Briefly Noted: Covid In The Morning
Two brief but somewhat significant updates.
First from Zerohedge yesterday:
I take this as a sign, along with resistance to vax mandates and various school related mandates, of an increasing disinclination to take the government’s word on Covid related matters. People are catching on to the fact that they’re being played. They’re asking, Where’s Gavin? Where’s Jen? and they want solid stats. Follow the link for the story, but this chart tells a lot:
On a related note is this entry from Wirepoints. This is a site that specializes in Illinois public affairs. It’s not an anti-vaxxing site—in fact, it’s basically pro-vax—and it’s not really conservative, either. Instead, it concentrates on providing information that’s actually, like, ya know, accurate. In Blue states like IL that can be a real challenge, and Wirepoints does yeoman work in that regard. So, it seemed significant to me to read this at a rather “moderate” site:
The Covid Regime’s narrative is being challenged, in increasingly direct terms:
Friday was the last straw.
Rochelle Walensky, Director of the Centers for Disease Control, claimed that masks can reduce your chances of getting a COVID-19 infection by 80%.
There’s not a shred of empirical evidence to support anything remotely close to that level of efficacy for masks.
Medical experts immediately slammed Walensky for that reason. “I don’t know how to put this politely, but it is a lie, and a truly unbelievable one at that,” wrote Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and Associate Professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California San Francisco. Harvard medical school’s Martin Kuldorff retweeted a note saying “Not a single paper supports this made-up 80% figure.” Walensky’s claim was “preposterous,” wrote Stanford epidemiology Professor Jay Battacharya. “But it’s an improvement since last year when the former CDC director said masks were better than vaccines,” he added. “At this rate, they’ll get it right in 2050 or so.” Yale Law School professor Samantha Godwin, a bioethics specialist, said the CDC director has made “a specific empirical claim for which no data exists.”
None of that criticism has gotten mainstream media attention.
A lie that outright may be the extreme for the CDC, but it has a long pattern of deliberate distortion and double talk, which most of the press either doesn’t understand or chooses not to report.
Here’s a recent example of both that most media have ignored: On October 29 the CDC released a study claiming to show that immunity from vaccination is higher than natural immunity acquired by those who were already infected. It was an attempt to counter the growing evidence that natural immunity is at least as powerful as vaccines. Media across the country repeated the CDC’s claim with headlines like “Why COVID-19 vaccines are stronger than natural immunity.”
You didn’t need to be a scientist to take a quick look at the study and know that it was junk. It studied a group of people already hospitalized with COVID-like symptoms, raising myriad problems of sampling bias. And the study listed some fifty supposed authors, betraying the study for what it was – a political statement. The study was immediately criticized by expert critics, including Harvard’s Prof. Kulldorff
It gets worse. …
My fervent hope is that all this and much, much more will soon get its day in court with regard to the new mandate cases, via amici curiae briefs. Experts like Robert Malone and the scientists cited above (Prasad, Bhattacharya, Kuldorff) have been doing the homework and have been getting organized, forming The Brownstone Institute. They’re collecting the reliable facts and challenging fake science on a daily basis. They should be ready to contribute in a major way to the briefs that will undoubtedly be submitted in the mandate cases. They also have the creds to be taken very seriously and the facts that are now at their fingertips will be available to the lawyers preparing the briefs. Yes, the main thrust of the case is likely to revolve in the first place around the issue of whether the OSHA “emergency” diktat is lawful, but the issue of reasonable basis for any such mandate will also arise.
There is hope.
Thank you for that description about Wirepoints. That's exactly what we aspire to be.
Mark, do you think this all might be part of a depopulation scheme?
Not because the “vaccines” themselves are causing infertility per se, but because they are causing, say recently married couples in their late 20’s to mid 30’s such as my wife and I, to decide against having children because we are frightened of ever putting them into the hands of these psychopaths?
I can tell you that is one of, though not the sole, motivation for me. If you don’t feel faith in your ability to secure your children, you are not going to have them in the first place; and as our own fertility window recedes at the same time these monsters take over childcare, I think it much less likely we will have our own kids.
On the other hand, I can see us adopting or becoming guardians ad litem—which apparently doesn’t require a JD—once we are more settled.