This is an excerpt from Alex Berenson’s book, “Pandemia: How Coronavirus Hysteria Took Over Our Government, Rights, and Lives.” I hadn’t planned on it, but I wanted to get on the record a response to MIKE B., who said this in a conversation in December: “And they never ever early used them [respirators]. Ever”… AFTERsaying the Wayback Machine and the Tweetby Meredith Case, an internal medicine resident at Columbia, New York, Presbyterian Hospital, was a Russian plant and merely a right wing lie.
[This will make more sense as you read the below discussion and the excerpt ]
FACEBOOK CONVO
Here is my Original post (OP):
[Additions by me]
I did not realize that the reasons for ventilators was not to benefit the patients early on in the pandemic, but was a way to protect the staff. In NYC hospital 90% were moved almost immediately to ventilators….
….“to avoid aersolizing procedures [such as nebulizing masks] to protect staff.” Unfortunately, the overly aggressive use of ventilators backfired. Intubation should be a last-resort procedure. Ventilated patients are at high risk for bacterial lung infections. Most must be sedated with powerful opioids because ventilation is uncomfortable and painful. ….. [later in the fight, it was found that keeping patients sleeping on their sides and stomachs helped fight infection as blood flow to those portions of the lungs helped. Intubation forced patients on their backs.] ….. Worse, many early Covid patients received high-pressure ventilation. The goal was to keep their lungs inflated, but the high pressure appears to have destroyed the lungs of some patients…..
(Adaption from pages 66 and 67 of Pandemia)
THESE ARE THE THREE PICS POSTED ON MY FB (2 mobile phone screen shots and one pic):
Here is the rest of the conversation after the OP in PC Screen Shots… it all leads up to the reason behind the larger excerpt:
The part I want to highlight specifically is this:
And they never ever early used them. Ever — MIKE B.
Ever!
EXCERPT
Without a silver bullet that could defeat the virus, physicians were reduced to offering “supportive care.” In essence, they managed patients’ symptoms, trying to keep them alive until their bodies could defeat the virus on their own.
Ventilators—machines that breathed for patients who could not—quickly became a crucial tool in the fight. Physicians in China used ventilators aggressively. By early March, physicians in Italy had followed suit.
As a letter to a journal published by the Society of Critical Care _Medicine would later explain, “Experts from China, Europe, and the United States supported a strategy of intubating patients early under the premise that early intubation allowed for more controlled circumstances and would provide superior lung protection.22
The heavy use of ventilators, which were in limited supply, was one crucial reason that Neil Ferguson and other modelers became so concerned that coronavirus patients might overrun hospitals. Even the best-equipped hospitals do not keep huge numbers of ventilators in reserve. And using ventilators properly requires highly trained pulmonologists, nurses, and respiratory specialists.
But the early use of ventilators wasn’t meant to help only the patients.
Medical staff weren’t immune from the panic sweeping the world. Doctors didn’t know exactly how transmissible the virus might be, or how dangerous. Even if the virus’s risks were concentrated among the elderly, it had sickened and killed some people treating it. On March 18, an Italian physician died only days after warning that Italy was short on protective gear.23
The specter of health system collapse also loomed, if too many physicians and nurses were sickened or died—or became too afraid to work. In a grim piece titled “We’re Failing Doctors” in The Atlantic (more to come on The Atlantic, which would soon take a unique position in the American coronavirus media ecosystem), an emergency room physician warned,
No one is so fearless or stupid as to discount all risks. Physicians fled epidemics in ancient Greece, the black death in Europe, and the great influenza pandemic of 1918….
At some point, the system could break, and we will all be gone.24
Medical staff knew that ventilators could help protect them. Intubated patients no longer coughed. They also did not need to be treated with nebulizing masks that put even more virus-filled droplets in the air. And in addition to doing the patients’ breathing for them, ventilators could deliver doses of aerosolized steroids and other drugs.
A March 27, 2020, statement from the Food and Drug Administration offered a revealing look into the agency’s priorities: “FDA takes action to help increase U.S. supply of ventilators and respirators for protection of health care workers, patients.”25
Two days earlier, a young physician in New York had explained exactly what the FDA meant, writing that her hospital was intubating patients quickly “to avoid aerosolizing procedures to protect staff.”26 (She would later delete the tweet.)
Unfortunately, the overly aggressive use of ventilators backfired. Intubation should be a last-resort procedure. Ventilated patients are at high risk for bacterial lung infections. Most must be sedated with powerful opioids because ventilation is uncomfortable and painful. But those drugs carry their own dangers. And because sedated patients cannot move, they are at risk of developing bedsores.
Worse, many early Covid patients received high-pressure ventilation. The goal was to keep their lungs inflated, but the high pressure appears to have destroyed the lungs of some patients.
As early as April 8, only weeks after American hospitals began to see large numbers of Covid patients, Stat News reported:
Some critical care physicians are questioning the widespread use of the breathing machines for Covid-19 patients, saying that large numbers of patients could instead be treated with less intensive respiratory support….
The question is whether ICU physicians are moving patients to mechanical ventilators too quickly.27
Two weeks later, on April 22, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a stunning report from Northwell Health, a major hospital system in the New York City area.
Only 38 out of 1,151 patients who had been put on ventilators during the first Covid wave had been discharged, while 282 had died. The rest remained in the hospital, their prognosis grim. In other words, for ventilated patients for whom an outcome was available, almost 90 percent had died.28 For patients under 65 years old, ventilation appeared to be especially likely to lead to bad outcomes.
The Northwell study sped the end of overly aggressive ventilation tactics, which were already going out of favor. But we may never know how many people—especially in New York City in March and April.
Alex Berenson, Pandemia: How Coronavirus Hysteria Took Over Our Government, Rights, and Lives (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2021), 65-68, 394.
26.Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson), “1/ Almost 90% of NYC patients put on ventilators…,” Twitter, April 23, 2020, 4:16 p.m., including a screenshot of Meredith (@thisismeredith), “One problem is the sheer number….,” Twitter, March 25, 2020, 7:50 a.m. My tweet and part of the screenshot are available at the, WAYBACK MACHINE. The complete screenshot is in my possession.
MIKE B. posted a link to a NEW YORK TIMES story that in the first paragraph reminds me why I cannot stand almost the entirety of the Gray Lady. Here is the first paragraph:
When called upon to believe that Barack Obama was really born in Kenya, millions got in line. When encouraged to believe that the 2012 Sandy Hook murder of twenty children and six adults was a hoax, too many stepped up. When urged to believe that Hillary Clinton was trafficking children in the basement of a Washington, D.C., pizza parlor with no basement, they bought it, and one of them showed up in the pizza place with a rifle to protect the kids. The fictions fed the frenzies, and the frenzies shaped the crises of 2020 and 2021. The delusions are legion: Secret Democratic cabals of child abusers, millions of undocumented voters, falsehoods about the Covid-19 pandemic and the vaccine.
So, let’s deal with some of this first paragraph.
BIRTHIRISM
This is included in the NYT’s list of right-wing conspiracies.
Which I find odd.
Because the first time this idea was put into the public’s mind was by Barack’s own publisher. Here is an highlighted portion of the above which was on Obama’s publishers brochure in 1991 (to the right), and found elsewhere online till 2007. And the publisher of “Dreams of my Father” So far from it having a “Genesis” in some right wing “conspiracy” — for over a decade it was viewable by Obama and fans of his book.
I say “the first time this idea was put into the public’s mind” because my belief is that he lied to unlock grants, gain access and recognition at Occidental College, his publisher, etc.… similar to Elizabeth Warren. (Or, Carrie Bourassa up in Canada, or Ward Churchill, or the MANY others. There is some gain to claiming “other”.)
At any rate, that was the first the world heard of the “born in Kenya” idea. It was in the public eye from 1991 until April 2007…
…and then….
Hillary ran for office.
And this story went from public to through the Hillary Clinton “propaganda machine.”
Since this had it’s origins as an idea via Democrats, it would be safe to assume many Democrats believed it.
Seems logical. While it was half [essentially] of Dems, it is still pretty high. I will combine polls from two conspiracies [Birthers and Truthers] to make a point.
Polls from RASMUSSEN(and others compiled at WIKI) that show an amazing thing. What is this “amazing thing,” you rightly ask?
Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.
Not sure? Not sure? To be clear, Democrats by over a majority believed Bush either knew directly or they said they were [basically] “still on the fence.” Here is more:
I’ve been looking for a good analogue to the willingness of Republicans to believe, or say they believe, that Obama was born abroad, and one relevant number is the share of Democrats willing to believe, as they say, that “Bush knew.”
There aren’t a lot of great public numbers on the partisan breakdown of adherents to that conspiracy theory, but the University of Ohio yesterday shared with us the crosstabs of a 2006 poll they did with Scripps Howard that’s useful in that regard.
“How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?” the poll asked.
A full 22.6% of Democrats said it was “very likely.” Another 28.2% called it “somewhat likely.”
That is: More than half of Democrats, according to a neutral survey, said they believed Bush was complicit in the 9/11 terror attacks….
What is the percentage of Republicans that believed (at it’s height of belief) Obama was not born in America?
31% of Republican think/thought that Obama was not born in the states…
How many Democrats?
15% of Democrats believe the same… [as well as 18% of Independents]
However, a third who believe him to be born out of the country approve of him (ABC-NEWS and my RPTpost).
So it is clear the “BIRTHIRISM” is not just a “right-wing” conspiracy.
Various Conspiracies and Ironies
However, I do not believe the New York Times has ever said 9/11 Trutherism is a “left-wing conspiracy.” From the beginning of the next paragraph from the NYT article:
While much has been said about the moral and political stance of people who support right-wing conspiracy theories, their gullibility is itself alarming.
This article is for the gullible, as you will see.
ALEX JONES
Some of these listed conspiracies in the paragraph quote from the NYT are via Alex Jones…. whom I have an entire section of my main conspiracy-debunking page (some isolated here)… so I do not know who my friend is thinking is a “big conspiracy/gullible” person, as, I refute many conspiracies on my site.
I think my mom is the only person I know who believes almost every conspiracy named. Flat-earth, energy beams from space starting fires, the pizza “trafficking kids” thing, and the like. But she is getting senile.
SEX TRAFFICKING
What is ironic is that Hillary wasn’t trafficking underage kids… they were being trafficked to Bill Clinton (“Slick Willy”).
Clinton’s presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein’s Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including “Tatiana.” The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls. (FOX | See also TOWNHALL)
NEW GEORGIA REVELATIONS
What prompted the NYT post was my posting a story about new video compiled by True the Vote after collecting and going over CCTV of the area around drop-boxes in Georgia. The collecting, viewing, and then isolating these many videos was a time consuming project. Here is a snippet from JUST THE NEWS:
….The group informed the secretary its evidence included video footage from surveillance cameras placed by counties outside the drop boxes as well as geolocation data for the cell phones of more than 200 activists seen on the tapes purportedly showing the dates and times of ballot drop-offs, according to documents reviewed by Just the News.
The group also said it interviewed a Georgia man who admitted he was paid thousands of dollars to harvest ballots in the Atlanta metropolitan area during the November election and the lead-up to Jan. 5, 2021 runoff for Georgia’s two U.S. Senate seats, which were both captured by Democrats and ended GOP control of Congress. The group has yet to identify the cooperating witness to state authorities, referring to him in the complaint simply as John Doe.
Raffensperger confirmed in an interview aired Tuesday on the John Solomon Reports podcast that his office has deemed the allegations credible enough to open an investigation and possibly seek subpoenas from the State Election Board to secure evidence.
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced Tuesday he initiated a probe into possible illegal ballot harvesting in the 2020 election.
While former President Trump lost the state of Georgia by a 12,000 vote margin, True the Vote submitted a complaint to Raffensperger’s office on November 30 that details digital data of 242 people making visits to drop boxes to dump mail-in-ballots, with about 40 percent of the trips occurring between midnight and 5:00 a.m., Just the News reported.
The True the Vote evidence reportedly includes phone data correlated with video that shows individuals dropping ballots at 5,662 ballot drops during the 2020 pandemic. Breitbart News reported on a True the Vote document in August:
In other words, what the document says is that True The Vote was able to take cell phone ping data on a mass wide scale and piece together that several people—suspected ballot harvesters—were making multiple trips to multiple drop boxes, raising potential legal questions in a number of these states.
We do have some information. And we are going to investigate that. We did deploy drop boxes that were under 24/7 surveillance, and because they were then that really, you know, can indicate who dropped that information off, and we’re really just going through that.
“If people give us, you know, credible allegations, we want to make sure that we do that,” Raffensperger continued. “And we have that right now as an ongoing investigation.” ….
CONVO
WhenMIKE B. saw a phone screen capture of a Gateway Pundit story on this from their site, he said:
Silly tweet
I asked Why – to which he said:
because it is not based on fact.
I said:
There is video (in fact MANY hours). And someone who was part of delivering these illegal ballots was being paid?
To which MIKE B. notes:
all bs. Investigated by republican investigators. Look no further then Arizona recount. 6 months of investigation. Nothing found. And by a biased investigator. Time to move on from 2020. Trump lost.
I refuted the Arizona Audit not finding anything a while back, which was part of my next comment:
Arizona? Lol. You need to leave the NYT cocoon. Here are two examples from my post:
Nearly half of the votes flagged as suspicious — 23,344 — fell into a category called “ballots cast from individuals who had moved prior to the election.” They included 15,035 who moved within the county before the registration deadline, 6,591 who moved to another state before the registration deadline and 1,718 who moved to a different county before the registration deadline.
Found 34,448 votes from those who voted more than once in Arizona in the 2020 election. 17,000 votes that NEVER should have been included in the audit!
That is what led him to simply post the URL to the NYT article.
To wit, let’s talk about the NYT a bit.
NEW YORK TIMES Lies About History
One big lie which required the paper supporting the rewriting of history was the 1619 Project. One left leaning professor of history at Northwestern University, Leslie M. Harris, wrote a piece for POLITICO stating essentially after the NYT’s approached her to fact check the article because she is an historian of African American life and slavery, she said she was ignored.
Weeks before, I had received an email from a New York Times research editor. Because I’m an historian of African American life and slavery, in New York, specifically, and the pre-Civil War era more generally, she wanted me to verify some statements for the project. At one point, she sent me this assertion: “One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies, which had produced tremendous wealth. At the time there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire, which would have badly damaged the economies of colonies in both North and South.” I vigorously disputed the claim. Although slavery was certainly an issue in the American Revolution, the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the 13 Colonies went to war.
The editor followed up with several questions probing the nature of slavery in the Colonial era, such as whether enslaved people were allowed to read, could legally marry, could congregate in groups of more than four, and could own, will or inherit property—the answers to which vary widely depending on the era and the colony. I explained these histories as best I could—with references to specific examples—but never heard back from her about how the information would be used.
Despite my advice, the Times published the incorrect statement about the American Revolution anyway, in Hannah-Jones’ introductory essay. ….
Over time via pressure, the NY Times began correcting the record. NATIONAL REVIEW headlines some major faux pas: Leaving Out Unwelcome Facts about Slavery; Smearing the Revolution; Distorting the Constitution; Misrepresenting the Founding Era; Misrepresenting Lincoln.
April of last year was a big “correcting month” for the NYT, as the NEW YORK POST notes:
April was the month the narratives died.
On April 15, the Biden administration acknowledged there was no evidence that Russia ever offered bounties on American troops in Afghanistan, walking back a report that wounded former President Donald Trump in the run-up to the 2020 election.
Four days later, the Washington, DC, medical examiner revealed that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick had not been murdered by rampaging Trump supporters during the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill riot, as reports had claimed, but had died of natural causes.
Both stories were based on anonymous, unidentifiable sources, but had become deeply enmeshed in the public consciousness. Both confirmed the assumptions of the nation’s left-leaning media and academic elite, while damaging their political enemies.
And both were driven by The New York Times, where malicious misreporting has been the practice for a century, argues journalist and media commentator Ashley Rindsberg.
“My research churned up not mere errors or inaccuracies but whole-cloth falsehoods,” Rindsberg writes in “The Gray Lady Winked” (Midnight Oil), out now, which examines how the nation’s premier media outlet manipulates what we think is the news.
The “fabrications and distortions” he found in the Times’ coverage of major stories from Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia to Vietnam and the Iraq War “were never the product of simple error,” Rindsberg contends.
“Rather, they were the byproduct of a particular kind of system, a truth-producing machine” constructed to twist facts into a pattern of the Times’ own choosing, he says.
Rindsberg argues that Times reporters have followed the same playbook since the 1920s.
Star reporters cite fuzzily identified sources and make sweeping assertions to support a narrative aligned with the corporate whims, economic needs and political preferences of the patriarchal Ochs-Sulzberger family, which has helmed the operation since 1896, he writes. The chosen narrative, reinforced from multiple angles, is entrenched through a network of stories over time.
“We toss the term ‘fake news’ around as if it’s something whimsical,” Rindsberg told The Post.
“But creating what I call a false media narrative is really hard,” he said. “It takes coordination, deliberation, and a lot of resources. And there aren’t many news organizations that can do it.”
With close to $2 billion in annual revenue, the Times has the money, prestige, experience and stature to set the narratives that other news outlets almost invariably follow.
“When the Times breaks these stories, it’s wall to wall,” Rindsberg said. “MSNBC, CNN — everywhere you look, you’ll get that story.
“And with the Times, it’s never just one false claim,” he said. “They make a concerted effort over time that they dig into and won’t let go.”
The paper’s coverage of Adolf Hitler’s Germany in the decade before World War II is an early example of its narrative manipulation, Rindsberg writes.
So glowing was its picture of the regime that the Nazis regularly included New York Times reports in their own radio programs.
That’s because the Times bureau chief in Berlin, Guido Enderis, was a Nazi collaborator,” Rindsberg said. ………
I have listened to Dennis Prager for years, and this is only the second time I have heard him this mad:
It should also be noted that without the Press, Stalin and Communism would not have had a pristine veneer. The Pulitzer prize winning New York Times writer, Walter Duranty, is quoted in THE WEEKLY STANDARDas an example:
“There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be.” –New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1
“Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda.” –New York Times, August 23, 1933
“Enemies and foreign critics can say what they please. Weaklings and despondents at home may groan under the burden, but the youth and strength of the Russian people is essentially at one with the Kremlin’s program, believes it worthwhile and supports it, however hard be the sledding.” –New York Times, December 9, 1932, page 6
“You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” –New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 18
“There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition.” –New York Times, March 31, 1933, page 13
The New York Times doesn’t change. The paper is atrociously biased today and it was 85 years ago when columnist Walter Duranty proved himself to be a useful idiot for Soviet propaganda. Talking about a famine that killed millions of Ukrainians, he insisted: “There is no actual starvation… There is no famine.”
Another example from This Week in Media Bias History: CNN founder Ted Turner claimed global warming will kill “most of the people” with the survivors resorting to cannibalism.
Below are Rich Noyes’s collected tweets from the 14th week of This Day in Media Bias History. To get the latest daily examples, be sure and follow Noyes on Twitter. To see recaps of the first 13 weeks, go here.)
The blow article is about the real reporter who risked his life to tell the truth. The NYT’s should strip Duranty of the Pulitzer and ask for it to be transferred to Gareth Jones (click pic to enlarge):
So to post a link (URL) to an article that starts off badly and doesn’t touch on the papers conspiracy views of it’s own (another example):
…New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has for years now delved deep into partisan hackery. But now with the election of Donald Trump, he’s plunged headlong into crazy conspiracy theory. It’s amazing to watch.
Forget that Trump incest stuff. This is the real wacky theory, and there’s no chance the New York Times is going to fire him for it, either:
That’s right, he just suggested Donald Trump would intentionally allow a major terrorist attack to kill thousands of Americans, just to raise his approval rating.
This is a tiny step from the old “Bush Knew” 9/11 truther theories out there, and this is from a columnist from a major left-wing newspaper, too. This guy is respected as an expert. Yet he comes up with this stuff. He posts theories like this and nobody pulls him back from the brink…
This, for new people here, is an anti-pedophilia/child-abuse post. It shows that the “legalization” of it is coming from the Left side of the aisle. Mostly.
…In 2003, a group of mental health professionals formed B4U-Act to begin a slow but inexorable push to redefine pedophilia as a sexual orientation in the same way homosexuality was in the 1970s.
The organization calls pedophiles “minor attracted people,” and the website states its purpose is to “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma, and fear.”
B4U-Act later held a symposium in which a new definition of pedophilia was proposed for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.
In 2010, two psychologists in Canada made national news when they declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality.
Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”
He went on to say: “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”
When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied: “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”
Dr. Vernon Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem, saying pedophiles’ sexual interests cause them to prefer children, and “there is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”
In July 2010, Harvard Health Publications declared: “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”
If the APA would declare pedophilia a sexual orientation on a par with homosexuality, it would have huge ramifications for existing anti-discrimination laws….
In 1977, Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code” for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In it, Ginsberg advocated lowering the age of consent from 16 to 12. She writes:
“Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years” and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. … A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person. … [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.” (Savage; Schlafly; Schlafly; CNS-News; More)
She was an attorney for the ACLU at the time and later appointed to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton. She remains on the Supreme Court today.
MORE…
We need only look at her 230-page book, called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, published in 1977 by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, to see elements of her radical philosophy:
The purpose of this book was to show how the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (for which she was an aggressive advocate) would change federal laws to make them sex-neutral and “eliminate sex-discriminatory provisions.”
Ginsburg called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (Page 101)[.] …
Ginsburg called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are “less than 12 years old.” (Page 102)
She asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (Page 195)
She objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (Page 97) …
Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (Page 98)
[….]
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a concurring opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, affirmed the use of racial preferences in university admissions, citing the fact that the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination temporarily allows for the “maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups.” Separate but equal?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg co-authored the book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code in 1977 with a feminist, Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, for which they were paid with federal funds under Contract No. CR3AK010. The 230-page book was published by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. It was written to identify the federal laws that allegedly discriminate on account of sex and to promote ratification of the then-pending federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), for which Ginsburg was a fervent advocate. Here are some of Ginsburg’s liberal recommendations set forth in her book Sex Bias in the U.S. Code.
Ginsburg called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (101) She called for the sex-integration of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts because they “perpetuate stereotyped sex roles.” (145) She insisted on sex-integrating “college fraternity and sorority chapters” and replacing them with “college social societies.” (169) She even cast Constitutional doubt on the legality of “Mother’s Day and Father’s Day as separate holidays.” (146)
Ginsburg called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to persons who are “less than 12 years old.” (102) She asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (195) She objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (97) Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (98)
Ginsburg said that the concept of husband-breadwinner and wife-homemaker “must be eliminated from the code if it is to reflect the equality principle,” (206) and she called for “a comprehensive program of government supported child care.” (214) She demanded that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating that “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.” (218)
An indefatigable censor, Ginsburg listed hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel), even though most of these words with the -man suffix date back to Middle English in which it meant “human” and not specifically “male”. (15-16) She even wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the Memory Hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.” (52-53)
The implementation of homosexual, bi-sexual, and transgendered curriculum at all levels of education.
The lowering of the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex.
The legalization of homosexual marriage. Custody, adoption, and foster care rights for homosexuals, lesbians, and transgendered people.
The redefinition of marriage to include the full diversity of all family structures.
The access to all programs of the Boys Scouts of America.
Affirmative action for homosexuals.
The inclusion of sex-change operations under a universal health care plan.
1972 “Homosexual” Platform
Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons, equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of all laws.
Repeal all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and laws prohibiting prostitution, both male and female.
Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance companies and any other state-regulated enterprises from discriminating because of sexual orientation, in insurance and in bonding or any other prerequisite to employment or control of one’s personal demesne.
Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster parenting, and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status.
Repeal of all state laws prohibiting transvestism and cross-dressing.
Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.
Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.
Okay, we know this was a fast transition for polygamy, as I SHOWED and GATEWAY PUNDIT showed:
Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family…
And one of the leading leftist lawyers who has already won some acceptance in law for polygamy has said this of last weeks same-sex marriage ruling:
Could Friday’s Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage across the country make polygamous marriage a legal reality nationwide in the near future?
Jonathan Turley, the attorney who won the polygamy marriage case in Utah for Kody Brown and his four “Sister Wives” thinks the majority opinion “resonates” with the arguments he made to the Utah Supreme Court to decriminalize polygamous consensual relationships.
“The cases are actually different in that the Brown case is about the criminalization while today’s case was about recognition. We have not argued for recognition of plural marriages. Indeed, the Browns have never asked for multiple marriage licenses,” Turley said in an e-mail statement to The Daily Caller.
“Like many plural families, they have one state license for one marriage but chose to live as a plural family with “spiritual marriages.” In that sense, our case is more like Lawrence v. Texas that was handed down ten years ago.”
Turley explained, “Having said that, much of the language of the majority clearly resonates with our arguments against the criminalization of private consensual relations. It also speaks to the stigma that is borne by families in being excluded in society. That is an even greater danger when your entire family is declared a criminal enterprise merely because the parents chose to cohabitate as a plural family.”…
But we already have another player in the mix that supports the VERY slippery slope argument.
Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.
Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits.
[….]
“Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.
B4U-Act calls pedophiles “minor-attracted people.” The organization’s website states its purpose is to, “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma and fear.”
In 1998 The APA issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences.”
Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however, it does not define the term.
Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”
The White House praised the bill saying, “At root, this isn’t just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people. This is about whether we value one another – whether we embrace our differences rather than allowing them to become a source of animus.”
Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality.
Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”
He went on to say, “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”
When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied, “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”
Dr. Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem. Quinsey said pedophiles’ sexual interests prefer children and, “There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”
In July, 2010 Harvard health Publications said, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.” Linda Harvey, of Mission America, said the push for pedophiles to have equal rights will become more and more common as LGBT groups continue to assert themselves. “It’s all part of a plan to introduce sex to children at younger and younger ages; to convince them that normal friendship is actually a sexual attraction.”
Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, “Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children.”
Diamond is a distinguished lecturer for the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco. The IASHS openly advocated for the repeal of the Revolutionary war ban on homosexuals serving in the military.
The IASHS lists, on its website, a list of “basic sexual rights” that includes “the right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud.” Another right is to, “be free of persecution, condemnation, discrimination, or societal intervention in private sexual behavior” and “the freedom of any sexual thought, fantasy or desire.” The organization also says that no one should be “disadvantaged because of age.”…
With all of the above, the most egregious is that the Left wants to decriminalize pedophilia along with a myriad of other crimes.
FACEBOOK DISAGREEMENT Nov 2021
Here is the graphic that kicked it off on a friends FB:
MIKE B. said to the above:
Who cares what one nut may or may not think
To which I Said:
Many Nuts Mike.
To which MIKE B. responded:
I can’t see anyone but a pedophile being pro pedophile
And this is the main point. You will see during the conversation that as it becomes apparent that there has been a legal challenge to drop the age of what would be considered “age of consent” (thus changing the legality of “what is” a pedophile) by one Political Party, partisan attacks start to swirl. But here is the meat of the convo… I reproduce some of the above for MIKE:
In 1977, Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code” for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In it, Ginsberg advocated lowering the age of consent from 16 to 12. She writes:
“Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years” and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. … A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person. … [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.” (Savage; Schlafly; Schlafly; CNS-News; More)
She was an attorney for the ACLU at the time and later appointed to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton. She remains on the Supreme Court today.
MORE…
Ruth Bader Ginsburg co-authored the book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code in 1977 with a feminist, Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, for which they were paid with federal funds under Contract No. CR3AK010. The 230-page book was published by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. It was written to identify the federal laws that allegedly discriminate on account of sex and to promote ratification of the then-pending federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), for which Ginsburg was a fervent advocate. Here are some of Ginsburg’s liberal recommendations set forth in her book Sex Bias in the U.S. Code.
Ginsburg called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (101) She called for the sex-integration of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts because they “perpetuate stereotyped sex roles.” (145) She insisted on sex-integrating “college fraternity and sorority chapters” and replacing them with “college social societies.” (169) She even cast Constitutional doubt on the legality of “Mother’s Day and Father’s Day as separate holidays.” (146)
Ginsburg called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to persons who are “less than 12 years old.” (102) She asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (195) She objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (97) Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (98)
Ginsburg said that the concept of husband-breadwinner and wife-homemaker “must be eliminated from the code if it is to reflect the equality principle,” (206) and she called for “a comprehensive program of government supported child care.” (214) She demanded that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating that “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.” (218)
An indefatigable censor, Ginsburg listed hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel), even though most of these words with the -man suffix date back to Middle English in which it meant “human” and not specifically “male”. (15-16) She even wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the Memory Hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.” (52-53)
Here, as usual MIKE B. punts to others to do the thinking for him:
they are lying to you still. (He links to an AP article)
I then posted the pages 101-105 from the aforementioned book so I would not be accused of “ripping out of context” — but he still wasn’t picking up what I was laying down. (Images are loaded upon clicking the choices above the 1st loaded cover page to the 1977 edition):
I read all the legalize stuff you posted. not one mention of any support for lowering the age for consent. these guys continue to lie to you. why do you accept it?
I counter with a post I think needs to be read in full over at AKA CATHOLIC:
Mike B. I will have to update my post with this info… thank you for making me confirm, well, My previous position:
(The bill RBG mentioned did not pass BTW) On page 102 of The Legal Status of Women under Federal Law, the authors make the following straightforward recommendation in reference to U.S. Code, Title 18 §2032, which addresses the crime of rape:
Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years” and substitute the offense as set forth in S. 1400, §1633. [Emphasis added]
To exactly what does “S. 1400, §1633” refer, and how is the offense “set forth” therein?
This is a reference to Senate Bill 1400, which, fortunately, was not voted into law. The “offense as set forth” in Section 1633 of the bill, the same text that the “esteemed jurist” Ginsburg wanted to see inserted in the U.S. Code, reads:
A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and ( 1 ) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or ( B ) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; ( 2 ) has substantially impaired the other person’s power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or ( 3 ) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old. [Emphasis added]
If you’re wondering where the confusion lies, the answer is that there is none.
Ginsburg and her fellow feminist specifically cited the chapter of the U.S. Code addressing the crime of rape – Title 18 §2032 to be exact – and very plainly stated that one of its descriptions of a rape victim as one who “has not attained the age of sixteen years” should be substituted with language that lowers to age of victimhood to “less than 12 years old;” i.e., making twelve the age of consent.
I add to the above — the “heres” added for my readers:
BTW, who are “they”? You always say that [many past conversations which I disprove his contentions: here, here, here– for instance]. Is it the same people that made the Washington Post remove portions and edit others regarding Trump/Russia Collusion?? After indictments fell and the NYT and WaPo and CNN are -[now] all asking “how the media got it so wrong” (here, here, here, here)
After this all that was posted was essentially, “yeah, but look at these Republicans charged or convicted with some sort of underage assault, proposition, etc.” I made a point that Republicans do not give important committee positions and standing Ovations to those caught in sexual relations with underage assistants via my [RPT’s] post:
The openly gay Democrat from Massachusetts [Barney Frank] was once embroiled in his own sex scandal, involving a young male prostitute hired as an aide back in 1987… (TIME)
These are the people who were outraged when a similarly gay “hustler” (Mark Foley) asked a sixteen-year old what he wanted for his birthday, and had PMs (private messages) with an eighteen-year old that were salacious. No sex occurred between either the 16-year old nor the 18-year old. Nancy Pelosi, who marched in lock step with a known pedophile and member of NAMBLA (who wants the age of consent to be 12-years-old) at a Gay Pride parade and then on television mentions how proud she is of this pedophile… she is now the champion of the Democratic movement? (AMERICAN SPECTATOR: When Nancy Met Harry | Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes)…
And this older example I am proud I elucidate others with:
…It was loyalty to that extreme agenda that accounts for Democrats holding back their ire during a far worse underage homosexual scandal: that of Gerry Studds, a Democratic Massachusetts congressman, for more than two decades.
According to the 1983 House ethics committee report, one congressional page allegedly traveled to Europe with Studds and testified that he took him to his apartment in Georgetown three or four times and that there was sexual activity between them each time. The two later took a 2 1/2-week trip together out of the country, according to the page, and “engaged in sexual activity every two or three days.”
According to the ethics panel’s report, “the relationship may have begun when the page was 16…. At that time, Rep. Studds was 36 years old.” What’s more, the underage page had told Studds that he would have preferred not to engage in sexual activity with him. “I mentioned that to him,” the former page testified.
The report added that “two other former pages, both male,” stated under oath that Studds made sexual advances to them. “One was 16 or 17” at the time of the alleged incident, “the other was 17.”
Studds never apologized, and when he was censured by his colleagues, he defiantly stood in the House well looking up at Speaker Tip O’Neill, hands casually folded behind his back. Afterward, Studds not only remained in Congress for more than a decade; the House Democratic leadership allowed him to rise in the congressional ranks and for years hold a full committee chairmanship.
Some of Studds’ Democratic colleagues even voted against the slap on the wrist of censure. Then-Rep. Parren Mitchell of Maryland, for instance, complained of the “absolute humiliation and degradation” Studds had already suffered and said censure would “cannibalize him.”
When Studds returned home to his district, an August 1983 editorial — in the liberal Washington Post of all places — asked with astonishment, “What is it exactly, or even inexactly, that those Massachusetts Democrats were so loudly cheering when they gave Rep. Gerry Studds three standing ovations last weekend? What accounts for this extraordinary response to a man just censured for having taken sexual advantage of a youthful congressional page?”
Why were Democrats cheering? Maybe the answer lies in the causes they support and the ideological company they keep.
MIKE B. responded:
read the republican item I posted. I think you picked the wrong party
I respond thus:
You miss the point [as usual]. A Supreme Court Justice wanting to change the age of consent. Democrats wanting H.R.5 which would change the course of sexual relations between adults and minors, and take away parental influence in the arena. Standing ovations. Democrats have a legislative means to change this, Republicans do not.
MIKE B.essentially repeated what he said before by saying: you have not shown one document that is from a credible source that shows she said or thinks that – not one. and, in the end, we both are anti-pedophiles. let’s call it a day on this one.
MY CONCLUSION TO THE CONVO
I cannot make people think well, read well, or read at all…. which is why people like MIKE B. will just link to AP news articles and let the MSM (which the bemoan at other times) do their thinking for them. It’s easier.
But the conversation pivoted to studies done on Ivermectin… to the point that I wondered about how the states in India handing out prophylactic’s earlier this year were doing (Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin). I now set out to find out “what happened,” and this is where that curiosity led to update the issue on my site — I think it’s that important. I figured for the fans here that this continuing point[s] will be helpful in conversation regarding “prophylactic measures.”
The conversation has taken place over a cartoon I was tagged in on Facebook, here is the graphic to the right. So let us pick up with and MIKE B. point:
there are no reputable studies that show ivermectin – no matter what Fox News tells you – is a good treatment for covid. ivermectin is a horse and cattle worm medicine. a parasite is way different than a virus. could it also have some properties that help against covid – everything is possible, but is doubtful. Caleb Wallace an anti-vaxxer took it early in the onset of covid – he still died. if you want to risk your life on horse wormer medicine if you get covid – go for it.
[So M.B. is still stuck on Ivermectin being used for horses… still influenced by Rachel Maddow as noted previously.]
I respond:
RPT:
(Lol) MIKE B. says: “there are no reputable studies that show ivermectin” –113 studies, 73 peer reviewed, 63 with results comparing treatment and control groups.
I posted this as well:
Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. All remain statistically significant after exclusions. 44 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation (35 primary outcome, 32 most serious outcome).
Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 67% [53‑76%] and 85% [75‑91%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis (which excludes all of the GMK/BBC team studies), with primary outcomes, and after restriction to peer-reviewed studies or Randomized Controlled Trials.
Results are very robust — in worst case exclusion sensitivity analysis 55 of 66 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy.
While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 24% of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm.
Multiple treatments are typically used in combination, which may be significantly more effective.
Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used, including treatments, as supported by Pfizer [Pfizer, TrialSiteNews]. Denying the efficacy of treatments increases the risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and increases mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage
[I want the reader to be aware that the 77 Ivermectin trial groups were human trials… [total of] 147 studies, 96 peer reviewed, again, 77 with results comparing treatment and [human] control groups. If you go to the source and click on EARLY, LATE, or PROPHYLAXIS, the “bovine Study” that is in the “all” category are not in those human categories. So M.B.isn’t just randomly choosing” a study. He is selectively doing what the left does all the time. Obfuscate… which is why I said of M.B. in the previous convo, “Obfuscation is thy moniker.”]
Here is MIKE B.’snext post:
Sean G. thanks for the link. I checked it out. these are a load of third world country studies in not name brand medical articles. I read one – picked randomly as the source sounds legit. This is the article: “Ivermectin also inhibits the replication of bovine respiratory viruses (BRSV, BPIV-3, BoHV-1, BCoV and BVDV) in vitro,” it talks about how ivermectin appears to have a positive effect against respiratory viruses that effect sheep and cows – by studying the virus in a test tube. no mention of trial on an animal, on a human or specifically COVID-19. Again – if someone gets COVID-19 and they want to take Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine – go for it. Maybe they are miracle cures that science just hasn’t seen the light yet.
See the switch here? So my “right” that is to follow is commenting mainly on this portion of M.B.’sstatement: “these are a load of third world country studies in not name brand medical articles.” This statement jogged my memory of me wanting to see whats-what in India:
Right.
Many countries without a preconceived bias and/or large pharmaceutical lobbying power were able to actually give HUMAN patients Ivermectin, wit h great results. This is part of the reason Japan’s head medical dude is again calling for it to be used. It is based on real world use (which many of those studies document.
Another example, since April 28, India medical officials started providing Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin to its massive population. As India is the major pharmaceutical manufacture in the world, they were ready for this massive drug distribution. Miraculously, COVID cases have plummeted quickly since then thanks to the new rules.
….The Times of India published this statement on July 29. Kerala has continued to have the majority of new daily cases and almost 25% of India’s daily deaths despite a population of 34 million, less than 3% of India’s total population.
On August 15, Kerala accounted for 18,582 of India’s 32,937 new cases and 102 of India’s 417 new deaths. By contrast, the Ivermectin-using state of Delhi, with nearly the same population size, recorded only 53 new cases and ZERO deaths. In comparison, Uttar Pradesh, with almost eight times as many inhabitants, had only 30 new cases and ONE death.
Kerala had 619 times as many new cases as Uttar Pradesh and over 100 times as many deaths.
So what could Kerala be doing wrong?
Hint: Over-reliance on vaccines and under-reliance on Ivermectin…..
The use of these prophylactics that have proven safe for humans for decades in Africa, France, and the like.
SIDE-NOTE: when Trump mentioned Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a possible prophylactic — because NO ONE was or still is in America treating the disease early, they only wait to you are sick enough to be admitted to the E.R. — France changed HCQ from an over the counter drug to prescription only.
COORECTION:I had mentioned that AFTER Trump mentioned HCQ France banned it. This is not the case, France banned it a couple months earlier: “President Trump mentioned HCQ as a potential “game changer” on Mar 21. But the war against HCQ was already on. Until Jan 15, 2020, HCQ was available over the counter in France. After that it became available by prescription only, days before the first Western reports on the epidemic, which had been circulating in Wuhan, China, at least since October 2019. This was part of a multinational effort to restrict HCQ.”
Australian MP Craig Kelly noted in July that Uttar Pradesh, with a population of 230 million, “smashed the scary Delta variant” with Ivermectin.
In a study in Brazil, 1,200 healthcare workers were part of the study. 800 were given real Ivermectin and the rest [400] got the fake “sugar” pill. The profolaxed 800 healthcare workers? Not one got sick. The 400 that were not given the real deal? 58% got sick. 237 of those 400 got sick.
AGAIN, after the Olympics Japan is dealing with record cases, and AGAIN Dr. Ozaki, The chairman of the Tokyo Metropolitan Medical Association, is recommending Japan take his advice on Ivermectin.
CONCLUSIONS:Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.
M.B. responds:
Sean G. the india data on Kerela vs. Delhi is not accurate. Delhi is in far worse shape than Kerela
My response, and I assume the silence after posting this is because he didn’t realize he was not taking into account “when” Ivermectin/HCQ were introduced. It “sounded good” until more info was introduced. So I worked on grabbing some graphs (better than what the articles provided) and combined them all for affect. You can see that HERE, but below they are separated for ease of viewing. And again, it is similar to what I noted above — finding a “bovine test” and applying that to the whole, or calling Ivermectin a horse “dewormer” as if there is no application of it for humans:
(I did some coloring and connecting of these 4-graphs to make it clear) Kerala reports 188 deaths in last 24 hours. Kerala accounts for 70 percent new Covid cases in the country.
No death due to COVID-19 was recorded in Delhi for the fourth consecutive day on Sunday. (No death due to COVID-19 was recorded on July 18, July 24, July 29, August 2, August 4, August 8, August 11, August 12, August 13, August 16, August 20, August 21, August 22, August 23, August 24, August 26 and August 27, August 28 too, according to official data.)
CASES
(KEY: Kerala rejected prophylactic and relied just on vaccines)
(KEY: HCQ & IVER Were Introduced 4-20-2021)
DEATHS
It just so happened that this conversation happened just after some excellent article appeared, one of the best ones is by a favored columnist of mine, Daniel Horowitz. The article is titled, “The Unmistakable Ivermectin Miracle In The Indian State of Uttar Pradesh.” Another “multi-part” set of posts I highly recommend are as follows — BTW, I use Delhi in my example above because M.B.mentioned it, however, the articles deal more with Uttar Pradesh.
So again, the effectiveness of the vaccines have dropped to under 40%, which is lower than Fauci’s “scientists are hoping for a vaccine that is 75 percent effective — but even a 50 or 60 percent success rate would be considered a win.” But we KNOW that HCQ and IVER have a 64% and 84% effective rate. But these not patented, cheap, safe drugs do not have a multi-national corporation[s] behind highly paid lobbyists to ensure their product is taken. For instance, “fully vaccinated” in Israel use to mean both shots of the mRNA vaccines. Now, to be fully vaccinated means to have three shots [the booster].
What The Hell?
UPDATE On Uttar Pradesh
Keep in mind this state has an estimated population of 241 million people in 2021 and has the highest population in India. This is almost two-thirds of the United States population in 2021 and yet it is now a COVID-19 free nation. Here is the story via HINDUSATAN TIMES (hat-tip to GATEWAY PUNDIT):
33 Districts In Uttar Pradesh Are Now Covid-Free: State Govt| Overall, the state has a total of 199 active cases, while the positivity rate came down to less than 0.01 per cent.
There are no active cases of the coronavirus disease (Covid-19) in 33 districts of Uttar Pradesh, the state government informed on Friday. About 67 districts have not reported a single new case of the viral infection in the last 24 hours, the government said, noting the steady improvement of the Covid-19 situation in the state.
The 33 Covid free districts include Aligarh, Amroha, Ayodhya, Baghpat, Ballia, Balrampur, Banda, Basti, Bahraich, Bijnor, Bhadohi, Chitrakoot, Chandauli, Etah, Deoria, Fatehpur, Ghazipur, Gonda, Hamirpur, Hapur, Hardoi, Hathras, Kasganj, Lalitpur and Mahoba. The list also includes Moradabad, Muzaffarnagar, Pilibhit, Rampur, Saharanpur, Shamli, Siddharth Nagar, and Sonbhadra, according to the state government data.
Overall, the state has a total of 199 active cases, while the positivity rate came down to less than 0.01 per cent. The recovery rate, meanwhile, has improved to 98.7 per cent. As per the state’s health bulletin, Uttar Pradesh reported only 11 new Covid-19 cases and zero deaths in the last 24 hours. The fresh cases came out of 2.26 lakh samples that were tested in the last 24 hours. As of Friday, the state government has conducted 7.42 crore tests, according to the data published by Uttar Pradesh’s health department.
On the vaccination front, around 7 crore people in the state have received their first dose of the jab. The vaccination coverage in the state has exceeded 8.47 crores, out of which, 12 lakh people have been inoculated in the last 2 hours.
Meanwhile, the overall nationwide tally climbed to 33,174,954 after recording 34,973 cases in the last 24 hours. This was around 19% lower than Thursday when the country had logged 43,263 fresh infections. The death toll stands at 442,009.
Uttar Pradesh is the leading state in India to use Ivermectin as early and preventatively in all family contacts. And this state is one of the five lowest COVID cases of all states in India despite having only a low vaccination rate of 5.8% fully vaccinated compared to the USA that has 54% fully vaccinated.
Uttar Pradesh was the first state in the country to introduce large-scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of Ivermectin. In May-June 2020, a team at Agra, led by Dr. Anshul Pareek, administered Ivermectin to all RRT team members in the district on an experimental basis. It was observed that none of them developed Covid-19 despite being in daily contact with patients who had tested positive for the virus,” Uttar Pradesh State Surveillance Officer Vikssendu Agrawal said.
He added that based on the findings from Agra, the state government sanctioned the use of Ivermectin as a prophylactic for all the contacts of Covid patients and later cleared the administration of therapeutic doses for the treatment of such patients.
Claiming that timely introduction of Ivermectin since the first wave has helped the state maintain a relatively low positivity rate despite its high population density, he said, “Despite being the state with the largest population base and a high population density, we have maintained a relatively low positivity rate and cases per million of population”.
He said that apart from aggressive contact tracing and surveillance, the lower positivity and fatality rates may be attributed to the large-scale use of Ivermectin use in the state, adding that the drug has recently been introduced in the National Protocol for Covid treatment and management. “Once the second wave subsides, we would conduct our own study as there has been an emerging body of evidence to substantiate our timely use of Ivermectin from the first wave itself,” Vikasendu told The Indian Express.”
This is Dr. Dan Stock addressing the Mt. Vernon School Board in Indiana over the futility of mask mandates and Covid-19 protocols in most schools. (Hat-tip to HANCOCK COUNTY PATRIOTS)
so conversation on my Facebook and some early early morning reading is what follows. The first portion is via my RPT FACEBOOK and some honest dialogue follows my descriptor to the above video:
Facebook Convo
(OP – Original Post) Good presentation. This rant is not related to the video, but I was thinking about this today. Whenever there is a bad flu year, we always deal with the variants in years to come, and, typically they aren’t as deadly. Like Delta. So deaths, and hospitalization are typically lower than the Alpha strain. So tent triages and the like were set up for the 2017-2018 flu season — (the CDC estimates that between 46,000 and 95,000 Americans died due to influenza during the 2017-18 flu season. This resulted in an estimated 959,000 hospitalizations and a middle-ground of 61,099 deaths) and the subsequent variants were less deadly, but they are still floating around. But this seasons Delta Variant is less of a bugger than 2017-18, maybe even the 2012-2013 flu season — (56,000 deaths is the CDC estimate. 571,000 influenza-related hospitalizations). But people still want to live in fear, rather than live. Its sad.
(KRIS W. — a thoughtfully minded conservative) This doctor was great! I hope you are right about the numbers. I refuse to live in fear.
(ME)Kris W., So, the Alpha Covid strain was here in September of 2019. So the Covid season “A” was 2019-2020. We are now in a 2020-2021 season. The numbers from this season need to be separated from the previous. I bet we are closer to bad seasons from previous years. And next year will be better. But like other flu strains, we will have Covid with us forever. (Flu shots are a hodgepodge mixture of various strains, and people who get it hope one of the many strains in the shot get close to the actual, and so lessons the symptoms if they get the flu. Same here. These Covid strains may be in a cocktail mix in the future.)
What follows is the same OP but on my personal FB:
(SAME OP)
(MIKE B. – a very liberal leftist dude)it’s a choice – this guy would have made a different choice if given the chance – WASHINTON POST
(RPT’S NOTE: I have heard audio and been given various links to this same story – ad infinitum. I heard it covered on talk radio before any of these libs were passing it around.)
(JOSHUA P. – A much smarter version of myself) I’ve known people who have died in car accidents. If they hadn’t been driving, they would have lived. Guess we should stop driving.
You might respond that this is different because the vaccine is safe, except I also know people who have gone to the hospital for complications after getting it, and we have people who have died locally after taking it, within days, from sudden unprecedented heart problems.
Everyone on earth is going to die. If you want to worship the precautionary principle as your god, you will still die. You’ll just live a miserable life before you do. Nothing lowers reasoning capabilities like fear.
(ME)Mike B., Yep, it’s a choice, and the possibility of death by choice goes both ways. For instance, I referenced in one of my posts a young 28-year-old Staff Sergeant Deven Futch who had a massive heart attack at family day at Camp Pendleton. If he had not been so fit, and in a crowd that knew what to do and a federal fire department that rocks, he would have been dead. Now he is at the center of a very large study about the side-effects of the mRNA issues. But hey, force the military (my sons) to get it.
Also, while I know part of the reason for these numbers, here is a snag in the reasoning to get them:
“95% of the severe patients are vaccinated”.
“85-90% of the hospitalizations are in Fully vaccinated people.”
“We are opening more and more COVID wards.”
“The effectiveness of the vaccine is waning/fading out”
The above was fact checked at BOOMLIVE. But the fact check didn’t necessarily disprove the Tweet (now gone but still represented above).Here is the fact check…. and they note that boosters are needed — I think Israel is on their 4th or 5th booster. Here is part of the fact-check that effectively says the same thing:
Misleading Captions
The posts claim that Haviv says, “95% of the severe patients are vaccinated.” However, he does not utter these words in either the full or edited video.
He actually said, “Most of the elderly are vaccinated, most of the population is vaccinated, and that’s why around 90 percent, 85-90 percent of the patients hospitalised here are patients that were fully vaccinated.”
Health experts have pointed out that in places with high vaccination rates, it is expected that a high proportion of people admitted to hospital with Covid-19 have received the jab, as there is still a risk of breakthrough infections.
Furthermore, the posts make it appear Haviv is describing the COVID-19 vaccine situation generally, when in fact he is referring to his own hospital.
The posts claim he said that “85-90% of the hospitalisations are in fully vaccinated people” but omit the Hebrew word “etslenu”, which translates “at our place”.
In a similar way, the posts misquote Haviv as saying, “We are opening more and more COVID wards,” although he does not utter these words.
In the full version of the video, Haviv explains that a second unit opened for COVID-19 patients at his hospital was already full. He does not say that “more and more” Covid wards are opening, either at his hospital or elsewhere.
The final quote attributed to Haviv about the efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines “fading” is missing context.
The posts claim he said, “The effectiveness of the vaccine is waning/fading out”.
In the full interview, he said in Hebrew, “Unfortunately, as we hear, the efficiency of the vaccines fades. That’s why I hope people will hear the call for the third vaccine and that the third vaccine will help.”
S-o-o-o Ditto
(MIKE B.)Sean G. [ME] those stats are crazy. Who is checking their accuracy. They say if you are vaccinated you are more likely to have a severe case. That just isn’t in the same zip code as truth
(ME) Those stats are out of Israel… who have the highest vaccinations out of almost all countries. And are on their third booster shots. Again:
“95% of the severe patients are vaccinated”.
“85-90% of the hospitalizations are in Fully vaccinated people.”
(MIKE B.)Sean G. I can say locally Florida is on fire. And it is the anti-Vaxxers that are hospitalized. And I agree it is a choice
(ME) Mike Baxter the response to this is similar to Israel… many are the elderly, and many of them have been vaccinated. So whether vaccinated or not, this virus is bad for older people.
Israel’s third booster is failing….
Same in Florida… HOWEVER, since the normal seasons start in the 9th month (we are in the 2020-2021 season*), the pic of Covid deaths of Florida is probably way less than the flu seasons I speak of (the OP) in Florida, or similar.
(From Florida’s Health Dept)
* (This was a response on my RPT page to an ally who had a question on the same OP):
So, the Alpha Covid strain was here in September of 2019. So the Covid season “A” was 2019-2020. We are now in a 2020-2021 season. The numbers from this season need to be separated from the previous. I bet we are closer to bad seasons from previous years. And next year will be better. But like other flu strains, we will have Covid with us forever. (Flu shots are a hodgepodge mixture of various strains, and people who get it hope one of the many strains in the shot get close to the actual, and so lessons the symptoms if they get the flu. Same here. These Covid strains may be in a cocktail mix in the future.)
Updated Aug. 6 with CDC analysis of Kentucky (unvaccinated Kentuckians had “2.34 times the odds of reinfection“ compared with fully vaccinated) and national analysis in Israel (vaccinated Israelis were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection). More below.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) became one of the latest high-profile figures to get sick with Covid-19, even though he’s fully vaccinated. In a statement Monday, Graham said it feels like he has “the flu,” but is “certain” he would be worse if he hadn’t been vaccinated.
While it’s impossible to know whether that’s the case, public health officials are grappling with the reality of an increasing number of fully-vaccinated Americans coming down with Covid-19 infections, getting hospitalized, and even dying of Covid. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) insists vaccination is still the best course for every eligible American. But many are asking if they have better immunity after they’re infected with the virus and recover, than if they’re vaccinated.
Increasingly, the answer within the data appears to be ”yes.”….
It is now well-established that natural immunity develops upon infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a manner analogous to other coronaviruses. While natural infection may not provide permanent infection-blocking immunity, itoffersanti–diseaseimmunityagainstseveredisease and death that is likely permanent. Among the millions that have recovered from COVID19, exceedinglyfewhave become sick again.
Propagated by the media, the idea that infection does not confer effective immunity has made its way into decisions by governments, public health agencies, and private institutions, harming pandemic health policy. The central premise underlying these regulations is that only vaccines make a person clean. For instance:
The state of Oregon has instituted a discriminatory vaccine passport system that provides privileges to the vaccinated but treats recovered COVID patients like second-class citizens even though natural infection confers disease protection.
The European Union will be open to vaccinated tourists this June, but not to recovered COVID patients.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recently amended their mask guidelines, no longer recommending masks outdoor for those vaccinated. However, those who are immune by natural infection are out of luck and must continue to wear masks.
Universities like Cornell and Stanford, which are supposed to be bastions of scientific knowledge, have mandated vaccines for students and faculty. Neither exempt people who are immune by dint of natural infection.
Even the World Health Organization (WHO) has stumbled. In the fall, they changed their definition of herd immunity to something achieved through vaccination rather than a combination of natural immunity and vaccines. Only after a public backlash did they change it back in January to reflect reality.
(GREAT READ)
BOOST THE INSANITY: Before you even CONSIDER a third shot, please read this, by Alex Berenson
….The real-world data – from Israel, the United States, and everywhere else – are clear. Protection from infection fades within months even against the original coronavirus. It shrinks essentially to zero against the Delta variant (we can argue about time vs. variant effects, but the answer doesn’t matter in this context, either way the vaccines have stopped working).
For now, vaccine advocates are clinging to the hope that even if the vaccines do not protect against infection, they still provide some protection against more serious illness and death. I think the jury is still out on that question, but again it is largely irrelevant for this conversation – the Covid wards are filling in Israel, and most people in them are older and vaccinated. If the vaccines do offer any help after a few months against serious illness, it is far less than the 95-99 percent protection that advocates have claimed.
Thus the move for a third shot. And possibly more shots to come.
But please – please! – understand how radical a move this is…..
SOME ACTUAL NEWS: About Moderna adverse event reports, by Alex Berenson
Covid vaccine maker Moderna received 300,000 reports of side effects after vaccinations over a three-month period following the launch of its shot, according to an internal report from a company that helps Moderna manage the reports.
That figure is far higher than the number of side effect reports about Moderna’s vaccine publicly available in the federal system that tracks such adverse events.
Vaccine manufacturers like Moderna are legally required to forward all side effect reports they receive to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, where they are made public each week.
Run by the Centers for Disease Control and Food & Drug Administration, the VAERS system is crucial to tracking potential problems with vaccines. It helped scientists determine the Covid vaccines may cause heart problems in young adults.
The reason for the gap is not clear. Moderna may simply still be processing the reports, though the number of reports about Moderna’s vaccine in VAERS from the first half of 2021 remained almost flat this week.
Moderna and IQVIA, the company that works with Moderna to handle the reports, did not return emails for comment.
[….]
The 300,000 figure comes from an internal update provided to employees by IQVIA, a little-known but enormous company that helps drugmakers manage clinical trials. Headquartered in North Carolina, IQVIA has 74,000 employees worldwide and had $11 billion in sales last year.
Earlier this week, Richard Staub, the president of IQVIA’s Research & Development Solutions division, sent a “Q2 2021 update” which was labeled “Confidential – For internal distribution only.”…..
(Click to Enlarge)
BIRTHDAY VS. BIKERS: Elites display double standard over Obama bash, motorcycle event, JUST THE NEWS
While Dr. Anthony Fauci expressed fears Sturgis Motorcycle Rally would be Delta variant “superspreader event,” N.Y. Times reporter soft-pedaled risk of viral spread by “sophisticated, vaccinated crowd” celebrating liberal icon on Martha’s Vineyard.
[….]
While Stephen Colbert of CBS’ “The Late Show” is advocating that Americans be excluded from participating in society without a vaccination card, he has also remained silent about Obama’s apparently maskless party.
Colbert “is a total hypocrite,” tweeted former acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell. “And Democrat Party apologist. Did Obama’s party have vaccination card requirements for guests, Stephen?”
While some have argued that those in attendance had to confirm they received the COVID-19 shots, political commentator Candice Owens claimed she can confirm at least two attendees who were there who have not received them and that attendees were not required to be vaccinated to attend. Obama’s office has not released a statement on the vaccination status of the attendees.
Meanwhile, Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Biden’s chief medical adviser, targeted motorcyclists convening in Sturgis, S.D., without saying a word about Obama’s party.
Fauci said he was concerned about the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally becoming a “superspreader event” of the so-called Delta variant.
“Well I’m very concerned that we’re going to see another surge related to that rally,” said Fauci. “I mean, to me it’s understandable that people want to do the kinds of things they want to do. They want their freedom to do that, but there comes a time when you’re dealing with a public health crisis that could involve you, your family and everyone else, that something supersedes that need to do exactly what you want to do.”
The CDC, meanwhile, has not explained its testing methodology, even as critics have pointed out that tests to determine variants are not available on a national scale, making it difficult to determine if someone who tests positive for the coronavirus has a variant or not.
New York Times White House correspondent Annie Karni defended Obama’s party. She told CNN the reaction to the party “has really been overblown, they’re following all the safety precautions, people are going to sporting events that are bigger than this, this is going to be safe, this is a sophisticated, vaccinated crowd and this is just about optics it’s not about safety.”
California attorney Harmeet K. Dhillon mocked Karni’s remarks, saying, “Of course viruses don’t attack sophisticated people.”….
….Good doctors do not base medical decisions on passionate rhetoric or flawed logic, and especially not on political ideology. They make recommendations based on medical information confirmed by rigorous, statistically robust, apolitical scientific study. There is an abundance of evidence regarding children and COVID, confirming that masks are not helpful and can in fact be harmful.
A randomized controlled study of mask protection was performed in Denmark during April-May 2020 and published after critical peer-review in the Annals of Internal Medicine. Researchers concluded that mask wearing “did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate.” No similarly rigorous study has been reported showing that masks do protect. Nonetheless, the U.S. government has repeatedly mandated mask wearing, including for children.
There is abundant evidence that masks do not prevent COVID infection in children. “Reported face mask use . . . [in child athletes] . . . did not have a significant relationship with COVID-19 incidence,” one study of Wisconsin high school athletes found. A July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine similarly found no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks against virus infection or transmission. Studies in Florida, Massachusetts and New York schools as well as schools in Sweden, “do not find any correlations with mask mandates.”
The medical risk of COVID infection in children has been greatly exaggerated. Without a serious pre-existing condition such as leukemia or kidney failure, the mortality rate among children with COVID is zero. A very large study from Germany concluded that children “act as a brake” on COVID spread. Other studies show that children have strong natural immunity to COVID, have better outcomes than adults when hospitalized, and spread the virus less than adults.
Researchers recently reported in Cell Reports-Medicine, Vol. 2, Is. 7, July 20, 2021, that, “Most recovered COVID-19 patients mount broad, durable immunity after infection,” including both persisting antibodies as well as memory B and T cells. Simply put, after being infected, most people have strong naturally acquired protection against COVID for all variants.
Masking children is worse than non-protective: it is harmful, both medically and socially. In a small, uncontrolled study in Gainesville, Florida, of masks worn by children, 11 dangerous (non-COVID) pathogens were found, including Mycobacterium tuberculosis (causes tuberculosis), Neisseria meningitidis (meningitis), Borrelia burgdorferi(Lyme disease), andEscherichia coli(severe diarrhea), amongst others. It is shocking that a study of potential medical danger from face masks was not done by the CDC, NIH, or any government agency. This study was performed and paid for by the parents of the children in the study.
In addition to the lack of protection and the medical harm of masking children, there are other adverse effects such as impaired learning. Social psychologists tell us that body language, especially the face, is more communicative than verbal.
“Suck my wheel?!” is an oft-used expression in bicycle racing. When said with a smile, it is an offer of assistance allowing the person behind to draft the one in front. When said with an angry, threatening face, it dares the person behind to try to draft. Same words but totally different meanings depending on facial expression.
When we cover the faces of our children and their teachers, we impede communication and kids’ ability to learn. Mental health has clearly deteriorated from mandatory social isolation. Illicit drug usage is up. Suicides have increased, especially in teenagers.
Despite all the evidence above, and citing no evidence of its own, the CDC urged parents, “Children 2 years or older should wear masks in public indoor settings, including schools.” This official medical advisory was released in peer-reviewed, medically authoritative, nonpartisan news outlet, Twitter.
Medical science proves that a face mask on a child is not protective, and worse, a face mask is harmful.
No parent would intentionally “facemask” a child. However, a parent who blindly follows federal, state, or local anti-scientific mandates to mask up our children is doing just that!….
Most important in this post is this, WHERE CAN I GET Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin? AMERICA’S FRONTLINE DOCTORS has a consultation sign up HERE! See also FLCCC ALLIANCE (Click Pic)
I was challenged by a FB acquaintance to support my claim as follows:
What is funny is that during Bush’s presidency and especially Trump’s the Left screamed at the top of their political lungs that Republicans were going to ask people for papers, and have re-education camps. Papers for vaccinations and equity, diversity, and CRT [mandatory] workshops for workers, children, and the like.
But before I get to my response, the following video [via a family member in Idaho] is part of it, just belated to my response… via FREEDOMSTANDS USA(Facebook, Instagram, RUMBLE!)
Flip Flop Biden on vaccine mandates, stop mandates in Idaho.
Here is my response… updated with some media and the like. I only focused on one part, but plan on another post documenting the Left charging Republicans with wanting re-education camps and wanting to see “papers,” like in Communist and Fascist nations of the past (the 20th century). Enjoy:
MIKE B. ––who is this left the meme references and how many people is that
ME (RPT) —The Democrats leadership in California and New York (LA City and New York City) are or have contemplated/passed this. The Democrat leadership in the White House. Many corporations and public (government} schools accepting the newer race/class/gender view of relations/history.
MIKE B. —show me the quotes. This sounds like right wing blather
Here is my extended response:
PAPERS “PLEASE”
This took a very long time as I am right-handed, and I cannot use my right hand for a couple of weeks. I mat do a post later next month with this and the re-education camps of CRT, Equity and Diversity in leftist corporations and government schools… and the times the Left said Trump and Pence were going to put gays in reeducation camps and now a call to put Trump supporters through reeducation…. but here is one topic:
POP-CULTURE
Jimmy Kimmel
“We now have controversies where we never had them before,” the late-night host said, referring to current right-wing freakout over the so-called “vaccine passports” that the Biden administration is currently developing in conjunction with various private entities. “If you have a vaccine passport,” Kimmel explained, you will be able to do things like travel or go to concerts and sporting events. “But unfortunately many Republicans aren’t on board with that.” And he began with Ron DeSantis, “the terrible governor of Florida,” who declared his opposition to the idea of requiring vaccinations to enter crowded spaces. (VIDEO)
WHITE HOUSE
“Now we need to go to community-by-community, neighborhood-by-neighborhood, and oftentimes, door-to-door — literally knocking on doors — to get help to the remaining people” who need to be vaccinated – BIDEN
The Homeland Security chief said the U.S. was focused on “making sure that any passport that we provide for vaccinations is accessible to all and that no one is disenfranchised” if one is required. Vaccine passports being developed by the European Union and other countries and private groups are so far digitally-based, raising concerns that they could potentially disenfranchise groups like those who don’t have smartphones. (FORBES)
Biden Administration Helping Develop Standards To Prove Vaccination
The Biden administration is working on creating a set of standards for people to prove they’ve been vaccinated against Covid-19, according to an administration official.
The official said they’re currently working with a range of companies on the standards, including non-profits and tech companies, adding that they are likely still weeks away from being finalized, the official said.
Multiple government agencies are engaged in conversations and planning, coordinated by the White House, as this kind of system will play a role in multiple aspects of life, including potentially the workforce, another senior administration official told CNN.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday there will be no federal mandate requiring every American to obtain a vaccination credential and there will be no centralized universal federal vaccinations database.
She also said the White House expects the private sector to drive “a determination or development of a vaccine passport, or whatever you want to call it.”
President Joe Biden has predicted that life in the US could be back to normal by Christmas, and as more Americans are vaccinated each day, these vaccine credentials – commonly called “vaccine passports” – could be key to a return to normalcy by the end of the year….
Rumble — Cannot grocery shop without vaccine proof. While I do not think this is the mark… however… with the world wide possibility of a vaccine “passport” and the fear the Left instills through the media and other venues on the willing [and more secular] population – I can say this is an archetype that is world events align, will be soon. With the speed of change in our nation, the worldwide tracking, censoring, and the proclivity of people to want to be safe rather than have liberty – I see it as being sooner than later.
REVELATION 13:17
…to buy or to sell. Antichrist’s mark will allow people to engage in daily commerce, including the purchase of food and other necessities. Without the identifying mark, individuals will be cut off from the necessities of life. number of his name. The beast (Antichrist) will have a name inherent in a numbering system. It is not clear from the text exactly what this name and number system will be or what its significance will be.
John F. MacArthur Jr., The MacArthur Study Bible: New American Standard Bible. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2006), Re 13:17.
The purpose, (so that; Gk. hina) of the mark is that no-one should engage in trade without it. Could (dynētai) is stronger than ‘hinder’ or the like. It points to a total prohibition, which would make it impossible for people without the mark to buy even necessities like food. It is thus impossible for those who oppose the beast even to live.
Leon Morris, Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 20, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 167.
“Anti-vaxxers are a scourge and a strong argument for re-education camps, the immediate seizure of their property, and putting their children into protective custody” – many time guest on CNN, RICK WILSON (anti-Trumper)
Los Angeles city officials are considering whether to require proof of vaccination against COVID-19 in order to participate in public indoor activities, including visiting gyms and dining at restaurants. City council President Nury Martinez (D) and Councilmember Mitch O’Farrell (D) unveiled legislation on Wednesday seeking to put in place an ordinance that would “require eligible individuals to have received at least one dose of vaccination to enter indoor spaces.” The motion lists among the covered indoor locations restaurants, bars, retail stores, fitness centers, spas and venues like stadiums and movie theaters. (THE HILL)
The survey of 1,649 U.S. adults, which was conducted from April 6 to April 8, found that a significant majority of Democrats (61 percent) would favor certain businesses requiring verification of vaccination from customers — while a near-identical share of Republicans (62 percent) would oppose such a requirement. (YAHOO NEWS)
New York City will become the first major U.S. city to require proof of COVID-19 vaccination at restaurants, gyms and other businesses, Mayor Bill de Blasio said on Tuesday (YAHOO NEWS)
A couple of Los Angeles City Council members have decided not to be outdone by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s recent vaccine passport mandate. On Wednesday, they announced they were introducing their own. L.A. City Council President Nury Martinez and Councilman Mitch O’Farrell have introduced a motion instructing the city attorney to draft an ordinance requiring people in Los Angeles to provide proof of at least one vaccine dose in order to enter any indoor spaces “including but not limited to restaurants, bars, retail establishments, fitness centers, spas, and entertainment centers such as stadiums, concert venues, and movie theaters.” (REASON)
North Carolina also created a state-certified COVID-19 vaccination card recently, while the state of Hawaii has maintained a vaccine passport program for nearly a month now. … other states like Connecticut are also talking about a vaccine passport program. … However, several states with Republican governors — including Arkansas, Florida, Georgia and Iowa — have outright banned the use of a vaccine passport. (MARKET PLACE)
North Dakota Senator Kevin Cramer is pushing for legislation to force states that are requiring COVID-19 vaccine passports to also mandate voter identification. …. Cramer’s North Dakota is among the 20 states who have already vowed not to introduce a statewide vaccine proof requirement.(NY POST)
California Rolls Out Digital Vaccine Verification — But Don’t Call It A Passport
Don’t call it a vaccine passport, but California now offers something that’s awfully close.
The state’s Departments of Public Health and Technology unveiled a website Friday that lets users who verify their identities get digital copies of their Covid-19 vaccination record.
Called the Digital Covid-19 Vaccine Record portal, the site is meant as a digital backup to the paper cards from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that Americans receive when they get a Covid-19 vaccination, said Amy Tong, the state’s chief information officer.
It “provides Californians a way to view and save their own vaccine record,” Tong said on a press call. “Instead of having a card, if they want to have a digital version of the same CDC card, this is your opportunity to do so.”
Residents can take a screen grab of their record on the site if they want to avoid carrying around a CDC card, she said.
Most important in this post is this, WHERE CAN I GET Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin? AMERICA’S FRONTLINE DOCTORS has a consultation sign up HERE! See also FLCCC ALLIANCE (Click Pic)
