Plexiglass Barriers Are Everywhere, but They’re Probably Useless
Eateries have adapted to COVID in countless ways. Hostesses take our temperatures upon entry. We scan QR codes instead of reading paper menus. We are served by masked waiters. In some cities, unsightly plexiglass barriers have appeared between tables and bar seats.
Restaurants should be given broad latitude to adapt how they see fit, to best protect their workers and return a degree of confidence to their customers. But some of these adaptations verge on hygiene theater. When those plexiglass barriers are used in classrooms, they “might be making things worse by blocking ventilation,” to quote Zeynep Tufekci, who then points to a new study in Science.
For a virus that spreads via airborne transmission of aerosols—something scientists have known for many months, though it took the World Health Organization until the end of April to update its guidance—these plastic barriers between diners were always a confusing addition. Think of the particles that disperse through the air when someone smokes a cigarette. A plastic barrier wouldn’t prevent you from smelling that cigarette and breathing some of that same air.
It would be one thing if this form of hygiene theater was limited to restaurants. But school districts across the country have forced children to try to learn while encased in plexiglass desk dividers—that is, if they’ve allowed kids to return to full-time in-person schooling at all.
Not only does this make it harder for children to connect with their friends and teachers, but forcing them to learn this way may lead them to speak up louder to be heard—an act that increases aerosol production and is more likely to spread COVID than speaking at a quieter volume. Given the incredibly low risk of death to children posed by COVID, and the mounting evidence that Plexiglass barriers do not make people safer, it’s past time to remove them; a kindergarten classroom shouldn’t be filled with thick, see-through partitions like a convenience store in a bad part of town.
Some might counter that if they make people feel safer, that ought to be reason enough to keep plexiglass barriers in place. But this is misguided. Hygiene theater gives people a false understanding of how this virus actually works and which preventative measures to take. Pervasive COVID anxiety should not be used to justify silly rituals, especially when there’s good evidence a ritual may hurt us in the end.
- Category:
- Coronavirus - COVID-19 Tags:
Lockheed Martin, the nation’s largest defense contractor, sent key executives to a three-day white male reeducation camp in order to deconstruct their “white male culture” and atone for their “white male privilege.”
The program was led by the consulting firm White Men As Full Diversity Partners, which specializes in helping white males “awaken together.” The participants included a former three-star general and the vice president of production for the $1.7 trillion F-35 fighter jet program.
To begin, the diversity trainers led a “free association” exercise, asking the Lockheed employees to list connotations for the term “white men.” The trainers wrote down “old, racist, privileged, anti-women, angry, Aryan Nation, KKK, Founding fathers, guns, guilty, can’t jump.”
The trainers then asked “what’s in it for white men,” listing responses: “I won’t get replaced by someone who is a better full diversity partner,” “[I will] improve the brand, image, reputation of white men,” and “I [will] have less nagging sense of guilt that I am the problem.”
White Men As Full Diversity Partners argues that the “roots of white male culture” include traits such as “rugged individualism,” “a can-do attitude,” “hard work,” “operating from principles,” and “striving towards success”—which are “devastating” to women and minorities.
Healthy Children’s Risk Of Serious Illness From COVID-19 Is LOWER Than it Is From The Flu
But the risk that a child gets seriously ill is extremely small — comparable to the risk that children face of having serious illness as a result of the flu.
To date, out of more than 74 million children in the United States, there have been about 300 COVID-19 deaths and a few thousand serious illnesses. By comparison, the CDC registered 188 flu-related deaths in children during the 2019-2020 flu season. (This past year, there was essentially no flu season at all.)
Hospitalization numbers look worse for COVID-19. But those numbers are inflated as a result of the CDC’s reporting rules. The CDC requires every child admitted to a hospital to be tested for the coronavirus.
Dr. Roshni Mathew, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Stanford University School of Medicine, says experience at her hospital found that 45% of the time, a child who tested positive for the coronavirus was not actually sick with COVID-19. The findings have been published online in the journal Hospital Pediatrics.
In those cases, hospitalization was due to “a completely unrelated diagnosis, like appendicitis or femur fracture or something else,” she says.
For children in particular, the risk of serious consequences from COVID-19 is the same magnitude as the risk they face from the flu, she says. But many parents seem more worried about the new and less familiar disease. That anxiety is heightened by the new guidelines on mask-wearing. But experts urge parents to try not to worry too much.
“If you stop going into stores because you’re terrified you’ll run into an unmasked person, that’s probably overreacting,” says Gretchen Chapman, a psychology professor who studies health conundrums like this at Carnegie Mellon University.
It’s understandable why parents would feel that way, she says. Though these risks are very low, they’re not zero. And people struggle to conceptualize the difference between small risks — for example, something that’s 1 in 1,000 versus 1 in 1 million.
- Category:
- Coronavirus - COVID-19 Tags:
MSM, Globalist Anti Belarus Propaganda Outlets Positive Stories About Roman Protasevich, a “Journalist” Who Called To Kill Kids of Politicians
How the western propaganda media covers this “journalist”
CNN:
Washington Post
In a video call posted on the online channel of pranksters Vovan and Lexus, senior representatives of the American agency disclosed that they have actively financed and supported anti-government campaigns in the region. The officials from the NED, which is funded by Congress and describes its role as “supporting freedom around the world,” also revealed that they are coordinating efforts with prominent political activists in a range of countries, including Russia.
The officials believed they were talking to Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, the figurehead of Belarus’ opposition movement, and one of her advisors.
During the call, Nina Ognianova, who oversees the NED’s work with local groups in Belarus, outlined the wide-ranging programs the agency bankrolls in the country, insisting that “a lot of the people who have been trained by these hubs, who have been in touch with them and being educated, being involved in their work, have now taken the flag and started to lead in community organizing.”
Ognianova claimed that, through this work, the NED played a role in igniting the colossal street protests that rocked Belarus after long-time leader Alexander Lukashenko declared victory in the country’s presidential election last August. The opposition and many international observers say the vote was rigged in his favor, and tens of thousands took to the streets for demonstrations each weekend after the election.
“We believe that this long-term trust-building that we have had with partners in Belarus has indeed brought the events, or the build-up to the events, of last summer,” Ognianova stated.
“We don’t think that this movement that is so impressive and so inspiring came out of nowhere – that it just happened overnight,” she added, “but it has been developing and we have our modest but significant contribution in that by empowering the local actors to do the important work.”
Carl Gershman, the president of the US state-backed agency, told the pranksters that Washington-based funding and policy groups were already working with Tikhanovskaya and her team “very, very closely.” He then asked the opposition figure, who fled to neighboring Lithuania after the election, to set out her thinking on the situation “so we can understand what your strategy is… and how we can be helpful.”
Coronavirus Totalitarianism – Canadian Soldier who called on troops to refuse vaccine distribution faces mutiny related charge (potential life in prison)
A soldier who called on his fellow military personnel to refuse helping with the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has been charged with an offence related to mutiny.
It’s believed to be the first time in decades that the Canadian military has laid such a charge.
Officer Cadet Ladislas Kenderesi was charged with one count of “endeavoring to persuade another person to join in a mutiny,” an offence under the National Defence Act. Kenderesi was also charged with one count of behaving in a scandalous manner unbecoming of an officer.
The charges were laid May 12 by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, defence officials told this newspaper.
Kenderesi had appeared at an anti-lockdown rally in December in Toronto dressed in his Canadian Forces uniform and speaking out about the COVID-19 vaccine, claiming it was a “killer.”
He called on military personnel not to be involved in government plans to distribute the vaccine. “I’m asking military, right now serving, truck drivers, medical, engineers, whatever you are, do not take this unlawful order (for) the distribution of this vaccine,” Kenderesi said at the rally. A video of his speech was posted on YouTube.
Kenderesi, who had a civilian hunting knife strapped to his Canadian Forces uniform and was carrying a non-Canadian helmet, questioned the safety of the vaccine.
“I might get in a lot of s— for doing this, but I don’t care anymore,” he said.
The crowd cheered his speech.
Department of National Defence spokesman Dan Le Bouthillier said the charges will proceed through the military justice system. “OCdt Kenderesi was removed from performance of military duties following the December, 2020, incident,” Le Bouthillier said.
Kenderesi is a member of the Reserve Cadet Instructor Cadre in Borden, ON, according to the Canadian Forces.
Kenderesi’s supporters filmed military officials reading the charges against him and posted that to a GoFundMe page for the officer cadet. The page noted Kenderesi “was charged on May 12, 2021, for speaking out against the experimental gene therapy on Dec. 5 at the human rights assembly at Dundas Square in Toronto.”
The page also stated that Kenderesi faces a maximum sentence of life in prison if convicted, but defence sources say such punishment is highly unlikely.
Kenderesi is also featured in the GoFundMe page video before meeting with Canadian Forces officials. “I’m just saying a small prayer for myself, and a prayer for Canada and Canadians, that hopefully my efforts and what I have done is not in vain,” he stated in that video.
The GoFundMe initiative is to collect money for Kenderesi’s legal battle.
Le Bouthillier said if he desires, Kenderesi has access at no cost to a lawyer provided by the Department of National Defence. “While the charges have been laid, it is currently in the referral process and no court martial has been scheduled,” he added.
- Category:
- Canada
- Coronavirus - COVID-19
- Indoctrination / Brainwashing
- Totalitarianism Tags:
- tota
Canadian Concordia University hold’s its first “Race-segregated” Graduation.
When signing up to be part of the segregated graduation ceremony, question 7 on the Google forms asks “Do you identify as Black?”.* As you can notice, the question ends with an asterisk, simply because this question in itself needs clarification due to this peculiar wording with “identify”, and whether or not the institution will have to identify my race upon admissions, which would be breaking section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, based upon restricted access to a service solely based on skin colour (which it is in this case). Notice the lengthy explanation they offer for this, noting that “Black experiences” are only experienced as Black, African and Afro-diasporic communities, implying that only certain communities can experience certain situations, which is racist by definition. By wokeism standards, this is brave and empowering…..to be racist.
‘White supremacy’ to blame for Black-on-Asian hate crimes, Colorado professor claims
A critical race studies and ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado-Boulder says Americans wondering why Black citizens commit anti-Asian hate crimes have an answer: “White supremacy.”
The educational watchdog Campus Reform spotlighted the commentary of Jennifer Ho, which preceded President Biden’s newly signed legislation aimed at combatting hate crimes against Asian Americans.
“Anti-Asian racism has the same source as anti-Black racism: White supremacy,” Ms. Ho wrote for The Conversation. “So when a Black person attacks an Asian person, the encounter is fueled perhaps by racism, but very specifically by White supremacy. White supremacy does not require a White person to perpetuate it.”
Ms. Ho added that Hispanic violence against Asians is also tied to White supremacy because it is “ingrained in nearly every system and institution” within the nation.
“It is a belief that to be White is to be human and invested with inalienable universal rights and that to be not-White means you are less than human — a disposable object for others to abuse and misuse,” the Asian American Studies professor continued.
Ms. Ho’s op-ed concluded with a plea for Asians starring down violence by a non-White perpetrator to fear the pernicious “ideology” of White supremacy more than their attacker.
“It’s not Black people whom Asian Americans need to fear,” she said last month. “It’s White supremacy.”
Campus Reform’s requests to reach the professor for comment were unsuccessful.
“[Our attempt to reach Ms. Ho through] the Center for Humanities and the Arts at the University of Colorado Boulder but did not receive a response in time for publication,” the organization said Thursday.
A New Study Confirms That Reopening Texas ‘100 Percent’ Had No Discernible Impact on COVID-19 Cases or Deaths
After Texas became the first state to eliminate both its face mask mandate and its business occupancy limits in early March, President Joe Biden said the decision reflected “Neanderthal thinking.” Gilberto Hinojosa, chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, described Gov. Greg Abbott’s order as “extraordinarily dangerous,” warning that it “will kill Texans.”
Anthony Fauci, Biden’s top COVID-19 adviser, said lifting mask mandates “is really quite risky,” because “when you pull back on measures of public health, invariably you’ve seen a surge” in cases and deaths. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said she had a “recurring feeling” of “impending doom,” warning that premature relaxation of “public health prevention strategies” could lead to a “fourth surge.”
More than two months later, the public health disaster predicted by Abbott’s critics has not materialized. A new analysis by three economists confirms that his decision had no discernible impact on COVID-19 cases or deaths in Texas.
“We find no evidence that the Texas reopening led to substantial changes in social mobility, including foot traffic at a wide set of business establishments in Texas,” Bentley University economist Dhaval Dave and his two co-authors report in a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper. “We find no evidence that the Texas reopening affected the rate of new COVID-19 cases during the five weeks following the reopening.” They say their findings “underscore the limits of late-pandemic era COVID-19 reopening policies to alter private behavior.”
Dave, San Diego State University economist Joseph Sabia, and SDSU graduate research fellow Samuel Safford looked at smartphone mobility data from SafeGraph and COVID-19 data collected by The New York Times. They compared trends in Texas before and after Abbott’s order took effect on March 10 to trends in a composite of data from other states that retained their COVID-19 restrictions but were otherwise similar.
“We find that the Texas reopening had little impact on stay-at-home behavior or on foot traffic at numerous business locations, including restaurants, bars, entertainment venues, retail establishments, business services, personal care services, and grocery stores,” Dave et al. write. “We find no evidence that the reopening affected the rate of new COVID-19 cases in the five-week period following the reopening. In addition, we find that state-level COVID-19 mortality rates were unaffected by the March 10 reopening.”
Those “null results” were essentially the same in a separate analysis that excluded Austin and Travis County, which maintained local face mask mandates after Abbott lifted the statewide requirement. They also persisted when the researchers compared more urban to less urban counties and when they compared counties where most voters supported Biden in the 2020 election to counties where most voters supported former President Donald Trump, based on prior research indicating that Trump supporters are less likely to wear face masks and follow other COVID-19 safeguards.
Dave et al. suggest several possible reasons why the Texas reopening did not have the impact that its opponents anticipated. First, increasing vaccination (a trend that Abbott’s critics surely were aware of) “may have mitigated the contagion effects of interactions” between members of different households. Second, “it may be that there was limited compliance with and enforcement of mask mandates or capacity constraint requirements prior to the March 10 reopening.” Third, removing occupancy limits, which were previously 75 percent of capacity for most businesses and 50 percent for bars and professional sports, may have been too minor a change to “affect net population-based social mobility and statewide spread of COVID-19.”
Finally, the authors say, “it may be that the types of individuals who
were affected by the policy” were “those least likely to affect the trajectory of COVID-19 growth.” Or perhaps “any increase in social mobility or COVID-19 caused by such individuals was offset by others in the community who engaged in risk avoiding behaviors in response to the reopening.”
It should have been clear when Abbott announced the reopening on March 2 that the changes he planned were unlikely to have much of a direct impact on virus transmission. While he said face masks would no longer be legally required, he urged Texans to continue wearing them in public, and businesses remained free to require them. In Dallas (which may or may not be representative of the state as a whole in this respect), I have not observed any change in business mask policies or customer compliance. And it seemed implausible that removing the 75 percent occupancy cap (the one that applied to most businesses) would have a medically significant effect even in businesses that were frequently butting up against that limit.
Still, it was possible that Abbott’s announcement would affect people’s behavior by changing their risk perceptions. That apparently did not happen either, or at least the effect was not large enough to measurably increase virus transmission. “Even if the initial adoption of restrictions is effective and elicits a population response,” Dave et al. note, “as individuals update their risk assessment and amass information about the pandemic, their behaviors can become highly inelastic over time.”
This study does not prove that lockdowns or less severe COVID-19 restrictions had no initial impact on risky behavior. But it underlines the primacy of private decisions by individuals and businesses.
While there is evidence that stay-at-home orders and mask mandates “were effective in curbing COVID-19 spread early in the U.S. pandemic,” Dave et al. say, “a number of studies have documented that [such interventions] account for a relatively small share of the total variation in individuals’ COVID-19 mitigation behavior.” Those studies indicate that “most of the variation can be attributed to voluntary (non-policy-related) private demand-side responses, likely due to (i) new or updated information on the novel coronavirus, or (ii) changes in individuals’ assessments of contagion risk and developing serious COVID-19 symptoms.”
When it comes to the debate about the costs and benefits of legal restrictions, that observation cuts both ways. “There is evidence that much of the variation in local unemployment during the pandemic is not attributable to lockdown policies, but rather to voluntary demand-side responses,” Dave et al. note. Even without lockdowns, in other words, businesses would have suffered as consumers afraid of catching COVID-19 reduced their excursions and spending.
Likewise, Abbott’s remaining COVID-19 restrictions were hardly the only obstacle to a full economic recovery in Texas. “Too many Texans have been sidelined from employment opportunities,” Abbott said when he announced the reopening. “Too many small business owners have struggled to pay their bills. This must end. It is now time to open Texas 100 percent.” Contrary to the implication that the March 10 reopening would reduce unemployment, Dave et al. found no evidence that it did.
- Category:
- Coronavirus - COVID-19 Tags:
Canada – Public Health departments are routinely rejecting reports of adverse events after coronavirus vaccines, including serious ones that require hospitalization
In this letter the public health officer has rejected ALL five of my reports of serious adverse events submitted to them. All the pts were also advised that these are not considered adverse events and therefore were not advised to refrain from getting 2nd dose Very concerning
- Category:
- Canada
- Coronavirus - COVID-19
- Totalitarianism Tags:
- Big Pharma
How Jewish Pundits, Politicians, Organizations Support a Jewish Ethnostate, Promote Jewish Interests in Israel and Abroad While Advancing Diversity, Multiculturalism and Gaslighting About “White Supremacy” Everywhere Else
Furthermore, bi-nationalism is unworkable given current realities and historic animosities. With historically high birth rates among the Palestinians, and a possible influx of Palestinian refugees and their descendants now living around the world, Jews would quickly be a minority within a bi-national state, thus likely ending any semblance of equal representation and protections. In this situation, the Jewish population would be increasingly politically – and potentially physically – vulnerable.
It is unrealistic and unacceptable to expect the State of Israel to voluntarily subvert its own sovereign existence and nationalist identity and become a vulnerable minority within what was once its own territory.
But this is literally what they do to western countries. Bring in refugees/immigrants with high birthrates, call out and stand against any nationalist identity movements and praise how whites are becoming minorities in their own countries.
The anti white ADL does not want multiculturalism in Israel, and promotes nationalism there. The total opposite of what they want in the USA. “It is unrealistic and unacceptable to expect the State of Israel to voluntarily subvert its own sovereign existence and nationalist identity and become a vulnerable minority within what was once its own territory.” And yet this is what they promote in western countries.
Use of fear to control behaviour in Covid crisis was ‘totalitarian’, admit scientists
Members of Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviour express regret about ‘unethical’ methods
ByGordon Rayner, ASSOCIATE EDITOR14 May 2021 • 9:00pm
Scientists on a committee that encouraged the use of fear to control people’s behaviour during the Covid pandemic have admitted its work was “unethical” and “totalitarian”. Members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviour (SPI-B) expressed regret about the tactics in a new book about the role of psychology in the Government’s Covid-19 response.
SPI-B warned in March last year that ministers needed to increase “the perceived level of personal threat” from Covid-19 because “a substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened”.
Gavin Morgan, a psychologist on the team, said: “Clearly, using fear as a means of control is not ethical. Using fear smacks of totalitarianism. It’s not an ethical stance for any modern government.”
Mr Morgan spoke to author Laura Dodsworth, who has spent a year investigating the Government’s tactics for her book A State of Fear, published on Monday.
SPI-B is one of the sub-committees that advises the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), led by Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser.
One SPI-B scientist told Ms Dodsworth: “In March [2020] the Government was very worried about compliance and they thought people wouldn’t want to be locked down. There were discussions about fear being needed to encourage compliance, and decisions were made about how to ramp up the fear. The way we have used fear is dystopian. The use of fear has definitely been ethically questionable. It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared.”
Another SPI-B member said: “You could call psychology ‘mind control’. That’s what we do… clearly we try and go about it in a positive way, but it has been used nefariously in the past.”
One warned that “people use the pandemic to grab power and drive through things that wouldn’t happen otherwise… We have to be very careful about the authoritarianism that is creeping in”.
Another said: “Without a vaccine, psychology is your main weapon… Psychology has had a really good epidemic, actually.”
Another member of SPI-B said they were “stunned by the weaponisation of behavioural psychology” during the pandemic, and that “psychologists didn’t seem to notice when it stopped being altruistic and became manipulative. They have too much power and it intoxicates them”.
- Category:
- Coronavirus - COVID-19
- Fake News
- Propaganda
- Totalitarianism Tags:
- Brainwashing
Chemical giants Dupont hid dangers of “forever chemicals” in food packaging – 6:2 FTOH linked to kidney disease, liver damage, cancer, neurological damage, developmental problems and autoimmune disorders
Chemical giants DuPont and Daikin knew the dangers of a PFAS compound widely used in food packaging since 2010, but hid them from the public and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), company studies obtained by the Guardian reveal.
The chemicals, called 6:2 FTOH, are now linked to a range of serious health issues, and Americans are still being exposed to them in greaseproof pizza boxes, carryout containers, fast-food wrappers, and paperboard packaging.
The companies initially told the FDA that the compounds were safer and less likely to accumulate in humans than older types of PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals” and submitted internal studies to support that claim.
But Daikin withheld a 2009 study that indicated toxicity to lab rats’ livers and kidneys, while DuPont in 2012 did not alert the FDA or public to new internal data that indicated that the chemical stays in animals’ bodies for much longer than initially thought.
Science from industry, the FDA and independent researchers now links 6:2 FTOH to kidney disease, liver damage, cancer, neurological damage, developmental problems and autoimmune disorders, while researchers also found higher mortality rates among young animals and mothers exposed to the chemicals.
Had the FDA seen the data, it is unlikely that it would have approved 6:2 FTOH, said Maricel Maffini, an independent researcher who studies PFAS in food packaging. And though Daikin may have broken the law, it and DuPont, which has previously been caught hiding studies that suggest toxicity in PFAS, are not facing any repercussions.
“Those things shouldn’t happen, and if they do then there should be consequences, but oversight is lax,” Maffini said.
In 2020, the FDA reached agreements with some major PFAS manufacturers to voluntarily stop using 6:2 FTOH compounds in food packaging within five years. But documents show that the FDA first became aware of DuPont’s hidden study in 2015, and public health advocates say a 10-year timeline to reassess and remove the chemical is unacceptable.
Moreover, the FDA phase-out only applies to 6:2 FTOH compounds, and does not include other similar “short chain” PFAS, raising questions about whether the agency is fully protecting the public from the class of potentially toxic chemicals.
“I think people need to be able to rely on the FDA to turn science at the agency into real action, and right now that doesn’t seem to be the case,” said Tom Neltner, chemicals policy director with the Environmental Defense Fund. He and Maffini obtained the companies’ studies and related documents from Daikin’s website and the FDA through Freedom of Information Act requests.
The 6:2 FTOH compound is part of a newer generation of “short chain” PFAS that were designed to replace older and supposedly more harmful “long chain” PFAS. The industry claims that short chain compounds are uniformly safe and “practically non-toxic”. However, independent researchers like Erika Schreder, science director for Toxic Free Future, have found that PFAS, regardless of chain length, accumulate in the environment and humans, and are toxic.
“The fact that we continue to uncover evidence that the current-use PFAS have similar toxicity to the [long chain] compounds that have been phased out makes a strong argument for regulating harmful chemicals like PFAS as a class,” Schreder said.
In a statement to the Guardian, an FDA spokesperson defended the agency’s handling of 6:2 FTOH, noting that the studies “do not demonstrate an imminent health hazard” and more studies were needed to draw concrete conclusions about its safety, and that of other short chain PFAS.
Daikin and Chemours, a company that in 2015 was spun off from DuPont’s PFAS division, did not respond to requests for comment.
DuPont hides alarming new data
Industry reports and communications among the FDA and PFAS producers between 2008 and 2020 show how a sequence of inadequate chemical safety analyses, hidden studies and lax oversight created a scenario in which Americans continue to be exposed to the dangerous compound in food packaging.
The 2008 6:2 FTOH studies that DuPont submitted to the FDA monitored the impact of high exposure levels to the chemical on two generations of lab rats. The animals suffered kidney failure, liver damage, mammary gland problems, mottled teeth and other issues. However, DuPont and the FDA felt that humans’ exposure would be much lower and, with little supporting evidence, believed that the short chain PFAS would not accumulate in human bodies, Maffini said.
She called such studies on PFAS “inaccurate and inappropriate” because the chemicals are toxic at “extremely low levels” and are known to accumulate in animals’ bodies.
- Category:
- Globalism
- Health and Medicine Tags:
- Corruption
Systemic Anti White Racism – Jim Henson Puppeteering Company Seeking Everyone except straight white males for training
Jim Henson, the guy who started the company wouldn’t be allowed in…
Systemic Anti White Racism – Chicago Mayor Lightfoot Grants 1 on 1 Interviews Only to Black or Brown Journalists
Reporters out of Chicago are alleging that Democratic Mayor Lori Lightfoot is now granting interviews only to journalists of color.
NBC 5 Chicago political reporter Mary Ann Ahern took to Twitter on Tuesday to mark the “midway point” of Lightfoot’s first term in office and apparently acknowledged her failed effort to land an interview.
“As @chicagosmayor reaches her two year midway point as mayor, her spokeswoman says Lightfoot is granting 1 on 1 interviews – only to Black or Brown journalists,” Ahern tweeted.
And apparently, Ahern wasn’t the only one.
“I was told the same thing,” WTTW Chicago Tonight anchor and correspondent Paris Schutz reacted to Ahern’s tweet.
“I can confirm,” Chicago politics reporter Heather Cherone similarly tweeted.
If You Disobey a Totalitarian Government, If You Disagree With Masks or Lockdowns, You are Now An Far Right Neo Nazi Racist Fascist Hitler – ‘Pandemic of hate’: Leaders, experts warn anti-lockdown protests linked to far right
Are you against lockdowns (that don’t work), Are you against masks (that don’t work), do you want society to go back to normal like Texas, Florida, South Dakota and many other countries? Then you’re a far right racist. So stay a good little sheep and do what the government tells you to without questioning it.
OTTAWA — Online conspiracy theories about COVID-19 and protests against public health orders are helping to spread dangerous ideas laden with racism and bigotry, says a network monitoring hate groups in Canada.
The executive director of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network said since last year people espousing hateful beliefs have linked themselves to conspiracy and anti-lockdown movements around the novel coronavirus.
“We have two pandemics: We have the actual pandemic and then we have this pandemic of hate,” Evan Balgord said.
“Things are kind of getting worse both online and offline … with maybe one pandemic, we have kind of a solution for, but the hate thing, we don’t have a vaccine for that.
Federal New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh was the latest on Monday to note a connection between anti-mask and anti-lockdown protests and far-right extremism.
His comments came as rallies against COVID-19 health orders are being staged across the country while many provincial doctors battle a deadly third wave of the pandemic.
“To brazenly not follow public-health guidelines puts people at risk and that is something that we’ve seen with extreme right-wing ideology, ” he told reporters.
These demonstrations have been met with frustration from some in the public over what they say appears to be a lack of police enforcement, and a few premiers have promised stiffer fines for COVID-19 rule-breakers.
The far right has become adept at integrating populist grievances into its own narratives and exploiting them to enhance membership, said Barbara Perry, director of the Centre on Hate, Bias and Extremism at Ontario Tech University, in a recent interview.
As a result, members of the far right have turned up at virtually all of the recent anti-lockdown gatherings, “trying to lend their support to that movement, and thereby garner support and sympathy, or solidarity, with their more extreme movement,” she said.
Balgord said such events make for “fertile hunting” for new recruits because hateful ideas are not being policed, and once someone believes in one conspiracy theory, it’s easy to believe in others.
“We now have a greatly increased number of people who are coming into close contact with racists and bigots of all stripes with more conspiracy theories,” he said.
And more than a year into the pandemic, Balgord said, organizers behind anti-lockdown protests in Vancouver, Toronto and the Prairies know figures from the country’s “racist right” are involved in their movement.
More recently, he said, some protesters have started showing up with Nazi imagery to depict themselves as being persecuted by the government.
“The racist right that we monitor and the COVID conspiracy movement are inseparable from each other at this point. We monitor them as if they are the same thing because they involve all the same people,” Balgord.
He said the network’s information is based on what it observes and the far-right figures it follows, but there is a lack of data tracking how conspiratorial thinking around COVID-19 has moved across Canada.
After Singh’s comments, Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet played down the idea of a connection between the protests and far-right extremism, saying arguments suggesting a correlation were politically motivated.
“I am absolutely certain — absolutely certain — that people which have been involved in such discussions in the last hours and days know very well that there could be no link between … two things that should not be what they are, but are not related,” he said.
The NDP leader said he sees a link between those refusing to follow public-health advice and the ideologies of the extreme right because both show a disregard for the well-being of others and put people at risk.
“There is a connection, certainly.”
Singh said declining to listen to COVID-19 health orders is dangerous and needs to be called out.
Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi earlier called such demonstrations “thinly veiled white nationalist, supremacist anti-government protests” on Global’s “The West Block.”
— With files from Jim Bronskill and Christopher Reynolds
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 10, 2021.
- Category:
- Anti-conservative Hate, Gaslighting, Propaganda
- Bias and Double Standards
- Bigotry / Intolerance / Discrimination
- Canada
- Coronavirus - COVID-19
- Fake News
- Indoctrination / Brainwashing
- Leftist Policies
- Propaganda
- Race Baiting
- Right Wing / Alt Right Threat
- Subversion of country and society
- Totalitarianism Tags:
- gaslighting
Totalitarian coronavirus response – students suspended from college for not wearing masks outside off campus
Andover parents Kristin and Scott are speaking out on behalf of their daughter. She along with two of her friends are freshmen at UMass Amherst. A picture posted on social media of the three friends not wearing masks outside was handed over to the university and that has landed them in serious trouble.
“There was a photo sent to the administration of these girls outside off campus on a Saturday. This is why they lost a whole semester of their schooling,” Kristin said.
Since their suspension, the students have been studying remotely at their homes. However, last week they were cut off from virtual learning. They were not allowed to take their finals, so parents say their kids’ semester was a total loss, both financially and academically.
“That negates this whole semester $16,000 of money and they have to reapply for next semester. But they missed housing registration,” Scott said.
UMass Amherst released a statement saying: “Students received a number of public health messages this semester that emphasized the importance of following public health protocols and the consequences for not complying, and those messages were also shared on UMass social media channels.”
The parents disagree with the university’s decision. “One little thing happens and you’re out? Like not even like a don’t do it again, here’s some probation,” Teresa said.
- Category:
- Coronavirus - COVID-19
- Leftist Policies
- Totalitarianism Tags:
- college
Fully armed BLM, Antifa terrorists walk in middle of road, stop cars, assault and beat up driver – msm silence
The Portland Police Bureau got several calls Thursday shortly after 12 p.m. about the group, which was making its way through north Portland with ‘JFPK’ signs and drums. Witnesses reported seeing people in the crowd openly carrying firearms and wearing tactical gear.
Hall, who is a local handyman and was driving his pickup through the area, said he got stopped by the crowd in the street and other vehicles that were blocking his way along North Alberta near Michigan Avenue.
“All of a sudden these agitators come out, screaming, pounding on my truck,” Hall said.
After trying to drive around the group, Hall said he stopped and got out of his pickup because he thought he hit something.
“By this time I’ve got five people surrounding my vehicle, AR-15s, AK-47s,” Hall said.
According to Hall, people in the group were calling him derogatory, racially-charged names and pointing weapons at him. While his truck door was open, Hall said someone took his keys and a less-lethal firearm, so Hall grabbed his pistol.
“I pulled my .38 out of my right pocket and pointed it at the ground and told them if a weapon points at me again, I will shoot to eliminate the threat,” Hall said.
Hall told FOX 12 he is a disabled veteran who served in the Marine Corps and Army Reserves.
Hall said shortly after he showed he had a pistol, somebody tackled him to the ground and took the handgun. Hall says people started kicking and hitting him.
Videos posted to social media show the event unfolding, with posters praising the crowd member’s disarming of the man in captions and comments.
A neighbor who spoke to FOX 12 said she saw part of the scuffle from her window.
“It looked like he was face down and then people were kneeling on top of him,” Hannah Morris said.
Hall said he thought he was going to die, and wants to know why Portland police didn’t intervene after receiving other calls about the group. A driver near Interstate Avenue and Killingsworth reported that the crowd smashed out their back window and slashed their tires.
- Category:
- Antifa
- Leftist Policies
- Right Wing / Alt Right Threat
- Violence and hate Tags:
- BLM
Disney’s Anti-White, Pro Diversity Internal Employee Indoctrination Manual
The Walt Disney Corporation claims that America was founded on “systemic racism,” encourages employees to complete a “white privilege checklist,” and separates minorities into racially-segregated “affinity groups.”
- Don’t question minorities – they are superior to you, believe them at their word
CDC Moving Goalposts – Will Stop Counting “Breakthrough” Coronavirus Cases in Vaccinated People – After Lowering PCR Value – Artificially Lowering Coronavirus Case Counts in Vaccinated People
As more reports surface of breakthrough COVID cases, in and outside the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today said it will change how breakthrough cases are reported, effective May 14.
According to a statement on the CDC’s website, the agency said to help “maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance” it will stop reporting weekly COVID breakthrough infections unless they result in hospitalization or death.
The news followed another change, announced late last month, in how PCR tests should be administered to the fully vaccinated.
Both changes will result in lower overall numbers of reports of breakthrough cases in the U.S.
A breakthrough case is recorded if a person tests positive for SARS-Cov-2 two weeks after receiving the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (J&J) shot or completing the two-dose Moderna or Pfizer vaccination.
In April, the CDC issued new guidance to laboratories recommending reducing the RT-PCR CT value to 28 cycles — but only for those fully vaccinated individuals being tested for COVID.
This is many months after the New York Times even suggested that the CT value was too high
- Category:
- Coronavirus - COVID-19 Tags:
- Big Pharma
- Corruption
Coronavirus Vaccine Makers Claim COVID Shots Are ‘95% Effective’ – Reality They Lower Chance of Getting Sick by 0.7% Only. Studies Omit Important Information
Absolute risk, simply explained, is “the likelihood that an outcome will occur.” Relative risk “compares the risk of a health event … among one group with the risk among another group.”
Pfizer told the FDA that eight (of approximately 22,000) volunteers in its vaccine group developed a PCR-confirmed case of COVID-19, versus 162 of 22,000 volunteers in the placebo group. Moderna reported a similar spread — five out of 15,000 in the vaccine group versus 90 out of 15,000 in the placebo group.
When one does the math, the Pfizer clinical trial numbers showed: “The risk reduction in absolute terms [was] only 0.7%, from an already very low risk of 0.74% [in the placebo group] to a minimal risk of 0.04% [in the vaccine group].” (Dividing 0.7 — the difference between the two groups — by 0.74 is the mathematical calculation that produced the touted “95% effective” number).
Although the eight versus 162 PCR-confirmed COVID cases in the Pfizer trial may sound like a big difference to the casual reader, Peter Doshi subsequently alerted the public to the fact that Pfizer skewed its analysis by excluding more than 3,400 individuals with non-PCR-confirmed symptoms of COVID — individuals split almost evenly across the vaccine and placebo groups.
Excluding “suspected” cases of COVID because they didn’t meet the PCR threshold:
All attention has focused on the dramatic efficacy results: Pfizer reported 170 PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases, split 8 to 162 between vaccine and placebo groups. But these numbers were dwarfed by a category of disease called “suspected COVID-19”—those with symptomatic COVID-19 that were not PCR confirmed. According to FDA’s report on Pfizer’s vaccine, there were “3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group.”
Excluding all kinds of critical data from their public report:
an analysis of severe disease irrespective of etiologic agent—namely, rates of hospitalizations, ICU cases, and deaths amongst trial participants—seems warranted, and is the only way to assess the vaccines’ real ability to take the edge off the pandemic. There is a clear need for data to answer these questions, but Pfizer’s 92-page report didn’t mention the 3410 “suspected COVID-19” cases. Nor did its publication in the New England Journal of Medicine. Nor did any of the reports on Moderna’s vaccine. The only source that appears to have reported it is FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine.
Suspiciously high numbers of “protocol deviations” for Pfizer:
Another reason we need more data is to analyse an unexplained detail found in a table of FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine: 371 individuals excluded from the efficacy analysis for “important protocol deviations on or prior to 7 days after Dose 2.” What is concerning is the imbalance between randomized groups in the number of these excluded individuals: 311 from the vaccine group vs 60 on placebo. (In contrast, in Moderna’s trial, there were just 36 participants excluded from the efficacy analysis for “major protocol deviation”—12 vaccine group vs 24 placebo group.) What were these protocol deviations in Pfizer’s study, and why were there five times more participants excluded in the vaccine group?
Why did they do all this statistical manipulation and why are they hiding so much data from the public, you ask?
With 20 times more suspected than confirmed cases, this category of disease cannot be ignored simply because there was no positive PCR test result. Indeed this makes it all the more urgent to understand. A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing COVID-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, would be a relative risk reduction of 19% (see footnote)—far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization set by regulators.
- Category:
- Coronavirus - COVID-19 Tags:
- Vaccines
Coronavirus Totalitarianism: Ontario College of Doctors and Surgeons Warns Dr’s to Not Question Masks, Vaccines or Lockdowns – Lest They Face Investigation and Disciplinary Action
There have been isolated incidents of physicians using social media to spread blatant misinformation and undermine public health measures meant to protect all of us. In response, the College released the statement below. The statement is intended to focus on professional behaviour and is not intended to stifle a healthy public debate about how to best address aspects of the pandemic. Rather, our focus is on addressing those arguments that reject scientific evidence and seek to rouse emotions over reason. We continue to recognize the important roles physicians can play by advocating for change in a socially accountable manner.
CPSO Statement:
The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted. When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science.
- Category:
- Canada
- Censorship
- Coronavirus - COVID-19
- Health
- Totalitarianism Tags:
Google’s Jigsaw unit sponsors a RAND report that recommends infiltrating and subverting online conspiracy groups from within while planting authoritative messaging wherever possible.
With a focus on online chatter relating to alien visitations, COVID-19 origins, white genocide, and anti-vaccination, the Google-sponsored RAND report published last week shows how machine learning can help detect and understand the language used by “conspiracy theorists.”
While the 108-page report can be highly technical in describing machine learning approaches for identifying and making sense of conspiracy language online, here we’re not going to focus on any of that.
Instead, we will zoom-in on the report’s “Policy Recommendations for Mitigating the Spread of and Harm from Conspiracy Theories” section and attempt to see how they might be received in the real world.
“Conspiracists have their own experts on whom they lean to support and strengthen their views […] One alternative approach could be to direct outreach toward moderate members of those groups who could, in turn, exert influence on the broader community” — RAND report
Diving into the report’s policy recommendations, they all have one thing in common — they all seek to plant authoritative messaging wherever possible while making it seem more organic, or to make the messaging more relatable to the intended audience at the very least.
The four policy recommendations are:
- Transparent and Empathetic Engagement with Conspiracists
- Correcting Conspiracy-Related False News
- Engagement with Moderate Members of Conspiracy Groups
- Addressing of Fears and Existential Threats
The original narrative from authoritative sources always stays the same, but the message is usually filtered through intermediaries that act like marketing, advertising, and PR firms.
What follows doesn’t have anything to do with the validity of any conspiracy theory, but rather focuses on the Google-sponsored RAND report’s messaging strategy through the following lens:
Are ‘conspiracy theorists’ more likely to believe an authoritative message when it comes from someone else?
Or
Are they more likely to focus on the validity of the message itself without placing all their trust on the messenger?
The Google-sponsored RAND report recommends that the government bet on the former.
But could such a move actually encourage the latter?
It’s a message versus messenger type of debate.
Let’s dig in.
“A common thread among all the conspiracy groups was distrust of conventional authority figures” — RAND Report
To begin, Jigsaw’s latest collaboration with the RAND Corporation reveals that across the board “conspiracy theorists” show a high distrust of “conventional authority figures” while preferring “their own experts on whom they lean to support and strengthen their views.”
The idea of distrust in conventional authority will be a major theme throughout this story as the RAND report promotes subversion from within, planting conventional authority messaging among certain members of the community and hoping it will spread.
The report suggests that conspiracy theorists won’t listen to conventional authority, but they’ll listen to leaders in their groups, so the plan is to target potential influencers in online conspiracy groups who are somewhat on the fence and could tow the conventional authority line.
For example, the report recommends infiltrating and subverting online conspiracy chatter by singling out the more “moderate members” of the group who could become social media influencers in their own rite.
“Evidence suggests that more than one-quarter of adults in North America believe in one or more conspiracies” — RAND report
According to the report, “Conspiracists have their own experts on whom they lean to support and strengthen their views, and their reliance on these experts might limit the impact of formal outreach by public health professionals. [all emphases are mine]
“Our review of the literature shows that one alternative approach could be to direct outreach toward moderate members of those groups who could, in turn, exert influence on the broader community.”
So the logic goes:
- Problem – Conspiracists have their own experts
- Solution – Direct outreach toward moderate members
- Purpose – Exert influence on the broader community
In other words, they want to turn those who aren’t completely onboard with the entirety of the conspiracy into social media influencers for their authoritative marketing campaigns.
But what would be the incentive to flip?
“Commercial marketing programs use a similar approach when they engage social media influencers (or brand ambassadors)” — RAND report
The report goes on to say, “Commercial marketing programs use a similar approach when they engage social media influencers (or brand ambassadors), who can then credibly communicate advantages of a commercial brand to their own audiences on social media.”
Incentivizing social media influencers to become ambassadors for a specific brand means the influencers benefit by getting paid, and the companies benefit by reaching a wider audience.
It’s a deal driven by financial incentives in order to gain more influence.
But again, what’s the incentive for “moderate members” of so-called conspiracy groups to flip?
What would a moderate member gain by not only denouncing their former beliefs, but to be a continuous bullhorn shouting at people as one who has seen the folly of their ways?
Would it be for moral reasons, or for some other type of gain?
“It might be possible to convey key messages to those who are only ‘vaccine hesitant,’ and these individuals might, in turn, relay such messages to those on antivaccination social media channels” — RAND report
Remembering that all four chatter groups studied have a distrust of conventional authority figures, RAND suggests using the more easily-persuaded in the group (moderates who aren’t fully convinced) to carry out the messaging of conventional authority figures on their behalf.
With regards to “anti-vax” groups the report suggests, “it might be possible to convey key messages to those who are only ‘vaccine hesitant,’ and these individuals might, in turn, relay such messages to those on antivaccination social media channels.”
This tactic of being sneaky about where the messaging is coming from may be one of the reasons why people don’t trust conventional authority in the first place — a lack of transparency.
The Google-backed RAND report attempts to balance its infiltration and subversion technique by recommending another approach: transparency via “transparent and empathetic engagement with conspiracists.”
“Instead of confrontation,” the report reads, “it might be more effective to engage transparently with conspiracists and express sensitivity. Public health communicators recommend engagements that communicate in an open and evidence-informed way—creating safe spaces to encourage dialogue, fostering community partnerships, and countering misinformation with care.”
In any case, all efforts at “mitigating the spread and harm from online conspiracy theories” are aimed at directing users to accept the very sources they trust the least — conventional authority.
“An additional technique beyond flagging specific conspiracy content is facilitated dialogue, in which a third party facilitates communication (either in person or apart) between conflict parties,” — RAND report
Another example of transparent and empathetic engagement suggested in the report has to do with outsourcing the authoritative messaging to third-parties.
“An additional technique beyond flagging specific conspiracy content is facilitated dialogue, in which a third party facilitates communication (either in person or apart) between conflict parties,” the report suggests.
This third party approach “could improve communication between authoritative communities (such as doctors or government leaders) and conspiracy communities.”
Again, the logic goes:
- Problem: Conspiracy communities neither trust nor interact with authoritative communities
- Solution: Third party facilitates communication
- Purpose: To improve communication between authoritative communities and conspiracy communities
Alternative Avenues for Authoritative Messaging
So far, we’ve discussed two of the four recommendations made in the report:
1. Engaging moderate members of conspiracy groups
2. Facilitating third party dialogues
Both of these recommendations are about finding ways to disseminate authoritative messaging.
The remaining two recommendations have the same purpose:
3. Providing corrections to conspiracy-related false news
4. Intervening to address fears and limit potential societal harms
With respect to correcting “false news,” the report suggests that public health practitioners use their positions of authority to “correct instances of misinformation using such tools as real-time corrections, crowdsourced fact-checking, and algorithmic tagging.”
On the addressing fears front, this tactic is a means of persuasion by “using the intended audience’s values rather than the speaker’s values” to get the authoritative message across.”
I came away from this report with a couple of observations:
- The authors recognize that conspiracy theorists don’t trust conventional authority
- Despite this recognition, the authors don’t try to alter the message — just the messenger
This led me to the inference that the authors don’t see the problem as being the authoritative message, which makes sense since it’s coming from them, but rather the authoritative messenger itself.
Therefore, all of their suggestions are about staying the course on the narrative while filtering it through anybody who isn’t them. It’s a marketing thing.
Message vs Messenger
Which do you believe is more important for discerning theories of any type — the message or the messenger?
A good message can fall on deaf ears if the messenger isn’t trusted, and a bad message can negatively influence audiences when the messenger is blindly trusted.
I don’t place any judgment on what basically boils down to pure marketing tactics in the recommendations, but I do question:
Are ‘conspiracists’ more likely to place their trust in the message over the messenger, or vice versa?
From what I see, the authorities are betting on the belief that if they can just gain influence over the messenger, then their message might prevail.
Analysis: Possible Future Outcomes
I see multiple possible outcomes from taking this bet and applying the report’s recommendations in real life:
- People will blindly follow whatever influencers in their group have to say:
- If authoritative messaging is successful, moderate members flip to become influencers and help guide the flock to greener pastures as ‘brand ambassadors’ for the common good, teaching others the errors of their ways.
- If authoritative messaging is unsuccessful and the subversion fails, the moderate member is elevated to the status of anti-establishment influencer, will be positively seen by the group as ‘not selling out,’ and the group still won’t trust conventional authority.
- The authorities ask third parties to do their talking:
- If third party dialogues are successful, the conspiracy theorists will have all of their doubts answered and backed by claims from authoritative sources that are presented in a way that resonates with them, so they can better understand the overall picture and reject conspiracies. Both sides are willing to cede some ground.
- If third parties don’t succeed in addressing all of the group members’ concerns, the authoritative message will be remembered by conspiracists, and every time they hear the same authoritative rhetoric, they will immediately distrust it, no matter who it comes from.
- Algorithms will identify and flag any messaging that goes against the mainstream narrative and provide alternative context (something big tech already does):
- Some conspiracy group members will be persuaded by the bombardment of content flagged by algorithms, and they will slowly come around to believing that the fact-checkers are right by the sheer volume of evidence and/or peer pressure to conform.
- Conspiracy group members already don’t trust authority, so the warning labels will do nothing but strengthen their resolve.
- Authorities engage directly in civil conversation with conspiracy theorists:
- Adversaries come together, and they find some common ground. Both sides acknowledge where they’ve made mistakes while respecting each others’ differences, so long as nobody is causing harm. Agree to disagree on some points while conceding others. There may not be a consensus where one side is an obvious winner, but some level of understanding is gained and can be incorporated into future dialogues.
- Adversaries come together, and they can’t agree on anything. Two versions of reality exist, and no one can establish a basic set of ‘facts’ that would form the basis of any rational argument. Agree to disagree on everything. Nothing is gained.
With the above scenarios, which are by no means exhaustive, I attempted to see how each recommendation could theoretically play out in the real world while trying to take of both sides’ points of view into account.
As long as the authorities don’t call for infringing on the rights of individuals (including conspiracy theorists), is there anything wrong with some of their more subversive tactics if they’re for the greater good and done with the best intentions?
And shouldn’t any theory, conspiratorial or not, collapse when presented with irrefutable evidence to the contrary?
The reality is that the strongest arguments don’t always win out, and humans are stubborn creatures. It takes a lot to knock down long-held beliefs without some type of profound revelation taking place within the individual.
“Removal of sarcastic discourse could reduce the signal-to-noise ratio between conspiracy and non-conspiracy discussions, providing a much clearer view of the characteristic stance found in conspiracies propagated on social media” — RAND report
Personally, I think the rift between conventional authorities and conspiracy groups is too great.
Authoritative messages may get through to some conspiracy theorists, but overall, I don’t think either side is going to be persuaded in any meaningful way that would effect real change.
Trying to infiltrate groups and subvert certain members seems like a tactic that would be perceived as an intrusion that furthers the divide and lead to even less trust, but we shall see how it all plays out.
If you’re looking for some background information on the report, below are a few snippets about its origins, data collection methods, and other findings. All bullet points are direct quotes from the report.
Next on the horizon, they’ll be going after sarcasm.
Report Origins:
- Google’s Jigsaw unit asked RAND Corporation researchers to conduct a modeling effort to improve machine-learning technology for detecting conspiracy theory language by using linguistic and rhetorical theory to boost performance.
- This research was sponsored by Google’s Jigsaw unit and conducted within the International Security and Defense Policy (ISDP) Center of the RAND National Security Research Division (NSRD).
- NSRD conducts research and analysis for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the US Intelligence Community, US State Department, allied foreign governments, and foundations.
Data Collection Methods:
- Data collection was conducted through the social media tracking company Brandwatch.
- Social media sources were Twitter, Reddit, and a large selection of online forums and blogs. We also used one-off sources, such as the transcript of the ‘Plandemic’ viral video (2020).
- Report studied four specific conspiracy theory topics: alien visitation, anti-vaccination content, COVID-19 origins, and White Genocide (WG).
Findings on Conspiracy Theorists:
- A common thread among all the conspiracy groups was distrust of conventional authority figures.
- Evidence suggests that more than one-quarter of adults in North America believe in one or more conspiracies.
- Pro-conspiracy theorists also find themselves wading deeper into social media–based echo chambers with decreasing exposure to non- conspiracy viewpoints.
- These echo chambers contribute to a deepening polarization of viewpoints, and the posts disseminated within such echo chambers can reach and influence the broader internet.
Removing Sarcasm on the Horizon
- One particular data quality Data and Methodology issue is the contamination of conspiracy discourse through sarcasm or quotation.
- Determining whether certain social media comments are sarcastic can be particularly confusing even for humans, especially without context of the greater conversation.
- Removal of sarcastic discourse could reduce the signal-to-noise ratio between conspiracy and non-conspiracy discussions, providing a much clearer view of the characteristic stance found in conspiracies propagated on social media.
I recommend downloading the full Google-sponsored RAND report here because it goes into great detail about their data collection methods and inferences, along with studies that helped the authors formulate their recommendations
- Category:
- Conspiracies
- Globalism
- Totalitarianism Tags:
Cornell defends non white, BIPOC-only rock-climbing class after online uproar
Cornell University is defending a new rock-climbing class offered to minority groups.
Among the Ivy League school’s Outdoor Education offerings for the spring 2021 semester was a course called “BIPOC Rock Climbing.” The course description, according to the Cornell Daily Sun, specified that the class was “for people who identify as Black, Indigenous, Latinx, Asian, or other people of color.”
That prompted an uproar from across the internet. The university was accused of violating federal and state civil rights law, while one Reddit user decried what they described as a “horrifically and monstrously racist practice that has no place in the modern world” and “literally evil.”
Earlier this year, the course description for “BIPOC Rock Climbing” was changed to read: “This class is designed to enable Black, Indigenous, Latinx, Asian, or other people of color underrepresented in the sport of rock climbing to learn the sport and to feel included and supported. The class is open to all Cornell students interested in learning rock climbing with this special focus.”
University spokesperson John Carberry told the Daily Sun on Monday that while such classes “may include a focus on students with specific identities, they are not restricted to only those students.
“Cornell offers many programs that support interests and perspectives of different parts of our community,” he added. “We encourage any student who is interested to take advantage of the unique opportunities across campus to learn from and with the many diverse perspectives and voices across campus.”
With the semester winding down, students and instructors defended the course’s emphasis on non-white students. One student, freshman Thomas Gambra, told the Daily Sun that “[h]earing people complain about this class, saying it’s taking away from our white peers is laughable and frustrating.”
Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Climate Change Predictions – Competitive Enterprise Institute
[Original Post Here] – [archive]
Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today.
None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true.
What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and science.
More than merely spotlighting the failed predictions, this collection shows that the makers of failed apocalyptic predictions often are individuals holding respected positions in government and science.
While such predictions have been and continue to be enthusiastically reported by a media eager for sensational headlines, the failures are typically not revisited.
1967: ‘Dire famine by 1975.’
Source: Salt Lake Tribune, November 17, 1967
1969: ‘Everyone will disappear in a cloud of blue steam by 1989.’
Source: New York Times, August 10 1969
1970: Ice age by 2000
Source: Boston Globe, April 16, 1970
1970: ‘America subject to water rationing by 1974 and food rationing by 1980.’
For the rest, read the original article here
- Category:
- Climate Change Tags:
Big Pharma, Globalists, Social Media Censorship and Threats, Censorship of Anyone Daring to Post Alternative Coronavirus Treatments – Dr. Mercola
Over the past year, I’ve been researching and writing as much as I can to help you take control of your health, as fearmongering media and corrupt politicians have destroyed lives and livelihoods to establish global control of the world’s population, using the COVID-19 pandemic as their justification.
I’ve also kept you informed about billionaire-backed front groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a partner of Bill Gates’ Alliance for Science, both of whom have led campaigns aimed at destroying my reputation and censoring the information I share.
Other attackers include HealthGuard, which ranks health sites based on a certain set of “credibility criteria.” It has sought to discredit my website by ensuring warnings appear whenever you search for my articles or enter my website in an internet browser.
Well-Organized Attack Partnerships Have Formed
HealthGuard, a niche service of NewsGuard, is funded by the pharma-funded public relations company Publicis Groupe. Publicis, in turn, is a partner of the World Economic Forum, which is leading the call for a “Great Reset” of the global economy and a complete overhaul of our way of life.
HealthGuard is also partnered with Gates’ Microsoft company, and drug advertising websites like WebMD and Medscape, as well as the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) — the progressive cancel-culture leader with extensive ties to government and global think tanks that recently labeled people questioning the COVID-19 vaccine as a national security threat.
The CCDH has published a hit list naming me as one of the top 12 individuals responsible for 65% of vaccine “disinformation” on social media, and who therefore must be deplatformed and silenced for the public good. In a March 24, 2021, letter1 to the CEO’s of Twitter and Facebook, 12 state attorneys general called for the removal of our accounts from these platforms, based on the CCDH’s report.
Two of those state attorneys general also published an April 8, 2021, op-ed2 in The Washington Post, calling on Facebook and Twitter to ban the “anti-vaxxers” identified by the CCDH. The lack of acceptance of novel gene therapy technology, they claim, is all because a small group of individuals with a social media presence — myself included — are successfully misleading the public with lies about nonexistent vaccine risks.
“The solution is not complicated. It’s time for Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to turn off this toxic tap and completely remove the small handful of individuals spreading this fraudulent misinformation,” they wrote.3
Pharma-funded politicians and pharma-captured health agencies have also relentlessly attacked me and pressured tech monopolies to censor and deplatform me, removing my ability to express my opinions and speak freely over the past year.
The CCDH also somehow has been allowed to publish4 in the journal Nature Medicine, calling for the “dismantling” of the “anti-vaccine” industry. In the article, CCDH founder Imran Ahmed repeats the lie that he “attended and recorded a private, three-day meeting of the world’s most prominent anti-vaxxers,” when, in fact, what he’s referring to was a public online conference open to an international audience, all of whom had access to the recordings as part of their attendance fee.
The CCDH is also partnered with another obscure group called Anti-Vax Watch. The picture below is from an Anti-Vax Watch demonstration outside the halls of Congress. Ironically, while the CCDH claims to be anti-extremism, you’d be hard-pressed to find a clearer example of actual extremism than this bizarre duo.5
Gates-Funded Doctor Demands Terrorist Experts to Attack Me
Most recently, Dr. Peter Hotez, president of the Sabin Vaccine Institute,6 which has received tens of millions of dollars from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,7,8,9 — with funds from the foundation most recently being used to create a report called “Meeting the Challenge of Vaccine Hesitancy,”10,11 — also cited the CCDH in a Nature article in which he calls for cyberwarfare experts to be enlisted in the war against vaccine safety advocates and people who are “vaccine hesitant.” He writes:12
“Accurate, targeted counter-messaging from the global health community is important but insufficient, as is public pressure on social-media companies. The United Nations and the highest levels of government must take direct, even confrontational, approaches with Russia, and move to dismantle anti-vaccine groups in the United States.
Efforts must expand into the realm of cyber security, law enforcement, public education and international relations. A high-level inter-agency task force reporting to the UN secretary-general could assess the full impact of anti-vaccine aggression, and propose tough, balanced measures.
The task force should include experts who have tackled complex global threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks and nuclear armament, because anti-science is now approaching similar levels of peril. It is becoming increasingly clear that advancing immunization requires a counteroffensive.”
Why is Hotez calling for the use of warfare tactics on American citizens that have done nothing illegal? In my case, could it be because I’ve written about the theory that SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered virus, created through gain-of-function research, and that its release was anticipated by global elites, as evidenced in Event 201?
It may be. At least those are some of my alleged “sins,” detailed on page 10 of the CCDH report, “Disinformation Dozen: The Sequel.”13 Coincidentally enough, the Nature journal has helped cover up gain-of-function research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, publishing a shoddy zoonotic origins study relied upon my mainstream media and others, which was riddled with problems.14,15
So, it’s not misinformation they are afraid of. They’re afraid of the truth getting out. They’re all trying to cover for the Chinese military and the dangerous mad scientists conducting gain-of-function work.
You may have noticed our website was recently unavailable; this was due to direct cyber-attacks launched against us. We have several layers of protective mechanisms to secure the website as we’ve anticipated such attacks from malevolent organizations.
What This Means for You
Through these progressively increasing stringent measures, I have refused to succumb to these governmental and pharmaceutical thugs and their relentless attacks. I have been confident and willing to defend myself in the court of law, as I’ve had everything reviewed by some of the best attorneys in the country.
Unfortunately, threats have now become very personal and have intensified to the point I can no longer preserve much of the information and research I’ve provided to you thus far. These threats are not legal in nature, and I have limited ability to defend myself against them. If you can imagine what billionaires and their front groups are capable of, I can assure you they have been creative in deploying their assets to have this content removed.
Sadly, I must also remove my peer reviewed published study16 on the “Evidence Regarding Vitamin D and Risk of COVID-19 and Its Severity.” It will, however, remain in the highly-respected journal Nutrients’ website, where you can still access it for free.
The MATH+ hospital treatment protocol for COVID-19 and the iMASK+ prevention and early outpatient COVID-19 protocol — both of which are based on the use of vitamins C, D, quercetin, zinc and melatonin — are available on the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’s website. I suggest you bookmark these resources for future reference.
It is with a heavy heart that I purge my website of valuable information. As noted by Dr. Peter McCullough during a recent Texas state Senate Health and Human Services Committee hearing, data shows early treatment could have prevented up to 85% (425,000) of COVID-19 deaths.17 Yet early treatments were all heavily censored and suppressed.
McCullough, in addition to being a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the Texas A&M University Health Sciences Center, also has the distinction of having published the most papers of any person in the history of his field, and being an editor of two major medical journals. Despite that, his video, in which he went through a paper he’d published detailing effective early treatments, was summarily banned by YouTube in 2020.
“No wonder we have had 45,000 deaths in Texas. The average person in Texas thinks there’s no treatment!” McCullough told the senate panel.18 Indeed, people are in dire need of more information detailing how they can protect their health, not less. But there’s only so much I can do to protect myself against current attack strategies.
They’ve moved past censorship. Just what do you call people who advocate counteroffensive attacks by terrorism and cyberwarfare experts? You’d think we could have a debate and be protected under free speech but, no, we’re not allowed. These lunatics are dangerously unhinged.
The U.S. federal government is going along with the global Great Reset plan (promoted as “building back better”), but this plan won’t build anything but a technological prison. What we need is a massive campaign to preserve civil rights, and vote out the pawns who are destroying our freedom while concentrating wealth and power.
Open Letter from President of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) to Universities: Allow Students Back Without COVID Vaccine Mandate – “the vaccines are not FDA approved to treat, cure or prevent any disease at this time”
Dear Deans, Governing Boards and Trustees,
On behalf of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, I am writing to ask you to reconsider your new policy mandating COVID-19 vaccination of students prior to returning to campus.[i] Institutions of higher learning are divided on this issue.[ii] ,[iii] Although, at first glance, the policy may seem prudent, it coerces students into bearing unneeded and unknown risk and is at heart contrary to the bedrock medical principle of informed consent.
There are multiple reasons to reverse your policy. I ask you to consider the following:
- Young adults are a healthy and immunologically competent and vibrant group that is at, “extraordinary low risk for COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.”[iv]
- College and University students, however, are under significant mental health strain already from COVID-19 fears, circumstances, distance learning problems and the imposition of government health policy restrictions.[v]
- Even though the FDA granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for three COVID-19 vaccines, they are not FDA approved to treat, cure or prevent any disease at this time. Clinical trials will continue for at least two years before the FDA can even consider approval of these vaccines as effective and safe.
- The COVID-19 vaccines on the market in the U.S., mRNA (Moderna and Pfizer) and DNA (Johnson & Johnson – Janssen), have caused notable side effects, pathology and even death (>2300 deaths per VAERS as of April 20, 2021). These adverse reactions result in absence from school and work, hospital visits, and even loss of life.[vi]
- College-age women may be at unique risk for adverse events following administration of the experimental COVID vaccinations currently available. According to the CDC, all cases of life-threatening blood clots, subsequent to receiving the J&J vaccine, reported so far in the United States, occurred in younger women.[vii] The vast majority of cases of anaphylaxis have also occurred in women.[viii] In addition, “women are reporting having irregular menstrual cycles after getting the coronavirus vaccine,”[ix] and 95 miscarriages have been reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS) following COVID vaccination as of April 24, 2021.[x]
- Recent research data demonstrates that the spike protein, present on the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the induced primary mechanism of action of COVID-19 vaccines, are the primary cause of disease, infirmity, hospitalization and death.[xi]
- Students who have had self-limited cases of COVID-19 already possess antibodies, activated B-cells, activated T-cells (detectable by lab testing). This durable, long-term immunity would not only prevent them from getting recurrent COVID-19, but would also represent herd immunity to protect others in the college or university community.[xii],[xiii]
- COVID-19 convalescent students may be harmed by college and university policy requiring COVID-19 vaccines.[xiv] They already have extensive immunity and would be likely harmed from a forced confrontation with COVID-19 vaccine induced spike protein causing autoimmune reactions leading to illness and possible death.[xv]
- Students and their families may justifiably believe these policies discriminate against individuals who aren’t candidates for this vaccine, have pre-existing conditions, previous COVID-19 disease, cite religious objections, or are otherwise exercising their freewill choosing not to participate in this optional vaccine experiment. Refer to the Nuremberg code from WWII, which requires individuals, “to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force….”[xvi]
- Institutional policies that permit faculty to choose or refuse vaccination, but do not allow students the same options, raise equal protection constitutional issues.
- The ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, requires “reasonable accommodations,” be provided based on an individual’s own unique health situation. This includes rejection of an experimental vaccine intervention which may exacerbate known health problems and thereby cause harm.
- Colleges and Universities should consider whether they might be liable for damages, poor health outcomes, and loss of life due to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies.[xvii]
- “Positive cases,” as defined by laboratory testing alone, may be false positive testing errors or asymptomatic infection that is not clinically proven to spread disease.
- Ambulatory outpatient early treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection / COVID-19 has been demonstrated effective in adults.[xviii]
- Informed consent is the standard for all medical interventions. The FDA factsheet for the healthcare provider reads, “The recipient or their caregiver has the option to accept or refuse (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine.”
Please reverse your decision to mandate experimental COVID-19 vaccines before more students are harmed and make the vaccines rightfully optional. Both unvaccinated and vaccinated students should be permitted on campus. Thank you for your time and attention. We would appreciate hearing back from you as soon as possible and welcome further discussion with you and other leaders at your institution.
Sincerely,
Paul M. Kempen, M.D., Ph.D. – AAPS President (2021)
- Category:
- Society Tags:
Bigotry of Low Expectations: “Blacks need to stop resisting police — but they won’t” And It Won’t Be Their Fault When They Are Killed
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who’s about as far left as far left goes, told “60 Minutes” host Scott Pelley that George Floyd bears zero responsibility for his own death — that it’s all due to police brutality, police racism, police officer Derek Chauvin’s brutal, racist acts.
This is a lie about Blacks and police that’s being replicated around the nation by leftists who want to destroy America.
Floyd may not be 100% responsible for his own death. Chauvin and his nine minutes of bearing down on Floyd’s neck certainly played into the final moments of life — and in fact, a jury just found the former officer guilty of unintentional second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.
But had Floyd simply done what police requested-slash-ordered, he’d most likely be alive today. And that’s a common denominator in many of the police officer interactions with Blacks that turn fatal that is always, always, always pushed aside by the press, by the leftist politicians, by the Black Lives Matter movement: When police are trying to do their jobs, it’s best not to resist.
Pelley to Ellison: Does Floyd bear any responsibility for the May 2020 events that led to his death?
Ellison to Pelley: “No, he doesn’t,” The Hill reported.
Pelley to Ellison: “If he’d gotten in the car, he’d be alive today.”
Ellison to Pelley: Floyd was just having a bad day and police, who are “trained to deal with people who are having problems,” ought to have recognized this and reacted accordingly.
“[If police can] use deadly force on people who are just having a bad day,” Ellison said, “then we’re going to be in a very, very lethal situation.”
Having a bad day?
Democrats have actually suggested sending out the psychologists in place of police. But that’s not a solution to criminal behavior. That’s an enabler.
Leftists are trying to create division in America and pit populations against each other, to cause the chaos to make the Constitution appear ineffective to justify the creation of a new form of government, a socialist form of government, a total top-down form of governance that empowers the collectivists while killing individualism. Leftists are actually trying to create race wars.
But the line that police awaken each day with the intent to hunt and kill young black males is ridiculous enough that even the most cursory glance at facts and stats underscores its lunacy.
Statista reports that in 2017, there were 223 Blacks shot and killed by police; in 2018, it was 209; in 2019, it was 235; in 2020, it was 241; and in 2021, so far, 30.
The same outlet reports that in 2017, there were 457 Whites shot and killed by police; in 2018, it was 399; in 2019, it was 370; in 2020, it was 457; and in 2021, so far, 50.
The left rebuts these facts with percentages — by arguing that Blacks only account for just over 13% of the nation’s total population, while Whites, about 73%.
But consider this: Statista also found that in 2017, police shot and killed 179 Hispanics or Latinos; in 2018, it was 148; in 2019, it was 158; in 2020, it was 169; and in 2021, so far, 20.
Hispanics and Latinos make up almost 17% of America’s population.
How come we’re not talking about police targeting to kill Hispanics?
Where’s the Hispanics Lives Matter movement, with the accompanying Democratic Party blind eye support of brick-throwing good times in the streets, masked as First Amendment peaceful protests?
It’s a lie. It’s all deception. The whole police-murder-Blacks message from the left is lie and deception.
If the Black male Michael Brown in 2014 had not struggled with the White officer, Darren Wilson, then the Black male Michael Brown would probably be alive today. If the Black male Rayshard Brooks had not struggled with officers after they awakened him at the Wendy’s drive-through line in Atlanta, then the Black male Rayshard Brooks would probably be alive today. If the Black male Daniel Prude had not struggled with officers after they apprehended him running naked through the streets of Rochester, then the Black male Daniel Prude would probably be alive today.
This list goes on. See the theme?
Biden to Use Private Companies to Spy On American Citizens Accused of Wrongthink – Without a Warrant
“The plan being discussed inside DHS, according to multiple sources, would, in effect, allow the department to circumvent” laws that limit what the federal government can do in surveilling U.S. citizens without a warrant. A source familiar with the effort said it is not about decrypting data but rather using outside entities who can legally access these private groups to gather large amounts of information that could help DHS identify key narratives as they emerge.”
“Gathering information on US citizens — no matter how abhorrent their beliefs — raises instant constitutional and legal challenges. Civil liberties advocates and privacy hawks have long criticized any efforts to collect even publicly available information on Americans in bulk as a violation of Americans’ First and Fourth Amendment rights.”
Flawed PCR Testing: Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be – from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles
In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.
On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.
One solution would be to adjust the cycle threshold used now to decide that a patient is infected. Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.
Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.
Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said.
A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Those changes would mean the amount of genetic material in a patient’s sample would have to be 100-fold to 1,000-fold that of the current standard for the test to return a positive result — at least, one worth acting on.
In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said.
Other experts informed of these numbers were stunned.
“I’m really shocked that it could be that high — the proportion of people with high C.T. value results,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. “Boy, does it really change the way we need to be thinking about testing.”
- Category:
- Conspiracies
- Coronavirus - COVID-19 Tags:
- Big Pharma
Trust the “Science” and doctors – “In October 2009, Anthony Fauci appeared on YouTube to reassure Americans about the safety of the swine flu vaccine. “The vaccine has been thoroughly tested,” they declared in a joint statement. Except, it hadn’t.”
Adverse event tables embedded in nine reports spanning the four months between December 2009 and March 2010 offer a glimpse into the vaccines’ safety profiles.
“When I saw those tables, I just fell off the chair. A consumer can figure out what’s going on here,”
Jefferson told me (table 1). Jefferson immediately calculated the adverse event rates for each vaccine, which showed large differences between Pandemrix and Arepanrix. Any real differences between the vaccines would be especially alarming because Pandemrix and Arepanrix are, broadly speaking, the same vaccine manufactured in different facilities and used in different countries. Divergent rates of adverse events might implicate a manufacturing problem.
“The odds ratios, the point estimates, are all high. And some of them are significantly high—5.39 [95% confidence interval 3.70 to 7.85] for deaths [for Pandemrix v the other vaccines],” Jefferson said.
“The thing that struck me was not just that the odds ratios were high, but the fact that nobody had tabulated and analysed them,” he said, pointing out that the GSK reports provided numerator and denominator data sufficient to calculate the odds ratios but did not actually contain those calculations.
The BMJ conducted its own analysis of the adverse events, most of which seem to have been reported spontaneously to GSK (figs 1 and 2). For a range of concerning adverse events, reports were coming in for Pandemrix at a consistently higher rate than for the other two GSK pandemic vaccines–four times the rate of facial palsy, eight times the rate of serious adverse events, nine times the rate of convulsions. Overall, Pandemrix had, proportionally, five times more adverse events reported than Arepanrix and the unadjuvanted vaccine. And the raw numbers of adverse events were not small. Although it is often said that perhaps only up to 10% of adverse events are reported to national reporting systems,16 by late November, GSK had received 1138 serious adverse event reports for Pandemrix—a rate of 76 per million doses administered. By mid-December, there had been 3280 serious adverse event reports (68/million doses). The last report seen by The BMJ, dated 31 March 2010, shows 5069 serious adverse events for Pandemrix (72/million doses), seven times the rate for Arepanrix and the unadjuvanted vaccine combined.
The data are insufficient to draw conclusions about cause and effect, but for Gillian O’Connor, the solicitor representing Bennett, they raise serious questions about transparency. The disparity, she wrote in an affidavit filed in court, was “of such striking difference that any person contemplating taking the Pandemrix vaccine would be likely, if in receipt of this information, not to choose to have the Pandemrix vaccination.”
Alarm bells that never rang
But neither GSK nor the health authorities seem to have made the information public—nor is it clear that the disparity was investigated. This is in contrast to the reaction to narcolepsy, which quickly made news headlines and was the subject of a GSK press release and investigation17 in a matter of weeks after the first reports from Sweden and Finland.
In many of the GSK reports, the company briefly mentions having conducted “safety reviews”—for example, with respect to anaphylaxis, facial palsy, and Guillain-Barré syndrome. The BMJ asked GSK for a copy of those reviews but it did not provide them.
In a statement, GSK wrote: “After the introduction of Pandemrix, GSK continuously evaluated all available safety data and shared the data with the EMA and other regulatory authorities where the vaccine was licensed so that the authorities could conduct their own independent assessments. EMA made weekly summaries of the data provided by GSK and other manufacturers publicly accessible and they remain accessible through the EMA’s website.”
The BMJ asked GSK whether it ever undertook any investigations to understand the discrepancy in adverse event reporting between Pandemrix and Arepanrix, whether it notified healthcare providers about the discrepancies, whether it considered pulling Pandemrix from the market, or considered recommending Arepanrix or another company’s vaccine. But GSK declined to answer these and all of The BMJ’s questions, citing ongoing litigation.
The BMJ asked the UK Department of Health why it recommended Pandemrix over Baxter’s Celvapan, but the department also declined to comment, calling the question “quite technical” and suggesting we submit a freedom of information request for an answer.
In December 2009 demonstrators in Scotland took to the streets to challenge the government’s swine flu vaccine campaign arguing it was out of step with the mild pandemic.18
Avoidable catastrophe
The vaccination programme continued in Ireland as well. “The Irish government kept inviting people to get vaccinated,” Jefferson observed. “This was when it was quite clear that the pandemic was on the wane and it was nowhere near the catastrophe portrayed by influenza researchers, governments, industry, and the media.”
Clare Daly, a member of the Irish parliament, called the adverse events after Pandemrix a “completely avoidable catastrophe,” and has been demanding answers for over a year.19 In the Irish National Assembly last year, she told the then prime minister, Enda Kenny, “The Health Service Executive (HSE) decided to purchase Pandemrix and continued to distribute it even after they knew it was dangerous and untested, and before most of the public in Ireland received it.”
Pandemrix and Arepanrix were designed for a pandemic and were removed from global markets after the pandemic. Whatever adverse events they may have caused, they are vaccines of the past. But the events of 2009-10 raise fundamental questions about the transparency of information. When do public health officials have a duty to warn the public over possible harms of vaccines detected through pharmacovigilance? How much detail should the public be provided with, who should provide it, and should the provision of such information be proactive or passive?
If history were to repeat itself, does the public have a right to know?
- Category:
- Censorship
- Conspiracies
- Coronavirus - COVID-19
- Health Tags:
Black Privilege: Asians are Too Smart, So Black NYC schools chancellor calls for end to elite school admission test in which Asians comprised 53.7 percent of those admitted, whites 27.9, Hispanics 5.4, and African Americans 3.6
Schools Chancellor Meisha Ross-Porter called for an end to the specialized high school entrance exam Thursday while fuming about new admissions data that showed Asians dominating the controversial test once again.
Citing the minimal number of offers to black and Hispanic students, Ross-Porter called the current single-test entry format “unacceptable.”
Asians comprised 53.7 percent of those admitted, whites 27.9, Hispanics 5.4, and African Americans 3.6.
“I know from my 21 years as an educator that far more students could thrive in our Specialized High Schools, if only given the chance,” she said in a statement accompanying the results. “Instead, the continued use of the Specialized High School Admissions Test will produce the same unacceptable results over and over again, and it’s far past the time for our students to be fairly represented in these schools.”
But backers of the existing format — especially those representing Asian city groups — blasted Ross-Porter’s characterization.
“What is unacceptable is the targeting of one particular group,” said activist Wai Wah Chin. “Especially with what we see happening on the streets of this city. What is unacceptable is telling Asians that they don’t belong in these schools despite their hard work.”
Critics of the exam call it a narrow measure of student potential and argue that additional metrics should be introduced into the admissions process.
While 70 percent of all city students are black and Hispanic, they only accounted for 9.4 percent of specialized high school acceptances for next year.
Kaliris Salas-Ramirez of Community Education Council 4 said the exam should be scrapped, asserting that it promoted an outdated reliance on standardized tests to measure talent.
Leftist School District Tells Principals To Create Fake Curriculum To Send Parents After Complaints Of Indoctrination
“Prior to the pandemic you didn’t send everything home or have it available. You taught in your classroom and things were peachy keen. We are going old-school.”
Faced with complaints from parents about the indoctrination of children, an official in Rockwood School District, Missouri, instructed teachers to create two sets of curriculum: a false one to share with parents, and then the real set of curriculum, focused on topics like activism and privilege, according to a memo obtained by The Daily Wire.
Natalie Fallert, EdD, 6-12 Literacy Speech Coordinator, wrote to all middle and high school principals that parents had repeatedly complained that “we are pushing an agenda,” “we are pushing Critical Race Theory (I had to look this one up!),” “we are making white kids feel bad about their privilege,” we are “stereotyping,” “we are teaching kids to be social activists,” and “we are teaching kids to be democratic thinkers and activists.”
The problem was that, for the first time, parents could see what teachers were telling their children thanks to virtual learning, where assignments were visible for at-home learners in a tool called Canvas.
Fallert’s solution:
This doesn’t mean throw out the lesson and find a new one. Just pull the resource off Canvas so parents cannot see it …
Keep teaching! Just don’t make everything visible on Canvas. This is not being deceitful. This is just doing what you have done for years. Prior to the pandemic you didn’t send everything home or have it available. You taught in your classroom and things were peachy keen. We are going old-school. …
You could Duplicate an entry/lesson in Canvas (making 2 copies) Publish ONE for the whole class that is a LEAN version of the lesson. The “original” that has all the stuff on it, can be published and only assigned to specific students (IF NEEDED), OR you could specifically email those students a copy of what they need.
The reason I say “make a copy” You can publish the NEW one that has less information on it. Then for that kid who is all virtual and needs to full lesson, you can publish it and assign it ONLY that kid…
Anything that “could” be picked apart I would suggest using this above approach… Again I wouldn’t throw it out, but you could just not give them access to the story.
When you get to Power Imbalances – You might remove the two examples and just go over them in class (same as above). …
I hate that we are even having to have this conversation. 29 days and counting!
Strange Coincidences: Former CDC Director Redfield Believes Coronavirus Originated in Wuhan Lab – Luc Montagnier who discovered HIV Virus Believes it Came From Lab – Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research
- Luc Montagnier, for instance, a French virologist who won the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 2008 for his discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), said during an appearance on France’s CNews that COVID-19 was “not natural” and suggested that this disease actually resulted from work done by molecular biologists who were attempting to create an AIDS vaccine.
- In 2014, the U.S. Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease [NAID], headed by Fauci, had awarded $3.4 million grant to EcoHealth Alliance. The EcoHealth group hired the virology lab in Wuhan to conduct analysis of bat coronavirus. They started studying the coronavirus collected from bats in Yunnan province in Wuhan, China.
- Category:
- Conspiracies
- Coronavirus - COVID-19 Tags:
German Intelligence Puts Coronavirus Deniers Under Surveillance
BERLIN — Germany’s domestic intelligence service said on Wednesday that it would surveil members of the increasingly aggressive coronavirus denier movement because they posed a risk of undermining the state.
The movement — fueled in part by wild conspiracy theories — has grown from criticizing coronavirus lockdown measures and hygiene rules to targeting the state itself, its leaders, businesses, the press and globalism, to name a few. Over the past year, demonstrators have attacked police officers, defied civil authorities and in one widely publicized episode scaled the steps of Parliament.
“Our basic democratic order, as well as state institutions such as parliaments and governments, have faced multiple attacks since the beginning of the measures to contain the Covid-19 pandemic,” the Interior Ministry said in a statement confirming that parts of the denier movement would be under observation. The Interior Ministry oversees the intelligence agency, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution.
In announcing the decision to keep tabs on conspiracy theorists, intelligence officials noted the movement’s close ties to extremists like the Reichsbürger, a network of groups that refuse to accept the legitimacy of the modern German state.
Many coronavirus deniers say they also believe in QAnon conspiracy theories, and protesters are frequently seen holding signs with anti-Semitic tropes.
The movement, called Querdenken, German for lateral thinking, communicates and recruits over social media and has a large presence on the encrypted chat service Telegram, where its main channel has 65,000 subscribers. Parts of AfD, a German right-wing populist party that is also under surveillance, have allied themselves with protesters.
Still, the Interior Ministry took pains to say that the danger from coronavirus deniers and conspiracy theorists does not fit the mold posed by the usual, politically driven groups, including those on the far left and right, or by Islamic extremists. As a result, the authorities are setting up a new department specifically tasked with handling cases that seek to delegitimize the state.
Anti White CBC features Ben Philippe, a fragile black man with an inferiority complex who writes about blowing up and gassing white people during a ‘race war’
The CBC invited an author who wrote about “detonating” white people, while “the exits are locked and the air vents [are] filled with gas” to be interviewed on their flagship arts program.
Ben Philippe, a fragile black man with an inferiority complex appeared on Q where he discussed his newest book and racial issues in North America, talked about documenting the experience of being the token Black friend in his new collection of essays, Sure, I’ll Be Your Black Friend: Notes from the Other Side of the Fist Bump.
These Key Similarities Between Lenin’s Red Terror and America’s Woke Culture Reveal Left’s Blueprint For Complete Takeover – Revolver.news
There are many lessons to draw from the blood-soaked life of Lenin. But one of the most important is this takeaway for the terrifying “woke” moment America is living through right now. Things are not going to naturally get better. Things will not organically “calm down.” Until there is a fundamental reset of America’s treasonous leadership class, today’s unthinkable witch hunt is merely a prelude of an even darker globalist terror to come.
Once they had taken power, the Bolsheviks didn’t immediately launch Stalin-style mass purges. Instead, the Bolsheviks started off in a way modern Americans would find disturbingly familiar: By legitimizing criminal anarchy and co-opting the justice system.
As the socioeconomic crisis deepened, and the popular belief developed that the burzhoois were responsible for it, so these mob trials began to assume an overtly class nature. They became a weapon in the war against privilege, focusing less on petty thieves from the urban poor and much more on merchants and shopkeepers, factory owners and employers, army officers, former tsarist officials and other figures of superordinate authority.
[R]obbers — and sometimes even murderers — of the rich were often given only a very light sentence, or even acquitted altogether, if they pleaded poverty as the cause of their crime. The looting of the looters had been legalized and, in the process, law as such abolished: there was only lawlessness.
Lenin had always been insistent that the legal system should be used as a weapon of mass terror against the bourgeoisie.
The Reds were initially radicalized by the sense of being under threat. But once their full depravity was unleashed, it crucially did not start to moderate simply because they were winning. At the end of the Russian Civil War, thousands of soldiers and officers in the White Army surrendered after receiving a promise of amnesty. Once they were rounded up, all of them were shot. The next three decades of the Soviet regime brought one round after another of purges, famines, de-kulakization, and terror.
In 2017, people lost their jobs for attending the Charlottesville march. It didn’t matter if they engaged in any violence or broke any laws. Merely being there was enough.
Many normal Americans shrugged.
“It was some racist march anyway,” thought most conservatives. “They should have known better than to go.”
But of course, it didn’t stop there. Throughout the Trump administration, it became acceptable to target people for pettier and pettier offenses: Anonymous posts online, leaked emails, decade-old articles (or decade-old tweets), attending conferences with the wrong people.
April 2021 has brought us to a new low. In Minnesota, Derek Chauvin is going to prison, likely for decades, for using a routine policing method to subdue a man twice his size who was resisting arrest. In Virginia, a police officer’s twenty-year career has ended in termination after he sent a $25 anonymous donation to the defense fund of Kyle Rittenhouse.
The left will not be placated by handing it victories. They are on a crusade, and as long as they are not stopped they will only become more extreme, more vengeful, and more dangerous.
Leftist policies subvert society, lead to collapse – Minneapolis example
The ACE Hardware down the street? The one that I used to bike to in the summer? Robbed twice in the past five days.
The Walgreens next to my elementary school? Molotov cocktail thrown into it.
The Lake Harriet Bandshell, where we spent countless Mother’s Days? Homeless encampment popped up next door.
These are the things you don’t read about in the news.
Ten minutes from my house, at 38th and Chicago, there is still an autonomous zone. Police are not allowed to enter. Residents have died because medical authorities couldn’t get through, and carjackers (of which there are MANY) will speed into the zone to escape officer pursuit.
My favorite dinner theater canceled its production of Cinderella because it was “too white.”
We lived under a curfew for days while looters seemingly roamed freely. Friends fled their home at 3:30 a.m. because the auto parts store behind them was on fire. And then we watched in horror as our City Council members demanded that the city defund the police — as they hired armed security for themselves.
You distinguish between rioters and protestors? Racist. You do not want Marxist-inspired racial justice theories to be promoted in schools? Racist. You thought that maybe “Justice for George Floyd” should be left to the courts, and not mob rule? Super, super racist.
Any condemnation of the violence was denounced as “racist.” Billboards stating simply “Support MN Police” were brutally vandalized. Schools supported BLM walkouts for their students, then shut down in-person classes for fear of violent riots.
- Category:
- Leftist Policies
- Subversion of country and society Tags:
- Democrats
Black Culture: Nine Kids Shot at 12-Year-Old’s Birthday Party and ‘Not One’ of the 60 Attendees Will Make a Statement to Police
Black culture is defending black criminals in your own community who shoot black children, then blaming white people when youth raised in your communities become deadbeat drug addicts who commit disproportionate amounts of crime.
At least nine kids were shot at a 12-year-old’s birthday party in Louisiana on Saturday night, as reported by the New York Post, and not one of the reported 60 attendees was willing to make a formal statement about what the hell happened or why.
Gunfire erupted after a feud broke out at the home party in LaPlace, Louisiana, according to a press release from the St. John the Baptist Parish Sheriff’s Office. Again, at least nine kids — first reported as six — under the age of 18 were struck, seven of whom were treated and released, while two of the victims remain hospitalized as I write.
As reported by NBC News on Monday, the victims’ ages ranged from 12 to 17. The young victims collectively sustained injuries to the arm, ribs, foot, legs, stomach, head, and more.
Sheriff Mike Tregre:
“We have not one witness, not one person that saw anything yet. So we’re trying to solve it on our own right now. I’m going to be polite — it’s more than frustrating.”
Black Culture: Black 16 year old girl Ma’khia Bryant tries to stab to death another black girl in front of police; is shot and killed. The Society Subverting MSM propaganda machine along with black pundits instantly begins running race baiting stories
NBC “news” race baiting propaganda edits out 911 call and don’t show viewers the knife:
Huffpost’s Domonique Mosbergen, society subverting, race baiting piece of garbage outs police officer who saved black girls life, making sure to mention that he was white.
Black, Hispanic, Asian privilege: Princeton announced its 2025 class 68% are non-white (black, Asian, Hispanic and other races)
- According to the most recent government census, around 60 percent of the country is white, 18.5 percent is Hispanic, 13.4 percent is black and 5.9 percent is Asian.
- Princeton announced its 2025 class on Thursday; 68% are non-white (black, Asian, Hispanic and other races)
- It means the remaining 32% are white – some 479 students out of 1,498
- Overall, 52% are women and 48% are men
- When applying that to the racial groups, around 500 are men of color and 500 are women of color, 229 are white men and 250 are white women
- Children of Princeton alumni make up 10% of the new intake
- In 2019, 44% were white and in 2020, 39% were white
- Harvard has taken in 60% non-white students (18% black, 27% was Asian American and 13.3% as Latin)
- White students were still the biggest group by far with around 40%
- Brown’s intake is 55% students who described themselves as of color
- Dartmouth is only Ivy League accepting a majority of white students over non-white students this year; the school’s 2025 class is split 48 percent non-white and 52 percent white
Head of elite NYC private school (Grace Church) admits in tape that they are demonizing white kids “for being born.”
As a teacher, my first obligation is to my students. But right now, my school is asking me to embrace “antiracism” training and pedagogy that I believe is deeply harmful to them and to any person who seeks to nurture the virtues of curiosity, empathy and understanding.
“Antiracist” training sounds righteous, but it is the opposite of truth in advertising. It requires teachers like myself to treat students differently on the basis of race. Furthermore, in order to maintain a united front for our students, teachers at Grace are directed to confine our doubts about this pedagogical framework to conversations with an in-house “Office of Community Engagement” for whom every significant objection leads to a foregone conclusion. Any doubting students are likewise “challenged” to reframe their views to conform to this orthodoxy.
I know that by attaching my name to this I’m risking not only my current job but my career as an educator, since most schools, both public and private, are now captive to this backward ideology. But witnessing the harmful impact it has on children, I can’t stay silent.
My school, like so many others, induces students via shame and sophistry to identify primarily with their race before their individual identities are fully formed. Students are pressured to conform their opinions to those broadly associated with their race and gender and to minimize or dismiss individual experiences that don’t match those assumptions. The morally compromised status of “oppressor” is assigned to one group of students based on their immutable characteristics. In the meantime, dependency, resentment and moral superiority are cultivated in students considered “oppressed.”
All of this is done in the name of “equity,” but it is the opposite of fair. In reality, all of this reinforces the worst impulses we have as human beings: our tendency toward tribalism and sectarianism that a truly liberal education is meant to transcend.
Recently, I raised questions about this ideology at a mandatory, whites-only student and faculty Zoom meeting. (Such racially segregated sessions are now commonplace at my school.) It was a bait-and-switch “self-care” seminar that labelled “objectivity,” “individualism,” “fear of open conflict,” and even “a right to comfort” as characteristics of white supremacy. I doubted that these human attributes — many of them virtues reframed as vices — should be racialized in this way. In the Zoom chat, I also questioned whether one must define oneself in terms of a racial identity at all. My goal was to model for students that they should feel safe to question ideological assertions if they felt moved to do so.
It seemed like my questions broke the ice. Students and even a few teachers offered a broad range of questions and observations. Many students said it was a more productive and substantive discussion than they expected.
However, when my questions were shared outside this forum, violating the school norm of confidentiality, I was informed by the head of the high school that my philosophical challenges had caused “harm” to students, given that these topics were “life and death matters, about people’s flesh and blood and bone.” I was reprimanded for “acting like an independent agent of a set of principles or ideas or beliefs.” And I was told that by doing so, I failed to serve the “greater good and the higher truth.”
He further informed me that I had created “dissonance for vulnerable and unformed thinkers” and “neurological disturbance in students’ beings and systems.” The school’s director of studies added that my remarks could even constitute harassment.
A few days later, the head of school ordered all high school advisors to read a public reprimand of my conduct out loud to every student in the school. It was a surreal experience, walking the halls alone and hearing the words emitting from each classroom: “Events from last week compel us to underscore some aspects of our mission and share some thoughts about our community,” the statement began. “At independent schools, with their history of predominantly white populations, racism colludes with other forms of bias (sexism, classism, ableism and so much more) to undermine our stated ideals, and we must work hard to undo this history.”
Students from low-income families experience culture shock at our school. Racist incidents happen. And bias can influence relationships. All true. But addressing such problems with a call to “undo history” lacks any kind of limiting principle and pairs any allegation of bigotry with a priori guilt. My own contract for next year requires me to “participate in restorative practices designed by the Office of Community Engagement” in order to “heal my relationship with the students of color and other students in my classes.” The details of these practices remain unspecified until I agree to sign.
They report that, in their classes and other discussions, they must never challenge any of the premises of our “antiracist” teachings, which are deeply informed by Critical Race Theory. These concerns are confirmed for me when I attend grade-level and all-school meetings about race or gender issues. There, I witness student after student sticking to a narrow script of acceptable responses. Teachers praise insights when they articulate the existing framework or expand it to apply to novel domains. Meantime, it is common for teachers to exhort students who remain silent that “we really need to hear from you.”
But what does speaking up mean in a context in which white students are asked to interrogate their “white saviorism,” but also “not make their antiracist practice about them”? We are compelling them to tiptoe through a minefield of double-binds. According to the school’s own standard for discursive violence, this constitutes abuse.
Every student at the school must also sign a “Student Life Agreement,” which requires them to aver that “the world as we understand it can be hard and extremely biased,” that they commit to “recognize and acknowledge their biases when we come to school, and interrupt those biases,” and accept that they will be “held accountable should they fall short of the agreement.” A recent faculty email chain received enthusiastic support for recommending that we “‘officially’ flag students” who appear “resistant” to the “culture we are trying to establish.”
When I questioned what form this resistance takes, examples presented by a colleague included “persisting with a colorblind ideology,” “suggesting that we treat everyone with respect,” “a belief in meritocracy,” and “just silence.” In a special assembly in February 2019, our head of school said that the impact of words and images perceived as racist — regardless of intent — is akin to “using a gun or a knife to kill or injure someone.”
Imagine being a young person in this environment. Would you risk voicing your doubts, especially if you had never heard a single teacher question it?
Last fall, juniors and seniors in my Art of Persuasion class expressed dismay with the “Grace bubble” and sought to engage with a wider range of political viewpoints. Since the BLM protests often came up in our discussions, I thought of assigning Glenn Loury, a Brown University professor and public intellectual whose writings express a nuanced, center-right position on racial issues in America. Unfortunately, my administration put the kibosh on my proposal.
The head of school responded to me that “people like Loury’s lived experience—and therefore his derived social philosophy” made him an exception to the rule that black thinkers acknowledge structural racism as the paramount impediment in society. He added that “the moment we are in institutionally and culturally, does not lend itself to dispassionate discussion and debate,” and discussing Loury’s ideas would “only confuse and/or enflame students, both those in the class and others that hear about it outside of the class.” He preferred I assign “mainstream white conservatives,” effectively denying black students the opportunity to hear from a black professor who holds views that diverge from the orthodoxy pushed on them.
I find it self-evidently racist to filter the dissemination of an idea based on the race of the person who espouses it. I find the claim that exposing 11th and 12th graders to diverse views on an important societal issue will only “confuse” them to be characteristic of a fundamentalist religion, not an educational philosophy.
My administration says that these constraints on discourse are necessary to shield students from harm. But it is clear to me that these constraints serve primarily to shield their ideology from harm — at the cost of students’ psychological and intellectual development.
Entitled BLM Terrorist “Activist” calls for blacks to loot stores and riot to “pay off debt America owes us”- this is perfectly OK on Twitter and in general – no bans or outrage against her
Entitled BLM is allowed to call for subversion of society by looting and destroying peaceful taxpaying citizens cities and livelihoods without recourse. Are they not a terrorist organization? Imagine if a Trump supporter called for looting and terrorizing of their city…
Blacks already commit the most crime, receive 3x more welfare than whites, and yet they still want more… they still want to keep destroying civilized society because nothing is ever enough, thanks to race baiting media telling them that they are oppressed.
Seven Peer-Reviewed Studies That Agree: Lockdowns Do Not Suppress the Coronavirus
- “Comparing weekly mortality in 24 European countries, the findings in this paper suggest that more severe lockdown policies have not been associated with lower mortality. In other words, the lockdowns have not worked as intended.” “Did Lockdown Work? An Economist’s Cross-Country Comparison” by Christian Bjørnskov. CESifo Economic Studies March 29th, 2021.
- “Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate.” “Covid-19 Mortality: A Matter of Vulnerability Among Nations Facing Limited Margins of Adaptation” by Quentin De Larochelambert, Andy Marc, Juliana Antero, Eric Le Bourg, and Jean-François Toussaint. Frontiers in Public Health, November 19th, 2020.
- “Lockdowns do not reduce COVID-19 deaths.” “Government mandated lockdowns do not reduce Covid-19 deaths: implications for evaluating the stringent New Zealand response” by John Gibson. New Zealand Economic Papers, August 25th, 2020.
- “While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs.” “Assessing Mandatory Stay‐at‐Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID‐19” by Eran Bendavid, Christopher Oh, Jay Bhattacharya, John P.A. Ioannidis. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, January 5th, 2021.
- “Previous studies have claimed that shelter-in-place orders saved thousands of lives, but we reassess these analyses and show that they are not reliable. We find that shelter-in-place orders had no detectable health benefits, only modest effects on behaviour, and small but adverse effects on the economy.” “Evaluating the effects of shelter-in-place policies during the COVID-19 pandemic” by Christopher R. Berry, Anthony Fowler, Tamara Glazer, Samantha Handel-Meyer, and Alec MacMillen, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA, April 13th, 2021.
- “We were not able to explain the variation of deaths per million in different regions in the world by social isolation, herein analysed as differences in staying at home, compared to baseline. In the restrictive and global comparisons, only 3% and 1.6% of the comparisons were significantly different, respectively.” “Stay-at-home policy is a case of exception fallacy: an internet-based ecological study,” by R. F. Savaris, G. Pumi, J. Dalzochio & R. Kunst. Scientific Reports (Nature), March 5th, 2021.
- “Full lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.” “A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes” by Rabail Chaudhry, George Dranitsaris, Talha Mubashir, Justyna Bartoszko, Sheila Riazi. EClinicalMedicine (The Lancet) 25 (2020) 100464, July 21st, 2020.
- Category:
- Coronavirus - COVID-19 Tags:
MSM Propaganda Negative Stories When Trump Wanted to Leave Afghanistan vs. Positive Stories When Biden Wants to Pull Out
Full size image here: https://i.imgur.com/pgLxUeH.jpg
The Hill Soviet Style Propaganda – Trump Building Wall is bad. Biden building wall is good
- Category:
- Anti Trump
- Fake News
- Propaganda Tags:
- The Hill
ADL and Media Matters: Tucker Carlson defends his support and promotion of “white supremacist” replacement theory: “Demographic change is the key”
The anti white ADL does not want multiculturalism in Israel, and promotes nationalism there. The total opposite of what they want in the USA. “It is unrealistic and unacceptable to expect the State of Israel to voluntarily subvert its own sovereign existence and nationalist identity and become a vulnerable minority within what was once its own territory.” And yet this is what they promote in western countries.
TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): Demographic change is the key to the Democratic Party’s political ambitions. Let’s say that again for emphasis, because it is the secret to the entire immigration debate.
Demographic change is the key to the Democratic Party’s political ambitions. In order to win and maintain power, Democrats plan to change the population of the country. They’re no longer trying to win you over with their program. They are obviously not trying to improve your life. They don’t even really care about your vote anymore. Their goal is to make you irrelevant.
That is provably true, and because it’s true, it drives them absolutely crazy when you say it out loud. A hurt dog barks.
They scream about how noting the obvious is immoral. You’re a racist if you dare to repeat things that they themselves proudly say. Most people go along with this absurd standard. They dutifully shut up. They don’t think they have a choice.
But no matter what they are allowed to say in public, everyone understands the truth. When you change who votes, you change who wins. That fact has nothing inherently to do with race or nationality. It’s the nature of democracy. It is always true. You can watch it happen, you probably have.
All across the country, we have seen huge changes in election outcomes caused by demographic change. New people move in, and they vote differently.
As a practical matter, it doesn’t matter what they look like or where they are from even. All that matters is that they have different political views.
Recent Categories
Trending Posts
- Black on white crime statistics 7 comments
- Black Crime Statistics 6 comments
- Police shooting statistics analyzed; the truth behind racial disparities in fatal police shootings. 5 comments
- George Floyd Killing and Subsequent Antifa, BLM Riots – Including the Derek Chauvin Trial and Follow Up 4 comments
- Media, Politicians Biased Positive Coverage and Support of BLM, Antifa Riots, Looting, Attacks and Law Enforcement Not Prosecuting Them vs. Negative Coverage of Trump rallies and protests + Prosecutions vs. January 6 “insurrection” coverage and reaction to 4 comments
- List of major brands, companies, celebrities that supported BLM, George Floyd rioters and looters using lies and misconceptions about black victimization and homicide rates – Blackout Tuesday. 3 comments
- Salon writer thinks peaceful protests are the same as riots: I can’t get past the differences between the Minneapolis BLM protest and anti-lockdown protests 2 comments
- Ninety percent of 43,000 extremists on MI5 watchlist are Islamist terror suspects while police are ‘obsessed’ with catching far-right extremists and media and politicians tell us how the “alt-right” is a problem 2 comments
- There was no measurable difference in coronavirus cases among children in Sweden, where schools were left open, compared with neighboring Finland, where schools were shut. A French study last month found that school children don’t appear to transmit Covid-19 to peers or teachers 1 comment
- Stolen 2020 US Election – Chronological list evidence of voter fraud, statistical anomalies, media lies, propaganda and gaslighting 1 comment