Aletho News


New York Times: Most East Coast Beaches Gone By 2020

BY Tony Heller | Real Climate Science | March 11, 2021

In 1995, the New York Times predicted “most of the beaches on the East Coast of the United States would be gone in 25 years”

Scientists Say Earth’s Warming Could Set Off Wide Disruptions – The New York Times

Barack Obama believes in the science, and just bought a $15 million home on an East Coast beach.

Barack and Michelle Obama buying $14.85M Martha’s Vineyard estate

The article also said:

The intergovernmental panel forecasts an increase in droughts like the current one in the Northeastern United States, heat waves like the one in Chicago this summer, and more fires and floods in some regions.

*A “striking” retreat of mountain glaciers around the world, accompanied in the Northern Hemisphere by a shrinking snow cover in winter.“

Since then, winter snow cover has increased to near record highs.

Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab

Droughts have become less common and severe in the US since the 19th century.

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

And the likelihood of hot weather has plummeted in the US.

March 14, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | 1 Comment

Video evidence of ‘massacre’ by UK special forces in Afghanistan mysteriously VANISHES

RT | March 14, 2021

Video allegedly showing a “rogue” SAS unit committing war crimes in Afghanistan has supposedly disappeared, as an investigation into the squad’s alleged “massacres” has been plagued by missing evidence and silence from witnesses.

Saifullah Yar was just 19 when his family were shot dead in an SAS raid on their Afghan village in 2011. When British military investigators flew to Kabul in 2017 to investigate the raid, he told them he was handcuffed and led away from his father, brother and two male cousins. He heard two sustained bursts of gunfire, and when the Brits departed, his relatives were dead, their bodies riddled with bullets.

Video footage of the raid was apparently captured by US air support overhead, but according to a new Sunday Times report, American authorities mysteriously lost the footage, and were unable to provide it to a British court, where Saifullah has brought a judicial review into the fatal raid.

The mysterious disappearance isn’t the first time that key evidence from the raid has gone missing, or been intentionally hidden. The Royal MIlitary Police (RMP) investigators’ 2017 visit to Kabul was one of their last tasks in a three-and-a-half year probe into allegations of war crimes against the SAS unit, during which they found that the British operators doctored mission reports to implicate Afghan special forces in similar killings, dozens of which took place between 2011 and 2013.

The investigators interviewed 42 soldiers who said they were unable to remember the mission. Court documents reported on by the Times stated that a judge termed this a case of “collective amnesia.” The weapons used in the raid on Saifullah’s village were destroyed the same year the RMP opened its investigation.

However, evidence against the SAS troops has piled up. Investigators found that British 5.56mm bullets, rather than the 7.62mm rounds used by the Afghan commandos, were used to kill the victims. Additionally, they examined reports that weapons were planted on the bodies of these victims, in order to justify the killings later.

The reports that followed the 2011 raid on Saifullah’s village stated that his family were killed when they reached for weapons as the SAS searched their property. These reports were met with skepticism by senior commanders, who in a chain of emails seen by the British court, described the raid as “the latest massacre,” and expressed disbelief at the idea of four overpowered prisoners reaching for hidden grenades and rifles during the raid.

“And finally they shot a guy who was hiding in a bush who had a grenade in his hands. You couldn’t MAKE IT UP!,” one senior noncommissioned officer wrote.

The British government closed down the investigation in late 2017 without prosecuting a single case. The same year, another wide-ranging investigation into alleged war crimes, the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT), was shut down, also without prosecuting a case.

With the SAS typically exempt from parliamentary oversight, the courts are now Saifullah’s best hope of finding justice. “Our client is seeking a fresh investigation into the deaths of his loved ones and he wants to find out whether their deaths were part of a pattern of unlawful killings of Afghan civilians,” his lawyer, Tessa Gregory, told the Sunday Times.

March 14, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | 2 Comments

The Rights of the Naturally Immune

By Thomas HarringtonThomas Harrington | AIER | March 9, 2021

There is an important issue that, in the midst of all the talk of vaccines, has not gotten nearly the attention it deserves: the civil rights of those who have already developed natural immunity to the SARS-CoV-2, the virus that is said to cause Covid.

Yesterday, I got the results of the test I took to detect whether I had developed a T-Cell response to the virus.

Like the antibody test I took almost 2 months ago, it was positive.

These two things would appear to demonstrate that for all intents and purposes my body knew exactly what to do with this virus and that it probably has the equipment to dispose of it again were it, or one of its cousins, to revisit me in the near-to-medium term.

And even if one or another related strain were to visit me in that future, studies suggest strongly that the attack would be considerably less virulent than the one I overcame without excessive trouble in December.

In a halfway rational world, what to do going forward in regard to getting a vaccine for the SARS-CoV-2 virus would be something I’d discuss with my doctor in the discreet quarters of the examination room. Were it to be offered, I would politely refuse it. And he, seeing the test evidence in my file, would raise no objection.

And since the danger to me in the future from the virus is minuscule, and the science has clearly borne out what Fauci and Maria Van Kerkhove of the WHO flatly said was true before someone upstairs got to them—that asymptomatic transmission of respiratory diseases of this type is virtually nonexistent—I’d be free to live my life as I pleased without a mask, and with complete freedom of movement.

But instead of this, I am facing enormous pressure to get a vaccine in order to recover my basic rights as a citizen. And even then, those in charge are saying, I will still have to run around with a completely useless, breath-robbing and personality-canceling mask on my face.

And all this for a disease that, even before the introduction of vaccines, gave those infected by it a roughly 997.5 out of 1,000 chance of survival.

The civil authorities have decided, in effect, that fully indemnified pharmaceutical companies, whose pasts are obscenely littered with fraud, and the calculated creation of crises in order to up revenues on their products (OxyContin anyone?), have the de facto “right” to force me to take an experimental vaccine that, in the very, very best of circumstances, will only match what my apparently well-functioning body has already given me without any side effects.

And this, while straight out telling me that even if I submit to their government-coerced medical experiment I will probably still not get my full constitutional rights back.

This is an important issue that needs to be addressed much more vigorously than has been the case up until now.

Thomas Harrington is an essayist and Professor of Hispanic Studies at Trinity College in Hartford (USA) who specializes in Iberian movements of national identity Contemporary Catalan culture. In addition to his academic work in Hispanic Studies, he is a frequent commentator on politics and culture in the US press and a number of Spanish and Catalan-language media outlets.

March 14, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment


LibertyVigilante | March 12, 2021

A very good summary here with Reiner Fuellmich on the status of the global legal actions:
– 12 more PCR claims to be filed
– very clear that we are ‘fighting gangsters’
– there will be crimes against humanity trials resulting from this
– defeating PCR test is the key to success

March 14, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | 12 Comments

Congressional Testimony: The Leading Activists for Online Censorship Are Corporate Journalists

By Glenn Greenwald | March 14, 2021

There are not many Congressional committees regularly engaged in substantive and serious work — most are performative — but the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law is an exception. Chaired by Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) and Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO), it is, with a few exceptions, composed of lawmakers whose knowledge of tech monopolies and anti-trust law is impressive.

In October, the Committee, after a sixteen-month investigation, produced one of those most comprehensive and informative reports by any government body anywhere in the world about the multi-pronged threats to democracy raised by four Silicon Valley monopolies: Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple. The 450-page report also proposed sweeping solutions, including ways to break up these companies and/or constrain them from controlling our political discourse and political life. That report merits much greater attention and consideration than it has thus far received.

The Subcommittee held a hearing on Friday and I was invited to testify along with Microsoft President Brad Smith; President of the News Guild-Communications Workers of America Jonathan Schleuss, the Outkick’s Clay Travis, CEO of the Graham Media Group Emily Barr, and CEO of the News Media Alliance David Chavern. The ostensible purpose the hearing was a narrow one: to consider a bill that would vest media outlets with an exemption from anti-trust laws to collectively bargain with tech companies such as Facebook and Google so that they can obtain a greater share of the ad revenue. The representatives of the news industry and Microsoft who testified were naturally in favor because this bill (they have been heavily lobbying for it) because it would benefit them commercially in numerous way (the Microsoft President maintained the conceit that the Bill-Gates-founded company was engaging in self-sacrifice for the good of Democracy by supporting the bill but the reality is the Bing search engine owners are in favor of anything that weakens Google).

While I share the ostensible motive behind the bill — to stem the serious crisis of bankruptcies and closings of local news outlets — I do not believe that this bill will end up doing that, particularly because it empowers the largest media outlets such as The New York Times and MSNBC to dominate the process and because it does not even acknowledge, let alone address, the broader problems plaguing the news industry, including collapsing trust by the public (a bill that limited this anti-trust exemption to small local news outlets so as to allow them to bargain collectively with tech companies in their own interest would seem to me to serve the claimed purpose much better than one which empowers media giants to form a negotiating cartel).

But the broader context for the bill is the one most interesting and the one on which I focused in my opening statement and testimony: namely, the relationship between social media and tech giants on the one hand, and the news media industry on the other. Contrary to the popular narrative propagated by news outlets — in which they are cast as the victims of the supremely powerful Silicon Valley giants — that narrative is sometimes (not always, but sometimes) the opposite of reality: much if not most Silicon Valley censorship of political speech emanates from pressure campaigns led by corporate media outlets and their journalists, demanding that more and more of their competitors and ideological adversaries be silenced. Big media, in other words, is coopting the power of Big Tech for their own purposes.

My written opening testimony, which is on the Committee’s site, is also printed below. The video of the full hearing can be seen here. Here is the video of my opening five-minute statement:

Opening Statement of Glenn Greenwald

March 12, 2021

Before the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

I am a constitutional lawyer, a journalist, and the author of six books on civil liberties, media and politics. After graduating New York University School of Law in 1994, I worked as a constitutional and media law litigator for more than a decade, first at the firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, and then at a firm I co-founded in 1997. During my work as a lawyer, I represented numerous clients in First Amendment free speech and press freedom cases, including individuals with highly controversial views who were targeted for punishment by state and non-state actors alike, as well as media outlets subjected to repressive state limitations on their rights of expression and reporting.

Since 2005, I have worked primarily as a journalist and author, reporting extensively on civil liberties debates, assaults on free speech and a free press, the value of a free and open internet, the implications of growing Silicon Valley monopolistic power, and the complex relationship between corporate media outlets and social media companies. That reporting has received the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service and the George Polk Award for National Security Reporting. In 2013, I co-founded the online news outlet The Intercept, and in 2016 co-founded its Brazilian branch, The Intercept Brazil.

Over the last several years, my journalistic interest in and concern about the dangers of Silicon Valley’s monopoly power has greatly intensified — particularly as wielded by Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple. The dangers posed by their growing power manifest in multiple ways. But I am principally alarmed by the repressive effect on free discourse, a free press, and a free internet, all culminating in increasingly intrusive effects on the flow of information and ideas and an increasingly intolerable strain on a healthy democracy.

Three specific incidents over the last four months represent a serious escalation in the willingness of tech monopolies to intrude into and exert control over our domestic politics through censorship and other forms of information manipulation:

  1. In the weeks leading up to the 2020 presidential election, The New York Post, the nation’s oldest newspaper, broke a major story based on documents and emails obtained from the laptop of Hunter Biden, son of the front-running presidential candidate Joe Biden. Those documents shed substantial light not only on the efforts of Hunter and other family members of President Biden to trade on his name and their influence on him for lucrative business deals around the world, but also raised serious questions about the extent to which President Biden himself was aware of and involved in those efforts.But Americans were barred from discussing that reporting on Twitter, and were actively impeded from reading about it by Facebook.That is because Twitter imposed a full ban on its users’ ability to link to the story: not just on their public Twitter pages but even in private Twitter chats. Twitter even locked the account of The New York Post, preventing the newspaper from using that platform for almost two weeks unless they agreed to voluntarily delete any references to their reporting about the Hunter Biden materials (the paper, rightfully, refused).

    Facebook’s censorship of this reporting was more subtle and therefore more insidious: a life-long Democratic Party operative who is now a Facebook official, Andy Stone, announced (on Twitter) that Facebook would be “reducing [the article’s] distribution on our platform” pending a review “by Facebook’s third-party fact checking partners.” In other words, Facebook tinkered with its algorithms to prevent the dissemination of this reporting about a long-time politician who was leading the political party for which this Facebook official spent years working (See The Intercept, “Facebook and Twitter Cross a Far More Dangerous Line Than What They Censor,” Oct. 15, 2020).

    This “fact-check” promised by Facebook never came. That is likely because it was not the New York Post’s reporting which turned out to be false but rather the claims made by these two social media giants to justify its suppression. The censorship justification was that the documents on which the reporting was based constituted either “hacked materials” and/or “Russian disinformation.”

    Neither of those claims is true. Even the FBI has acknowledged that there is no evidence whatsoever of any involvement by the Russian government in the procurement of that laptop, and not even the Biden family, to this very day, has claimed that a single word contained in the published documents is fabricated or otherwise inauthentic. Ample evidence — including the testimony of others involved in the original creation and circulation of those documents — demonstrates that they were fully genuine.

    This means that two of the largest and most powerful Silicon Valley giants suppressed crucial information about a leading presidential candidate — the one which employees at their companies overwhelmingly supported — shortly before voting commenced. While Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey apologized for this banning and acknowledged that it may have been wrong, Facebook has never done so.

    While we will never know whether this censorship altered the outcome of the election, it is clear that this was one of the most direct acts of information repression about an American presidential election in decades. That was possible only because of the vast power wielded by these platforms over our political discourse and our political lives.

  2. In the wake of the January 6 riot at the Capitol, Facebook, Google, Twitter and numerous other Silicon Valley giants united to remove the democratically elected sitting President of the United States from their platforms. While many defenders of this corporate censorship tried to minimize it by claiming the President could still be heard by giving speeches and holding press conferences, several leading news outlets followed suit by announcing that they would not carry his speeches live and would only allow to be heard the excerpts they deemed to be safe and responsible.In response, numerous world leaders — including several who had clashed in the past with President Trump — expressed grave concerns about the dangers posed to democracy by the ability of tech monopolies to effectively remove even democratically elected leaders from the internet.

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel argued through her spokesperson that “it is problematic that the president’s accounts have been permanently suspended,” adding that “the right to freedom of opinion is of fundamental importance.” Attempts to regulate speech, the Chancellor said, “can be interfered with, but by law and within the framework defined by the legislature — not according to a corporate decision.”

    The European Union’s Commissioner for Internal Markets Thierry Breton warned: “The fact that a CEO can pull the plug on POTUS’s loudspeaker without any checks and balances is perplexing.” Commissioner Breton noted that this collective Silicon Valley ban “is not only confirmation of the power of these platforms, but it also displays deep weaknesses in the way our society is organized in the digital space.” (CNBC, “Germany’s Merkel hits out at Twitter over ‘problematic’ Trump ban,” Jan. 21, 2021).

    The Health Secretary for the United Kingdom, Matt Hanckock, sounded similar alarms. Speaking to the BBC, he said “‘tech giants are ‘taking editorial decisions’ that raise a ‘very big question’ about how social media is regulated,” adding: “That’s clear because they’re choosing who should and shouldn’t have a voice on their platform” (CNBC, “Trump’s social media bans are raising new questions on tech regulation,” Jan. 11, 2021).

    Objections to Silicon Valley’s removal of President Trump from their platforms were even more severe from officials with the government of French President Emmanuel Macron. The French Minister for European Union Affairs Clement Beaune pronounced himself “shocked” by the news of President Trump’s banning, arguing: “This should be decided by citizens, not by a CEO.” And France’s Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said: “There needs to be public regulation of big online platforms,” calling big tech “one of the threats” to democracy (Bloomberg News, “Germany and France Oppose Trump’s Twitter Exile,” Jan. 11, 2021).

    Perhaps the most fervent and eloquent warnings about the dangers posed by this episode came from Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. In a press conference held the day after the announcement, he said:

    It’s a bad omen that private companies decide to silence, to censor. That is an attack on freedom. Let’s not be creating a world government with the power to control social networks, a world media power. And also a censorship court, like the Holy Inquisition, but in order to shape public opinion. This is really serious.

    The Associated Press further quoted President López Obrador as asking: “How can a company act as if it was all powerful, omnipotent, as a sort of Spanish Inquisition on what is expressed?.” And AP confirmed that “ Mexico’s president vowed to lead an international effort to combat what he considers censorship by social media companies that have blocked or suspended the accounts of U.S. President Donald Trump,” and is “reaching out to other governments to form a common front on the issue” (Associated Press, “Mexican President Mounts Campaign Against Social Media Bans,” Jan. 14, 2021).

    These world leaders are expressing the same grave concern: that Silicon Valley giants wield power that is, in many instances, greater than that of any sovereign nation-state. But unlike the governments which govern those countries, tech monopolies apply these powers arbitrarily, without checks and without transparency. When doing so, they threaten not only American democracy but democracies around the world.

  3. Critics of Silicon Valley power over political discourse for years have heard the same refrain: if you don’t like how they are moderating content and policing discourse, you can go start your own social media platform that is more permissive. Leaving aside the centuries-old recognition that it is impossible, by definition, to effectively compete with monopolies, we now have an incident vividly proving how inadequate that alternative is. Several individuals who primarily identify as libertarians heard this argument from Silicon Valley’s defenders and took it seriously. They set out to create a social media competitor to Twitter and Facebook — one which would provide far broader free expression rights for users and, more importantly, would offer greater privacy protections than other Silicon Valley giants by refusing to track those users and commoditize them for advertisers. They called it Parler, and in early January, 2021, it was the single most-downloaded app in the Apple Play Store. This success story seemed to be a vindication for the claim that it was possible to create competitors to existing social media monopolies.But now, a mere two months after it ascended to the top of the charts, Parler barely exists. That is because several members of Congress with the largest and most influential social media platforms demanded that Apple and Google remove Parler from their stores and ban any further downloading of the app, and further demanded that Amazon, the dominant provider of web hosting services, cease hosting the site. Within forty-eight hours, those three Silicon Valley monopolies complied with those demands, rendering Parler inoperable and effectively removing it from the internet (See “How Silicon Valley, in a Show of Monopolistic Force, Destroyed Parler,” Glenn Greenwald, Jan. 12, 2021).

    The justification of this collective banning was that Parler had hosted numerous advocates of and participants in the January 6 Capitol riot. But even if that were a justification for removing an entire platform from the internet, subsequent reporting demonstrated that far more planning and advocacy of that riot was done on other platforms, including Facebook, Google-owned YouTube, Instagram and Twitter (See The Washington Post, “Facebook’s Sandberg deflected blame for Capitol riot, but new evidence shows how platform played role,“ Jan. 13, 2021; Forbes, “Sheryl Sandberg Downplayed Facebook’s Role In The Capitol Hill Siege—Justice Department Files Tell A Very Different Story,” Feb. 7, 2021).

    Whatever else one might want to say about the destruction of Parler, it was a stark illustration of how these Silicon Valley giants could obliterate even a highly successful competitor overnight, with little effort, by uniting to do so. And it laid bare how inadequate is the claim that Silicon Valley’s monopolies can be challenged through competition.

How Congress sets out to address Silicon Valley’s immense and undemocratic power is a complicated question, posing complex challenges. The proposal to vest media companies with an antitrust exemption in order to allow them to negotiate as a consortium or cartel seeks to rectify a real and serious problem — the vacuuming up of advertising revenue by Google and Facebook at the expense of the journalistic outlets which create the news content being monetized — but empowering large media companies could easily end up creating more problems than it solves.

That is particularly so given that it is often media companies that are the cause of Silicon Valley censorship of and interference in political speech of the kind outlined above. When these social media companies were first created and in the years after, they wanted to avoid being in the business of content moderation and political censorship. This was an obligation foisted upon them, often by the most powerful media outlets using their large platforms to shame these companies and their executives for failing to censor robustly enough.

Sometimes this pressure was politically motivated — demanding the banning of people whose ideologies sharply differs from those who own and control these media outlets — but more often it was motivated by competitive objectives: a desire to prevent others from creating independent platforms and thus diluting the monopolistic stranglehold that corporate media outlets exert over our political discourse. Further empowering this already-powerful media industry — which has demonstrated it will use its force to silence competitors under the guise of “quality control” — runs the real risk of transferring the abusive monopoly power from Silicon Valley to corporate media companies or, even worse, encouraging some sort of de facto merger in which these two industries pool their power to the mutual benefit of each.

This Subcommittee produced one of the most impressive and comprehensive reports last October detailing the dangers of the classic monopoly power wielded by Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple. That report set forth numerous legislative and regulatory solutions to comply with the law and a consensus of economic and political science experts about the need to break up monopolies wherever they arise.

Until that is done, none of these problems can be addressed in ways other than the most superficial, piecemeal and marginal. Virtually every concern that Americans across the political spectrum express about the dangers of Silicon Valley power emanates from the fact that they have been permitted to flout antitrust laws and acquire monopoly power. None of those problems — including their ability to police and control our political discourse and the flow of information — can be addressed until that core problem is resolved.

What is most striking is that while Silicon Valley censorship of online speech and interference in political discourse is recognized as a grave menace to a healthy democracy around the democratic world, it is often dismissed in the U.S. — especially by journalists — as some sort of trivial “culture war” question when they are not actively cheering and even demanding more of it. Even more bizarre is that opposition to oligarchical censorship and monopoly power is often depicted by the liberal-left as a right-wing cause, largely because they perceive (inaccurately) that such oligarchical discourse policing will operate in their favor.

Whatever labels one wants to apply to it, it should not require much work to recognize that vesting this magnitude of power in the hands of unaccountable billionaires, who operate outside the democratic process yet are highly influenced by public media-led pressure campaigns, is unsustainable.

March 14, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

The Biden-Noem Smackdown: “Imposter” Joe Meets Kristi “The Lionhearted”

By Mike Whitney | Unz Review | March 14, 2021

Did you catch Biden’s speech on Thursday?

I did. I foolishly thought Biden would use the opportunity to address the 90 million-or-so Americans who think the election was stolen and that Biden is not really the president. But, no, the niggling issue of “legitimacy” never even came up, nor did any of the ten other top issues that Americans care about most. Instead, Imposter Joe devoted the entire 22 minutes to fearmongering about a virus that has almost entirely vanished and which is rapidly losing its power to keep people voluntarily locked up in their own homes. That development–which should have been cause for celebration– has Biden worried, which is why his handlers settled on a nationwide speech to rekindle waning public anxiety.

The Biden crew are determined to keep the pandemic restrictions in place in order to curtail the freedom of movement, limit the size of public gatherings, and preserve the autocratic powers of the state governors. The obvious objective is to perpetuate the appearance of a public health crisis that serves as cover for the permanent suspension of personal liberties and the subsequent evisceration of the middle class. At its heart, the Covid scam– much like the BLM protests and spurious claims of “white supremacy”– has always been part of a broader class war aimed at conservative, blue-collar patriots. Here’s Biden:

“Look, we know what we need to do to beat this virus. Tell the truth. Follow the science. Work together. Put trust and faith in our government to fulfill its most important function, which is protecting the American people. No function is more important. We need to remember the government isn’t some foreign force in a distant capital. No, it’s us. All of us. We, the people.” (President Biden’s prime-time speech, ABC News)

“Trust the government”, says Biden, and yet, in survey after survey, we see that trust in government is lower now than any time in our 245-year history. And, for good reason: the public health officials, the media, and their Democrat allies in the statehouses have consistently and deliberately misled the public on nearly every aspect of the pandemic, from masks to asymptomatic transmission to fatality rates to the susceptibility to children to lockdowns, and now, to the biggest whopper of them all, the nefarious “variant,” which is the latest chilling hobgoblin designed to sustain the mass-hysteria in order to coerce more people into getting vaccinated. And, make no mistake, vaccination was the real purpose of Biden’s presentation. He doesn’t even try to pretend otherwise. Take a look:

“When I came into office you may recall I set a goal that many of you said was kind of way over the top. I said I intended to get 100 million shots in people’s arms in my first 100 days in office. Tonight, I can say we’re not only going to meet that goal, we’re going to beat that goal. Because we’re actually on track to reach this goal of 100 million shots in arms on my 60th day in office. No other country in the world has done this, none. And I want to talk about the next steps we’re thinking about.

“Tonight, I’m announcing that I will direct all states, tribes, and territories to make all adults, people 18 and over, eligible to be vaccinated no later than May 1. Let me say that again. All adult Americans will be eligible to get a vaccine no later than May 1. That’s much earlier than expected.

“And let me be clear. That doesn’t mean everyone’s going to have that shot immediately, but it means you’ll be able to get in line beginning May 1. Every adult will be eligible to get their shot. And to do this, we’re going to go from a million shots a day that I promised in December before I was sworn in, to maintaining, beating our current pace of 2 million shots a day, outpacing the rest of the world…”

Why is Biden so determined to vaccinate every man, woman and child in the country? Doesn’t that strike you as a bit suspicious? After all, if you’ve already been vaccinated, then you shouldn’t be at risk of contracting the infection from someone else, so what difference does it make?

No difference at all. And here’s another thing: Why was there no mention of health care or immigration or unemployment or the economy or anything else that really matters to the American people? After listening to Biden blabber-on for nearly a half-hour about vaccines, one could easily conclude that the last 12 months of relentless fear-mongering had no other purpose than to scare the American people into getting inoculated en masse. Is that what’s really going on? Are we all being stampeded into vaccination by the dissembling media, the public health establishment and corporate toadies like Joe Biden?

It sure looks like it to me.

Did you know that Covid cases are down roughly 90% since December? Did you know that hospitalizations are down 70% since December?

What does that mean?

It means the virus is on its last legs. It means there is enough immunity in the community that the rate of infection is falling like a stone. Viruses don’t suddenly decide to pack their bags and leave town. No. They run out of susceptible hosts to infect. And the reason they run out of susceptible hosts to infect, is because more people have already had the infection and either survived or died. Either way, the pool of susceptible hosts has shrunk dramatically. This is a long way of saying that ‘At present, there is no reason to get vaccinated.’ There is no reason to inject an experimental and potentially-lethal substance into your bloodstream to counter an infection that is nearly kaput. Capisce?

Biden knows this, his speech writers know this, and the deep-pocket oligarchs who shoehorned his sorry a** into the White House by dumping truckloads of mail-in ballots at voting stations around the country in the wee-hours of the morning; they know it, too.

And, yet, this is their Number 1 priority. Think about that. Why is Biden so insistent that you get inoculated with a vaccine for which there have been no long-term trials, no animal trials, and no regulatory hurdles. (The FDA waved the mRNA vaccines through the process under the Emergency Use Authorization provision.) Does Biden know that the Infection Fatality Rate is a measly 0.23% and that 99.95% of the people who contract Covid, survive?

Of course, he knows it. He knows the whole thing is a fraud, but that won’t stop him from doing what he’s been doing for the last 50 years; carrying water for corporate honchos and billionaire busybodies who see vaccination as an essential steppingstone to their glorious new order. Biden is merely the face-man for this sinister project; a pallid, inconsequential cog that helps to move the machinery of tyranny forward. That’s Biden in a nutshell. Here’s more from the speech:

“I need you, the American people. I need you. I need every American to do their part. I need you to get vaccinated when it’s your turn and when you can find an opportunity. And to help your family, your friends, your neighbors get vaccinated as well. Because here’s the point.

“If we do all this, if we do our part, if we do this together, by July the 4, there’s a good chance you, your families and friends, will be able to get together in your backyard or in your neighborhood and have a cookout or a barbecue and celebrate Independence Day.”

Get it? In other words, either you get vaccinated or no 4th of July for you! And that’s just the beginning of the penalties because Vaccine passports are already in the hopper as are public transit passes, work permits, even special ID licenses for entering grocery stores, retail shops or gas stations. Anything is possible in this emerging technocratic dictatorship. Anything.

Even so, Biden is going run into a brick wall sometime in the next few months after all the Koolaid drinkers have been inoculated and the low hanging fruit has already been plucked. Here’s why:

Did you know that “49 percent of GOP men say they won’t get vaccinated”? It’s true. According to a recent article in The Hill :

“Nearly half of U.S. men who identify as Republicans said they have no plans to get the coronavirus vaccine, according to a new PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll released Thursday. The study, which surveyed 1,227 U.S. adults from March 3 to March 8, found that approximately 30 percent of Americans overall said they do not plan on getting vaccinated.

The poll found a higher amount of opposition among Republicans, with 41 percent saying they would not get one of the three federally approved coronavirus vaccines and 49 percent of Republican men saying the same. Fifty percent of GOP men said they would get the vaccine or had already got it. One percent was unsure.

Comparatively, about 87 percent of Democrats included in the survey said they planned on getting the COVID-19 vaccine or had already received it….” (“49 percent of GOP men say they won’t get vaccinated: PBS poll”, The Hill )

This is the obstacle Biden’s going to face sometime in the next few months. In order to persuade the naysayers into getting vaccinated, he’s going to have to impose increasingly coercive measures, which I’m sure he will do without the slightest hesitation. He’ll also have to employ a battery of professional psychologists to manipulate public perceptions in order to bamboozle vaccine opponents into taking the jab. This process is already underway, as this recent article at the American Psychological Association illustrates. Here’s an excerpt:

“Psychologists will play an important role in ensuring vaccine uptake by determining the best way to fight back against misinformation, along with … communicating benefits and risks…

Psychologists and other behavioral scientists are working to inform the communication efforts around the vaccine. A recent report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine … calls for drawing on the established research in risk communication to drive outreach… including tailored messaging and framing vaccination as a beneficial

Personal experience may also be a powerful tool for vaccine communication. Many doctors and nurses—especially doctors and nurses of color—have been sharing their own vaccine experiences on social media…

For those who are strongly opposed to vaccines… the messaging is more difficult—but not impossible. These strong anti-vax, anti-mask attitudes appear driven by a phenomenon called psychological reactance, says Steven Taylor, PhD, a clinical psychologist… which is a motivational state driven by the feeling that someone is trying to curtail one’s freedom…

Natural incentives may also encourage vaccination… (but) Direct monetary incentives are likely to backfire. … The money “conveys that this is a risky thing that you don’t want to do unless we’re paying you,” Chapman says….

Preliminary results from doctors’ offices, currently being prepared for publication, suggest that a variety of messages can boost vaccination, with 21% of messages tested significantly boosting vaccination rates.” (“Social science and the COVID-19 vaccines”, the American Psychological Association)

Do these people have any idea how despicable they are? The government’s job is to provide accurate, well-researched, empirical information on matters of public interest, like vaccines. The government has no right to employ private contractors to persuade, indoctrinate or brainwash the American people in order to promote the cynical and self-serving agenda of power-mad elites and money-grubbing corporations. That is a massive “overreach”.

And, do you like the idea that your hard-earned tax dollars are being piddled-away on behaviorists and psychologists who are looking for ways to hoodwink you into taking a dangerous vaccine that could cause irreparable physical harm or death? Is that how you want your tax dollars spent? And, do you think that your rejection of these gene-editing time-bombs suggests that you suffer from a mental condition (“psychological reactance”) that requires professional assistance? And how is the conduct of these so-called professionals any different from the psychologists that were used at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib to figure out how much physical pain could be inflicted on some witless jihadi before they lapsed into a pain-induced coma or gave-up-the-ghost altogether? Aren’t both practices equally unethical, immoral and contemptible?

Yes, they are.

Kristi Noem; A throwback to better times

Now, let’s consider the stark contrast between Biden’s presentation and a speech delivered by Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota at the CPAC conference. For those who don’t know, Noem is the one bright star in a year of Orwellian darkness and gloom. She’s a strait-laced, plain-talking, clear-thinking conservative who sticks to her principles like glue. She is a stalwart, red-blooded American girl who believes in God, the Constitution and the United States of America. Here’s an excerpt from her CPAC speech:

“Now everybody knows that almost overnight we went from a roaring economy to a tragic nationwide shutdown. By the beginning of 2020, President Trump had created 7 million new American jobs. We had the lowest unemployment rate in over half a century, and unemployment rates for black, Hispanic, and Asian Americans reached the lowest levels in history. More than 10 million people had been lifted out of poverty and out of welfare. And all of that changed in March.

Now, most governors shut down their states. What followed was record unemployment, businesses closed, most schools were shuttered and communities suffered, and the U.S. Economy came to an immediate halt. Now let me be clear, COVID didn’t crush the economy, government crushed the economy. And then just as quickly, government turned around and held itself out as the savior, and frankly, the Treasury Department can’t print money fast enough to keep up with Congress’s wish list. But not everyone has followed this path. For those of you who don’t know, South Dakota is the only state in America that never ordered a single business or church to close. We never instituted a shelter in place order. We never mandated that people wear masks. We never even defined what an essential business is, because I don’t believe that governors have the authority to tell you that your business isn’t essential.” (“Kristi Noem CPAC 2021 Speech Transcript”, )

She’s right, isn’t she? No elected official has the right to close a business or a church EVER. Period. We do not bestow those powers on our governors nor are they granted under the Constitution. Neither war nor pandemic nor any other national emergency or crisis should ever be used to strip Americans of the liberties that are guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. Biden was wrong to say that the “most important function of government is to protect the American people.” That’s just wrong. The most important function of government is to preserve and protect the liberties that are outlined in the Bill of Rights. That’s job#1: Defend Freedom at all cost. Everything else is a footnote. Here’s more from Noem:

“South Dakota schools are no different than schools everywhere else in America, but we approached the pandemic differently. From the earliest days of the pandemic our priority was the students, their wellbeing and their education. When it was time to go back to school in the fall, we put our kids in the classroom. Teachers, administrators, parents and the students themselves were of one mind to make things work for our children, and the best way to do that was in the classroom. Now in South Dakota, I provided all of the information that we had to our people, and then I trusted them to make the best decisions for themselves, for their families, and in turn, their communities. We never focused on the case numbers. Instead, we kept our eye on hospital capacity. Now, Dr. Fauci, he told me that on my worst day I’d have 10,000 patients in the hospital. On our worst day, we had a little over 600. Now, I don’t know if you agree with me, but Dr. Fauci is wrong a lot.”

Naturally, Noem got a standing ovation when she blasted the duplicitous Lord Fauci, the man, who more than any other, bears responsibility for almost single-handedly plunging the country into an unprecedented crisis. Here’s more:

“Even in a pandemic, public health policy needs to take into account people’s economic and social wellbeing. Daily needs still need to be met. People need to keep a roof over their headsThey need to feed their families. And they still need purpose. They need their dignity. Now my administration resisted the call for virus control at the expense of everything else. We looked at the science, the data and the facts, and then we took a balanced approach. Truthfully, I never thought that the decisions that I was making were going to be unique. I thought that there would be more who would follow basic conservative principles, but I guess I was wrong.”

Yes, she was wrong, but who could have foreseen that every reprobate Democrat governor in the country would simultaneously take advantage of a public health crisis to impose de facto martial law? We never saw that coming, although, we have to assume that there must have been some tacit agreement and coordination among the governors and their paymasters that they would fall-in-line when the time was right. Ahh, but that’s conspiracy talk!

Damn right, it is! Here’s more:

“Many in the media, criticized South Dakota’s approach. They labeled me as ill-informed, that I was reckless, and even a denier. … The media did all of this while simultaneously praising governors who issued lockdowns, who mandated masks and shut down businesses, applauding them as having taken the right steps to mitigate the spread of the virus. At one point, I appeared on George Stephanopoulos’ Sunday Show. He had just wrapped up a segment with New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, where he asked Cuomo to give me some advice on how to deal with COVID.” (Loud Laughter)

In South Dakota, we did things differently. We applied common sense and conservative governing principles. We never exceeded our hospital capacity and our economy is booming. We have the lowest unemployment rate in the nation. We are number one in the nation for keeping jobs, keeping businesses open and keeping money in the pockets of our people. The people of South Dakota kept their hours and their wages at a higher rate than workers anywhere else in the nation. And our schools are open. … Our founding fathers established our National Constitution, and the people of individual states crafted their own constitutions that place specific limits on the role of government. Those limits are essential to preventing government officials from trampling on people’s rights.”

The people themselves are the ones entrusted with expansive freedoms, the free will to exercise their rights to work, worship and to earn a living. No governor should ever dictate to their people which activities are officially approved or not approved. And no governor should ever arrest, ticket or fine people for exercising their freedoms. Governors, and members of Congress and the president have a duty to respect the rights of the people who elected them, but it seems these days that conservatives are the only ones who know what that means. Personal responsibility is considered a God-given gift in South Dakota. Personal responsibility is not a term that conservatives have abandoned..

We should illustrate to the world that people thrive when government is limited, and people’s ingenuity and their creativity is unleashed. We should also remind the world what happens when tyranny and oppression are allowed to thrive. … God bless each and every one of you and may God bless the United States of America.”

By now, we should all realize that the greatest threat to personal freedom is always and everywhere the State; that is the main lesson of this unfortunate Covid fiasco. The Democrat governors usurped powers and issued edicts for which they had no authority and for which they should be held to account. They should be impeached and prosecuted. They were undoubtedly acting on behalf of criminal elites who fill their campaign coffers in return for assistance in advancing their own self-centered interests.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, we are in the fight of our lives with “do goodie” billionaire climate alarmists who have inserted themselves into the political process and who have the power to shut down the economy with the flip of the switch. These same buttinskis have gone to great lengths to create the global health infrastructure along with significant control of the mainstream media, that allows them to grossly inflate an aggressive but thoroughly-manageable viral infection and transform it into the Black Plague. This, in turn, creates the pretext for preventing people from running their businesses or attending school or gathering with friends or family or traveling at will or doing any of the things that people in a free country are at liberty to do. There is no way to reason with people who think that the only way they can achieve their own malicious objectives, is by enslaving, incarcerating or liquidating the millions of people who stand in the way of their grand design. We must defend ourselves from these hostile elites by recommitting ourselves to the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded. These are the same principles that Kristi Noem has not only articulated so well in her speech, but also put into practice in her home state of South Dakota.

We should never accept the oppressively dark and dystopian vision of Joe Biden. That’s not for us. We should aspire to Noem’s “shining city on a hill”, a place where people can work when and where they please, travel when and where they please, and meet with friends and family when and where they please. It’s not selfish for us to want these things for ourselves and our families. Freedom is a basic human necessity like eating, drinking or breathing. We need freedom, just like we need leaders who believe as we do and who are unshakable in their convictions. We need leaders like Kristi Noem who was as steadfast as Gibraltar when everyone else went weak-in-the-knees. The woman is a real American hero and a patriot.

Booyah, Kristi Noem!

March 14, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

Scott Atlas: The Last Word

The Stanford Review | March 7, 2021

Editor’s Note: Scott W. Atlas, MD, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, served from August through November 2020 as Special Adviser to the President and was a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Atlas delivered the following remarks in a virtual lecture hosted by the College Republicans. They have been lightly adapted to appear in print.

It is always a great pleasure, and an important part of my job, to speak to students. It is essential for students to hear ideas from many sources, especially ideas they may not agree with. That is a key part of learning how to think critically – and critical thinking is the most important lesson to learn in college, in my opinion.

The coronavirus pandemic has been a great tragedy, there can be no doubt about that. But it has also exposed profound issues in America that now threaten the very principles of freedom and order that we Americans often take for granted.

First, I have been shocked at the enormous power of the government, to unilaterally decree, to simply close businesses and schools by edict, restrict personal movement, mandate behavior, and eliminate our most basic freedoms, without any end and little accountability.

Second, I remain surprised at the acceptance by the American people of draconian rules, restrictions, and unprecedented mandates, even those that are arbitrary, destructive, and wholly unscientific.

This crisis has also exposed what we all have known existed, but we have tolerated for years: the overt bias of the media, the lack of diverse viewpoints on campuses, the absence of neutrality in big tech controlling social media, and now more visibly than ever, the intrusion of politics into science. Ultimately, the freedom to seek and state the truth is at risk here in the United States.

First, we all acknowledge that the consequences of the SARS2 coronavirus pandemic and its management have been enormous. Over half million American deaths have been attributed to the virus; more will certainly follow.  Even after almost a year, the pandemic still paralyzes much of our country. And despite all efforts, there was an undeniable failure to stop cases from rapidly escalating and prevent hospitalizations and death.

Here’s the unacknowledged reality: almost all states and major cities, with a handful of exceptions, have implemented severe restrictions for many months, including closures of businesses and in-person school, mobility restrictions and curfews, quarantines, limits on group gatherings, and mask mandates dating back to at least the summer.

And let’s clear up the myths about the behavior of Americans – social mobility tracking of Americans and data from Gallup, YouGov, the COVID-19 Consortium, and the CDC have shown significant reductions of movement as well as a consistently high percentage of mask wearing since the late summer, similar to Western European countries and approaching those in Asia.

All legitimate policy scholars should, today, be openly reexamining policies that severely harmed America’s families and children, while failing to save the elderly. Studies, including one in January from Stanford University’s infectious disease scientists and epidemiologists Bendavid, Oh, Bhattacharya, and Ioannidis, have shown the mitigating impact of the extraordinary measures was small at best and according to the study’s senior author Ioannidis, “usually harmful” – in his words, “pro-contagion.” President Biden openly admitted their lack of efficacy in his speech to the nation on January 22, when he said, “there is nothing we can do to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months.”

Bizarrely, though, many want to blame those who opposed lockdowns and mandates for the failure of the very lockdowns and mandates that were widely implemented.

Separate from their limited value in containing the virus — efficacy that has often been “grossly exaggerated” in scientific journals, as documented by epidemiologists and biostatisticians Chin, Ioannidis, Tanner, and Cripps – lockdown policies have been extraordinarily harmful. The harms to children of closing in-person schooling are dramatic, including poor learning, increased school dropouts, and social isolation, most of which are far worse for lower income groups.

A recent study confirms that up to 78% of cancers were never detected due to missed screening over three months. If one extrapolates to the entire country, up to a million new cases or more over nine months will have gone undetected. That health disaster adds to missed critical surgeries, chemotherapy, organ transplants, presentations of pediatric illnesses, heart attack and stroke patients too afraid to call emergency services, and others, all well documented.

Beyond hospital care, CDC reported four-fold increases in depression, three-fold increases in anxiety symptoms, and a doubling of suicidal ideation, particularly among young adults  college age – after the first few months of lockdowns, echoing the AMA reports of drug overdoses and suicides. An explosion of insurance claims for these psychological harms in children just verified this, doubling nationally since last year; and in the strictly locked down Northeast, there was a more than 300% increase of teenagers visiting doctors for self-harm.

Domestic abuse and child abuse have been skyrocketing due to the isolation and specifically to the loss of jobs, particularly in the strictest lockdowns. Given that many in-person schools have been closed, hundreds of thousands of abuse cases are never reported, since schools are the number one agency where abuse is noticed. Finally, the unemployment “shock” from lockdowns, according to a recent NBER study, translates into what they called a “staggering” 890,000 additional U.S. deaths over the next 15 years from the lockdowns, disproportionately affecting minorities and women.

We know we have not yet seen the full extent of the damage from lockdowns, because it will last for years, even decades. Perhaps that is why lockdowns were not recommended in previous pandemic analyses, even for infections with far higher lethality.

To manage such a crisis, shouldn’t policymakers objectively consider both the virus harms and the totality of impact of policies? That’s the importance of health policy experts – my field – with a broader scope of expertise than that of epidemiologists and basic scientists. And that’s exactly why I was called to the White House – there were zero health policy scholars on the Task Force; no one with a medical background who also considered the impacts of the policies was advising the White House.

To determine the best path forward necessarily means admitting that social lockdowns and significant restrictions on individuals are deadly and extraordinarily harmful, especially on the working class, minorities, and the poor.

In his book “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds,” Charles Mackay wrote: “of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder’s welcome.”

Optimistically, we should be seeing the light at the end of the long tunnel with the rollout of vaccines. I believe that we are. But, using logic that would put the Mad Hatter to shame, we now hear some claim that all children must be tested and vaccinated, even though they have extremely low risk from this infection and are proven to not be significant spreaders to adults? Or that all teachers must be vaccinated before they teach in-person, even though schools are one of the lowest risk environments and the vast majority of teachers are not high risk?

Worse, we hear the same faces on TV once again stressing uncertainty, and issuing new warnings – that social distancing, masks, and other restrictions will still be necessary after vaccination and until 2022. Is there no intention of those who control the narrative – the often proclaimed “consensus” – to allow Americans to live normally, to live freely, without fear, again?

Just as in Galileo’s time, one real problem is the experts and “vested academic interests.”  Faculty members of many universities, America’s centers for critical thinking, have overtly intimidated views contrary to their own, likely out of political reasons, leaving many afraid to speak up. That intimidation has been effective – I know, I have received hundreds of emails from scientists and policy scholars all over the country, all over the world, telling me to never give up, but they are afraid to come forward.  And yes, even a number of infectious disease experts right here at Stanford are afraid to step forward publicly and say the truth.

It is commendable that Stanford’s President and Provost, former Provost Etchemendy, and a few other distinguished members of the academic community here spoke in defense of academic freedom at a recent Faculty Senate meeting. But it is not only the matter of academic freedom that needs comment.

Instead of rethinking failed policies and admitting their errors, some have chosen to employ smears in opinion pieces and through organized rebukes against those of us who disagreed with what was implemented and who dared to help the country under a President they despised – apparently, the ultimate transgression.

Straw-man arguments and out-of-context distortions to defame people are not acceptable in civilized society, let alone in our great universities. There has been an attempt to silence and delegitimize me using falsifications and misrepresentations. This dishonors Stanford’s code of conduct, damages the Stanford name, and most importantly, it abuses the trust parents and society place in them to influence America’s children, our next generation of leaders.

It is understandable that most Stanford professors are not experts in health policy – that is my field, my lane – and understandable that most Stanford professors are ignorant of the data about the pandemic. But it is not acceptable to claim that I made recommendations that were “falsehoods and misrepresentations of science.” That is a lie. No matter how often a lie is repeated, and regardless of how often those lies are echoed in biased media, lies do not transform into truths.

We should all remember the phrase attributed to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels – “A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth” – and pray to God that it never becomes true in these United States of America.

All policy considerations I recommended to the President were designed to reduce both the spread of the virus to the most vulnerable and the structural harms of the policies to those impacted the most – the poor and working class of America. I was one of the first to push for increasing protections to those most at risk, particularly the elderly, because they were dying by the tens of thousands because the chosen policies implemented by states, recommended by other Task Force members, were failing to protect them. Almost a year ago, I recognized that we must also consider the enormous harms to physical health, mental health, and lives lost coming directly from the draconian policies that attempted to contain the infection. That is the most appropriate goal of public health policy: to minimize all harms, not simply to stop Covid-19 at all costs.

The claim in a recent JAMA opinion piece by three Stanford professors that “nearly all public health experts were concerned that [Atlas’s] recommendations could lead to tens of thousands (or more) of unnecessary deaths in the US alone” is patently false, absurd on its face. As pointed out on February 10 by Zinberg, the proposal called the Great Barrington Declaration, is “far closer to the one condemned in the JAMA article than anything [Atlas] said”. Yet, that policy declaration was co-authored by medical scientists and epidemiologists from Stanford, Harvard, and Oxford, and it has already been signed by over 50,000 medical and public-health practitioners.

When critics display such ignorance about the scope of views held by experts, it exposes their bias and wholly disqualifies their authority on these issues. Indeed, it is beyond parody that these same critics wrote “professionalism demands honesty about what they know and do not know.”

I have indeed explained the fact that younger people have little risk from this infection, and I explained the biological concept of herd immunity – protection arising when a large percentage of people acquire immunity – just like Harvard epidemiologists Katherine Yih and Martin Kulldorff, and some of the top scientists at Stanford, have explained. That is very different from proposing that people be deliberately exposed and infected by “allowing the virus to spread naturally” without mitigation efforts. I have not advised that.

And how timely it is that Professor Makary of Johns Hopkins School of Public Health just did the same, acknowledging in the Wall Street Journal on February 18, 2021 that “herd immunity is the inevitable result of viral spread and vaccination.” Makary went on to celebrate what he called “the good news” – that the consistent and rapid decline in daily cases since Jan. 8 can be explained only by natural immunity. Behavior didn’t suddenly improve over the holidays; Americans traveled more over Christmas than they had since March. Vaccines also don’t explain the steep decline in January. Vaccination rates were low and they take weeks to kick in.”

Those are Makary’s words. Will Dr. Makary now be linked with doctors who promoted eugenics and those who conducted the racist Tuskegee syphilis experiments, as in the piece in JAMA ? Will professors also call for his medical license to be stripped, or that he be formally censured for explaining the benefit of naturally-acquired immunity?

In fact, directly contrary to advocating that the infection spread, I have repeatedly called for mitigation measures, including extra sanitization, social distancing, masks, group limits, testing, and other increased protections to limit the spread and damage from the coronavirus. I also explicitly called for augmenting protection of those at risk in dozens of on-the-record presentations, interviews, and written pieces, including:

Written pieces in The Hill– May 3, The Hill-September 3,  New York Post– September 15, New York Post– April 26;  presentations to: Senate Committee on Homeland SecurityParliamentary Intelligence Security ForumLiberty Forum of Silicon Valley, YPO retreat in Sea Island, Georgia; and interviews withBen Shapiro podcast, John Bachelor radio,  Steve Deace Blaze TVTucker Carlson Fox News TV, Florida televised press conference, WAML Radioand numerous others.

One must ask the question: why would accusers also ignore my explicit, emphatic public denials about supporting the spread of the infection unchecked to achieve herd immunity – denials quoted widely in the media. Are not my own statements the object of their criticism in the first place? Or is it due to a desire to “cancel” anyone who accepted the call, who had the audacity to help this country under President Trump?

I have been accused of claiming that “young people are not harmed by the virus and cannot spread the disease.” To the contrary, I have frequently cited detailed data explicitly stating that children do get the infection, that children can have serious consequences from the infection, and that some children die from the disease. When I said in a 5/20/2020 interview with Congressman Andy Biggs that there was “an extremely low risk for children that Covid-19 poses” and that the risk of dying if you’re under 18 from this disease is “nearly zero,” that matches the data, including CDCand is almost verbatim what John Ioannidis, renowned Stanford epidemiologist, summed up about the entire world’s data. The risk of dying from Covid-19 is “almost zero” for young people.

For many months, I was maligned after calling for opening in-person schools. The compelling case to open schools is now admitted to be longstanding truth, even in lay publications like the Atlantic. They acknowledged that “Research from around the world has, since the beginning of the pandemic, indicated that people under 18, and especially younger kids, are less susceptible to infection, less likely to experience severe symptoms, and far less likely to be hospitalized or die.” Further, that “We’ve known for months that young children are less susceptible to serious infection and less likely to transmit the coronavirus. Let’s act like it.”

The accusers who wrote the opinion piece in JAMA stated: “Atlas disputed the need for masks”. That is misrepresenting my words. To the contrary, my advice on mask usage has been consistent and explicit – “wear a mask when you cannot socially distance” – and it matched the published recommendations of the World Health Organization in June: “When outside, wear a mask if you cannot maintain physical distance from others.”

In December, the WHO modified that to “(In areas of known or suspected community or cluster SARS-CoV-2 transmission), WHO advises that the general public should wear a non-medical mask in … settings where physical distancing of at least 1 metre cannot be maintained”, i.e. not at all times, not by everyone. That also matches the NIH document dated February 2021 “Prevention and prophylaxis of SARS-COV-2 infection”: “When consistent distancing is not possible, face coverings may further reduce the spread of infectious droplets from individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection to others.”

Regarding universal masks: 38 states have implemented general-population mask mandates, most since at least the summer, with almost all the rest having mandates in their major cities. Widespread, general-population mask usage has shown little empirical utility for stopping cases, even though that evidence has been censored by Twitter and Amazon. Widespread mask usage showed only minimal impact in Denmark’s randomized controlled study. Those are facts. And facts matter.

Here’s the reality: those who insist that universal mask usage is absolutely proven to be effective at controlling the spread of this virus and is universally recommended by “the science” are ignoring the published evidence to the contrary. One could say they are propagating false and misleading information; some might even call that, using a phrase from the JAMA opinion, “subverting science.”

I posted a list where mask mandates empirically failed to stop cases, along with direct quotes, without any edit, from WHO, CDC, and Oxford University. That was censored by Twitter. And I stated numerous times that it would be irrational to wear a mask “when alone riding a bicycle outside, when driving your own car alone, or when walking in the desert alone.” I stand by those words.

Those who charge that it is unethical, even dangerous, to question broad population mask mandates must not realize that several of the world’s top infectious disease scientists and major public health organizations explicitly question the efficacy of general population masks. The public needs to know the truth.

For instance, Jefferson and Heneghan of University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine wrote“It would appear that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks.” Oxford’s renowned epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta said there is no need for masks unless one is elderly or high risk. Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya stated “mask mandates are not supported by the scientific data … there is no scientific evidence that mask mandates work to slow the spread of the disease.”

Throughout this pandemic until December, the WHO’s “Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19” stated: “At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.” In December, the WHO changed their wording to today’s “At present there is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2.”

The CDC, in a review of influenza pandemics, “did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility.” And until the WHO removed it on October 21, 2020 (almost immediately after Twitter censored my tweet highlighting the WHO quote), the WHO had written “At the present time, the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider.”

My advice on masks has always been based on scientific data, and it matches the advice of many of the top scientists and public health organizations throughout the world.

One final false accusation must be addressed: that I “made unsupported claims about the immunity conferred by surviving infection“.

To the contrary, I was correct in accurately citing the scientific literature, when I explained that biological protection from this infection is not fully shown by antibody tests, since antibody prevalence changes in people over time (September 2020, Japan), and protection is also derived from other parts of the immune system (January 2021, Germany), including T-cells (January 2021, Minnesota), even in asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic patients, according to the Karolinska Institute.

Professor Makary of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health acknowledged this on February 18, 2021, explaining that “Antibody studies almost certainly underestimate natural immunity. Antibody testing doesn’t capture antigen-specific T-cells.”

I was also correctly citing data that demonstrated some individuals could have cross-protection from previous coronavirus infections, shown by Singapore researchers and explicitly supported by the NIH itself on December 15, 2020. “The evidence that a subset of people has a cross-reactive T cell repertoire through exposure to related coronaviruses is strong.”

At this point, one could make a reasonable case that those who continue to push significant societal restrictions without acknowledging their failures and serious harms are themselves putting forth dangerous misinformation. As Stanford’s Ioannidis stated on February 20, 2021, “most of the estimates show the draconian lockdowns increased the problems, it was pro-contagion.” Those restrictions have plainly “damaged the public health,” as my Stanford accusers might say.

But I will not call for their official rebuke or punishment. I will not try to cancel them. I will not try to extinguish their opinions. And I will not lie to distort their words and defame them. To do so would repeat a behavior of intimidating the discourse that is critical to educating the public and arriving at the scientific truths we desperately need.

As a health policy scholar for over 15 years and as a professor at top universities for 30 years, I now fear for our students and our nation’s future. Some faculty members of our acclaimed universities – many of whom are automatic recipients of society’s respect because of those university titles – are now dangerously intolerant of opinions contrary to their personally favored narrative. Without permitting, indeed encouraging, open exchange of views and admission of errors, we might never solve any future crisis.

At a minimum, university mottos, if such things matter – like Harvard’s “truth,” Stanford’s “the winds of freedom blow,” and Yale’s “light and truth” – need to be explained to all faculty members at these universities.

Some go further, distorting and misrepresenting words to delegitimize and prompt punishment of those of us willing to serve the country – their country – alongside a President they happen to loathe. As Tobin wrote on March 1, “Delegitimizing [Atlas] and his analysis of the coronavirus disaster was a matter of treating all those who have any connection with the Trump administration as criminals, something that could only be accomplished by blatant misrepresentations of his views and statements.”

Worse than a violation of ethical behavior among colleagues, that does not meet my standard of simple human decency.

If academic leaders – and the entire academic community – fail to denounce such attempts to vilify those whom one disagrees with, many more experts with a reputation to lose will be unwilling to serve this country in contentious times. As educators, as parents, as fellow citizens, that would be the worst possible legacy to leave to our children.

We should also fear that the concept of “the science” has been seriously damaged. Even the best journals in the world – NEJMLancetScience and Nature – have become contaminated by politics and published bad science. That adds to the public’s confusion, and it diminishes trust in experts. By now, many in the public have simply become fatigued by the arguments. That reaction is even worse, because widespread fatigue will allow fallacy to triumph over truth.

Americans are now faced with a new status quo: biased social media have joined a dominant voice on campuses to be the arbiter of allowable discussion.

The United States is on the precipice of losing its cherished freedoms, with censorship and cancellation of all those who bring views forward that differ from the “accepted mainstream.”

It is not clear if our democracy, with its defining freedoms, will recover, even after we survive the pandemic itself. But it is clear that people must step up – meaning speak up, as we are allowed, as we are expected to do in free societies – or it has no chance.

Finally: Mackay, again, presciently spoke about the herd: “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”

So, how do we proceed at this very moment, in this country, with its heavily damaged psyche? Those of us who want the truth must keep seeking it, and those of us who see the truth must keep speaking it. Even if the recovery from madness is slow, and even if it is only one by one. Because truth matters.

March 14, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment

Have You Actually Read A COVID19 Vaccine Consent Form Yet?

By John O’Sullivan | Principia Scientific | March 14, 2021

Very few of us take the time to read the small print when we buy many products and services. It’s the same with our vaccine shots. Otherwise, if we did take a couple of minutes to diligently read what vaccine companies admit they are doing to our bodies, fewer of us would permit ourselves to endure this insanity.

Below is a sample vaccine consent form from INOVA. Inova Health System is a non-profit health organization based in Falls Church, Virginia, near Washington, D.C. The system is a network of hospitals, outpatient services, assisted living and long-term care facilities, and healthcare centers.

Typical of most organizations that provide COVID19 vaccines, here is what they say in their vaccine consent form:

“I declare that I or my child is 16 years of age or older. I further declare that I or my child:

  1. Have not experienced anaphylaxis (difficulty breathing) or severe allergic reactions from a previous vaccination or an injectable medication.
  2. Have not had any other vaccinations in the previous 14 days (e.g. MMR, Shingrix, Varicella, or a TB skin test).
  3. Is not currently sick with a fever, active respiratory infection or other moderate/severe illness.
  4. Has have not received monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma for treatment of COVID-19 within the past ninety (90) days.
  5. Is not allergic to the following ingredients in the COVID-19 vaccine: mRNA, lipids((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6, 1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate), 2[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N, N-ditetradecylacetamide, 1, 2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, and cholesterol), potassium chloride, monobasic potassium phosphate, sodium chloride, dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate and sucrose.

I understand that if I or my child have any of the above conditions, I or my child could be at increased risk of having a negative reaction or problem from the vaccine.

I further declare that if I or my child have any of the following conditions, I have had the opportunity to speak with my or my child’s primary care provider and am making an informed decision to receive the vaccine or to have my child receive the vaccine:

  1. Pregnant, attempting to become pregnant or breastfeeding;
  2. Have a bleeding disorder or are on a blood thinner;
  3. Are immunocompromised or are taking a medication that affects the immune system (such as cortisone, prednisone, other steroids, or anticancer drugs; drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease or psoriasis; HIV/AIDS, cancer, leukemia, ankylosing spondylitis or radiation treatments).

I agree to WAIT near the clinic location for 15 minutes after receiving the vaccine. If I or my child have previously had a severe allergic reaction to a vaccine or injectable medication, I agree to WAIT near the clinic location for 30 minutes after receiving the vaccine.

I understand that the COVID-19 vaccine is a two-part vaccine series. By signing this consent, I am agreeing that I or my child will receive the first and second part of the vaccine series.

I understand that the common risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccine include but are not limited to pain, redness or swelling at the site of injection, tiredness, headache, muscle pain, chills, joint pain, fever, nausea, feeling unwell or swollen lymph nodes (lymphadenopathy). I understand that the vaccine may cause a severe allergic reaction which can include anaphylaxis (difficulty breathing, swelling of the face and throat, a fast heartbeat, a rash all over the body, dizziness and/or weakness).

I understand that these may not be all the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine as the vaccine is still being studied in clinical trials. I also understand that it is not possible to predict all possible side effects or complications which could be associated with the vaccine. I understand that the long-term side effects or complications of this vaccine are not known at this time. emphasis added]

I understand that the vaccination is being given by Inova Health System Foundation and its affiliates (collectively Inova). The owner and/or operator of this site, their affiliates, officers, directors, employees and agents expressly disclaim any responsibility for the vaccination.

My consent is given in light of this knowledge, and in consideration of Inova giving the COVID-19 vaccine. I, for myself and my heirs, administrators, trustees, executors, assigns and successors in interest do hereby agree to release and hold harmless Inova, its subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates, successors, assigns, officers, trustees, employees, volunteers and agents from and against any and all demands, damages, losses, costs, expenses, obligations, liabilities, claims, actions and cause of action (whether any of which is groundless or otherwise) of any nature whatsoever (including, without limitation, reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs) by reason of or resulting, in any way, from any and all acts, accidents, events, occurrences, omissions and the like related to, or arising out of, directly or indirectly, my receipt of this COVID-19 vaccine.

[emphasis added]

Inova makes no warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to, implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose regarding the vaccine or its effectiveness.

I acknowledge receipt of Inova’s Notice of Privacy Practices.

Medicare Part B Recipients: I understand Inova will process Medicare Part B claims on my behalf and accepts Medicare payment in full. I understand I must present my Medicare card prior to receiving the vaccine. I understand that if I have assigned my Medicare benefits to a Medicare Advantage Plan (like an HMO or PPO), I must receive my COVID-19 vaccine shot from my HMO/managed care provider or pay the Inova charge.

Private Insurance Participants: If I have private insurance, I understand that Inova will not bill my insurance carrier on my behalf, and that I am responsible for paying the required fee for this vaccine to Inova and for pursuing reimbursement from my health insurance carrier. Inova cannot guarantee that this service will be reimbursable by insurance.

I have read and understood “What To Do If You Have A Reaction To The COVID-19 Vaccination” and the “Fact Sheet” by the FDA regarding the COVID-19 Vaccination. I further understand and agree that Inova is required to submit COVID-19 vaccine administration data to the Virginia Immunization Information System (VIIS), and report moderate and severe adverse events following vaccination to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

I understand and agree to all of the above and I hereby give my consent to the staff of Inova to give me or my child a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Read the full INOVA document here: COVID-19 Vaccine Consent Form – Inova

March 14, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment