developing an effective test for the virus, The Wall Street Journal is reporting.

The newspaper said that as of Jan. 29, Azar had assured Trump the coronavirus outbreak was under control. And during the meeting with Trump, Azar said the government had never mounted a better interagency response to a crisis.

But that isn’t the only story to the story. I do not think this even reported by anonymous sources actually happened. The same people that wrongly reported using anonymous sources are now the same people using anonymous sources.

News media figures advancing “Trump-Russia collusion” narratives are now spreading misinformation about President Donald Trump and the coronavirus outbreak as part of a “permanent coup,” […..]

The Washington Post, citing anonymous sources, recently alleged that Trump was issued repeated warnings about the coronavirus through a dozen classified daily briefings between January and February.

“An article in the Washington Post … said that in [his] presidential daily briefings, Trump repeatedly ignored warnings of the coronavirus,” Smith recalled. Acting DNI Richard Grenell tweeted at the authors of this piece. [He] said. ‘That’s not true. We told you this is not true, and yet you only included our denial in the ninth paragraph.’”

Smith continued, “So these two Washington Post journalists were a core Russiagate conspiracy team. Again, unfortunately, we’re seeing the same thing unfold again and again, and that’s why the title of the book is The Permanent Coup.”

(BREITBART)

And the LEGAL INSURRECTION does a bang-up job on the same subject:

According to the Washington Post, the president’s classified daily briefings included “warnings about the novel coronavirus in more than a dozen classified briefings prepared for President Trump in January and February, months during which he continued to play down the threat.”

The unnamed sources were foregrounded, while an actual named source refuting the claim was not mentioned until paragraph eight:

A White House spokesman disputed the characterization that Trump was slow to respond to the virus threat. “President Trump rose to fight this crisis head-on by taking early, aggressive historic action to protect the health, wealth and well-being of the American people,” said spokesman Hogan Gidley. “We will get through this difficult time and defeat this virus because of his decisive leadership.”

As if that’s not bad enough, it’s only in the ninth paragraph that WaPo gets around to noting that the suggestion the president ignored his presidential daily briefing (PDB) has been denied by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the office responsible for the PDB.

  • The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is responsible for the PDB. In response to questions about the repeated mentions of coronavirus, a DNI official said, “The detail of this is not true.” The official declined to explain or elaborate.

So WaPo contacted the DNI about claims the president ignored Wuhan coronavirus warnings in Jan/Feb PDB’s, and the DNI responded that the “detail of this is not true.” What do they need to explain here?  Maybe WaPo needs to provide its list of questions so that we can make that determination ourselves?  I’m pretty sure the context would greatly improve our understanding of the DNI responseand undermine the WaPo smear, thus the absence of said context.

It’s not actually clear what the point of the WaPo article is except to smear the president with the false implication that his administration ignored the Wuhan coronavirus until March.  This smear is completely and demonstrably false.

Of course, the mindless, anti-Trump stenographers who make up the legacy and leftstream media “covered” the questionable story, all linking to this flimsy WaPo hit piece that provides no evidence to support—and that actually refutes—its own claim.

  • Business Insider: “Trump’s daily briefings warned about COVID-19 at least a dozen times before the US outbreak, but he ‘failed to register’ the threat”
  • CNN: “The intelligence community did its job, but Trump didn’t do his”
  • MSN: “Trump reportedly ignored intel briefings on coronavirus threat”
  • NYMag: “Trump Informed of Coronavirus Threat in January in Briefings He’s Known Not to Read: Report”
  • CNN (again): “Washington Post: US intelligence warned Trump in January and February as he dismissed coronavirus threat”

Setting aside for the moment the fact that a global pandemic of this sort is new to everyone in the world and that no one, including top virologists, has answers, keep in mind that the first U.S. death from Wuhan coronavirus was reported on February 29th in Seattle.

What was Trump doing about the Wuhan coronavirus in January and February when he was supposedly ignoring the potential crisis?

Oh, right, setting up a coronavirus task force and issuing travel restrictions on China, well before the first U.S. death occurred.  How did he know to take these actions if he was ignoring his daily briefings?  Weird, right?

(READ THE REST – EXCELLENT POSTit includes a timeline as well)

Mollie Hemingway says it best:

Hemingway began by noting that the “Russia narrative” predates the Mueller probe, having begun circulating during the 2016 election after the creation of the infamous Clinton campaign-funded Steele dossier, which pushed the theory that then-Republican candidate Donald Trump was a “Russian agent.”

“We have, for the last three years … frequently [witnessed] hysteria about treasonous collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election,” Hemingway told the panel. “The fact [is] that there are no more indictments coming and the fact [is] that all of the indictments that we’ve seen thus far have been for process crimes or things unrelated to what we were told by so many people in the media was ‘treasonous collusion’ to steal the 2016 election.”

“If there is nothing there that matches what we’ve heard from the media for many years, there needs to be a reckoning and the people who spread this theory both inside and outside the government who were not critical and who did not behave appropriately need to be held accountable,” she added.

THE FEDERALIST has a printing of the HHS timeline for January that shows that the propositions made by these Leftist newspapers are not revealing the whole timeline to their readers:

The Wall Street Journal should do a lot better; they asked Azar for the truth. He gave it to them. They chose not to report it. For those who want to know, here is HHS’s offical timeline of what happened in January:

December 31: CDC, including Director Robert Redfield, learns of a “cluster of 27 cases of pneumonia of unknown etiology” reported in Wuhan, China.
January 1: CDC begins developing situation reports, which are shared with HHS.
January 3: Director Redfield emails and speaks on the phone with Dr. George Gao, Director of the China Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
January 3: Director Redfield speaks with Secretary Azar, and HHS notifies the National Security Council (NSC).
January 4: Director Redfield emails Dr. Gao again and offers CDC assistance, stating, “I would like to offer CDC technical experts in laboratory and epidemiology of respiratory infectious diseases to assist you and China CDC in identification of this unknown and possibly novel pathogen.”
January 6: At the request of Secretary Azar, Director Redfield sends formal letter to China CDC offering full CDC assistance.
January 6: CDC issues a Level 1 Travel Watch for China.
January 6: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Anthony Fauci begins doing interviews on the outbreak.
January 7: CDC establishes a 2019 nCoV Incident Management Structure to prepare for potential U.S. cases and to support the investigation in China or other countries, if requested.
January 8: CDC distributes an advisory via the Health Alert Network, which communicates to state and local public health partners, alerting healthcare workers and public health partners of the outbreak.
January 9: CDC and FDA begin collaborating on a diagnostic test for the novel coronavirus.
January 10: China shares viral sequence, allowing NIH scientists to begin work on a vaccine that evening.

JANUARY 11: FIRST DEATH REPORTED IN CHINA
JANUARY 13: 41 CASES IN CHINA, FIRST CASE REPORTED OUTSIDE CHINA

January 13: NIH shares their vaccine sequence with a pharmaceutical manufacturer.
January 14: The National Security Council begins daily Novel Coronavirus Policy Coordination Council meetings.
January 14: WHO tweets: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.”
January 17: CDC and Customs and Border Protection began enhanced screening of travelers from Wuhan at three airports that receive significant numbers of travelers from that city, expanded in the following week to five airports, covering 75–80 percent of Wuhan travel.
January 17: CDC hosts its first tele-briefing on the virus, with Dr. Nancy Messonnier, Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, who emphasizes “this is a serious situation” and “we know [from the experience of SARS and MERS that] it’s crucial to be proactive and prepared.”
January 17: CDC posts interim guidance, updated regularly in the coming weeks and months, for collecting, handling, and testing clinical specimens for the novel coronavirus, includingbiosafety guidelines for laboratories.
January 18: CDC publishes interim guidance on how to care for novel coronavirus patients at home who do not require hospitalization.
January 20: The Chinese government confirms human-to-human transmission of the virus.

JANUARY 21: FIRST U.S. CASE CONFIRMED (FROM TRAVEL)[1]

January 21: CDC activates its Emergency Operations Center.
January 21: The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA, part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, or ASPR) begins holding market research calls with industry leading diagnostics companies to gauge their interest in developing diagnostics for the novel coronavirus and to encourage initiating development activities.
January 21: CDC holds its second tele-briefing on the virus, with officials from Washington State, to discuss the first U.S. case, and Dr. Messonnier, who notes “CDC has been proactively preparing for an introduction of the virus here” and that a CDC team was deployed to Washington.
January 21: CDC posts interim guidance, updated regularly in the coming months, on how to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus in homes and other settings.
January 21: Secretary Azar discusses coronavirus with Lou Dobbs on Fox Business Network, noting “we have been heavily engaged at the outset” of the outbreak, with the CDC and the rest of HHS working under the President’s direction to develop testing and alert healthcare providers.
January 22: Secretary Azar signs a memorandum from CDC Director Redfield determining that the novel coronavirus could imminently become an infectious disease emergency, which allows HHS to send a request to the Office of Management and Budget to access $105 million from the Infectious Disease Rapid Response Reserve Fund.
January 22: FDA, working with test developers, shares an authorization application template with a diagnostic test developer for the first time.
January 22: ASPR stands up an interagency diagnostics working group with BARDA, CDC, FDA, NIH, and the Department of Defense (DOD).
January 22: HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement began flagging any children referred from China for risk assessments and, if indicated by their travel and exposure history, for quarantine for up to 14 days before being placed in the general community of the shelter. Screenings expanded to children referred from Iran, Italy, Japan and South Korea on March 2.

JANUARY 22: ALL OUTBOUND TRAINS AND FLIGHTS FROM WUHAN CANCELED

January 23: ASPR convenes a Disaster Leadership Group (DLG), to align government-wide partners regarding the outbreak situation, communications strategies, and the potential medical countermeasure pipeline. The same week, conversations begin with manufacturers of N95 masks, enabling mask production on U.S. soil to rise from about 250 million a year in January to about 640 million a year in March.
January 24: ASPR forms three government-wide task forces—on healthcare system capacity and resilience, development of medical countermeasures (diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines), and supply chains—as part of work under Emergency Support Function 8 of the National Response Framework.
January 24: CDC hosts its third tele-briefing on the virus, with Dr. Nancy Messonnier and officials from Illinois, where CDC has deployed a team to respond to the second U.S. case, from travel. Dr. Messonnier notes, “We are expecting more cases in the U.S., and we are likely going to see some cases among close contacts of travelers and human to human transmission.”
January 24: CDC publicly posts its assay for the novel coronavirus, allowing the global community to develop their own assays using the CDC design.
January 25: Five days before WHO’s declaration of a public health emergency of international concern, Secretary Azar preemptively notifies Congress of his intent to use $105 million from the Infectious Disease Rapid Response Reserve Fund.

JANUARY 26: FIVE U.S. CASES CONFIRMED, ALL TRAVEL-RELATED

January 26: ASPR holds first meetings of healthcare resilience, medical countermeasure development, and supply chain task forces, which continue several times a week or daily in the coming weeks.
January 27: In a Washington, D.C., speech, Secretary Azar shares that HHS is “proactively preparing for the arrival of the novel coronavirus on our shores,” noting that “the novel coronavirus is a rapidly changing situation, and we are still learning about the virus.” “While the virus poses a serious public health threat, the immediate risk to Americans is low at this time,” Azar says, noting that he spoke on the morning of January 27 with China’s Minister of Health and WHO Director-General Tedros speak to discuss the novel coronavirus.
January 27: CDC hosts a tele-briefing with Dr. Nancy Messonnier, who notes that new travel recommendations are coming and that “there may be some disruptions” to Americans’ lives as a result of the public health response, but that “this virus is not spreading in the community” in the U.S.
January 27: CDC and State Department issue Level 3 “postpone or reconsider travel” warnings for all of China.
January 27: FDA begins providing updates about processes for approval and authorization to developers of vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and other countermeasures for the novel coronavirus.
January 27: CDC’s Deputy Director for Infectious Diseases, Jay Butler, holds a call with the nation’s governors on the novel coronavirus.
January 28: HHS hosts press briefing by Secretary Azar, Dr. Fauci, Director Redfield, and Dr. Messonnier. Azar says, “Americans should know that this is a potentially very serious public health threat, but, at this point, Americans should not worry for their own safety.” He underscores, “This is a very fast moving, constantly changing situation…. Part of the risk we face right now is that we don’t yet know everything we need to know about this virus. But, I want to emphasize, that does not prevent us from preparing and responding.”
January 28: CDC posts interim guidance, updated regularly in the coming months, for airline crews regarding the novel coronavirus.
January 29: The White House announces the establishment of the Coronavirus Task Force, which begins daily meetings.
January 29: CDC hosts a tele-briefing with Dr. Messonnier, who notes that “despite an aggressive public health investigation to find new cases [in the U.S.], we have not.”
January 29: CDC posts infection prevention and control recommendations for novel coronavirus patients in healthcare settings, updated regularly in the coming months.
January 29: The Chinese government sends email to HHS acknowledging offer of U.S. expert assistance; HHS begins soliciting nominees for mission from across the department.
January 29: ASPR, CDC, FDA, NIAID, and DOD host a listening session with industry—1,468 participants—on medical countermeasure development, health system preparedness, supply resilience, and medical surge needs.
January 29: The first repatriation flight from Wuhan, China arrives at March Air Reserve Base in California, beginning the safe repatriation of Americans and marking the first use of federal quarantine power in more than 50 years. The operation eventually totals more than 3,000 repatriations, with citizens from Wuhan and passengers from cruise ships. Repatriated Americans praise the work of the quarantine teams—including a couple who spent an extended honeymoon at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas.

JANUARY 30: SIXTH AND SEVENTH CASES CONFIRMED IN THE U.S., CLOSE CONTACTS OF TRAVEL-RELATED CASE

January 30: CDC hosts a tele-briefing with Director Redfield, Dr. Messonnier, and officials from Illinois, where a sixth case is identified, in a spouse of a confirmed case who had traveled to China. Director Redfield notes that most cases around the world outside of China are close contacts of travelers, and “the full picture of how easy and how sustainable this virus can spread is unclear.” (A seventh case is identified later that evening.)
January 30: Department of State issues Level 4 warning, “do not travel,” for all of mainland China.
January 30: The Trump Administration hosts a call with Secretary Azar, Director Redfield, Dr. Fauci, and others with the nation’s governors to present the Administration’s action plan on responding to the outbreak.
January 30: In an appearance on Fox News, Secretary Azar notes that, whether the WHO declares a public health emergency of international concern (declared January 31), “That doesn’t change anything about what we are doing here in the United States.The President is ensuring that we are proactively preparing and also taking the necessary steps to prevent or mitigate any potential further spread here in the United States.”
January 30: Trump Administration budget officials begin discussions about funding needed for development of vaccines and therapeutics, purchases of Personal Protective Equipment for the Strategic National Stockpile, surveillance and testing, and state and local support.
January 30: ASPR launches a coronavirus portal to receive market research packages and meeting requests from industry stakeholders interested in developing or manufacturing medical countermeasures.
January 31: At the recommendation of his public health officials, President Trump issues historic restrictions on travel from Hubei and mainland China, effective February 2.
January 31: Secretary Azar signs a declaration of a nationwide Public Health Emergency, which allowed HHS to begin using a range of emergency authorities and flexibilities, and, together with other subsequent declarations, would allow emergency flexibilities for healthcare providers. At a White House briefing, he notes, “The risk of infection for Americans remains low, and with these and our previous actions, we are working to keep the risk low. It is likely that we will continue to see more cases in the United States in the coming days and weeks, including some limited person-to-person transmission.”
January 31: CDC hosts a tele-briefing with Dr. Messonnier, who notes possible reports of asymptomatic transmission and says, “We are preparing as if this were the next pandemic, but we are hopeful still that this is not and will not be the case.”
January 31: FDA holds a virtual meeting with American Clinical Laboratory Association about the emergency use authorization application process.

Yes, Trump acted as soon as the news of the virus was available. And as we know from the results, stringency of lockdowns did not translate into how many deadly infections there were:

(Click Graphic To Enlarge)


While not a gauge of whether the decisions taken were the right ones, nor of how strictly they were followed, the analysis gives a clear sense of each government’s strategy for containing the virus. Some — above all Italy and Spain — enforced prolonged and strict lockdowns after infections took off. Others — especially Sweden — preferred a much more relaxed approach. Portugal and Greece chose to close down while cases were relatively low. France and the U.K. took longer before deciding to impose the most restrictive measures.

But, as our next chart shows, there’s little correlation between the severity of a nation’s restrictions and whether it managed to curb excess fatalities — a measure that looks at the overall number of deaths compared with normal trends.

(BLOOMBERG)

Did Trump Fire Dr. Rick Bright Over Hydroxychloroquine?

Here is a good intro that gives a “front-story” to Ami’s video by NEWSBUSTERS:

  • On Wednesday, the liberal media lit up with the new anti-Trump narrative about Dr. Rick Bright, who claimed without evidence that he was fired from his HHS position for opposing the use of hydroxychloroquine, the anti-malaria drug President Trump had touted as a possible treatment for the Chinese coronavirus. 

NEWSBUSTERS continues with their dissecting of the latest “scandal” of Trump’s:

But new reporting from Politico (not a right-wing outlet) found officials had been looking to fire him for incompetence for about a year, and he had praised the drug himself.

[….]

Meanwhile, Politico reporter Dan Diamond did actual research into Dr. Bright and what he found debunked the allegations. According to his reporting, Bright had praised the HHS’s acquisition of large quantities of the drug, and suggested it was a boon to the department [I added more from the Politico story than Newsbusters had]:

Bright told The New York Times on Wednesday that he believed his removal was because of his internal opposition to pursuing investments in malaria drugs as potential treatments for Covid-19, which President Donald Trump has touted without scientific evidence. Three people with knowledge of HHS’ recent acquisition of tens of millions of doses of those drugs said that Bright had supported those acquisitions in internal communications, with one official saying that Bright praised the move as a win for the health department as part of an email exchange that was first reported by Reuters last week, although Bright’s message was not publicly reported.

“If Bright opposed hydroxychloroquine, he certainly didn’t make that clear from his email — quite the opposite,” said the official, who has seen copies of the email exchanges.

In a statement late Wednesday, an HHS official directly linked Bright’s decisions to the health department’s acquisition of the malaria drugs.

“As it relates to chloroquine, it was Dr. Bright who requested an Emergency Use Authorization from the Food and Drug Administration for donations of chloroquine that Bayer and Sandoz recently made to the Strategic National Stockpile for use on COVID-19 patients,” spokesperson Caitlin Oakley said. “The EUA is what made the donated product available for use in combating COVID-19.”

In addition, Diamond took to Twitter to share photographic evidence that Bright was being looked at for removal as early as last year. In the tweet, Diamond showed a timestamped text message exchange from January 2 proving people understood Bright was on the way out because of his “incompetence and insubordination.”

Definitely, not the narrative the networks wanted to go with against Trump….

RIGHT SCOOP notes after reproducing the above the following addition:

Here’s one last tidbit that you should know about Bright

The doctor who claimed he was demoted after raising concerns about hydroxychloroquine hired the attorneys who represented Dr. Christine Blasey Ford during Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Dr. Rick Bright, who was the head of the Health and Human Services agency tasked with creating a coronavirus vaccine, claimed he was fired after raising concerns about the anti-malaria drug touted by President Trump as a potential treatment for the coronavirus. After his demotion, Bright linked up with the law firm Katz, Marshall & Banks, the same firm that represented Blasey Ford.

Attorneys Debra Katz and Lisa Banks have deep ties to high-ranking members of the Democratic Party. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein recommended the two to Blasey Ford after she came forward with allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh during his Senate confirmation hearing.

The two attorneys have also hosted fundraisers for Democratic members of Congress, including a dinner for Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin.

Well if that doesn’t make his story smell even more like a rat

Profiting From Fear?

What really tans my hide about the CDC announcement that it is IN FACT NOT EASY to contract the Wu Flu from surfaces (HEAVY) is that there is an automatic acceptance that their proclamations are at the heart, noble. As if scientists and organizations cannot be swayed by money, special interests, or by some internal biases. When Trump was mentioning hydroxychloroquine in his pressers, the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN and the like chased down Trump’s financials and said he had stock in a company that makes the product – ERGO Trump was mentioning it to get rich (HUFFPO).

No “best interest” afforded to the President of these United States. Just to weasels like Fauci.

Trump was one of many people in a 401K type mutual fund where many money markets, stocks, bonds, etc. are invested into – just like my own 401K plan I have. Trump was found to own (along with the 1,000’s of people in that mutual fund, $150 in a company that makes Hydroxychloroquine. This company makes many other medical supplies, and, since Hydroxychloroquine is not patented any longer due to the age of the medicine — and anyone can make the product… there was no profit involved in his touting Hydroxychloroquine. (BREITBART)

  • Trump owns between $29 and $435 worth of Sanofi stock. (CERNO)

This did not matter however. Any chance to smear the President is an opportunity the MSM cannot pass up.

Which got me thinking. Maybe the Washington Post and the New York Times, and NPR, CNN, and the like will scour the decision makers at the CDC to see if any of them have financial ties to makers of disinfectant companies like Clorox? Since Hydroxychloroquine is not a product that can be patented, maybe some overturning of evidence to see if those at the CDC have financial ties to products like Remdesivir, since a single company can copy write that product and hold patent power over it.

The WASHINGTON TIMES notes this:

Anthony Fauci, America’s most-listened-to medical professional on the coronavirus, and apparently on all the political, economic, cultural and social precautions every man, woman and child in the nation should take on the coronavirus, has just warned what cooler-head coronavirus watchers have suspected all along: that this country may never, no never, go back to normal.

Never, that is, Fauci suggested, until a vaccine is developed. And by logical extension, that’s to say — never, until a vaccine is developed that must then be included on the required list of shots for all children to attend school.

What great news for Big Pharma….

No “BREAKING NEWS!” stories about financial ties by persons like Fuaci??? No… I suspect not. UNLESS, it could hurt Trump. Then the Democrats and CNN peeps would be all over it.

Inject Disinfectant? Really?

I added a conversation to this post that was started due to my posting this on my sites FACEBOOK. I have a VERY LONG introduction to the actual conversation. So if you plan to read it be ready to “dig-in.”

...GO TO...

You can jump to the sections:

It really worries me that people think that Trump mentioned ingesting or injecting in any way or form — over the counter disinfectants. But this is the state of affairs in our country, unfortunately. Granted, Trump is not the best orator, but CONTEXT IS KING. I understand that due-diligence is required to discover Trump’s context, but, too many people wait for far-Left comedians to do it for them (or far-Left pundits). Invariably, these sources hide the context to make their far-Left audience laugh in order to make the corporations they are paid by, money.

The information below is married to my Facebook video (a 1-minute and 50-seconds long video – I will post my YouTube video below)… it is important because this is the part where Trump mentioned patients getting medical expertise for any such procedure, as well as the *UV light cleaning the lungs (part of the CONTEXT missing from late-night comedians and MSNBC, CNN, NPR, the New York Times, The Washington Post, etc):

The HEALIGHT (which has been banned from the internet because “Orange Man Bad” — NOQ REPORT) was mentioned by President Trump… You see, the President and his people probably got inundated with companies contacting them with technology they have been working on to combat such viruses. 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 President’s people have probably been brainstorming on all this stuff.

Here are two posts of mine discussing these issues:

MORE CONTEXT

Moments after the President mentioned disinfectants, ABC News’ Jonathan Karl asked Bryan, “The president mentioned the idea of a cleaner, bleach and isopropyl alcohol emerging. There’s no scenario where that could be injected into a person, is there?”

He responded: “No, I’m here to talk about the finds that we had in the study. We don’t do that within that lab at our labs.”

The president then added:

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 effect

if it’s on a stationary object.”

QUESTION: Have you seen ANY mainstream media company or late-night comedian mention this portion of the same speech?

People prefer to be told what to think… I am convinced of this more and more everyday.

One of my favorite cousins (by marriage) opined well about his frustrations regarding the whole issue – after posting the earlier version of this on my site’s FACEBOOK:

Oh man, I have had to give some variation of your exact explanation to people who were over reacting to this. Ultimately I left all of those conversations with an ultimatum. Either you are severely lacking in critical thinking skills, which if you went through the public education system is no fault of your own, OR you are doing something to emotionally make yourself feel better at the expense of your intellectual honesty which is it?

Yep . . . .

POISON CONTROL

Not only this, but the media even spread another malicious lie about a spike of calls to Poison Control because of Trump’s remarks. No. I have been trying to find Clorox, Lysol, Handi Wipes, and other disinfectants in the store for almost 2-months. They have been completely out (I am sure most Americans share my frustration). And since this so-called “spike” happened before Trump’s remarks, it just makes sense that because of increased usage comes increased fears of misuse. Dumb. But people believed it (or still do). Here are two articles/posts on the issue I recommend to the brain dead:

  • The media is lying about increased emergency calls about drinking bleach in order to blame Trump (RIGHT SCOOP)
  • No, Poison Control Calls Aren’t Suddenly Spiking After Trump’s Disinfectant Comments: Calls to U.S. poison control centers are up. They have been since March (REASON.COM)

I will end with Larry Elder spending almost 14-minutes playing related audio and discussing the issue.


INTRODUCTION TO CONVO


The below is a conversation at the Facebook version of the above. It is with a guy I love and dig very much. But as you can see, he allows — maybe… just maybe — a visceral dislike for Trump to guide his thinking. You will see that I note that it takes digging to at times to see what Trump is saying, but to just say he is saying “a” [accusing someone] when in fact he said “b” is not the best road for him, or anyone. I sympathize with how Trump may be thinking one thing and then put to words a less than full picture of what he has in his mind. Any married couple can sympathize with this disease. And I wish we had a good communicator in office… but we don’t. And this has allowed those who dislike him have an easy time with taking him out of context and using this for political hit jobs. The Leftist media, the Leftist voter, the #NeverTrumper.

BTW, a lot of people may not know but up until a month-and-a-half before the 2016 election, I was a #NeverTrump guy. I was — at the time — hoping David French would hop in. I wrote two pieces regarding Trump and my decision to vote for him, and close down my “anti-Trump” site: The Constitutional Federalists of America (CFA). One was this:

I start out thus:

An open letter to friends and those I respect… depravity vs. permanence.

I feel I have to write this as an open letter to my Christian friends who do not want to vote for Trump based on a sense of loyalty to their Christian convictions. I wish to thank a friend (Shane H.) for aligning this last piece of the puzzle for me. I wish to thank as well Dennis Prager for challenging my position on this as well.

We have – essentially – a choice between two candidates. I would have considered voting for the Libertarian party if their candidate was not wanting to use the state to jail and fine people for not baking cakes or taking photographs of same-sex weddings. He even said on stage that he would use the power of the state to force a Jewish baker to bake a cake for a Nazi type celebration. He is an open borders guy – just publicly, not secretly like Hillary, and he has more in common with Bernie Sanders than any of the other candidates. In other words, an anti-Libertarian is leading the Libertarian Party to a record win for them in this election. Nightmare!

Hindsight of-course is 20/20. No other candidate could have won the “Rust-Belt,” nor taken the heat from the Left which has been solidifying the media since Goldwater; nor would we have judges of the caliber we have had put into offices across this nation.

My second post reminded me of all the attacks against “Dubya” and Cheney: war for oil, racist, liar, evil, making profits for old companies, drunk, AWOL, murderer, etc., etc.

So, because I can tell the difference between dumb and evil, I can succinctly distinguish between a politicians ego claim (biggest inaugural crowd in the history of our country) and an evil compliance (“Iran might have been given as much as $33.6 billion in cash, gold, and other valuable metals,” Mark Dubowitz, the executive director for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, testified before Congress according to the Free Beacon – AMERICAN LIBERTY REPORT). The lies given to the American public leading to the fallacious Iran deal pales-in-comparison to Trump’s classical political fairy tales that most politicians tell. And so I deal with what were the three biggest hurdles people mentioned were their reasoning for rejecting Trump as a bigot, racist, xenophobe, and the like.

The three are:

  1. Is Mexico Allowing Rapists Across the Border?
  2. Did Donald Trump Mock a Disabled Man?
  3. Are Racists Voting for Republicans?

Here is the introduction to that post. Sorry, I chose to include the entire opener — it is long:

Okay, we are a few days AFTER this contentious election for ALL involved… both sides went with horrible choices for their nominee and caused not only contentious attitudes with the opposing nominee but an internal struggle as well. That is, the Democrat base did not like Hillary Clinton, and the Republican base did not like Donald Trump. In fact, in the hopes this will give me some credibility for at least what is to follow, I even started a website to defeat Trump and his rise to be the GOP nominee. Trump is not a conservative? He is a Blue-Dog Democrat.

In conversation with a person I respect highly, he said [partially in jest], that, “You can still love Trump. It’s okay with me….” Not realizing that I do not love Trump and started a site to defeat him. I even made it clear out of the 16-other candidates, Trump was my 18th choice. (Get it?)

…Continuing

So, we are a few days after the election and I read posts like:

  • I’m in mourning, again. I’m sad and disgusted that sexism and racism are still alive and kicking in this country. Color, not qualifications were voted into the White House last night.
  • I could sit here and sob about how devastating and pathetic this is. I’m just too pissed. Disappointed. Shocked. Fucking livid. Years of progress diminished in one night. This is not the country I thought I lived in.
  • Everyone better order their tamales now. There won’t be any by Christmas.
    • another person asked this person: Are you making them?
    • here is the response: Nope. I’m afraid if I do I will be deported.
    • the humorous comeback was: Nobody is getting deported till January 20 2017, Christmas tamales are safe.
  • Another person I know posted the graphic to the right:

These are just a few of examples of raw emotion that should be sympathized with. But like in many-a-Facebook post this idea that if people do not agree with my position, they are one of the SIXHIRBs: sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted.

One of the best turnarounds I saw from a family member is this:

  • So in class today I finally cried. This presidential unveiling has caused such a stir of emotions for the past 48 hours and it has all been bottled up until this point. We keep playing the blame game and it’s time to stop. Right now I blame myself because I was ignorant to the rest of the country. I didn’t think that everyone didn’t think like me. I lived in a bubble and now I feel like the different one. Because of this huge division right now the last thing we need to do divide it even further….

Wow! What a mature statement. THAT made my heart glad. She even went on to state she wished she had expressed this as clearly in an earlier class as she did on her FB. I agreed, hindsight is 20/20 and we all have said stuff that upon further reflection we could have said better.

All of us. (Especially Bush, and now Trump NIGHTMARE!)

So, how do I explain some positions my friends and family probably think about a man they seem to fear, and I heard one psychotherapist yesterday say that the reaction of many millennials is like that of a loved one dying. In other words, this is deeply emotional to some. And while I love posting videos of people sobbing like the next dude, this gets us nowhere. So I decided to discuss three main points about Trump and this election to get people to think about what they say. Because it can be misunderstood as calling a friend or family one of those SIXHIRB labels, wounding both our Republic (because who would want to learn or discuss political matters with a racist?), as well as causing misunderstandings between friends.

It makes our political life too easy. A healthy Republic should be tough. Those labels are a cop-out for doing heavy liftin’. One very progressive leaning professor makes the same point about how this thinking harms his students:

Here, for example, is my sister noting her election day experience… and take note, she will never make her vote public:

  • In my 32 years as a registered voter, I have never left the polls feeling so disgusted and embarrassed by my choice. Not that my other option would have made me feel ANY different. I need a shower!

The point here is that people are more complicated than these few labels society has chosen to use. Another example (a few years back) of a dear friends mom smearing people like me is in a post discussing Judge Judy. I know, it’s a pop-culture Baby Boomer thing. Here is what she said with my response:

(She said) “Black people and white people weren’t allowed get married years ago either… if small minded, bigoted people had their way it would still be that way. Gay marriage Is NO different…. religious folks who believe and support same sex marriage ?? They must not be real religious people.”

(I Responded) In other words, a discussion to you is calling me and other readers here “bigots,” and impugning the character of religious gays by creating straw-man arguments of what I (we) say/mean? And when I politely point this out by not pointing out how you name call and use “cards” (sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted ~ S.I.X.H.I.R.B.)….

People need to understand what they are saying. I make mistakes all the time. It’s in our nature. You apologize, grow, learn, and move on trying to keep friendships and family close to you. The friend’s mom unfriended me. So in response to my family member I noted something we all do, and it is this:

This election has brought to mind the now famous quote by elite Manhattanite and New Yorker columnist Pauline Kael after Richard Nixon’s sweeping presidential victory in 1972:

  • “I don’t know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don’t know anybody who voted for him.”

There is a tendency to build sound rooms around one’s belief and where they choose to get their information from. WE ARE ALL susceptible to this.

So, part of our journey is allowing in other sources of information

The conservative has no choice but to encounter leftist ideals. For instance, out of the top twenty most influential sources of news in our country, only two lean right (Fox News and the Washington Times). All the others lean left in their journalism and view of the world. In fact, Rachel Maddow noted her politics are to the left of Mao Zedong. She is more of a commentator though, and the study I am referring to only included straight news sources.

…Continuing.

So if a person is surprised at the outcome, maybe they should engage friends or family and ask questions. The key to doing this is the following, if it is not face-to-face,.and this is something I will at times start out a conversation with:

“By-the-by, for those reading this I will explain what is missing in this type of discussion due to the media used. Genuflecting, care, concern, one being upset (does not entail being “mad”), etcare all not viewable because we are missing each other’s tone, facial expressions, and the like. I afford the other person I am dialoguing with the best of intentions and read his/her comments as if we were out having a talk over a beer at a bar or meeting a friend at Starbucks. (I say this because there seems to be a phenomenon of etiquette thrown out when talking through email or Face Book, lots more public cussing and gratuitous responses.) You will see that often times I USE CAPS — which in www lingo for YELLING. I am not using it this way, I use it to merely emphasize and often times say as much: *not said in yelling tone, but merely to emphasize*. So in all my discussions I afford the best of thought to the other person as I expect he or she would to me… even if dealing with tough subjects as the above. I have had more practice at this than most, and with half-hour pizza, one hour photo and email vs. ‘snail mail,’ know that important discussions take time to meditate on, inculcate, and to process. So be prepared for a good thought provoking discussion if you so choose one with me.”

Again, we all put into other people’s typed words our own emotional state at that time. The trick is to step away from this tendencyand this can be hard.

I shared what others wrote on election day, can I share mine? I went and cast my ballot for Trump and wrote this afterwords:beer

I voted. It was really hard to overcome my original emotions of dislike for Trump with reason (mind). But this IS the essence of being humanTo think and reason beyond our emotive states

Again, people are complicated and to label them as sexist or racist without really knowing is a travesty to our Republic.

OKAYI will now post three responses to items of discussion that my guess is those who are very distraught over Trump’s win and view either him or a large segment of the population who voted for him as racist or bigoted, or mean to disabled persons, is more complicated than these labels.

Wow, so with that set-up and how I came to slowly evolve into a defender of Trump (as I was for Dubya against the lies of the Left), here is the conversation I had with my friend/family member. And keep in mind my ability to go back and comment on the conversation and add media to expand my context may seem unfair… but I am not trying to make the person I dig look bad. And I will note what I correct or add.


FACEBOOK CONVO


TS, my friend, linked an article from the The Chicago Tribune that made my point that I had already laid out, which was,

  • Have you seen ANY mainstream media company or late-night comedian mention this portion of the same speech?

I have already noted Trump does not communicate well, and his response to a challenge is just another example of this, nor is the proper context from the original FULL briefing considered. In fact, when you come across sites that say full transcript/video of Trump, it is only the minute clip of Trump. Not the real, FULL briefing that has William Bryan’s full remarks so people can hear the words he used and that Trump took to sound like he knew what he was talking about.

Again, I do not fully endorse President Trump’s demeanor at times, but all in context… his saying people should inject themselves was based off of the guy who just preceded him.

OKAY, right after the article was posted this was said, and I will post the back-n-forth::

  • TS
    So let’s be clear, you are suggesting that his context meant that we should research injecting UV light into our lungs?

ME

TS, his team has seen companies from Colorado, Santa Barbara, and others, who think they have the magic bullet to help defeat The Rona. I document some of what Trump must have seen on my site, but this is one example (which I do not think works as well as the others I mention after this process):

More via RPT

But after you realize this and what his Coronavirus team members have probably brainstormed over, his comments here:

Which now makes perfect “Trump sense”

The [Chicago Tribune] article doesn’t give the full context (Trumps own words before and after the excerpt) — in other words TS, you are making my point. The only person mentioning injecting this stuff was Jonathan Karl — “The president mentioned the idea of a cleaner, bleach and isopropyl alcohol emerging. There’s no scenario where that could be injected into a person, is there?”

Keep in mind the speeches earlier by the experts they used MULTIPLE times”injecting UV light” into the controlled specimens of Covid-19. TO WIT

  • TS
    So then yes you are saying we should agree with him that researching putting UV light inside the body is a good idea. Below the largest organ of the body that is there to protect our insides from those UV rays. I’m definitely not a scientist or a doctor and am a product of the public school system, but that sounds just as dumb as putting a man made chemical like bleach into my veins.

ME

What did the President say right after that?

Also, in my post on my site and elsewhere around FACEBOOK, I note this:

AGAIN, just because I am posting this does not mean I am endorsing this AND, in fact, I include a warning.

[….]

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)

(“Disinfecting the Media’s Narrative With Light!“)

I continue on with a challenge of sorts, keeping my thoughts organized and TS on track.

So I asked a question above. [And] I set the record straight regarding your wondering if I endorse such things I also have a 2nd question for you:

I also play video/audio (“Larry Elder Sanitizes The Left” – YOUTUBE) of Trump saying he isn’t a doctor and recommends medical advice. So like your context, Trump also said the same thing.

  • TS
    The context of every one of his “speeches” that I’ve heard is to iterate one idea multiple times, then say maybe it wont/it’s not a good idea/I’m not a doctor or some antithesis of what he just said, but right after that he reiterates it again to emphasize that it is what he thinks. So he doesn’t really have a good context. It would be like me saying there will be an earthquake tomorrow for suredefinitely an earthquake tomorrowI guarantee [an] earthquake tomorrowwe’ll see the earth shake tomorrowbut who know I’m not a seismologist so it might not shake tomorrowbut I’m pretty sure it will. How do you contextualize what I just said? Those that choose to believe in what he says and knows it’s not a good idea sees that he said he’s not a doctor but hey maybe there’s a good idea in there somewhere. Those that don’t hang on his every word hear let’s research injecting UV light into our lungs, why because that is what he was reiterating over and over. In any form of learning or conveying a message if you reiterate something that is the main point that is trying to get across, not the disclaimer. His poor attempts at back-peddling by putting in his tiny disclaimer isn’t a free pass to say stupid things.

ME

WHAT IS THE CONTEXT?

through the skin or ahhin some other way – and I think you said you were going to test that out
injection inside, or, or, almost a cleaning – as you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, it will be interesting to check that….
you are going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds interesting to me
but the whole concept of the light the way it kills in one minute

suppose we did this
supposing we hit the body with a tremendous ultraviolet light
hasn’t been checked, you said you would test it
is there a way to do something like that….
gotta use medical doctors

[….]

I would like you to speak to the medical doctors to see if there is any way you can apply light and heat to cure
maybe you can, maybe you can’t, again, I say, maybe you can, maybe you can’t, I’m not a doctor
you ever heard of the heat or the light

TWO UPLOADS OF MINE via YOUTUBE:

  • TS
    The context is that he has no idea what he is saying, but it sure looks and sounds like he just said we need to research UV light into the lungs because light outside the body kills bad things. This is where the divide is between those that hear what he says and those that interpret what he says. There is no common ground, because neither side will admit that they are wrong. So there will always be this he said/he said. This also translates to most political/religious/ethical/emotional/intellectual ideas. There will always be at least two sides and neither the two shall meet.

ME

Which is why he said, LIKE YOU,

maybe you can, maybe you can’t, again, I say, maybe you can, maybe you can’t, I’m not a doctor

Do you not understand that? ?

  • TS
    Why would someone say that?

ME

“I’m definitely not a scientist or a doctor and am a product of the public school system…”

Because they are an Architect or a Business Project Manager.

  • TS
    No not why would he say he’s not a doctor. Why would he say maybe you can, maybe you can’t.
  • ME
    Because they have looked at all the new possibilities many companies are probably contacting his Coronavirus team with.
  • TS
    I’m not a doctor is a disclaimer, his waffling is what I’m asking about. Why do you think he waffles back and forth? So if I was able to get a scientist…maybe even a holistic healer to contact his team and say inhaling sage into the lungs has been proven to help cure viruses, then maybe he’ll say that on TV. Is that what being well informed is all about?

ME

He is not an eloquent purveyor of his ideas in conversation. And? In no way did he tell people to inject themselves with “Lysol” type products. I understand that people who dislike him for whatever reason find it easy to malign him (due to how poorly he expresses himself), but in almost all the attacks against him I have come across, I have come to the conclusion people are misapplying to him their own bad motives.

I wrote a long post a month before the 2016 election deciding I would vote for him three such attacks that upon reflection (a closer look) do not hold water: “Some Trump Sized Mantras

This is the same.

He wasn’t spitballing ideas out of the blue. Him and his team were being made aware of this very recently. Which is why, TS, Trump spoke in a past tense: “and I think you said you were going to test that out

  • TS
    I agree he didn’t specifically say inject bleach into your veins, but his overlying context is that maybe we should look into getting things that shouldn’t be under our skins, under our skins.
  • ME
    Right, UV light. Remember, he had just heard William Bryan speak about injecting light as a disinfectant of sorts. He was trying to sound smart while expressing ideas about what his team was probably already discussing.
  • TS
    Exactly. I don’t want that under my skin. Heck I hardly want on my skin. You went the correct way of getting rid of UV damage on your skin by using the cream, I don’t think the UV light treatment I got was a good idea.

ME

Take note that the Colorado company working with Cedars-Sinai to disinfect the lungs (with light) is separating the waves to just “A” I believe.

But I may be wrong, I am not a doctor or scientist, or engineer.

So, TS, could I be so bold as to say maybe you would — if Joe Biden said this to you like he did in his Tweet — you might politely correct him?

TS

ME

Hahaha, Biden wins!

[….]

And BTW TS, thank you for engaging. It keeps me on top of my game, and allows others to see how polite conversation is done. While we know each other well, I want others to take my idea that I often share with people I engage with that I do not know all that well — the following:

“By-the-by, for those reading this I will explain what is missing in this type of discussion due to the media used. Genuflecting, care, concern, one being upset (does not entail being “mad”), etc are all not viewable because we are missing each other’s tone, facial expressions, and the like. I afford the other person I am dialoguing with the best of intentions and read his/her comments as if we were out having a talk over a beer at a bar or meeting a friend at Starbucks. (I say this because there seems to be a phenomenon of etiquette thrown out when talking through email or Face Book, lots more public cussing and gratuitous responses.) You will see that often times I USE CAPS — which in www lingo for YELLING. I am not using it this way, I use it to merely emphasize and often times say as much: *not said in yelling tone, but merely to emphasize*. So in all my discussions I afford the best of thought to the other person as I expect he or she would to me even if dealing with tough subjects as the above. I have had more practice at this than most, and with half-hour pizza, one hour photo and email vs. ‘snail mail,’ know that important discussions take time to meditate on, inculcate, and to process. So be prepared for a good thought provoking discussion if you so choose one with me.”

W.H.O. Proclamations Guiding YouTube Censorship (Plus: Debunking Debunks)

(You can JUMP to my FACEBOOK CONVERSATIONS if you wish – “A” or “B“)

I noticed some of the viral videos by Drs. Daniel Erickson and Artin Massihi are being removed from YouTube. As it turns out, YouTube apparently are using the World Health Organizations proclamations as their guiding light to censor people free speech/thought. Here Laura Ingraham notes the issue:

(Hat-Tip to: POWERLINE | 23 ABC NEWS BAKERSFIELD)

Basically the Doctors in their original video (can be seen HERE, HERE, Channel 23 Bakersfield has it HERE, see also HERE) were basically saying it is time to open up California. The video has been removed from YouTube — hard to find. 23ABC BAKERSFIELD has the FULL video on their Facebook still:

(ALSO SEE BITCHUTE)

Similarly, another doctor in the heart of the battle in New York says it is time to open back up, via the NEW YORK POST:

I’m an emergency physician at St. Barnabas Hospital in The Bronx. I have been in the ER every day these last few weeks, either supervising or providing direct care. I contracted a COVID-19 infection very early in the outbreak, as did two of my daughters, one of whom is a nurse. We are all well, thank God.

COVID-19 has been the worst health care disaster of my 30-year ­career, because of its intensity, duration and potential for lasting impact. The lasting impact is what worries me the most. And it’s why I now believe we should end the lockdown and rapidly get back to work.

[….]

It is precisely what I have witnessed that now tells me that it’s time to ease the lockdown. Here’s why.

First, the wave has crested. At 1 p.m. April 7, the COVID-19 arrivals slowed down. It was a discrete, noticeable event. Stretchers became available by 5 p.m., and the number of arriving COVID-19 patients dropped below the number discharged, transferred or deceased.

This was striking, because the community I serve is poor. Some are homeless. Most work in “essential,” low-paying jobs, where distancing isn’t easy. Nevertheless, the wave passed over us, peaked and subsided. The way this transpired tells me the ebb and flow had more to do with the natural course of the outbreak than it did with the lockdown.

Second, I worry about non-coronavirus care. While the inpatient units remain busy with sick COVID-19 patients, our ER has been quiet for more than a week. We usually average 240 patients a day. For the last week, we averaged fewer than 100. That means our patients in this diverse, low-income community are afraid to come to the ER for non-COVID care.

Gotham-wide, the number of 911 ambulance runs declined to 3,320 on April 18, down from a peak of 6,527 on March 30, according to New York Fire Department data. The current nadir is significantly below the average.

A large share of those staying home surely have emergency medical and surgical conditions not related to the novel coronavirus. The growing numbers ­dying at home during this crisis must include fatal myocardial infarctions, asthma exacerbations, bacterial infections and strokes.

Meanwhile, our pediatric volume in the ER has practically disappeared. Visits to primary-care pediatricians are also down, with vaccine schedules falling behind. Everyone seems to be avoiding the health system — an important and unfortunate consequence of the stay-at-home strategy.

Third, inordinate fear misguides the public response. While COVID-19 is serious, fear of it is being over-amplified. The public needs to understand that the vast majority of infected people do quite well.

Finally, COVID-19 is more prevalent than we think. Many New Yorkers already have the COVID-19 infection, whether they are aware of it or not. As of today, over 43 percent of those tested are positive in The Bronx. We are developing a significant degree of natural herd immunity. Distancing works, but I am skeptical that it is playing as predominant a role as many think.

More testing will better establish the numbers among those with mild illnesses and no symptoms. My professional ­experience tells me the number of infected people will be high. Testing is important work, but it should happen in parallel to the immediate resuscitation of the economy and getting people back to work.

At present, the testing is ­imperfect. We can’t wait months. We must protect the vulnerable and mitigate without destroying the economy…..

All of these doctors are in agreement that Covid-19 is serious. But they are also in agreement on two things, that is:

  1. California is not New York;
  2. The economy is an important monetary and healthy factor.

To Wit…

Armstrong & Getty discuss Brett Stephens New York Times article where it seems the rest of America is being asked to respond to The Rona just like New York City is. In an excellent article Brett notes:

  • As of Friday, there have been more Covid-19 fatalities on Long Island’s Nassau County (population 1.4 million) than in all of California (population 40 million). There have been more fatalities in Westchester County (989) than in Texas (611). The number of Covid deaths per 100,000 residents in New York City (132) is more than 16 times what is in America’s next largest city, Los Angeles (8). If New York City proper were a state, it would have suffered more fatalities than 41 other states combined(NEW YORK TIMES)

THE FEDERALIST likewise uses Brett’s article as a launch pad, noting:

  • The claim that New York is not responsible for the severe lockdowns we see across the country is the kind of revisionist history that we will all be drowned in over the coming weeks. Through late March and early April, Drs. Deborah Birx and Anthony Fauci made clear time and again that their recommendations were based mostly on data from New York, where the most cases and testing existed.

Now there is a debunking of sorts making the rounds…

FACEBOOK CONVOS

…the first I was made aware of it was by a friend in the health industry. He sent me a link to this statement by the The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM):

The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19. As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.

COVID-19 misinformation is widespread and dangerous. Members of ACEP and AAEM are first-hand witnesses to the human toll that COVID-19 is taking on our communities. ACEP and AAEM strongly advise against using any statements of Drs. Erickson and Massihi as a basis for policy and decision making.

Then a couple other friends who disagree with a video by Drs. Daniel Erickson and Artin Massihi or just Dr. Erickson, noted both the above, and one was kind enough to post an article that specifically noted where the doctors “got it wrong.” And please do not get me wrong, I love friends that disagree with me. Why? Because it hones my knowledge of a topic. For instance, a friend posted this article from CALMATTERS “debunking” Dr. Erickson’s first video. But he wasn’t aware of another video that already responds to the charges he makes! I will post my shorter version of IT following the dialogue:

  • JIM G.
    In a rare statement late today, the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine declared they “emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Messihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19. As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.” [then he linked the CALMATTERS article]

After I noted my post on my site… JIM G. said:

  • the article points out the very basic methodological flaw. It’s flaw in their study is so elementary, it’s ridiculous.

Since I like to get people to commit to a premise they want to defend, I simply asked: “what flaw Jim”

  • JIM G.
    simple lack of random sampling and suggesting that their findings can be extrapolated to a larger population.

//… But public health experts were quick to debunk the doctors’ findings as misguided and riddled with statistical errors — and an example of the kind of misleading information they are forced to waste precious time disputing.

The doctors should never have assumed that the patients they tested — who came for walk-in COVID-19 tests or who sought urgent care for symptoms they experienced in the middle of a pandemic — are representative of the general population, said Dr. Carl Bergstrom, a University of Washington biologist who specializes in infectious disease modeling. He likened their extrapolations to “estimating the average height of Americans from the players on an NBA court.” And most credible studies of COVID-19 death rates in reality are far higher than the ones the doctors presented.//

ME
JIM G.  in this video he said it cannot be extrapolated to another population? (YOUTUBE), and they started to test everyone who asked?

This has to be the worst example of flaws since the Dr. refuted them even before he was rebuked? The only flaws I see have been the gargantuan numbers thrown around by the modelers themselves. California is no where near the deaths near the flu.

VIDEO ISOLATED

 

Likewise, another friend focused on the same issue. What was different however is that he posted under the previous video my other friend was not aware of. And may I say, I doubt this friend, JEREMY J, watched the video he commented under — just assuming it was the original video. Likewise though, the above video is great for his response as well:

  • JEREMY J.
    I recently posted this elsewhere.

For those of you who have watched the video of Bakersfield California doctors Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi, owners of Accelerated Urgent Care with multiple office locations including Kern County, you should know that their core message “Millions of cases, small amount of death” is based on very bad data analytics.

For most of the presentation, Dr. Erickson does most of the talking. When I use “they” or “their” please understand that I am usually referring to Dr. Erickson.

They took the number of tests they had done in their own clinics (5213) and the number of positive results they had from those tests (340, or 6.5%), and “extrapolated” (their words) that data to the entire state. That is how they arrived at 4.4 million Californians already infected.

But in order to extrapolate, you must be comparing similar groups. The group of people who have been tested is unlikely to have the same rate of infection as the general population, and there is no evidence offered that they do. The doctors simply assume that Californians as a whole would have positive tests at the same rate as symptomatic people who come in for testing. This is a basic failing on their part and by itself makes the claim “Millions of cases, small amount of death” invalid.

They then cite the California statewide numbers (280,900 tests, 33,865, or 12%). Based on these numbers, Dr. Erickson then says “so the more you test, the more positives you get, the prevalence number goes up, and the death rate stays the same, so it gets smaller and smaller and smaller.”

This is such confused thinking that it’s hard to know where to start, especially for an audience unversed in statistical and epidemiological terminology. OF COURSE you will get more positive results if you test more people, but that isn’t what he is trying to say. Dr. Erickson appears to be saying that if more tests are done, the *percent* of positive results goes up. That is magical thinking. It certainly isn’t science. More likely, the difference between their local numbers and the statewide numbers is a manifestation of either different testing criteria, or Kern County simply has fewer cases than California as a whole (infection rates would not be expected to be uniform across the state).

Far from being based on facts, data, and science, their core message that there are “Millions of cases, small amount of death” is based on assumption, conjecture, speculation, and magical thinking.

I’ve watched the entire hour long news conference. It is obvious to me that they do not understand some basic things about microbiology and immunology. They use “incidence” and “prevalence” interchangeably, even though they are very different concepts. They misunderstand the concept of “herd immunity”. And they tout their real world, on the ground experience as more valid than that of an academician, even though they haven’t worked in a hospital setting for several years and haven’t cared for seriously ill COVID-19 patients. Wise physicians understand that both perspectives are valid.

To be sure, they make some good points, and I think they are generally well intentioned. But their overall message is fundamentally weakened by some seriously sloppy data analysis as well as sloppy use of terms.

Note he makes it clear their intentions are good. That is nice, but these are my responses:

  • ME
    No, he says in the video you cannot extrapolate his work to the state. He says that specifically. But then notes another California study. And as they test this way (random testing), other states are finding the same issue.

Just as one example, at a homeless shelter in Boston, out of the nearly 400 guests tested, 146 tested positive for Covid-19all were asymptomatic.

the other study mentioned by Dr. Erickson was this one mentioned in the REASON.COM article. These studies are all proving my early work (mid to late March), which I speak about here: RPT

In a humorous short discussion via email with A CLEARER PICTURE, a neat play on the word Fascism was noted by him that I wish to highlight here. It is a simple joining of two words:

Dr. Fauci + fascism = Faucism

Here is his short prose using the term:

  • [That] Statement you sent me from College of Physicians is unbelievable. This is getting serious. Fauscism is as contemptuous of our rights to share information and make up our own minds as they are of our rights to earn a living and freely assemble.”

On my Facebook, a friend said this: “I posted this as well. These [doctors] absolutely nail it. I’m tellin’ y’all, I’m feelin’ the ‘1984’ thing right now!” What this will do and is doing is the false modeling and the covering up of tracks by saying on the death certificate’s of people told they have a month to live because of cancer… and then this breakout appears on the scene, and while they are in the hospital dying, they catch The Rona. Their death cert doesn’t say “died of cancer, it says “died of Covid-19.”

After reading A CLEARER PICTURE’S latest post about the censorship, I remembered it was Tuesday, and boogied on over to TOWNHALL.COM to see Prager’s latest column. Here is a large excerpt from it:

“Police state” does not mean totalitarian state. America is not a totalitarian state; we still have many freedoms. In a totalitarian state, this article could not be legally published, and if it were illegally published, I would be imprisoned and/or executed. But we are presently living with all four of the key hallmarks of a police state:

No. 1: Draconian laws depriving citizens of elementary civil rights.

The federal, state, county and city governments are now restricting almost every freedom except those of travel and speech. Americans have been banned from going to work (and thereby earning a living), meeting in groups (both indoors and outdoors), meeting in their cars in church parking lots to pray and entering state-owned properties such as beaches and parks — among many other prohibitions.

No. 2: A mass media supportive of the state’s messaging and deprivation of rights.

The New York Times, CNN and every other mainstream mass medium — except Fox News, The Wall Street Journal (editorial and opinion pages only) and talk radio — have served the cause of state control over individual Americans’ lives just as Pravda served the Soviet government. In fact, there is almost no more dissent in The New York Times than there was in Pravda. And the Big Tech platforms are removing posts about the virus and potential treatments they deem “misinformation.”

No. 3: Use of police.

Police departments throughout America have agreed to enforce these laws and edicts with what can only be described as frightening alacrity. After hearing me describe police giving summonses to, or even arresting, people for playing baseball with their children on a beach, jogging alone without a mask, or worshipping on Easter while sitting isolated in their cars in a church parking lot, a police officer called my show. He explained that the police have no choice. They must respond to every dispatch they receive.

“And why are they dispatched to a person jogging on a beach or sitting alone in a park?” I asked.

Because the department was informed about these lawbreakers.

“And who told the police about these lawbreakers?” I asked.

His answer brings us to the fourth characteristic of a police state:

No. 4: Snitches.

How do the police dispatchers learn of lawbreakers such as families playing softball in a public park, lone joggers without face masks, etc.? From their fellow citizens snitching on them. The mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, set up a “snitch line,” whereby New Yorkers were told to send authorities photos of fellow New Yorkers violating any of the quarantine laws. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti similarly encouraged snitching, unabashedly using the term.

It is said that about 1 in every 100 East German citizens were informers for the Stasi, the East German secret police, as superbly portrayed in the film “The Lives of Others.” It would be interesting, and, I think, important, to know what percentage of New Yorkers informed on their fellow citizens. Now, again, you may think such a comparison is not morally valid, that de Blasio’s call to New Yorkers to serve a Stasi-like role was morally justified given the coronavirus pandemic. But you cannot deny it is Stasi-like or that, other than identifying spies during World War II, this is unprecedented in American history at anywhere near this level…..

This coincides with my post on a friends Facebook last night, where I said after mentioning the removal of Drs. Daniel Erickson and Artin Massihi video:

Certain books and videos removed from Amazon for not being politically-correct. Posts removed from Facebook for not marching in step. YouTube removing or “doxing” videos that they say do not meet their guidelines (just think of Prager U’s fight). Twitter, etc.

You know, many years ago I wrote the Koch Brothers and tried to get a letter to them (being big libertarians) about starting a server for people to compete with YouTube and other blog hosting sites. Because I know at some point hosting sites will limit my speech to fit the prevailing PC winds.

The owner of the blog “A Clearer Picture” mentioned to me the following after seeing the above statement: “[That] Statement you sent me from College of Physicians is unbelievable. This is getting serious. Fauscism is as contemptuous of our rights to share information and make up our own minds as they are of our rights to earn a living and freely assemble.”

“Fauscism” what a great “medical” play on words. (Based on Dr. Fauci)

And yes, giving up our rights to modelers and to the World Health Organization (scientism) is a form of FAUCISM. Speaking to one of the models that led to what should have been a two or three week shut down was this one noted at TOWNHALL.COM (on April 5th):

….One prominent model in the shutdown is from the University of Washington, from their Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), funded by Bill and Melinda Gates. How closely does what they predicted track with reality so far? Turns out, not so well.

While the reporting data from some states are lagging, others have provided information that calls into question the validity of the whole model, and with it, all the actions taken by government.

On April 4th, for example, the IHME model predicted there would be between 120,963 and 203,436 Americans requiring hospitalization, with the average of that range being 164,745. In reality, there were 18,998…..

Sick, and because of the hatred for Trump from the Left and #NeverTrumpers… this is only the beginning of the emboldening of what they think they can do to us. As CNN and other’s say this is a trial run for:

  • The World Is Coming Together To Fight Coronavirus. It Can Do The Same For The Climate Crisis (CNN)
  • Coronavirus And Climate Change: The Pandemic Is A Fire Drill For Our Planet’S Future (NBC NEWS – BIG THINK)