Kari Lake’s legal team alleged that 58% of Maricopa County’s 446 ballot tabulators failed logic and accuracy testing before Election Day. (JUST THE NEWS):
….During the hearing on Friday, Lake’s legal counsel cited a new declaration by Jarrett that Maricopa County submitted, saying that, after the certification of the ballot tabulators on Oct. 11, the county realized that they hadn’t configured the ballot tabulators to reject provisional ballots. As a result, the county “went in, rewrote the memory cards, improved the software,” and “reconfigured” the tabulator machines, said Lake’s lawyer. This meant that the county had to conduct logic and accuracy testing again, argued Lake’s counsel.
Her team also noted that 58% of the ballot tabulators failed logic and accuracy testing and that, according to “testimony of over 200 witnesses who were voters at vote centers, 59% of Maricopa County vote centers experienced severe malfunctions of tabulators.”
The defendants’ legal team argued that Lake was seeking inappropriate relief for her allegations and that Jarrett’s declaration wasn’t a “shocking bombshell” or proof of a violation of the logic and accuracy testing requirement. Instead, the security feature to prevent provisional or early ballots from being tabulated by the machines was installed on Oct. 10 onto the sampling of tabulators that were to undergo logic and accuracy testing, which they passed on Oct. 11. Then, the security feature that passed testing on Oct. 11 was installed on the rest of the tabulators.….
Will update the below Sharyl Attkisson piece on Sunday with her larger piece. Can’t wait!
How two Republicans in a mostly Hispanic, Democrat border community exposed 2020 election fraud in Arizona. Sunday on Full Measure. pic.twitter.com/0b4PIdvTZe
— Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️♂️💼🥋 (@SharylAttkisson) May 12, 2023
Here’s one of my stories on the ADD drug Risperdal, with side effects causing little boys to grow breasts & sometimes “feel like a girl” & get mastectomies. In whose interest would it be to not want wider questions asked about our youth population?
First order of business – “what the effe?”
The U.S. is one of the most over-prescribed countries in the world and there are millions of cases of adverse drug reactions every year. Full Measure examines one widely-prescribed pill that’s had devastating side effects for young boys. This is an older story (August 7, 2016), but found it because of Sharyl’s Tweeting it.
…Last month, a Philadelphia jury awarded $70 million dollars to the family of a boy who developed breasts at the age of five after taking Risperdal. Johnson and Johnson is challenging that verdict, the largest to date. Jurors found the company intentionally falsified, destroyed or concealed evidence in the case. In 2013, Johnson and Johnson paid $2.2 billion dollars to settle a host of criminal and civil fraud claims for illegally marketing Risperdal and other drugs. The firm won’t say how much money it’s made from Risperdal or how many are taking it.
“Definitions now are being rewritten and changed in real-time to fit…whatever the establishment wants people to think,” says five-time Emmy Award-winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson. The term “anti-vaxxine” is now used to describe anybody who is opposed to vaccine mandates. In this episode, we discuss how propagandists have taken control of the information landscape.
MINISTRY of TRUTH
TECHNO FROG details the CDC’s emails discussing changing the term “vaccination”
The CDC caused an uproar in early September 2021, after it changed its definitions of “vaccination” and “vaccine.” For years, the CDC had set definitions for vaccination/vaccine that discussed immunity. This all changed on September 1, 2021.
The prior CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination (August 26, 2021):
Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.
The CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination since September 1, 2021:
Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.
People noticed. Representative Thomas Massie was among the first to discuss the change, noting the definition went from “immunity” to “protection”.
[….]
CDC emails we obtained via the Freedom of Information Act reveal CDC worries with how the performance of the COVID-19 vaccines didn’t match the CDC’s own definition of “vaccine”/“vaccination”. The CDC’s Ministry of Truth went hard at work in the face of legitimate public questions on this issue…..
Another note on the Merriam Webster (Ditionary) change to “Vaccine” is elucidated by DECEPTION, SELF-DECEPTION, & DEFACTUALIZATION — who has an excellent subtitle to the site: “Wherever money is insufficient to bury the truth, ignorance, propaganda, and short memories finish the job.” Funny and sad at the same time.
Paraphrasing George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ to illustrate a simple concept my mother drummed into my head from as far back as I can remember, ‘Words mean things.’
In his other memorable offering, ‘1984,’ Orwell used a construct called “Newspeak” as a means for his dystopian government to control thought. It did so by limiting the number of words available with which to articulate thought. I suppose elimination of words was to the author a simpler method to use in fiction when compared to that which has been employed in fact by those who seek to control our thoughts and our acceptance of their agendas.
The current pathway to achieving Orwell’s objective in what we like to think of as ‘the real world’ is to keep the words but change their meaning. There can be no more glaring example than Merriam Webster’s treatment of the word ‘vaccine.’ One day the word referred to a substance administered to an individual in order to convey immunity and to stop the spread of a disease. Overnight it was expanded to include Gene Therapy.
Consider the difference this small addition makes. The pushback against ‘vaccine’ is growing in scope and strength, fueled primarily by the revelation that it is not a vaccine but in fact is gene therapy. Now, with the stroke of a pen, it is also a vaccine. For the propagandists this neutralizes all argument based on whether or not the government is being truthful in its vaccine regulations, mandates and other pronouncements. Now that gene therapy is a vaccine it is no longer a lie. Advantage Orwell.
Consider VAERS, that trove of information on the negative aspects of vaccines. This is a useful compilation of information but also illustrates our government’s approach to the entire subject. When reports are helpful to the official narrative they are akin to gospel but when they provide data that runs counter to the narrative they are false information. My reaction to the government’s self-serving position on VAERS is like that of Enid Strict, SNL’s Church lady, “Well, isn’t that special?”….
FOX NEWS covers the change in “Anti-Vaxxer” in the Merriam Webster dictionary as well, saying,
Merriam-Webster’s online definition of “anti-vaxxer” is spreading on social media this month amid outrage over vaccine mandates. The definition of the term was first added to the online dictionary in 2018 and was updated in late September.
“Redefine words all you want Merriam Webster, but WORDS STILL HAVE MEANING. By this definition, you aren’t pro-vaccine unless you believe the government should force everyone to get a medical procedure?” Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’s press secretary, Christina Pushaw, tweeted Wednesday morning.
Fox News examined Merriam-Webster’s current definition of “anti-vaxxer” compared to its definition from 2018, and found it omitted the word “laws” in favor of “regulations.” The definition still states, however, that an “anti-vaxxer” includes people who oppose such rules on vaccinations or the vaccines, themselves.
“Definition of anti-vaxxer: a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination,” Merriam-Webster’s website currently states, noting that it was updated on Sept. 29, 2021.
Editor at large of Merriam-Webster.com, Peter Sokolowski, told PoltiFact in May – after outrage first cropped up over the definition – that the word was first added in 2018.
At the time, Sokolowski said the definition remained unchanged from 2018.
Merriam-Webster did not immediately respond to Fox News’s request for comment on why the definition was updated on Sept. 29.
Fox News also examined the definition of “anti-vaxxer” in the New Oxford American dictionary and found it does not include language on mandates, laws or regulations.
“A person who is opposed to vaccination, typically a parent who does not wish to vaccinate their child,” the New Oxford American dictionary states.
After the definition was criticized over the summer, critics have taken to Twitter to lambaste the definition again following its update last month.
[….]
And of course the CDC changes what is required to be considered “vaccinated” regarding Covid Shots — RIGHT SCOOP:
What do you call it when they create an endless set of steps you have to take to remain a part of society? Because that is what is happening. Think about what we’re being told.
We’re told to stay inside and do nothing until there’s a vaccine and then when we get it we can finally start returning to normal life. Except after the vaccines, they say it’s not enough, keep wearing masks and staying six feet apart and also a bunch of industries and private businesses will have to remain out of work.
That’s not good enough for them, though. So, every day someone on cable news, often CNN’s “Dr.” Wen but often just commentators or even reporters and anchors, goes on air and says how we aren’t harsh enough to unvaxxed, they have to be punished more, they have to be driven from society further. That’s still happening every day.
Except vaccination isn’t vaccination, is it? You have to get a booster too. The covid regime forever……
This is essentially part two of a previous post, and is really a commentary or a piecing together of conversation on Doc J’s Facebook. Here is the Original Post (OP) and where I decided to dive in – in the discussion strain.
As I said previously… I probably agree with Doc J on most things encompassing the worldview we hold. The Judeo-Christian framework of viewing nature, our belief in God, and the like. I recommend his books as they are well researched and written.
…all the being said… let’s continue…
This comment by TD G. caught my eye, and I want to preproduce it here as it signifies my position as well:
I’m taking a stand against a wicked govt, establishment, and world which I don’t trust is looking out for my best interests or being honest with me. You seem to be enamored with the nanny state and trust it like it’s your “Big Brother”.
They are using this virus and treatment to take control of the food industry (not that food is important), the medical industry (same), small businesses (same), the military (ditto), international travel, domestic flying, employment (not that having a means to provide for one’s family is as important as a virus with a 98-99% survival rate), health care, public assembly, free speech, buying groceries, education, etc.
Yet you continue pushing drugs like a guy on the street corner without consideration that the things I listed are far, FAR more dangerous and deadly than covid.
We’ll be as oppressed as the Red Chinese or USSR, but we won’t have as much covid! A 99% survival rate instead of 98!
This is still an issue with me — this next response by DOC J — and I will explain a bit more in this post as I go along than I did in the strain:
[responding to TD G]As long as I have been monitoring case fatality rate, the survival rate is rounded to 98% not 99%. But you are more afraid of a vaccine with a survival rate of 99.9999%.
I jump in to support TD G. a bit, and, keep in mind this is a multi-part post on FB that I will separate by line here:
“So the virus is far more fearful than the vaccine could possibly be,” he added. “Otherwise, we’re living in a magic universe if somehow a vaccine is more dangerous than a fast-multiplying virus.”
If the vaccine was “as bad” as conspiratorial websites say it is, he said, “we should be seeing millions of people dropping like flies, but we don’t even see the thousands of people.”
I am not a “conspiratorial website,” to be clear. And in fact, I often rant against conspiracies. And I agree, I do not think they are as bad as some say… however, I also do not think they are as safe as Doc Sarfati makes them out to be either. (For reasons already stated and to be stated, below.)
The people who have died from blood clots, heart attacks, and the like, after a 1st or 2nd dose have not had the proper medical evaluations to justify such “matter of fact” statements.
In reality, we do not know the REAL RATES of deadly side-effects so to examine the topic fully.
AUTOPSIES
AGAIN,
In short, Dr. Schirmacher performed autopsies on 40 people who had died within two weeks of receiving a Covid jab. Of those, 30%-40% could be directly attributed to the “vaccines.” He is calling for more autopsies of those who die shortly after getting injected to see if his numbers pan out. But Germany has thus far been reluctant to act. Meanwhile, the report of this highly respected pathologist and pro-vaccine doctor is being suppressed. (NOQ REPORT)
I don’t think this is a big conspiracy. In fact, the reasons why autopsies are not done that often is a combination of (a) the acceptance en masse of the change in death certificates by the CDC in April of last year as well as (b) a financial interest:
Unfortunately, autopsy rates have fallen from 25% to less than 5% over the past four decades. It never was a revenue producer for anyone except malpractice attorneys (WND).
Related as well to the already noted article about hospitals postponing elective surgeries via the Long Beach Business Journal is this detailed article by way of Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (Penn LDI)
Hospitals lost more than $20 billion in revenue when the pandemic led to an unprecedented nationwide shutdown in elective surgical procedures from March to May 2020.
INFO BREAK
The CDC estimates that 83% of the American population has contracted Covid-19 (NEWSWEEK) — before the Delta variant. Eighty-three percent of 331.5 million is 275.1 million. Total deaths [although I highly disagree with this number] is 684,000. So the IFR rate for Covid AS A WHOLE is 0.25% of the population who most likely has got Covid. Similar to my MARCH 2020 numbers, understanding the numbers like this help us cut through the media B.S.
Plus, I argue that much like how we calculate flu seasons… we shouldn’t calculate the total to dat, rather, we should have a data set from the 2020-2021 Covid season. Because we know Covid was here in September of 2019, which would put us separate from 2019-2020 season of Covid. Someone needs to do what I did to the age groups and-or the 2020-2021 season. We are currently in the 2021-2022 season.
2019-2020
2020-2021
2021-2022 (current)
These are the years the numbers should be broken down from. If we are going to do a similar thing with Covid as the CDC does with the flu. And, if you do this, say, compare the 2017-2018 Flu outbreak to the 2020-2021 Covid numbers to the IFR, the numbers would be almost identical.
For instance, this graph (which you can enlarge by clicking it) even states what I have above:
The number of cases displayed reflects how many have been tested & confirmed so far. It does NOT include the potentially many undetected people who are currently infected with COVID-19, whether asymptomatic or undiagnosed.
So again, that 1.8 fatality rate shown in most media broadcasts is not correct. Even the numbers from the UK do not reflect the IFR:
According to the World Health Organisation, the mean infection fatality rate (“IFR”) for COVID-19 is less than 0.2%. This is the percentage of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 who die. That data has now been fleshed out in more detail in a recent paper. Across all countries, the median IFR and the infection survival rate were as follows (rounded to two decimal places):
That is the extent of the problem that public health policies like lockdowns and mandatory vaccines are solving for. And this is the first elephant no one is talking about…..
BREAK OVER
DOC J responds to me lightly:
Sean G, My figures come from VAERS-reported deaths divided by the total number of people vaccinated. It’s not that hard. As usual, everything you fear from the vax you should fear a thousand times more from the virus. This includes blood clots and D-dimer. (Linked paper from JULY 2020: D-dimer level is associated with the severity of COVID-19)
I respond:
DOC Jas an example. The autopsies done by Dr. Schirmacher were not reported to VAERS. So there is an under reporting happening that was the point of the two instances of autopsies noted in my post.
ABC DETROIT
[I am posting more of PJ-MEDIA’Sexcellent article here than I did in my response for my readers]
ABC in Detroit got a lot more than it bargained for when it asked its viewers on Facebook this question:
After the vaccines were available to everyone, did you lose an unvaccinated loved one to COVID-19? If you’re willing to share your family’s story, please DM us your contact information. We may reach out for a story we’re working on.
The post garnered more than 100,000 responses, almost all of which talked about family members the readers say were either injured or died after receiving the COVID vaccine. None of the reports can be verified, but the sheer number of responses is anecdotally interesting. The “ratio,” as the kids say, is epic.
Audrey Tarrance Ravenna wrote, “After the vaccines were available, 3 family members did their duty and got vaccinated. One suffered 2 strokes, one suffered neurological problems/tremors, one suffered a pulmonary embolism. All three died.” She went on to add that she doesn’t know anyone who has had COVID except herself and she survived.
Dee Ann L Voth wrote, “My friend passed away from covid and she was fully vaccinated!” Amanda Anderson added, “My dad passed away in July after a stroke. I often wonder if it was from the vaccine.”
Jacki Thomas asked, “Have they reached out to anyone to research those who lost loved ones after or with the vaccinations yet??? Crickets?”
Tammi Marie Watts Staffer said, “My friend’s father was paralyzed after his first vax.” Scott Donaldson wrote, “My stepdad’s mom passed very shortly after Moderna.”
Kristy Branch wrote, “My 78-year-old father was pretty health [sic]…he got the Moderna now he’s walking with the walker [because] he keeps falling he’s weak he shakes and he has bathroom issues now I tried to get him not to do it… but he believed you crooked lying people from the news.”
Jen Roberton pointed out that the news station isn’t making any effort to get the other side of the story and it shows. “This is the response I expected. The media is asking the wrong questions.”
Lani Rose reported, “My son’s classmate lost her mother from heart complications due to the vaccine.” Lauren Greer replied to Rose, saying, “I lost my aunt! She never had heart issues before and suddenly after the vaccine, she died from complications with myocarditis??”
Holly Mulkey wrote, “My mom passed away in her sleep the day she got the vaccine. Her autopsy showed enlarged heart.”
Anna Mattheson wrote, “My friend David 40-years-old 2 days after vaccination heart failure and passed away.”
Jasmine Shirley said, “I have an appointment with a cardiologist due to some very random heart issues that started a week or two after my first shot.”
Kimberly Delvero wrote, “What about the vaccinated loved ones that were lost??????…. No one wants to talk about that??? It’s all about the unvaccinated and keeping the fear going…absolutely ridiculous!”
The comments go on and on like this for pages and pages. With this kind of response, you would think that a curious media would look into these claims, talk to doctors, look at autopsies, and give even the slightest bit of attention to people who are experiencing unexplained tragedies. Instead, they are looking the other way and digging for stories so they can pin the pandemic on the unvaccinated. We saw the news orchestrate a fake story about “ivermectin overdoses” in order to smear the vaccine-hesitant just this month!
Perhaps, instead of demonizing people who have fears about the vaccine based on personal experience and questions about possible side effects, the media could take some time to talk to them and investigate their claims. Getting to the bottom of what is happening and why might actually help alleviate fears of vaccination. But by ignoring all these stories, the media is causing distrust of the vaccine and the establishment……
[speaking to DOC J]When I used VAERS as a source, you thought it was untrustworthy. Now suddenly they are gospel?
When I saw this comment, I mentally noted that this is probably the case, that is, DOC Jmay have bemoaned the VAERS database previously; however, he is either just using the source of his “opponents” [we are all friends in this and the afterlife] to make a point. A tactic in good conversation showing often that “fleshed out” the position is still weak or contradictory. OR, he is being forced with the mounting evidence to look at this database more seriously. Either way, he is backed in the proverbial, rhetorical corner.
HOSPITALIZATIONS
I add some more information newly released that lends more information to the debate. The debate not just here but the broader debate in the public. [Again, expanding my quote from RIGHT SCOOP]:
A new report out today, written up by the Atlantic, suggests that nearly half of all COVID hospitalizations are, in reality, patients who found out they had COVID after they were admitted for something else or only had mild symptoms:
Here’s more from the Atlantic:
[….]
The authors of the paper out this week took a different tack to answer a similar question, this time for adults. Instead of meticulously looking at why a few hundred patients were admitted to a pair of hospitals, they analyzed the electronic records for nearly 50,000 COVID hospital admissions at the more than 100 VA hospitals across the country. Then they checked to see whether each patient required supplemental oxygen or had a blood oxygen level below 94 percent. (The latter criterion is based on the National Institutes of Health definition of “severe COVID.”) If either of these conditions was met, the authors classified that patient as having moderate to severe disease; otherwise, the case was considered mild or asymptomatic.
The study found that from March 2020 through early January 2021—before vaccination was widespread, and before the Delta variant had arrived—the proportion of patients with mild or asymptomatic disease was 36 percent. From mid-January through the end of June 2021, however, that number rose to 48 percent. In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease.
This increase was even bigger for vaccinated hospital patients, of whom 57 percent had mild or asymptomatic disease. But unvaccinated patients have also been showing up with less severe symptoms, on average, than earlier in the pandemic: The study found that 45 percent of their cases were mild or asymptomatic since January 21. According to Shira Doron, an infectious-disease physician and hospital epidemiologist at Tufts Medical Center, in Boston, and one of the study’s co-authors, the latter finding may be explained by the fact that unvaccinated patients in the vaccine era tend to be a younger cohort who are less vulnerable to COVID and may be more likely to have been infected in the past.
Color me shocked that COVID hospitalizations might only be half as much as being claimed. It sounds similar to what we saw last year in the conflated tallies of those who died “because of COVID” versus those who died “with COVID”.
This prompted JIM G.to respond with a good bit of information. Mind, you, this is jot the JIM G. I get into frequent discussions with on different subject.
SEAN G, Some have said that most who are coming to the hospitals now are the unvaccinated. One reason for this is because the hospitals count a person that has taken the jab less than 14 days as an “unvaccinated”.
I just wish to finish up this post with other side news I came across on Facebook.
AN RPT BONUS
HUMOR
Facebook, which banned me for 3-days today – but then realized they were wrong. I took the previous graphic that got me banned and remade it better:
ADMISSIONS
And here I need to apologize to Alex Berenson’s UNREPORTED TRUTHS. Why? Because I am grabbing his entire post as I think it is important. The link is at the bottom of his post, if you wish to go to the source:
The FDA just released its briefing book for Pfizer’s request for a third dose of Comirnaty (or is that BNT162b2? No matter! It’s approved either way, sorta).
It is every bit the mess we all expected.
Let’s go to the highlights:
Pfizer basically hasn’t bothered to test the booster AT ALL in the people actually at risk – it conducted a single “Phase 1” trial that covered 12 people over 65. The main Phase 2/3 booster trial (beware efforts to cover multiple “phases” of drug research at once, you want it bad you get it bad) included no one over 55.
No one.
As in NONE.
Which makes total sense – why test the booster in people who actually need it because they’re at high risk from the ro? Nothing good can come of that.
So that’s our trial design.
Now safety:
Of the 300 people who received the booster, one had a heart attack two months later. No worries, Pfizer concluded it wasn’t related. Yay!
Five percent of recipients had enlarged lymph nodes.
How about effectiveness?
Well, we don’t have enough data – or any data, really – telling us how well the booster will work.
But the FDA made Pfizer go back and review its data from the pivotal clinical trial from last year. Pfizer compared people who received the vaccine with those who received the placebo and THEN the vaccine (the best we can do at this point, since Pfizer blew up the trial by giving placebo subjects the vaccine, double-yay!)
Pfizer concluded that your annual risk of getting Covid-19 IF YOU ARE VACCINATED is about 7 percent.
Further:
“An additional analysis appears to indicate that incidence of COVID-19 generally increased in each group of study participants with increasing time post-Dose 2 at the start of the analysis period.”
Oh.
But don’t worry, Uncle Joe already told you you can get your booster on September 20. If it’s good enough for our fearless leader, it should be good enough for the FDA, amirite?
SCIENCE!
Ouch!
MEDIA
Here are two media pieces I watched today:
This CBS produced 60 Minutes was from 1979 | Mary Tyler Moore, Swine Flu Shot August 19, 2021
And here is an absolutely hilarious video by Tucker Carlson that had me belly rolling in bed this morning:
Tucker Carlson Tonight’ host weighs in on the left’s hypocrisy regarding the government dictation of personal health decisions.
Lol.
KABUKI THEATRE
A friend noted the following:
Not trying to minimize the impact of Covid. But the “pandemic” has really been hijacked for political motives. Look at this Kabuki theater. Before and After the cameras were turned on.
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)
(Eye Still On The Ball) Congressional Oversight in the Face of Executive Branch and Media Suppression: The Case Study of Crossfire Hurricane. Two people I respect greatly:
(Posted April 2014, Updated December 2017 and Today)
This comes via THE BLAZE, and is merely a confirmation of what many fair minded people already know, these are some quotes from Sharyl Attkisson during an interview on CNN. I think that CNN was a bit late to the party, maybe, feeling the hit to their ratings for not doing what Fox had already done with Miss Attkisson, that is, interview her:
Attkisson added in her interview with CNN’s “Reliable Sources” host Brian Stelter that while she never was discouraged from hard-hitting reports on the George W. Bush administration, when it came to her critical coverage of the Obama White House, CBS regularly balked.
[….]
“There are very sophisticated efforts to manipulate the images and the information that you see every day, in ways that you won’t recognize,” she said. “And I think we can all be a little more savvy about that.”
[….]
As for the differences between how CBS News brass treated and covered the Bush compared to the Obama administration, Attkisson noted that she “didn’t sense any resistance to doing stories that were perceived to be negative to the Bush administration by anybody ever.” But as for the Obama White House, she said “I have done stories that were not received well because people thought they would reflect poorly upon this administration.”
Attkisson went further, noting a “fairly well-discussed” topic inside CBS News “that there are some managers recently who have been so ideologically entrenched that there is a feeling and discussion that some of them, certainly not all of them, have a difficult time viewing a story that may reflect negatively upon government or the administration as a story of value.”
“So you’re saying they are liberal or Democrats?” Stelter asked.
“I don’t know what their registered party is, I just know that the tendency on the part of some of these managers who have key influences has been they never mind the stories that seem to, for example — and I did plenty of them — go against the grain of the Republican Party, but they do often seem to feel defensive about, almost, personally defensive about stories that could make the government look bad. Even if it’s something as simple as a government waste story that doesn’t pinpoint anybody in particularly and it takes on both parties. It seems as though some of them were sensitive about any story that might appear as though it criticizes the government.”
THE BLAZE continues the story with the video interview:
UPDATED WITH CURRENT GRAPHS (12-6-2020)
This brings us back to some older news, but refreshing it in our minds helps us remember the uphill battle we face. Lets compare the first 100-days of each of our recent presidents. And as you will see, the media was most fair (down the middle, so-to-speak) with Clinton. But as the Left gets more entrenched due to brainwashing at the university, you see a slide to one end:
Overall, roughly four out of ten stories, editorials and op ed columns about Obama have been clearly positive in tone, compared with 22% for Bush and 27% for Clinton in the same mix of seven national media outlets during the same first two months in office, according to a study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.HOT AIR mentioned the Pew Poll a while back, noting: “In their 100-day look released last week, Pew notes that Obama got twice as much good press as Bush and 50% more than Clinton.” They continue by quoting Pew:
The study found positive stories about Obama have outweighed negative by two-to-one (42% vs. 20%) while 38% of stories have been neutral or mixed.
When a broader universe of media—one that includes 49 outlets and reflects the more modern media culture of 2009, is examined, the numbers for Obama’s coverage are similar, though somewhat less positive and somewhat more negative. In this expanded universe of media—which includes news websites, additional regional and local newspapers, plus cable news, network morning news, and National Public Radio, 37% of Obama’s coverage has been positive, 40% neutral and 23% negative.
[….]
Pew also notes that the types of coverage Obama receives seems designed to cast a halo on him. Unlike Bush (22%) and Clinton (26%), almost half of all news stories on Obama (44%) focus on his personal and leadership qualities. Those are the kinds of stories that usually take a soft focus, work in generalities, and put public figures in the best possible light.
Obama’s coverage differs in another key way. Much of the Obama coverage (31%) reports on what can only be called Obama’s campaign mode, in which Obama communicates directly with the American people. Only 8% of Bush’s coverage focused on those efforts. The media focused much more on Bush’s relationship with Congress and his legislative agenda.
In other words, the media has given us a heapin’ helping of fluff in the first 100 days, and very little in specifics. They’re allowing Obama to manipulate them into campaign coverage rather than shine a light on his governance….
Well, Sharyl Attkisson, a 21-year vet at CBS confirms to us what Bernie Goldberg years ago already did. That CBS (obviously not the only network) has sold its soul to the gods of progressivism. While Fox should remain center-right, they should always allow the other voice an opportunity to speak. Scott Whitlock at NEWSBUSTERS, for instance, noted that “as of April 3, 2014, it’s been 140 days since the once-vaunted Nightline covered ObamaCare or any of the problems associated with it. Instead, the ABC News program has mostly avoided hard news, focusing on tabloid-heavy topics such as a city in Brazil that has become known as the “model factory.” So it isn’t just WHAT you report as it is what you choose to ignore that affects the public’s perception. Sad.
…with GATEWAY PUNDIT’S erudite [not always mind you] fishing into what was just revealed (that I missed):
What has not been widely known until today was the Democratic Party front group’s role in actually producing the news.
Attkisson: “Media Matters, as my understanding, is a far left blog group that I think holds itself out to be sort of an independent watchdog group. And yes, they clearly targeted me at some point. They used to work with me on stories and tried to help me produce my stories, and at some point…”
After Sunday’s broadcast, CNN posted a follow-up story that included a response from Media Matters. The response does not mention previous collaborations with Attkisson and CBS News in producing news reports for the network.
“We also sought comment from Media Matters; Attkisson said she thought it was possible that the liberal media monitoring group had been paid to discredit her. Media Matters responded:
‘Sharyl Attkisson is continuing a pattern of evidence-free speculation that started at the end of her tenure at CBS. We have never taken contributions to target her or any other reporter. Our decision to post any research on Attkisson is based only on her shoddy reporting’.”
There was no mention of Media Matters working with Attkisson to produce news reports for CBS News in the recent hit piece by David Brock’s Senior Fellow attack poodle Eric Boehlert posted at Media Matters on April 17th with the laughably dishonest headline (if Attkisson is to be believed):
CBS News should disclose which reports by the network were done in collaboration with the Democratic Party front group Media Matters. Attkisson should also disclose on which stories she collaborated with Media Matters.
More than half of U.S. deaths are from nursing homes — THE GUARDIAN:
Yale professor describes as ‘staggering’ research that reveals more than half of all deaths in 14 US states from elderly care facilities
The average age group who dies from “The Rona” is found here in the latest from WORLD O’METER:
Not only that, but the co-morbidities (just as in flu deaths) are high and in multiples. Some examples:
Of the 22,332 people who died in hospital in England between 31 March and 12 May, 5,873 (26%) suffered from either type 1 or type 2 diabetes, NHS England figures reveal. That was the most common illness found in an analysis of what existing conditions patients had. The other commonest comorbidities were dementia (18%), serious breathing problems (15%) and chronic kidney disease (14%). One in ten (10%) suffered from ischaemic heart disease. (GUARDIAN)
A new study published April 22 in the Journal of the American Medical Association characterizes the symptoms, comorbidities, and clinical outcomes of 5,700 patients hospitalized because of COVID-19 in the New York area. The authors found that 94 percent of the patients had a chronic health problem, and 88 percent had two or more. The three most prevalent conditions were hypertension (56.6 percent), obesity (41.7 percent), and diabetes (33.8 percent). (THE SCIENTIST)
Now, many of these deaths were preventable, but for some reason many of the hardest hit states had a tragic policy of sending elderly patients back to nursing homes to recover. Many of the blue states, where most of the deaths have occurred:
If you live in New Jersey, you are 13 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than if you live in Florida. The Garden State’s death rate per million is 895.2, according to the RealClearPolitics coronavirus tracker, compared to only 65.1 deaths per million for Florida. This disparity can’t be written off to demography or testing. Florida has a huge elderly population, and it has conducted twice as many tests as New Jersey. (AMERICAN SPECTATOR)
I have a slew of articles regarding this deadly choice by Andrew Cuomo on my site (FULLY reproduced here):
MAY I ALSO NOTE that I believe the deaths from The Rona are a bit overstated, while Dr. Birx noted that the CDC may be inflating the death toll by 25%, I provide a couple other examples to support my claim. First up, Dr. Birx setting the stage for this with how deaths are coded:
Another example comes from Dr. Ngozi, Director of public health Illinois. She explains how ALL deaths are counted as Covid-19 even if the patient was diagnosed to have die from another disease:
1) The shocking inflation of COVID-19 death numbers: From day one, we were warned that states are ascribing every single death of anyone who happens to test positive for the coronavirus — even if they are asymptomatic — to the virus rather than the clear cause of death. Now, thanks to a lawsuit in Colorado, the state was forced to revise its death count down by 23 % over the weekend — from 1,150 to 878. The state is now publishing numbers of deaths “with” COVID-19 separate from deaths “from” COVID-19. As I reported on Thursday, county officials started accusing the state’s department of health of reclassifying deaths of those who tested positive for the virus but died of things like alcohol poisoning as COVID-19 deaths just to insidiously inflate the numbers. This revision in Colorado is a bombshell story that, of course, will remain unknown to most Americans. Every state needs to do this, and if they did, we would find an across-the-board drop in numbers by at least 25%, the same %age by which Dr. Birx reportedly believes the count is being inflated, according to the Washington Post. For example, in Minnesota, state officials are now admitting that every single person who dies in a nursing home after testing positive is now deemed to have died from the virus, never mind the fact that 25% of all natural deaths in a given week occur in nursing homes and that most cases of COVID-19 are asymptomatic, which means more often than not, they died exclusively of other causes.
TO WIT… Dennis Prager’s guest is Dr. Joel Hay, who is a professor in the department of Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy at the University of Southern California. Both give examples of cancer deaths being coded Covid:
And my third evidence to support my contention a nurse is filmed commenting on the percentages of deaths at NYC hospital. In my posts point #2 (the video still up amazingly) notes that every death cert in NYC-hospital is coded as Rona. In fact, 99% of deaths from that hospital were coded Rona during a period — AN IMPOSSIBLE statistic (https://tinyurl.com/y9awsuor — my site)
….In New York City, around 12,000 people have supposedly died from COVID-19 at the time of this writing. That’s 22% of all alleged U.S. deaths.
Around 7,000 of the NYC deaths attributed to COVID-19 have been thoroughly investigated to determine if there was another serious life-threatening illness present
Take a deep breath if doing so hasn’t been outlawed where you live.
99.2% of those 7,000 New Yorkers who supposedly died from the virus had another antecedent life-threatening illness. For all intents and purposes, that’s all of them.
How is it even remotely possible that 7,000 NYC deaths attributed to COVID-19 were investigated and virtually every single one of them found to have involved at least one other life-threatening illness if the virus is in and of itself deadly?
Most strains of coronavirus that affect humans are common cold viruses.
In light of the apparent almost universal prevalence of at least one other deadly disease among the alleged NYC deceased…
And in light of all the factors massively inflating the bogus death tally we’re being fed every day…
What reason do we have to believe COVID-19 is actually killing anyone?
No one knows how many Americans have really died of COVID-19….
However, we are starting to find out that “pure” deaths caused by Covid-19 exclusivelt is low (DAILY WIRE):
On Tuesday, San Diego county Supervisor Jim Desmond said after digging into the data that he believes only six of the county’s 194 coronavirus-identified deaths are “pure” coronavirus deaths, meaning they died from the virus, not merely with the virus.
Desmond was seemingly ruling out deaths from individuals with preexisting conditions.
“We’ve unfortunately had six pure, solely coronavirus deaths — six out of 3.3 million people,” Desmond said on a podcast, Armstrong & Getty Extra Large Interviews, according to San Diego Tribune. “I mean, what number are we trying to get to with those odds. I mean, it’s incredible. We want to be safe, and we can do it, but unfortunately, it’s more about control than getting the economy going again and keeping people safe.”
Public Health Officer Dr. Wilma Wooten suggested Wednesday during a press briefing that Desmond was being callous, noting that their liberal identification of COVID-19 deaths is uniform with coding nationwide.
“Their life is no less valuable than someone’s life who does not have underlying medical conditions,” Wooten said. “This is not just San Diego. This is how this is done throughout the entire nation in terms of identifying who has died of COVID-19.”…
Also note that all the anti-body tests are showing a larger infected population than previously considered. REASON.COM previously noted the Stanford study that between “48,000 and 81,000 residents of Santa Clara County, California are likely to have already been infected by the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.” Stanford University has revised the numbers to better fit the assumption (via MERCURY NEWS):
…In a revised analysis of a startling study published last month, they now estimate that 2.8% of Santa Clara residents were previously infected by the virus but didn’t know it.
That implies that the county had up to 54,000 infections — many more than the 1,000 confirmed cases in the county at the time.
“This suggests that the large majority of the population does not have antibodies and may be susceptible to the virus,” concludes the research paper, published in the online report medRxiv….
MY COMMENTS FROM MY FACEBOOK ABOUT THE ABOVE
So, Stanford settled on a number in early April… when there were 1,000 CONFIRMED cases were known in Santa Clara, there were 54,000 infected. To REALLY understand the percentages you would have to follow those 1,000 KNOWN cases from that time and compare the 55,000 cases to those deaths. (BTW, Stanford took the lower path on stats; so there could be a larger number.) Here is part of the article… but know that with the flu shot, there are more deaths by the flu than The Rona, without a “Rona shot.”
UPDATE (trying to figure out deaths per infections): Okay, let us apply the 98% survive who are known to have it and are hospitalized stat I have heard for some time. So 2% of the 1,000 is 20. 20 deaths from that early April figure of 55,000. Right? Gives you… 0.036%
UPDATES!
A friend on FACEBOOK has been a light in the war-torn field of The Rona (Wu Flu) battle of infection rates. Here are two posts of his [combined with a response to a friendly comment from one of his peeps] followed by some recent articles (links to papers will be in graphics):
Here’s a new meta-study from Stanford of all of the antibody testing that’s happened.
This puts the Wu Flu anywhere between 7x LESS deadly than the flu and 2.8x MORE deadly than the flu (making it a little worse than a bad flu season like 2018). And that’s assuming that this doesn’t follow SARS 1 and just disappear.
The data behind this is really solid, and the author is well-respected. Unlike those stupid models we were using, this is really real data.
We don’t do contact tracing, social distancing, mask-wearing, or lockdowns for the seasonal flu, and this looks like a watered down seasonal flu that got 100000000x more media attention and governors sending sick people to nursing homes to boost up the death rate.
The original post (OP) on this second strain was a graphic. I will link to the Kent County (Michigan site through it. Here is my FB description of the following: “A person named B.M. wrote on a friends Facebook wall the following regarding “contact tracing.” (The original post had to do with hiring government employees to trace citizens with Covid.)”
[A reader of JP’snoted] Actually, contact tracing sounds like a legitimate work of government. Rather than quarantining the healthy, quarantine the sick and monitor those exposed to the disease.
JP responded:
Sorry in advance for the novel! Heh, I started thinking of other interesting things to add and just decided to run with it.
Contact tracing might work for illnesses that don’t spread very easily (it probably would have exterminated HIV, according to what I’ve read; I’m no expert but it seems reasonable), but for upper respiratory stuff like colds and flus (and the Wu Flu), it’s pretty much doomed, especially with up to 10% of the whole country already having the it.
The original point of the lockdowns (which don’t seem to have worked; lockdown and non-lockdown countries and states have almost identical statistics) was to slow the spread to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. It wasn’t to stop spread, since even the CDC admits that after about 1% of people are infected with a contagious disease, you can’t really close the door on it anymore. Contact tracing is a relatively invasive way of closing the door on a virus, so I don’t think it will work here**.
The data points to a much less lethal bug, though. Stanford’s meta analysis of all of the large-scale antibody testing shows an IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) between 7 times less than the seasonal flu and 2.8 times more. It’s probably in the middle, making it slightly less lethal than regular seasonal flus. And since we know it has been in the US at least since January (probably since December or earlier), the R? (Basic Reproduction Number or Rate) is also much lower than people originally thought. So it spreads like the flu and is as deadly as the flu.
The main difference seems to be the 24/7 media terrorizing of citizens, the complete ignorance most of us (that’s me, too) had in the real pneumonia/influenza deaths each year, and the downright evil policy of many Democrat governors of sending the sick to recover (while contagious) at nursing homes, boosting the deaths by up to 50%.
Sorry for the novel!! Reading every little bit about this thing has become an unfortunate hobby of mine. I’m of the mind now that the best strategy is to fight the fear instead of the virus and to get back to normal in virtually every way. If this is anything like it’s older brother SARS, it will die out in the next couple of months. But if not, keeping everyone from immunity just means extending the risk.
**I think contact tracing may -appear- to work because I think we are naturally bottoming out cases. Same, in my mind, for other measures.
One final bit: I’ve followed lots of different predictions to see who might get things most accurately to see what they did differently. This guy’s been right on (it’s been almost scary) using SARS as a comparison instead of the Spanish Flu (since this bug is SARS 2). This is a really good visual of the whole thing:
(Click to enlarge)
ALSO, a short bit from Bruce Carrol:
“If you are waiting for a “cure” for COVID-19, you’ll never leave your home again.
Even the flu vaccine (not vaccine, flu shot. There is a vaccine for the Polio, not HIV or SARS) results in 60-80,000 deaths every season.
We have to stop the fearmongering and start learning to live with a new virus in a string of new viruses that have emerged for tens of thousands of years.
Boomers and Millennials aren’t that special of a species.”
— Bruce Carroll (Co-founder of the gay Republican group GOProu, and founder of GAYPATRIOT)
One of the great unknowns of the COVID-19 crisis is just how deadly the disease is. Much of the panic dates from the moment, in early March, when the World Health Organization (WHO) published a mortality rate of 3.2 percent — which turned out to be a crude ‘case fatality rate’ dividing the number of deaths by the number of recorded cases, ignoring the large number of cases which are asymptomatic or otherwise go unrecorded.
The Imperial College modeling, which has been so influential on the UK government, assumed an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.9 percent. This was used to compute the infamous prediction that 250,000 Britons would die unless the government abandoned its mitigation strategy and adopted instead a policy of suppressing the virus through lockdown. Imperial later revised its estimate of the IFR down to 0.66 percent — although the March 16 paper which predicted 250,000 deaths was not updated.
In the past few weeks, a slew of serological studies estimating the prevalence of infection in the general population has become available. This has allowed Prof John Ioannidis of Stanford University to work out the IFR in 12 different locations.
They range between 0.02 percent and 0.5 percent — although Ioannidis has corrected those raw figures to take account of demographic balance and come up with estimates between 0.02 percent and 0.4 percent. The lowest estimates came from Kobe, Japan, found to have an IFR of 0.02 percent and Oise in northern France, with an IFR of 0.04 percent. The highest were in Geneva (a raw figure of 0.5 percent) and Gangelt in Germany (0.28 percent).
The usual caveats apply: most studies to detect the prevalence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the general population remain unpublished, and have not yet been peer-reviewed. Some are likely to be unrepresentative of the general population. The Oise study, in particular, was based on students, teachers and parents in a single high school which was known to be a hotspot on COVID-19 infection. At the other end of the table, Geneva has a relatively high age profile, which is likely to skew its death rate upwards.
But it is noticeable how all these estimates for IFR are markedly lower than the figures thrown about a couple of months ago, when it was widely asserted that COVID-19 was a whole magnitude worse than flu. Seasonal influenza is often quoted as having an IFR of 0.1 to 0.2 percent. The Stanford study suggests that COVID-19 might not, after all, be more deadly than flu — although, as Ioannidis notes, the profile is very different: seasonal flu has a higher IFR in developing countries, where vaccination is rare, while COVID-19 has a higher death rate in the developed world, thanks in part of more elderly populations.
The Stanford study, however, does not include the largest antibody study to date: that involving a randomized sample of 70,000 Spanish residents, whose preliminary results were published by the Carlos III Institute of Health two weeks ago. That suggested that five percent of the Spanish population had been infected with the virus. With 27,000 deaths in the country, that would convert to an IFR of 1.1 percent.
This backs up of course some excellent article by Daniel Horowitz:
A CLEARER PICTURE has a great post about this as well, I suggest if you like what you see you check out that blog weekly.
…For one thing, Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx have both explicitly stated that anyone dying WITH the virus is counted as dying FROM it. Since 4/5 of COVID-19 infections are mild and 1/2 appear to show no symptoms at all, the official U.S. death tally is bound to include many in which it played little or no role.
The CDC has made matters much worse by insisting that doctors list COVID-19 on death certificates without a positive test confirming its presence and even absent any medical justification at all. A willingness to “assume” it was a factor is all that’s officially required. And hospitals now reap enormous financial rewards for making the assumption.
(Click To Enlarge)
Those in charge couldn’t have possibly shown less interest in determining the real number of Americans who would still be alive if not for having contracted COVID-19. It’s unlikely that ours is the only country in which the data has been turned into garbage by a perfect storm of inflating factors. As hard as it may be to accept, the odds are pretty much nil that we’ll ever know how deadly the virus we were made to spend months obsessively fearing really was.
Even on the inflated numbers we’re getting, however, it isn’t anywhere near 10 times deadlier than the flu; as Dr. Fauci claimed on March 11, while ginning up support for his novel public health strategy of extinguishing our rights and wrecking the economy. But, of course, a few weeks later, we learned that even Fauci didn’t believe a word of the lie he so effectively used to terrorize a nation of over 300 million people into suicidal obedience.
Though perhaps you haven’t heard. You see, on March 26, Dr. Fauci shared his true opinion with his peers in the pages of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine:
The overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%).
Dr. Anthony Fauci, March 26, 2020 New England Journal of Medicine
In case you’re wondering, the parenthetical remark is his, not mine. Moreover, when Sharyl Attkisson contacted the journal about the strange discrepancy between what Fauci was scaring the public with and the substantially less alarming take his learned colleagues heard, she discovered his article had been submitted “many weeks ago.”….
And HUGH HEWITT notes footnote 565 from Trump’s legal team’s legal briefing as evidence for Trump’s concern with Ukrainian interference with our 2016 election:
Video Description:
Hugh Hewitt reads footnote 565 from Trump’s legal team’s brief (PDF can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/rjh9dst). Hewitt then brings it up with Byron York when he was on to discuss his article: “As Trial Begins, the White House Strikes Back” (https://tinyurl.com/utv35mm). As an aside, here is the full extent of Russian interference with the 2016 election, and why (rightly or wrongly) Mueller indicted 13 Russians:
President Donald Trump rejects the narrative that Russia wanted him to win. USA Today examined each of the 3,517 Facebook ads bought by the Russian-based Internet Research Agency, the company that employed 12 of the 13 Russians indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for interfering with the 2016 election. It turns out only about 100 of its ads explicitly endorsed Trump or opposed Hillary Clinton. Most of the fake ads focused on racial division, with many of the ads attempting to exploit what Russia perceives, or wants America to perceive, as severe racial tension between blacks and whites…. (must read the entire article at LARRY ELDER’s SITE | see my post as well: FIONA HILL’S FALSE DILEMMA)
(Click To Enlarge)
(Text with Links)
President Trump also raised concerns about corruption. He first raised these concerns in connection with reports of Ukrainian actions in the 2016 presidential election. Numerous media outlets have reported that Ukrainian officials took steps to influence and interfere in the 2016 election to undermine then-candidate Trump, and three Senate committee chairmen are currently investigating this interference.565
This alongside this audio where you can hear former Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (put in place by Obama/Hillary State Department), Artem Sytnyk, admitting that he “helped” Hillary during the 2016 U.S. presidential election (see more at WAYNE DUPREE) — is devastating to the House Managers case!
What follows are some strong arguments (I think) against the Democrats case against Donald J. Trump’s impeachment. However, FIRST and FOREMOST, here is the Trump Legal Team’s first day in the Senate defending Trump and responding to the House Managers for impeachment of a sitting President:
PJ-MEDIA has a must read for those interested, they explain each one succinctly… which I merely:
10.Ambassador Volker testified there was no effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens 9.Ambassador Taylor testified there was ‘no linkage’ between military aid and investigations 8.Ambassador Taylor testified Ukraine was unaware the lethal aid was being withheld 7.Ambassador Sondland testified Trump didn’t want anything from Ukraine, no quid pro quo 6.Ambassador Sondland testified he had no evidence of a quid pro quo other than his ‘own presumption’ 5.Lt. Col. Vindman admitted Hunter Biden wasn’t qualified to be on Burisma’s board 4.Lt. Col. Vindman and Jennifer Williams both agreed Hunter’s position at Burisma had the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest 3.Ambassador Taylor basically admitted Hunter Biden’s position at Burisma ‘raises questions’ 2.Marie Yovanovitch confirmed that there was concern in the Obama State Department about Hunter Biden’s conflict of interest at Burisma 1.George Kent said there were legit concerns about Hunter Biden, and Burisma should be investigated
ARI MELBER
RIGHT SCOOP sets this clip with the followin: “This is pretty great. Ari Melber actually told the MSNBC panel and their audience that the Democrats did not prove their case that Trump committed obstruction of Congress, and everyone flipped out.” By “flipped out,” they mean Lefties responses to this commentary, which you should see on RS’s site:
JOHN BARRASSO
This, however, was great… via GATEWAY PUNDIT who said “Deputy White House Counsel Mike Purpura opened the White House defense of President Donald Trump with video of Adam Schiff’s fake call and transcript he read during the House impeachment proceedings. Mike Purpura played the video immediately after taking the podium on Saturday. And there Schiff was lying his face off for the whole world to see….”
LEGAL INSURRECTION discusses the first day of the Trump teams response to the House managers. In this first day they challenged the credibility of Schiff, which the above commentary shows as well. LI says this: “It seemed that almost every time I turned on the TV, he was talking and talking and talking. Schiff is the person most behind the impeachment push and the biased House proceedings. We all know that. But the Republican trial team, particularly Patrick Philbin, skewered Schiff today with Schiff’s own prior lies and deceptions. Philbin addressed Schiff’s prior claim to have knowledge of evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia, evidence that not even Mueller found, showing Schiff’s opinion’s and claims to have evidence to be unreliable…”
JONATHAN TURLEY
Professor Jonathan Turley notes WELL a major misstep by the House Managers accusing the Senate (among others) of a cover-up… bombastic presentations in the House may be the norm. But not in the Senate:
And HUGH HEWITT notes footnote 565 from Trump’s legal team’s legal briefing as evidence for Trump’s concern with Ukrainian interference with our 2016 election:
Video Description:
Hugh Hewitt reads footnote 565 from Trump’s legal team’s brief (PDF can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/rjh9dst). Hewitt then brings it up with Byron York when he was on to discuss his article: “As Trial Begins, the White House Strikes Back” (https://tinyurl.com/utv35mm). As an aside, here is the full extent of Russian interference with the 2016 election, and why (rightly or wrongly) Mueller indicted 13 Russians:
President Donald Trump rejects the narrative that Russia wanted him to win. USA Today examined each of the 3,517 Facebook ads bought by the Russian-based Internet Research Agency, the company that employed 12 of the 13 Russians indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for interfering with the 2016 election. It turns out only about 100 of its ads explicitly endorsed Trump or opposed Hillary Clinton. Most of the fake ads focused on racial division, with many of the ads attempting to exploit what Russia perceives, or wants America to perceive, as severe racial tension between blacks and whites…. (must read the entire article at LARRY ELDER’s SITE | see my post as well: FIONA HILL’S FALSE DILEMMA)
(Click To Enlarge)
(Text with Links)
President Trump also raised concerns about corruption. He first raised these concerns in connection with reports of Ukrainian actions in the 2016 presidential election. Numerous media outlets have reported that Ukrainian officials took steps to influence and interfere in the 2016 election to undermine then-candidate Trump, and three Senate committee chairmen are currently investigating this interference.565
This alongside this audio where you can hear former Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (put in place by Obama/Hillary State Department), Artem Sytnyk, admitting that he “helped” Hillary during the 2016 U.S. presidential election (see more at WAYNE DUPREE) — is devastating to the House Managers case!
Sharyl: What’s your view of how much we can trust the articles that appear in these prestigious medical journals?
Dr. Howard Pomeranz: One always has to be aware of the possibility that somebody who is an author or coauthor or someone who is consulted to help support the research was a paid consultant by the pharmaceutical industry and that’s not always apparent.
Dr. Howard Pomeranz is a neuro-ophthalmologist at the Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine. He’s authored dozens of journal articles and says many studies are written by academic researchers fraught with conflicts of interest.
Sharyl: In some cases, it sounds like it’s nothing more than advertising by an employee that works for a drug company.
Pomeranz: It is and I think that’s often the way you have to look at it.
Angell: I came to the New England Journal of Medicine in 1979. Starting about then was when you saw the drug companies assert more and more control until finally they over the next couple of decades, they began to treat the researchers as hired hands. They would design the research themselves. You know you can do a lot of mischief in how you design a trial. Or we’ll test this drug and we’ll tell you whether it can be published or not, and so if it’s a positive study, it’s published, if it’s a negative study, it’ll never see the light of day.
That happened in 2000. The makers of an experimental AIDS vaccine threatened to sue Dr. James Kahn, their lead researcher at the University of California San Francisco for $7 million, to keep him from publishing study results showing the vaccine didn’t work.
Angell: An official of the company said something to the effect of, ‘we have put $30 million into that study, we have our rights,’ or something like that.
Angell says as she applied due diligence to the many studies submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine, it started to feel like a losing battle.
Angell: I would call up and say, okay, you’ve shown that your drug is pretty good. But there’s not a single side effect. Any drug that does anything is going to have some side effects. And I had people say, ‘well the sponsor won’t let me’. And so, I became to be extremely distrustful of most of the research that was published. We did our very best, we often rejected things because it was clearly biased, but anything we rejected always ended up in another journal.
Angell left the New England Journal of Medicine in 2000, but kept her eye on the journal industry, which she says resisted meaningful efforts to rein in conflicts of interest. In 2009, she wrote an article that famously declared “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published.”
Sharyl: What would you say is the state of the journal landscape today and the New England Journal of Medicine, particularly?
Angell: I think that that role that the New England Journal used to fill, one was the role of being skeptical, the other was the role of caring about the ethics of the whole system. I think the journal has given that up, the New England Journal of Medicine has given that up.
The New England Journal of Medicine declined our interview requests, but told us “since 1984 we have requested author disclosures.” In 2009, the journal says it helped pioneer a universal form requesting “that authors report all relevant financial conflicts” during the most recent three years. And it posts the form and study sponsorship. Besides Dr. Angell, another powerful voice is also weighing in. The current Editor in Chief of the British journal Lancet, Dr. Richard Horton, wrote a scathing editorial saying: “Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue; science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
Annie Waldman: Be skeptical about everything. Be skeptical about every study that you read, whether it’s in the New England Journal of Medicine or some journal you’ve never heard of.
Annie Waldman writes for the nonprofit ProPublica.
Another article referencing issues with peer-review comes via THE BLAZE:
A peer-reviewed academic journal was recently duped in a hilarious way.
Two academics, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, recently used pen names to submit an academic paper to a peer-reviewed academic journal to expose the absurdity of modern gender studies by arguing that the male reproductive organ known as the penis is a “social construct.”
The 3,000-word paper was titled, “The Conceptual Penis As A Social Construct,” and was submitted, and published, to the “Cogent Social Sciences” academic journal in its May edition. Lindsay and Boghossian cited 20 sources in their paper, many of which they said they made up or never read….
Trust in the media is at an all-time low. But should it be? Why do fewer and fewer Americans trust the mainstream media. Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson, author of The Smear, explains.
