NOTE: This is a work in progress subject to a lot of revision as I go. It is not nearly complete.
It is publicly available because it could be useful to many even now. Last update: Jan 14, 2023.
See…
Intro
Does the Danger of a Crisis Overrule Constitutional Rights?
Chronology & Commentary
Older & Ongoing Sources
Sources 2019
Sources 2020
Sources 2021
Sources 2022
Sources 2023
Covid & Bill Gates
Covid Censorship
Covid Clownery
Covid Conspiration & Disinfo
Covid Creation & Spread
Covid & Crime
Covid Culture Shifting
Covid - Fauci’s Malarkey
Covid Heretics - Those Who Question the Narrative on Covid
Covid Hypocrites - ‘Rules for Thee But Not For Me’
Covid & Illegal Immigrants
Covid Lockdowns - Do They Work? Do They Cause Problems?
Covid Lockdown Protests
Covid - Lockdown & Reopening Timeline
Covid & Masks
Covid Medical Ships & Fiascos
Covid Nursing Home Scandals
Covid Orwellianism
Covid - Prisoners Unleashed
Covid & Racial Bullshit
Covid & Rights Violation
Covid Scams & Money Grabs
Covid Severity or Lack Thereof
Covid Suckers - Public Figures Who Got Sick Despite Their Obedience
Covid Superstrains
Covid & Trump
Covid, UV Light, Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin & Other Alternatives
Covid ‘Vaccines’
Covid & The W.H.O. & China
The media reports below may or may not be honest/accurate. We certainly do not take their word for it. We will not tell you what is true or false. In this age of almost universal deception, you must learn to fact check and evaluate sources for yourself. Ah, the terrible freedom!
The media reports below may or may not be honest/accurate. We certainly do not take their word for it. We will not tell you what is true or false. In this age of almost universal deception, you must learn to fact check and evaluate sources for yourself. Ah, the terrible freedom!
January 14, 2020
January 29, 2020
“Early Transmission Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia” by by multiple authors for The New England Journal of Medicine reads, in part,
The initial cases of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)–infected pneumonia (NCIP) occurred in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, in December 2019 and January 2020. We analyzed data on the first 425 confirmed cases in Wuhan to determine the epidemiologic characteristics of NCIP. . .
They write that of these 425 cases,
there were no cases in children below 15 years of age.
Note that in this study it is clearly stated that the virus originated from Wuhan, China and that it seems to be of little risk to children. This is noted here because both of these would be denied loudly in the public conversation and by the enactment of school lockdowns. Dr. Fauci and others would openly cite this paper in their own paper in February of 2020 but as time would move on and everyone would take sides regarding the disease, many would insist that it was racist to acknowledge that the virus came from China, for example, or that children were at high risk.
Though they both accepted that it came from China, Trump would be called racist for it while Fauci would be fawned over. Of course, in time, these people would later admit that the virus came from China but would not admit that they ever denied it or called others racist for not denying it along with them.
February 28, 2020
In “Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted” published by The New England Journal of Medicine, the authors, who include Dr. Anthony Fauci, cite the study we saw above, “Early Transmission Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia” from January 29, 2020 which states that the virus originated in China and the results of which suggested that it was no serious concern for children. In this paper, Fauci and co-authors wrote,
Of note, there were no cases in children younger than 15 years of age. Either children are less likely to become infected, which would have important epidemiologic implications, or their symptoms were so mild that their infection escaped detection, which has implications for the size of the denominator of total community infections. . .
The authors of this paper (including Dr. Fauci) also stated that covid-19 has a death rate that is well below 1% and is more like a severe flu with a
fatality rate of approximately 0.1%
. . .rather than something more deadly like what we saw with SARS. To give the quote more context,
If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.
March 11, 2020
“Trump Suspends All Travel From Europe For 30 Days To Combat COVID-19” by NPR
This report states, in part,
President Trump announced a 30-day ban on travel from European countries to the United States, beginning on Friday at midnight, in a bid "to keep new cases" of coronavirus "from entering our shores."
The restrictions, he said late Wednesday, do not apply to travelers from the United Kingdom.
March 23, 2020
“Pennsylvania Supreme Court Denies Appeal of Gun Store Closures, All Shops Ordered Closed on Monday” by The Gateway Pundit
President Trump held a Coronavirus Task Force briefing.
“3/23/20: Members of the Coronavirus Task Force Hold a Press Briefing” by Trump White House Archived
At 1:13:22, President Trump says,
And I think the big factor is the mortality rate, we're talking about about the mortality rate. When we first started, people were thinking about three and 4% and now we're talking about a much lower number than that.
At 1:13:37, Dr. Birx says,
The mortality rate is driven almost exclusively as we have talked about by people with pre-existing conditions and older.
When asked for a number estimate for the mortality rate, Dr. Birx states, at 1:14:25,
Well, you know what the estimate in Wuhan was originally, it was over 3%. When they look outside of Wuhan, it was about 0.7%. It depends very much. In South Korea, it was about 0.7-0.8%. But I don't want, that's like a tyranny of averages and I, you know, that's not having, that's probably missing 50-60% of the data because no one was testing asymptomatics. Remember?
April 15, 2020
“Baseball? Coachella? Handshakes? Tinder? Anthony Fauci on the New Rules of Living With Coronavirus” by Vanity Fair
In this interview, Fauci is asked,
On the opposite side of that spectrum, people are cooped up, they’re a little stir crazy. If you’re swiping on a dating app like Tinder, or Bumble, or Grindr, and you match with someone that you think is hot, and you’re just kind of like, “Maybe it’s fine if this one stranger comes over.” What do you say to that person?
Dr. Fauci replies,
You know, that’s tough. Because it’s what’s called relative risk. If you really feel that you don’t want to have any part of this virus, will you maintain six feet away, wear a mask, do all the things that we talk about in the guidelines? If you’re willing to take a risk—and you know, everybody has their own tolerance for risks—you could figure out if you want to meet somebody. And it depends on the level of the interaction that you want to have. If you’re looking for a friend, sit in a room and put a mask on, and you know, chat a bit. If you want to go a little bit more intimate, well, then that’s your choice regarding a risk.
April 16, 2020
“WTH? Fauci Says Tinder Hookups Okay During Coronavirus Lockdowns: “Your Choice Regarding a Risk”” by Kristinn Taylor for The Gateway Pundit
In this piece, Taylor briefly discusses the Vanity Fair interview above and adds,
Fauci has served since 1984 as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the NIH where he has focused on ending the HIV/AIDS pandemic, however after his 36 years at the helm there is still no vaccine.
April 17, 2020
“Antibody research indicates coronavirus may be far more widespread than known” by ABC News
The first large-scale community test of 3,300 people in Santa Clara County found that 2.5 to 4.2% of those tested were positive for antibodies -- a number suggesting a far higher past infection rate than the official count.
Based on the initial data, researchers estimate that the range of people who may have had the virus to be between 48,000 and 81,000 in the county of 2 million -- as opposed to the approximately 1,000 in the county's official tally at the time the samples were taken.
“Our findings suggest that there is somewhere between 50- and 80-fold more infections in our county than what’s known by the number of cases than are reported by our department of public health," Dr. Eran Bendavid, the associate professor of medicine at Stanford University who led the study, said in an interview with ABC News' Diane Sawyer.
June 7, 2020
“EXCLUSIVE: Coronavirus Mortality Study Shows: “Things Aren’t Much Worse Than a Bad Seasonal Flu”” by Joe Hoft for The Gateway Pundit
This report begins,
In a Gateway Pundit exclusive, a study shows that when looking at the mortality rates for all causes this flu season, things aren’t much worse than a bad flu.
Dr. Richard Cross, PhD, provided us the following information related to the China coronavirus. We have been given his permission to share sections of his report. . .
. . . and, after going into detail, the report concludes,
Overall, these numbers are not surprising. The China coronavirus impacted the US little, when taken into context with the nation’s overall mortality rates.
Social distancing doesn’t appear to have much of an impact on overall mortality. Finally, the actions of the governor and health officials in New York caused that area to explode with cases and death, especially when compared to the rest of the country.
June 18, 2020
“EXCLUSIVE: Coronavirus Mortality Study Continues to Confirm Overall Mortality Not Much Different Than a Bad Seasonal Flu” by Joe Hoft for The Gateway Pundit
This report begins. . .
On March 17, 2020, we were the first to identify that the WHO and the WHO’s Director General Tedros were pushing fraudulent numbers regarding the expected mortality of the coronavirus. The WHO over-stated the mortality rate of the virus by at least 20 times the actual number.
We then followed up with multiple posts on the subject. Next we reported on June 7, 2020, a study showed that when looking at the mortality rates for all causes this flu season, things aren’t much worse than a bad flu.
More current data today supports this observation.
Dr. Richard Cross, PhD, provided us the following information related to the China coronavirus. We have been given his permission to share sections of his report. . .
. . . before going into detail.
July 15, 2020
“EXCLUSIVE: Coronavirus Study Confirms, with Exception of New York and New Jersey, Overall Mortality Not Much Different Than a Bad Flu Season” by Joe Hoft for The Gateway Pundit
This report begins. . .
On March 17, 2020, we were the first to identify that the WHO and the WHO’s Director General Tedros were pushing fraudulent numbers regarding the expected mortality of the coronavirus. The WHO over-stated the mortality rate of the virus by at least 30 times.
We then followed up with multiple posts on the subject. We reported on June 7, 2020, a study showed that when looking at the mortality rates for all causes this flu season, things aren’t much worse than a bad flu.
We followed up on this study on June 18th with more current data supporting these results.
Today we have more information based on more current data that supports our initial observations – that current mortality rates from the China coronavirus are within expectations for an above-average flu season with the exception of NYC.
. . . before going into further depth.
August 8, 2020
“EXCLUSIVE: Killer Cuomo Not Only Murdered Thousands of Elderly In Homes, He Also Targeted Adult Care Facilities and Group Homes for People with Disabilities” by Joe Hoft for The Gateway Pundit
Back in May we reported that New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo, Health Commissioner Howard Zucker, MD and Executive Deputy Commissioner Sally Dreslin’s actions led to thousands of deaths in New York state. . .
As we reported in May, the reason for the Cuomo’s insane directives is related to money. . .
As we reported in May, the reason for the Cuomo’s insane directives is related to money:
In 2018, as Governor Andrew Cuomo faced a challenge to his reelection bid in the New York State Democratic primary, he got a last minute $1m cash infusion from the General New York Hospital Association (GNYHA)—a powerful NY healthcare industry group. On April 2, 2020, he repaid the favor when he quietly signed legislation shielding hospital and nursing home executives from any lawsuits stemming from the coronavirus outbreak. The clauses, inserted into the annual budget bill by Cuomo, gave blanket immunity protections for healthcare industry executive and administrators, the same individuals and institutions that have made a fortune moving sick Covid-19 patients to nursing homes.
The GNYHA gave to the Democrats an unheard of $3 million in the 2018 election cycle. Of this, Cuomo and his state party committee received close to $2.3m from various hospitals and nursing home industry donors. Governor Cuomo returned the favor with his directive forcing COVID-19 patients back into elderly homes. This directive provided a massive increase in revenues to organizations associated with the GNYHA who were paid handsomely for COVID patients. It was a bonanza for these entities.
The impact of this decision on elderly New Yorkers in nursing homes is the elderly in these nursing homes spread the disease and died. They died at the worst rate in the country and the world.
The Gateway Pundit reported numerous times that the mortality rates for the China coronavirus are not much worse than a bad flu season across the US with the exception of New York and New Jersey. The death rates in these areas are way above the rest of the country and the world for that matter. It is clear that Governor Cuomo’s policies in New York led to the unnecessary massive number of deaths in the state.
But today we have to report that it is even worse. Cuomo’s insane and deadly policies not only targeted nursing homes, they also targeted adult care facilities and group homes for people with disabilities.
The March 25 nursing home edict issued by the New York state (NYS) Department of Health (DOH) is NOT the only order NYS enacted, which mandated that Covid-19 infected patients got sent into congregate care facilities from hospitals. NYS ALSO sent COVID-19 infected patients into adult care facilities (ACFs) and into group homes managed under the NYS Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD).
ACFs serve older people who have medical needs, but do not require nursing home care. NYS OPWDD serves individuals who acquired a disability before the age of 22. Examples of covered disabilities include, but are not limited to: autism, mental retardation, brain injury, Down’s syndrome, cerebral palsy. Some of these individuals (who can be any age, including seniors, as long as they acquired their disability before age 22) are among New York’s most vulnerable.
There is also regulatory language which shows that the state was (and likely still is) allowing COVID-19 infected staff to continue to work with these individuals! Families have not been able to resume visitation rights and have not seen their child or adult child since March. This is an unbearable hardship for all concerned.
Here are links the directives in New York:
Enacted March 25, 2020, Nursing Homes: https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2020/03/doh_covid19-_nhadmissionsreadmissions_-032520.pdf
Enacted April 7, 2020, Adult Care Facilities:
https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2020/04/doh_covid19_acfreturnofpositiveresidents_040720.pdf(This URL no longer works. Here is the policy: https://web.archive.org/web/20200608212648/https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2020/04/doh_covid19_acfreturnofpositiveresidents_040720.pdf)
Enacted April 10, 2020, NYS OPWDD Certified Residential Facilities: https://opwdd.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2020/04/4.11.2020-opwdd_crfreturnfromhospital.pdf (In case the above has been deleted: https://web.archive.org/web/20200531135252/https://opwdd.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2020/04/4.11.2020-opwdd_crfreturnfromhospital.pdf)
There’s more important information in the article, it is recommended.
November 22, 2020
“Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis” by PMC/US National Library of Medicine/Med Hypotheses
This paper reads in part,
The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.
January, 2021
“Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis” by Baruch Vainshelboim for the National Library of Medicine
Abstract. . .
. . .Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ efficacy is lacking, adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established. Is has been hypothesized that facemasks have compromised safety and efficacy profile and should be avoided from use. .
Conclusion
The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.
February 22, 2021
“Remarks by President Biden on the More Than 500,000 American Lives Lost to COVID-19” by The White house
In this statement (supposedly) from Biden, it is claimed,
THE PRESIDENT: Each day, I receive a small card in my pocket that I carry with me in my schedule. It shows the number of Americans who have been infected by or died from COVID-19. Today, we mark a truly grim, heartbreaking milestone: 500,071 dead. That’s more Americans who have died in one year in this pandemic than in World War One, World War Two, and the Vietnam War combined. That’s more lives lost to this virus than any other nation on Earth.
However, as The Washington Post reports that this is false.
February 25, 2021
“A welcome casualty, for once, of the COVID-19 pandemic: flu” by The Associated Press for The Los Angeles Times
This report reads in part,
. . . Flu has virtually disappeared from the U.S., with reports coming in at far lower levels than anything seen in decades. . .
At Maine Medical Center in Portland, the state’s largest hospital, “I have seen zero documented flu cases this winter,” said Dr. Nate Mick, the head of the emergency department.
Ditto in Oregon’s capital city, where the outpatient respiratory clinics affiliated with Salem Hospital have not seen any confirmed flu cases. . .
The numbers are astonishing considering that flu has long been the nation’s biggest infectious-disease threat. In recent years, it has been blamed for 600,000 to 800,000 annual hospitalizations and 50,000 to 60,000 deaths.
Across the globe, flu activity has been at very low levels in China, Europe and elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. And that follows reports of little flu in South Africa, Australia and other countries during the Southern Hemisphere’s winter months of May through August. . .
April 13, 2021
The CDC put out “Joint CDC and FDA Statement on Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine” which reads, in part,
As of April 12, more than 6.8 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen ) vaccine have been administered in the U.S. CDC and FDA are reviewing data involving six reported U.S. cases of a rare and severe type of blood clot in individuals after receiving the J&J vaccine. In these cases, a type of blood clot called cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) was seen in combination with low levels of blood platelets (thrombocytopenia). All six cases occurred among women between the ages of 18 and 48, and symptoms occurred 6 to 13 days after vaccination. . .
FDA will review that analysis as it also investigates these cases. Until that process is complete, we are recommending a pause in the use of this vaccine out of an abundance of caution. . .
The White House officially published, “Statement from Jeff Zients, White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator on Johnson & Johnson Vaccine” which offers assurance that the above announcement by the CDC,
will not have a significant impact on our vaccination plan: Johnson & Johnson vaccine makes up less than 5 percent of the recorded shots in arms in the United States to date. Based on actions taken by the President earlier this year, the United States has secured enough Pfizer and Moderna doses . . .
. . . for everyone.
June 1, 2021
““I Do Not Recommend That You Wear a Mask” – Fauci Tells Woman Face Masks Do Not Protect Against Covid #FauciEmails” by Larry Johnson for The Gateway Pundit
This report reads, in part,
In an email dated February of 2020, Dr. Fauci is advising a woman not to wear a face mask because they don’t protect against the virus.
“Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection. The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you,” Fauci wrote. “I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location. Your instincts are correct, money is best spent on medical countermeasures such as diagnostics and vaccines.”
Recall, Fauci flip-flopped on mask-wearing several times throughout the pandemic.
On March, 8 2020 — Dr. Anthony Fauci advised healthy Americans against wearing face masks.
In April 2020 — The CDC said Americans should be wearing face masks for the COVID.
In May 2020 — Dr. Anthony Fauci and the New England Journal of Medicine have admitted that masks are little more than symbols. Virtue signaling.
On January 25, 2021 — Dr. Fauci told healthy Americans to wear two masks instead of one.
And then one week later…
On January 31, 2021 —Dr. Fauci backtracked on that insane idea of wearing multiple masks.
August 25, 2021
“New governor of New York adds 12,000 deaths to publicized COVID tally” by CBS News
“Governor Kathy Hochul Acknowledges 12,000 More Deaths in New York From COVID Than Previously Disclosed by Cuomo” by Joe Hoft for The Gateway Pundit
Newly sworn in Governor Kathy Hochul on Wednesday acknowledged nearly 12,000 more deaths in the state of New York that had been previously disclosed by Andrew Cuomo.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul promised more government transparency on her first day in office, and by day’s end her administration had quietly acknowledged nearly 12,000 more deaths in the state from COVID-19 than had been publicized by her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo.
New York now reports nearly 55,400 people have died of COVID-19 in New York, based on death certificate data submitted to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, up from about 43,400 that Cuomo had reported to the public as of Monday, his last day in office.
We reported more than a year ago that former Governor Cuomo instituted policies that ensured nursing homes millions in COVID funds and the resulting deaths of elderly New Yorkers. This was not shared by the mainstream media.
September 3, 2021
This report reads, in part,
More than 80% of Americans 16 and older have some level of immunity against the coronavirus, mostly through vaccination, a survey of blood donations indicates.
The survey, led by the CDC, also indicates that about twice as many people have been infected with the virus as have been officially counted. More than 39 million Americans have been diagnosed with coronavirus infection since the pandemic started in 2020.
December 29, 2021
When asked about a new CDC guideline beginning at 2:10 in the video in the tweet below, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky says testing at the end of quarantine is no longer needed because PCR tests can stay positive for up to 12 weeks or 3 months.
“So, what we do know is the PCR test after infection can be positive for up to 12 weeks so that is not going to be helpful,” Walensky says (and more).
“HUGE. CDC Withdraws Use of PCR Test for COVID and Finally Admits the Test Can Not Differentiate Between the Flu and COVID Virus” by Jim Hoft for The Gateway Pundit
This is BIG NEWS.
After December 31, 2021, the CDC will withdraw the emergency use authorization of the PCR test for COVID-19 testing. The CDC finally admitted the test does not differentiate between the flu and COVID virus.Via the CDC website:
In preparation for this change, CDC recommends clinical laboratories and testing sites that have been using the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR assay select and begin their transition to another FDA-authorized COVID-19 test. CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses. Such assays can facilitate continued testing for both influenza and SARS-CoV-2 and can save both time and resources as we head into influenza season.
This explains the disappearance of Flu cases in the US in 2020. It also inflated the COVID cases as Dr. Fauci and the DC elites knew would happen.
Here is the full article.
Via Europe Reloaded:
“QUIETLY WITHOUT MEDIA ATTENTION, THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (CDC) HAS WITHDRAWN THE PCR PROCESS AS A VALID TEST FOR DETECTING AND IDENTIFYING SARS-COV-2.
“After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only.”
The CDC admits that the PCR test cannot differentiate between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses.
I reported several months ago that the “health authorities” had reached this decision but were withholding its implementation until the end of 2021. They needed the fake test to keep the fear going in order to achieve as much vaccination, and therefore as much profit, as possible.
It is extraordinary that the CDC’s withdrawal of the test received no attention from the media or politicians.
Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of the PCR process said several years ago that “the PCR is a process. It does not tell you that you are sick.” It was never meant to be a Covid test.”
“CDC Director Walensky Says Testing at the End of Quarantine No Longer Needed Because PCR Tests Can Stay Positive For Up to 12 Weeks” by Cristina Laila for The Gateway Pundit
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky on Wednesday said testing at the end of quarantine is no longer needed because PCR tests can stay positive for up to 12 weeks.
The CDC has known about the faulty PCR tests from the beginning but they used the tests to destroy the economy and unseat Trump.
After December 31, 2021, the CDC will withdraw the use of the PCR test for COVID-19 testing. The CDC finally admitted the test does not differentiate between the flu and COVID virus.
This explains the disappearance of Flu cases in the US in 2020. It also inflated the COVID cases as Dr. Fauci and the DC elites knew would happen.
Walensky finally admitted what we have known to be true for nearly two years: Faulty PCR tests plus long quarantine times have created a “casedemic.”
“So, what we do know is the PCR test after infection can be positive for up to 12 weeks so that is not going to be helpful,” Walensky said Wednesday on “Good Morning America.”
She continued, “You’re not going to be transmitting during all of that period of time. We’ve seen that in study after study.”
Walensky also admitted the antigen test people were taking five days after Covid infection was faulty and therefore no longer needed.
“We followed numerous areas of science in making this important decision.” Watch our full interview with @CDCDirector Rochelle Walensky on the decision to cut the COVID-19 isolation period in half.A quick recap of the CDC’s sudden shift in the last 48 hours after Biden said “there is no federal solution to Covid”:
The CDC was wrong about Omicron and they suddenly shifted their guidelines on quarantine times in just a matter of 24 hours.
The CDC on Monday recommended shorter Covid isolation and quarantine time for all Americans.
The CDC made the decision to cut isolation time from 10 to 5 days in an effort to help Joe Biden and make sure there isn’t a total collapse of society under his watch.
The CDC withdrew the use of PCR tests for Covid and finally admitted the test cannot differentiate between Covid and the flu.
The CDC also admitted testing at the end of isolation is no longer needed because the PCR and antigen tests are faulty.
What else is the CDC lying about for political reasons?
January 2, 2022
“Dr. Gottlieb Now Admits Cloth Masks Don’t Provide Protection Against Covid-19 (VIDEO)” Cristina Laila for The Gateway Pundit
Now it’s okay to say this?
Dr. Scott Gottlieb – former FDA Commissioner-turned-member-of-board-of-directors of Pfizer on Sunday said what we’ve known all along: Cloth masks do not protect against Covid.
“Cloth masks aren’t going to provide a lot of protection. That’s the bottom line. This is an airborne illness, we now understand that” Gottlieb said to Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan.
How many immunocompromised people died because they were lied to about the efficacy of cloth masks?
How many people were banned from social media for saying cloth masks don’t provide protection against Covid?
VIDEO:
At this stage of the pandemic, cloth masks don’t provide much protection against COVID-19, according to @ScottGottliebMD. pic.twitter.com/pvX5McVnzX
— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) January 2, 2022
Scott Gottlieb also said that parents should decide if their children receive a COVID-19 booster.
“I certainly don’t think schools should be mandating boosters. I think this should be left up to the discretion of parents and their physicians. You know, it’s going to depend on the individual circumstance,” Gottlieb said during his interview on Face the Nation.
January 8, 2022
“HERE IT IS: New York Finally Releases its First Breakdown of People Hospitalized FOR Covid vs. People Hospitalized WITH Covid” Cristina Laila for The Gateway Pundit
The media on Friday went into overdrive with Covid fear porn and reported: “NY Covid Hospitalizations Top 11K as State Reports Highest Single-Day Deaths Since Mass Vaccine Rollout”
However, more than half of the ‘Covid hospitalizations’ reported in New York are not due to Covid.
New York state finally released its first breakdown of what share of people are hospitalized FOR Covid vs. how many people are hospitalized WITH Covid.
In NYC, 49% of people hospitalized were admitted for COVID, everyone else just happened to test positive.
New York Governor Hochul on Friday updated New Yorkers on the state’s progress combating Covid.
Below is data that shows how many hospitalized individuals who have tested positive for COVID-19 were admitted for COVID-19/COVID-19 complications and how many were admitted for non-COVID-19 conditions:
In NYC, 51% of patients who count as “hospitalized with COVID” were admitted for reasons other than COVID and then tested positive for it anyway.
In NYC, 51% of patients who count as “hospitalized with COVID” were admitted for reasons other than COVID and then tested positive for it anyway. https://t.co/QPNMPL69vQ
— Derek Thompson (@DKThomp) January 7, 2022
January 14, 2022
“CDC Updates Mask Guidance, Says N95 Masks Provide the Most Protection Against Covid-19” by Cristina Laila for The Gateway Pundit
We’re nearly two years into this mess and the CDC is just now admitting cloth masks don’t really work.
Although the CDC said N95 masks offer the best protection, they said people can still choose to wear a cloth mask if it fits properly.
“Masks and respirators (i.e., specialized filtering masks such as “N95s”) can provide different levels of protection depending on the type of mask and how they are used. Loosely woven cloth products provide the least protection, layered finely woven products offer more protection, well-fitting disposable surgical masks and KN95s offer even more protection, and well-fitting NIOSH-approved respirators (including N95s) offer the highest level of protection.” the CDC said.
The CDC said a shortage of N95s is no longer a concern and clarified that “surgical N95s” should be reserved for healthcare settings.
Biden on Thursday announced at-home Covid tests and face masks will be available to Americans “for free.”
The high-quality (highly uncomfortable) N95 masks are supposed to be thrown away after one use so who is going to be paying for the millions of masks that need to be replaced daily?
April 18, 2022
“Masks now optional for employees, customers following White House announcement” by Staff Writer for Delta Airlines
Effective immediately, masks are optional for all airport employees, crew members and customers inside U.S. airports and on board all aircraft domestically, as well as on most international flights..
…We are relieved to see the U.S. mask mandate lift to facilitate global travel as COVID-19 has transitioned to an ordinary seasonal virus.
Regarding the above, the Washington Post published, “Delta rewrites statement that called covid-19 ‘ordinary seasonal virus’” in which they wrote,
After backlash on social media, Delta Air Lines has walked back a comment falsely claiming that the coronavirus, which continues to account for more than 35,000 new cases per day, has become “an ordinary seasonal virus.”
The airline made the comment Monday in an announcement stating that it will no longer require masks — a move several U.S. airlines have made after a federal judge struck down mask mandates in public transportation settings.
Delta Air Lines rewrote the statement on Tuesday after a number of people — including public health experts — accused the carrier of spreading misinformation. The announcement now reads that the airline is “relieved” to see the mask mandate lifted as the coronavirus “transitions to a more manageable respiratory virus — with better treatments, vaccines and other scientific measures to prevent serious illness.”
April 19, 2022
April 19, 2022
“Correlation Between Mask Compliance and COVID-19 Outcomes in Europe” by Beny Spira for Cureus
. . . These findings indicate that countries with high levels of mask compliance did not perform better than those with low mask usage. . .
May 3, 2022
“How to Change Your Mind About COVID-19” by the Atlantic
In the spring of 2020, as Americans continued to proclaim their excitement for basketball games and parades, an ER doctor named Dylan Smith watched in dismay. Was everyone else ignoring reality? That March, New York City hesitated to close its schools during the city’s first COVID wave. Smith was horrified. A major pandemic was arriving, and softening its blow would require closing schools, which he believed was the best way to protect kids. “There were a lot of suggestions that kids would be these super–carrier vectors,” he says, “where they would come home and they would infect Mom and Dad and Grandma and Grandpa, and they would infect teachers at school.”
Now, two years later, Smith has changed his mind. He thinks schools should’ve reopened much sooner—by early 2021 at the latest. In other words, Smith admits to rethinking one of his positions on COVID-19, an act that sometimes feels as risky as telling 17th-century Florentines that Earth revolves around the sun. Not everyone will agree with Smith’s reassessment. But maybe we can learn something from his willingness to do it.
Smith started having second thoughts about school closures in the fall of 2020. Unlike in the early days, his hospital, by that point, had plenty of tests. Kids didn’t seem to be getting very sick from COVID, and they appeared to have no greater risk of spreading it than everyone else. “This idea that kids were going to be these crazy vectors was no longer being borne out,” he says.
Then, he began to see kids come into the hospital with mental-health emergencies at alarming rates. Kids were having panic attacks and trying to kill themselves; some were saying they were stressed out because they couldn’t see their friends. What he saw mirrors national trends: 37 percent of high schoolers have experienced poor mental health during the pandemic, according to a CDC survey.
But as in other parts of the country, pediatric psych wards in Northern Virginia were so full that the kids would remain in the ER for three or four days while the doctors tried to find an open psychiatric bed. “They were just sitting in an ER room,” Smith told me. A social worker would stop by each day to check on them, and someone would roll a TV console from room to room. In the summer of 2020, he started to see younger and younger kids involved in shootings and stabbings. (Gun violence among kids younger than 17 spiked nationally in 2020.)
It’s hard to know what to chalk all of these issues up to—the ennui of Zoom school; less structure and supervision; the pandemic that, in teenage years, has seemed to grind on forever. But Smith noticed that movie theaters and restaurants were opening back up. Schools seemed more important. After vaccines became widely available in 2021, Smith didn’t see any further justification for school closures. When people expressed doubts about school reopenings, he made his opinion clear: The science supported it.
Many of us have updated our beliefs about COVID at some point in the past two years, even if we haven’t said so publicly. Perhaps you started out worried that the coronavirus was easily transmitted via surfaces, then you discarded that fear upon further evidence. Maybe you are a major infectious-disease specialist who at first thought that young, healthy people didn’t need boosters, then decided they should get them after all. Maybe you committed the ultimate noble flip-flop: You overcame your skepticism of vaccines and opted to get vaccinated.
The words ultimate noble flip-flop links to an article titled “The Tucker Carlson Fans Who Got Vaxxed”. This article offers no scientific support for these so-called vaccinations for covid. This article continues,
Confessing that we’ve changed our opinion is hard, and not only because we don’t like feeling stupid, or looking stupid, or being exiled from certain circles of Twitter. “If I admit I’m wrong, then I have a harder time relying on my own judgment every time I make a decision or have an opinion,” says Adam Grant, an organizational psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania and the author, most recently, of Think Again. “I’m admitting that my convictions about the world are often incorrect, and that that makes the world a little bit scarier to live in.”
People get especially rigid in frightening and unpredictable situations. The pandemic has made many of us “seize and freeze in order to restore that sense of control,” Grant told me. The restaurants that are still using QR codes rather than paper menus—ostensibly for COVID reasons—are perhaps practicing a little terror management alongside their cost cutting.
Tenelle Porter, a psychologist at UC Davis, studies so-called intellectual humility, or the recognition that we have imperfect information and thus our beliefs might be wrong. Practicing intellectual humility, she says, is harder when you’re very active on the internet, or when you’re operating in a cutthroat culture. That might be why it pains me—a very online person working in the very competitive culture of journalism—to say that I was incredibly wrong about COVID at first. In late February 2020, when Smith was sounding the alarm among his co-workers, I had drinks with a colleague who asked me if I was worried about “this new coronavirus thing.”
“No!” I said. After all, I had covered swine flu, which blew over quickly and wasn’t very deadly.
A few days later, my mom called and asked me the same question. “People in Italy are staying inside their houses,” she pointed out.
“Yeah,” I said. “But SARS and MERS both stayed pretty localized to the regions they originally struck.”
Then, a few weeks later, when we were already working from home and buying dried beans, a friend asked me if she should be worried about her wedding, which was scheduled for October 2020.
“Are you kidding?” I said. “They will have figured out a vaccine or something by then.” Her wedding finally took place this month.
Smith talks like an ER doctor, giving you just enough information but not so much that it might slow him down. He’s 30 and has one of those apathetic buzz cuts that busy guys get. In our Zoom calls, his cat, Bucky, would periodically yowl in the background.
One thing that allows people like Smith to talk so openly about changing their mind is a loose attachment to their opinions. “Don’t let your ideas become part of your identity,” said Grant, the organizational psychologist.
For instance, at one point in our interview, I pointed out to Smith that teen mental health had been declining since before the pandemic. If anything, the pandemic has accelerated a teen-mental-health crisis that was already in motion. “So we’re applying causation where there was already a trend?” he asked. “That’s a valid point. People are going to choose the interpretation that fits with either their preconceived notions and their priors or is convenient to the position they want to hold.” Ultimately, he decided, if global crises and social media were already shredding teen mental health, the pandemic has “magnified the salience” of those two things.
Here, he’s using science-speak: acknowledging the contradicting evidence, evaluating the claim, and coming to the best conclusion you can under the circumstances. His is an attitude born of the emergency room, where you don’t always have a patient’s full test results before you have to treat them. He’s not saying it was wrong to close schools in 2020, just that as we accumulated more evidence and developed vaccines, the evidence pointed in the opposite direction.
According to Grant, the best way to keep an open mind in an unclear situation is to do just this: Think like a scientist. (The other, lesser ways to think are like a “preacher, prosecutor, and politician,” which are what they sound like.) The writer Julia Galef calls this “the scout mindset,” as opposed to the “soldier mindset.” The scout and scientist mindsets are approximately the same thing: “The motivation to see things as they are, not as you wish they were,” she writes in her eponymous book.
Thinking like a scientist, or a scout, means “recognizing that every single one of your opinions is a hypothesis waiting to be tested. And every decision you make is an experiment where you forgot to have a control group,” Grant said. The best way to hold opinions or make predictions is to determine what you think given the state of the evidence—and then decide what it would take for you to change your mind. Not only are you committing to staying open-minded; you’re committing to the possibility that you might be wrong.
Because the coronavirus has proved volatile and unpredictable, we should evaluate it as a scientist would. We can’t hold so tightly to prior beliefs that we allow them to guide our behavior when the facts on the ground change. This might mean that we lose our masks one month and don them again the next, or reschedule an indoor party until after case numbers decrease. It might mean supporting strict lockdowns in the spring of 2020 but not in the spring of 2022. It might even mean closing schools again, if a new variant seems to attack children. We should think of masks and other COVID precautions not as shibboleths but like rain boots and umbrellas, as Ashish Jha, the White House coronavirus-response coordinator, has put it. There’s no sense in being pro- or anti-umbrella. You just take it out when it’s raining.
Understanding when to abandon beliefs and when to recommit to them can help us ride out this pandemic and prepare for the next one. In a pandemic, we need “to be continually discovering and learning new things,” Porter told me. Still, she added, in a moment of intellectual humility: “I don’t know that we have hard data on that.”
Though people often deride those who change their mind as hypocrites, Grant and others think it’s a mark of integrity. It’s a sign that you’re not committed to an idea; you’re committed to the truth.
Smith didn’t publicly advocate for schools to reopen for in-person learning. He’s on Twitter, but he has few followers and rarely tweets. The only person who called him on his about-face was his wife. “I remember when you said that schools should close down and that people are being idiots for not closing schools down,” she told him.
“Yeah,” he said, evaluating the evidence. “You’re right.”
May 11, 2022
Since Covid-19 vaccines became widely available, there has been a wide gap in deaths between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. But recent Covid deaths are much more evenly split as highly transmissible variants take hold, vaccine protection wanes and booster uptake stagnates.
Breakthrough infections have become more common in recent months, putting vulnerable populations at increased risk of severe disease or death as more and more transmissible variants continue to spread. This seems to be especially true for seniors in the United States, who were among the first to get their initial vaccine series.
In the second half of September -- the height of the Delta wave -- less than a quarter of all Covid-19 deaths were among vaccinated people, federal data shows. But in January and February, amid the Omicron surge, more than 40% of Covid-19 deaths were among vaccinated people…
Of those vaccinated people who died from a breakthrough case of Covid-19 in January and February, less than a third had gotten a booster shot, according to a CNN analysis of data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The remaining two-thirds had only received their primary series.
Overall, the risk of dying from Covid-19 is still about five times higher for unvaccinated people than it is for those vaccinated with at least their primary series, CDC data shows.
But there's a significant disparity by level of vaccination, too: When adjusted for age, people vaccinated with only their initial series faced about three times greater risk of dying than those who also have their booster shot…
In the first year of the pandemic, before vaccines were available, the vast majority of Covid-19 deaths -- more than 80% -- were among seniors age 65 and older.
In 2021, especially during the Delta surge, the average age of people dying of Covid-19 shifted younger. Less than 60% of those who died in September were 65 or older, according to provisional data from the CDC.But 2022 has looked a lot more like 2020 and the first winter surge; so far this year, about three-quarters of all Covid-19 deaths have been among seniors.
Studies have suggested that Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness wanes over time. Data from the CDC published in January found that getting boosted was 90% effective at preventing hospitalizations during a period when Omicron was the dominant variant. In comparison, getting two shots was 57% effective when it had been at least six months past the second shot.
The vast majority of seniors completed their initial series more than a year ago now. And while booster uptake among seniors is better than other age groups, less than two-thirds of seniors have gotten a booster shot.
The CDC now recommends a second booster shot for this age group, too, and uptake is even lower.
CNN's analysis of CDC data from recent months suggests that disparities in risk among vaccinated people who are boosted compared with those who only have their initial series are most prominent among this vulnerable age group.
May 24, 2022
The CDC reported,
Approximately 1 in 5 adults ages 18+ have a health condition that migh be related to their previous COVID-19 illness, such as:
Nuerologic and mental health conditions
Kidney failure
Musculoskeletal conditions
Cardiovasular conditions
Respiratory conditions
Blood clots and vascular issues…
The report elaborated,
A growing number of persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, have reported persistent symptoms, or the onset of long-term symptoms, ≥4 weeks after acute COVID-19; these symptoms are commonly referred to as post-COVID conditions, or long COVID
It is important to not that they also state that,
vaccination status was not considered in this analysis
This was reported by mainstream sources as, for example, “More than 1 in 5 adult Covid survivors in the U.S. may develop long Covid, a C.D.C. study suggests” by Pam Belluck for The New York Times
July 12, 2022
“Orwellian: New Emails Confirm CDC Officials Scrambled to Change “Problematic” Definition of ‘Vaccine, Vaccinated’ Because Experimental mRNA Jab Did Not Qualify Under Old Definition” by The Gateway Pundit
In an interview on Fox, Dr. Fauci said (begining at 2:18),
“There’s no doubt that the vaccines themselves, particularly vaccine plus a booster at the appropriate time, when you become eligible for a booster, for more than one booster, if you’re over 50 years old, you get eligibility for two boosters. One of the things that’s clear from the data [is] that even though vaccines, because of the high degree of transmissibility of this virus, don’t protect overly well, as it were, against infection. They protect quite well against severe disease(s) leading to hospitalization and death. And I believe that’s the reason, Neil, why at my age, being vaccinated and boosted, even though it didn’t protect me against infection, I feel confident that it made a major role in protecting me from progressing to severe disease, and that’s very likely why I had a relatively mild [symptoms]. So my message to people who seem confused because people who are vaccinated get infected, the answer is, if you weren’t vaccinated, the likelihood you would have [a] more severe course than you did have when you were vaccinated.”
September 6, 2022
“MUST WATCH: ‘Do You Think This is Fair?’ – Moderna CEO and AstraZeneca Official Reveal Shocking Secrets to COVID Vaccines After Romanian MEP Cristian Terheș Grills Them” by Jim Hoft for The Gateway Pundit
On Monday, Romanian Member of the European Parliament Cristian Terheș grilled Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel and AstraZeneca executive vice-president Iskra Reic surrounding the safety and efficacy of the vaccines and overly secretive contracts.
Several concerns were asked by MEP Terhes of the executives, such as whether or not they had decoded the DNA of the COVID virus, why they did not take responsibility for the side effects from the vaccines, and when they would release the unredacted contracts with the European Commission.
The first set of questions was for both AstraZeneca and Moderna. Below are the questions asked by Terhes:
First question: I would like to know the date, if possible, when you decoded the entire DNA sequence of this virus or did you rely solely on the sequence provided by the Chinese government?
Second question: Have you tested whether the vaccine stops the spread of the virus or not? Because the data clearly shows that your products are not stopping the spread of this virus.
Third question: Have you had people die during the human trials, and if so, what was the disease they died from?
The second set of questions was directed to Moderna CEO Bancel, below is the excerpt:
You stated here that you relied on the sequence provided to you by the Chinese government when you developed your vaccine. I have here an answer from EMA, which shows for every vaccine the kind of tests that were done. So in the case of Moderna, for example, you provided data showing that you tested these vaccines since 2017, 2018, and 2019. So how are you able to test these vaccines back then when we found out about this virus in December of 2019?
The contract you mentioned here that there are some secrets or some confidential information in these contracts that should protect your interests. Now, the question that I addressed to you is, what about the interests of us and the interests of the European citizens?
Because this is how some of the pages from the contract between Moderna and the European Commission is showing. So I’m asking you, do you think this is fair to all of us to talk about these vaccines, to talk about boosters, to talk about medical products when we don’t know the clauses of these contracts? So the direct question to you, Mr. Bonsel, is when are you going to fully publish the contracts that you have both with the European Commission and with the member states of the European Union?
Another question, the issue of liabilities. You were asked by our colleagues here about the liabilities and you avoided to answer this question. So my question is why are you pushing the liabilities on the state and on the people who receive these vaccines? I think I might have adverse effect, why do you get all the profits?
Nevertheless, the bivalent boosters. This is the last question. You just stated here that these boosters were requested by the US government who also approved the boosters without trials on humans. So I’m asking you, do you think this is fair? Do you think we can go and ask the European citizens to be vaccinated with some medical products that were not properly tested or not at all tested in humans?
In their responses regarding liability, executives of Moderna and AstraZeneca said that they produced the vaccines at the request of the states and governments, who asked them to make the vaccines quickly, therefore they sought protection from them for payment of possible damages and compensations, according to MEP’s Facebook post.
“On liability for adverse effects, as all manufacturers have done, we wanted, governments wanted quick approval of a vaccine. And so for a conditional approval, it was important to give us some guarantees in terms of [compensation/damages], because we cannot have our cake and eat it too. They wanted the vaccine quickly. They didn’t give the manufacturers time to have long-term studies because of the nature of a pandemic,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel answered the question MEP Cristian Terheș.
“The liability and indemnification clause was discussed and agreed upon with many governments around the world because everyone wanted to see how we could speed up the production and delivery of vaccines. And, again, as I mentioned earlier, this is considered to be standard practice in emergency situations, and equally [the practice] that protects and supports everyone to move forward with the greatest speed and to do the best they can in terms of production and manufacturing [vaccines],” AstraZeneca executive vice president Iskra Reic answered the same question.
Bancel also admitted that Moderna used the sequence published by the Chinese government online and tested by many scientists in academic labs and government labs for the design of the vaccine.
Back in March, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla admitted during his interview with WaPo that the “mRNA vaccine” technology was not sufficiently proven when they launched it. He said the experts “convinced him” but he wasn’t sure. He said they’ve been working for the mRNA since 2018.
“I was surprised when they suggested to me that this is the way to go. And I questioned it, and I asked them to justify how can you say something like that? But they came and they were very, very convinced that this is the right way to go. They felt that the two years of work on mRNA since 2018, together with BioNTech to develop a flu vaccine make them believe that the technology is mature and we are at the cusp of delivering a product. So they convinced me, I followed my instinct that they know what they are saying. They’re very good. And we made this very difficult decision,” Bourla explained.
September 29, 2022
“LA County Health Services Director Says 90% of Covid Positive Patients Were Not Hospitalized for Covid-19” by The Gateway Pundit
On Tuesday, Dr. Christina Ghaly, the Director of the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (DHS), revealed that 90% of COVID-positive patients in four DHS hospitals were not hospitalized for COVID-19 contrary to previous reports.. . .
According to Ghaly, PCR results tend to give false positives for a couple of months.
“If you recall, we do test everyone on admission to the hospital for COVID. We used a PCR test, and because of that, there’s a lagging positivity given that the PCR test often remains positive for a couple of months, and it will take time for the trendline to decline to the point where it again mirrors the general population,” she said. . .
Kathryn Ann Barger-Leibrich, serving as a Republican member of the LA County Board of Supervisors, asked Dr. Ghaly, “what percentage were admitted for COVID and what percentage were admitted and then tested positive for COVID?”
Dr. Ghaly responded, “This is for the four DHS hospitals where we do the manual chart reviews to look at that. 10% are admitted to the hospital for COVID, and 90% are there for incidental findings. But they’re primarily there for another reason.”
LA County Health Services director Dr Christina Ghaly tells supervisor Kathryn Barger that 90% of their Covid positive patients were not hospitalized for CovidThe CDC has known about the faulty PCR tests from the beginning, but they still use it to test for COVID-19.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky last December said testing at the end of quarantine is no longer needed because PCR tests can stay positive for up to 12 weeks or 3 months, as reported by The Gateway Pundit.
“So, what we do know is the PCR test after infection can be positive for up to 12 weeks so that is not going to be helpful,” Walensky said on “Good Morning America.”. . .
Watch the video below:
September 30, 2022
“Australia ends Covid isolation rule as it moves beyond 'emergency phase'“ by The BBC
This regards a change that would take effect on October 14.
October 21, 2022
“Effect of Ivermectin vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19A Randomized Clinical Trial” by Susanna Naggie, MD, MHS1,2; David R. Boulware, MD, MPH3; Christopher J. Lindsell, PhD4; et al for JAMA Network (Journal of the American Medical Association)
Question Does ivermectin, 400 μg/kg, daily for 3 days, compared with placebo, shorten symptom duration among adult (≥30 years) outpatients in the US with symptomatic mild to moderate COVID-19?…
Results…The median time to recovery was 12 days (IQR, 11-13) in the ivermectin group and 13 days (IQR, 12-14) in the placebo group...The most common serious adverse events were COVID-19 pneumonia (ivermectin [n = 5]; placebo [n = 7]) and venous thromboembolism (ivermectin [n = 1]; placebo [n = 5]).
This is a far cry from the view that one should not take ivermectin unless one is a horse with worms.
Though CNBC would report these results, they would bury it in an article headlined, “Ivermectin — a drug once touted as a Covid treatment by conservatives — doesn’t improve recovery much, clinical trial finds” by Spencer Kimball (October 24, 2022)
Now, wait; if covid is so severe, wouldn’t a day’s difference matter a lot? Also, if it is so severe, why do people who were given nothing but a placebo recover in an average of 13 days?
October 24, 2022
“Test scores show historic COVID setbacks for kids across US” by Collin Binkley for the Associated Press
The COVID-19 pandemic spared no state or region as it caused historic learning setbacks for America’s children, erasing decades of academic progress and widening racial disparities, according to results of a national test that provide the sharpest look yet at the scale of the crisis.
In other words, the lock downs caused educational setbacks for America’s children, erasing decades of academic progress and widening racial disparities.
“COVID-19 and Mental Health: Global Consequences and CAM Approaches” by Psychiatric Times Vol 39, Issue 10
As the virus that causes COVID-19 illness (SARS-CoV-2) continues to mutate, we continue to see high rates of COVID-19 illness with concomitant neuropsychiatric symptoms including depressed mood, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and other mental health problems. Medical and psychiatric comorbidity are expected to have serious long-term consequences for global public health and mental health. . .
Millions of individuals experience depression, anxiety, and worsening or new substance use disorders (SUDs) associated with the prolonged social isolation associated of the pandemic.2 A systematic review of studies published between January 1, 2020, and January 29, 2021, estimated that an additional 53 million cases of major depressive disorder (MDD) (an increase of 27%) and an additional 76 million cases of anxiety disorders (an increase of 25%) globally.2
The mental health impact of the pandemic has been greater among women and younger individuals than among men and older individuals. . .
The impact of the pandemic on the mental health of children and adolescents has been especially severe. . .
October 26, 2022
In “For those still trying to duck covid, the isolation is worse than ever” The Washington Post takes the position that,
it’s time to throw caution to the wind and masks in the garbage. . .
The available vaccines and medicines have made things safe enough, for enough people, that we can finally close the book on 2020 and start partying — or, at least, living — like it’s 2019 again.
October 27, 2022
“An Analysis of the Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic Interim Report” by the Senate Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions Minority Oversight Staff
substantial evidence demonstrating that the COVID-19 pandemic was the result of a research-related incident has emerged…
…This investigation’s interim report concludes that SARS-CoV-2 and the resulting COVID-19 global pandemic was, more likely than not, the result of a research-related incident associated with coronavirus research in Wuhan, China.
“Senate HELP Committee Minority Oversight Staff Releases Interim Report Analyzing Origins of COVID-19 Pandemic” by H.E.L.P. (The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions)
Substantial evidence suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic was the result of a research-related incident associated with a laboratory in Wuhan, China.
“Biden still clings to his deliberate COVID contradictions” by The Washington Examiner
This piece states,
The pandemic, of course, is over. It has been for some time. The only people who have not returned to normal life are COVID-panicked liberals who will continue masking and quarantining until the end of time and children who have the displeasure of living under authoritarian Democrats in cities such as New York City.
October 28, 2022
“Massive learning setbacks show COVID's sweeping toll on kids” by Bianca Vazquez Toness and Sharon Lurye, AP Education Writers
The COVID-19 pandemic devastated poor children’s well-being, not just by closing their schools, but also by taking away their parents’ jobs, sickening their families and teachers, and adding chaos and fear to their daily lives.
The scale of the disruption to American kids’ education is evident in a district-by-district analysis of test scores shared exclusively with The Associated Press. The data provide the most comprehensive look yet at how much schoolchildren have fallen behind academically.
The analysis found the average student lost more than half a school year of learning in math and nearly a quarter of a school year in reading – with some district averages slipping by more than double those amounts, or worse.
Online learning played a major role, but students lost significant ground even where they returned quickly to schoolhouses, especially in math scores in low-income communities.
“When you have a massive crisis, the worst effects end up being felt by the people with the least resources,” said Stanford education professor Sean Reardon, who compiled and analyzed the data along with Harvard economist Thomas Kane.
Some educators have objected to the very idea of measuring learning loss after a crisis that has killed more than 1 million Americans. Reading and math scores don’t tell the entire story about what’s happening with a child, but they’re one of the only aspects of children’s development reliably measured nationwide…
In Memphis, Tennessee, where nearly 80% of students are poor, students lost the equivalent of 70% of a school year in reading and more than a year in math, according to the analysis. The district’s Black students lost a year-and-one-third in math and two-thirds of a year in reading…
The amount of learning that students lost – or gained, in rare cases – over the last three years varied widely. Poverty and time spent in remote learning affected learning loss, and learning losses were greater in districts that remained online longer, according to Kane and Reardon’s analysis. But neither was a perfect predictor of declines in reading and math.
In some districts, students lost more than two years of math learning, according to the data. Hopewell, Virginia, a school system of 4,000 students who are mostly low-income and 60% Black, showed an average loss of 2.29 years of school…
The district began offering in-person learning in March 2021, but three-quarters of students remained home. “There was so much fear of the effects of COVID,” he said. “Families here were just hunkered down.”
When schools resumed in the fall, the virus swept through Hopewell, and half of all students stayed home either sick or in quarantine, McClain said. A full 40% of students were chronically absent, meaning they missed 18 days or more.
The pandemic brought other challenges unrelated to remote learning.
In Rochester, New Hampshire, students lost nearly two years in reading even though schools offered in-person learning most of the 2020-2021 school year. It was the largest literacy decline among all the districts in the analysis.
The 4,000-student district, where most are white and nearly half live in poverty, had to close schools in November 2020 when too few teachers could report for work, Superintendent Kyle Repucci said. Students studied online until March 2021, and when schools reopened, many chose to stay with remote learning, Repucci said…
In Los Angeles, school leaders shuttered classrooms for the entire 2020-2021 academic year, yet students held their ground in reading.
It’s hard to tell what explains the vastly different outcomes in some states. In California, where students on average stayed steady or only marginally declined, it could suggest that educators there were better at teaching over Zoom or the state made effective investments in technology, Reardon said.
But the differences could also be explained by what happened outside of school. “I think a lot more of the variation has to do with things that were outside of a school’s control,” Reardon said…
The implications for kids’ futures are alarming: Lower test scores are predictors of lower wages, plus higher rates of incarceration and teen pregnancy, Kane said.
It doesn’t take Harvard research to convince parents whose children are struggling to read or learn algebra that something needs to be done…
“U.S. government to test Pfizer's Paxlovid for long COVID” by Julie Steenhuysen for Reuters
CHICAGO, Oct 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. National Institutes of Health's $1 billion RECOVER Initiative has picked Pfizer Inc's (PFE.N) antiviral drug Paxlovid as the first treatment it will study in patients with long COVID, organizers of the study said on Thursday.
The complex medical condition involves more than 200 symptoms ranging from exhaustion and cognitive impairment to pain, fever and heart palpitations that can last for months and even years following a COVID-19 infection…
The Duke Clinical Research Institute is supervising the study, which is scheduled to start on Jan. 1.
The trial will investigate a leading theory of the cause of long COVID, which holds that fragments of the virus persist in the tissues of some individuals, causing prolonged symptoms…
Estimates of long COVID prevalence range from 5 to 50% of people who have had a COVID-19 infection. It affects people who have had both mild and severe COVID-19, including children, and can be severe enough to keep people out of work.
Pfizer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
October 28, 2022
CNBC complains that “Americans Are Over Covid” in their piece “Americans Are Over Covid — But Covid's Not Over You” wherein they write,
We hear it all the time: Americans are done with Covid. But the pandemic keeps reminding us: Covid isn’t done with you. It’s a message the Biden administration and the CDC needs to be sending…so why aren’t they?
“The last of the Covid vaccine mandates” by Politico
Once touted by federal and state officials as essential to ending the Covid-19 pandemic, vaccine mandates are fading away.
October 29, 2022
“BREAKING: Marxist Medical Boards Strip Top Dr. Peter McCullough’s Medical Credentials for Speaking the Truth About COVID Vaccine” by The Gateway Pundit
One of the most respected doctors in the world and top cardiologists and epidemiologist in the country had his license revoked for speaking the truth about the danger of COVID vaccines.
Dr. McCullough is an Internist, Cardiologist, and Epidemiologist who testified to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in November 2020.
Dr. McCullough is a cardiologist and was vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center and a professor at Texas A&M University. McCullough is editor-in-chief of the journals Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine and Cardiorenal Medicine. He was and is an advocate for early COVID-19 treatment that included hydroxychloroquine.
He’s been right about everything throughout the pandemic.
He is one of the first doctors who sounded the alarm on the Covid-19 vaccines and explained how they all make the dangerous Wuhan spike protein.
“It’s alarming right now – we have had over 4400 deaths and 14,000 hospitalizations….That is probably only the tip of the iceberg,” Dr. McCullough said in an interview with Rose Unplugged on 1320 AM WJAS.
He said pregnant women, women of child-bearing years, children or healthy people under 50 should not get the Covid jab.
Dr. McCullough explained how all Covid-19 vaccines produce the dangerous Wuhan spike protein and what that does to a person’s body. . .
On Saturday, Dr. McCullough informed Steve Kirsch that he was terminated as the Editor-In-Chief of Cardiorenal Medicine and Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. His medical credentials was also stripped by the medical boards.
From Steve Kirsch Substack:
I was terminated as the Editor-In-Chief of Cardiorenal Medicine and Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine after years of service and rising impact factors. There was no phone call, no board meeting, no due process. Just e-mails or certified letters. Powerful dark forces are working in academic medicine to expunge any resistance to the vax.
Yesterday I was stripped of my board certifications in Internal Medicine and Cardiology after decades of perfect clinical performance, board scores, and hundreds of peer reviewed publications.
None of this will stop until there is a “needle in every arm.”
October 31, 2022
“LET’S DECLARE A PANDEMIC AMNESTY - We need to forgive one another for what we did and said when we were in the dark about COVID” by the Atlantic
In April 2020, with nothing else to do, my family took an enormous number of hikes. We all wore cloth masks that I had made myself. We had a family hand signal, which the person in the front would use if someone was approaching on the trail and we needed to put on our masks. Once, when another child got too close to my then-4-year-old son on a bridge, he yelled at her “SOCIAL DISTANCING!”
These precautions were totally misguided. In April 2020, no one got the coronavirus from passing someone else hiking. Outdoor transmission was vanishingly rare. Our cloth masks made out of old bandanas wouldn’t have done anything, anyway. But the thing is: We didn’t know.
I have been reflecting on this lack of knowledge thanks to a class I’m co-teaching at Brown University on COVID. We’ve spent several lectures reliving the first year of the pandemic, discussing the many important choices we had to make under conditions of tremendous uncertainty.
Some of these choices turned out better than others. To take an example close to my own work, there is an emerging (if not universal) consensus that schools in the U.S. were closed for too long: The health risks of in-school spread were relatively low, whereas the costs to students’ well-being and educational progress were high. The latest figures on learning loss are alarming. But in spring and summer 2020, we had only glimmers of information. Reasonable people—people who cared about children and teachers—advocated on both sides of the reopening debate.
Another example: When the vaccines came out, we lacked definitive data on the relative efficacies of the Johnson & Johnson shot versus the mRNA options from Pfizer and Moderna. The mRNA vaccines have won out. But at the time, many people in public health were either neutral or expressed a J&J preference. This misstep wasn’t nefarious. It was the result of uncertainty.
Obviously some people intended to mislead and made wildly irresponsible claims. Remember when the public-health community had to spend a lot of time and resources urging Americans not to inject themselves with bleach? That was bad. Misinformation was, and remains, a huge problem. But most errors were made by people who were working in earnest for the good of society.
Given the amount of uncertainty, almost every position was taken on every topic. And on every topic, someone was eventually proved right, and someone else was proved wrong. In some instances, the right people were right for the wrong reasons. In other instances, they had a prescient understanding of the available information.
The people who got it right, for whatever reason, may want to gloat. Those who got it wrong, for whatever reason, may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn’t accord with the facts. All of this gloating and defensiveness continues to gobble up a lot of social energy and to drive the culture wars, especially on the internet. These discussions are heated, unpleasant and, ultimately, unproductive. In the face of so much uncertainty, getting something right had a hefty element of luck. And, similarly, getting something wrong wasn’t a moral failing. Treating pandemic choices as a scorecard on which some people racked up more points than others is preventing us from moving forward.
We have to put these fights aside and declare a pandemic amnesty. We can leave out the willful purveyors of actual misinformation while forgiving the hard calls that people had no choice but to make with imperfect knowledge. Los Angeles County closed its beaches in summer 2020. Ex post facto, this makes no more sense than my family’s masked hiking trips. But we need to learn from our mistakes and then let them go. We need to forgive the attacks, too. Because I thought schools should reopen and argued that kids as a group were not at high risk, I was called a “teacher killer” and a “génocidaire.” It wasn’t pleasant, but feelings were high. And I certainly don’t need to dissect and rehash that time for the rest of my days.
Moving on is crucial now, because the pandemic created many problems that we still need to solve.
Student test scores have shown historic declines, more so in math than in reading, and more so for students who were disadvantaged at the start. We need to collect data, experiment, and invest. Is high-dosage tutoring more or less cost-effective than extended school years? Why have some states recovered faster than others? We should focus on questions like these, because answering them is how we will help our children recover.
Many people have neglected their health care over the past several years. Notably, routine vaccination rates for children (for measles, pertussis, etc.) are way down. Rather than debating the role that messaging about COVID vaccines had in this decline, we need to put all our energy into bringing these rates back up. Pediatricians and public-health officials will need to work together on community outreach, and politicians will need to consider school mandates.
The standard saying is that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. But dwelling on the mistakes of history can lead to a repetitive doom loop as well. Let’s acknowledge that we made complicated choices in the face of deep uncertainty, and then try to work together to build back and move forward.
,