Search Results

The primary shortcoming of using or relying on CDC data is that it’s the CDC’s data. Under normal circumstances, elementary common sense would foreclose even contemplating datasets curated, managed and controlled by a rabidly partisan and pathologically dishonest organization. Garbage in = garbage out, as programmers like to put it. Alas, in one of the cruelest ironies of modern-day society, the Nation’s mortality data is firmly ensconced under the masterful, expert aegis of the world’s preeminent propaganda organization.

What follows is the current totality of the body of evidence (available comparative studies and high-level pieces of evidence, reporting, and discussion) on COVID-19 lockdowns, masks, school closures, and mask mandates. There is no conclusive evidence supporting claims that any of these restrictive measures worked to reduce viral transmission or deaths. Lockdowns were ineffective, school closures were ineffective, mask mandates were ineffective, and masks themselves were and are ineffective and harmful.

This follow-up chart is the most updated and comprehensive library list of 91 of the highest-quality, complete, most robust scientific studies and evidence reports/position statements on natural immunity as compared to the COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity and allow you to draw your own conclusion.

In this essay, written from a broad economics perspective that incorporates an understanding of incentives, institutions, information, and power, we address the following three broad questions: (1) What were the roles and responsibilities of our institutions when faced with a threat like Covid? (2) What were the costs and benefits of the response that transpired? (3) What is the need and potential for institutional and social reform?

The evidence accumulated very early on in the pandemic that the use of sequenced multi-drug therapeutics (SMDT) under physician guidance was beneficial and that some medications were safe and effective. We refer to repurposed therapeutics that have been regulatory approved and have been used in some instances for decades for other illnesses.

The governments have been saying we have to protect the elderly by isolating them and preventing them from being infected. And we proved using standard epidemiological models with all the possible parameters that the opposite is true. So the government has been truly lying on that.

The use of universal lockdowns in the event of the appearance of a new pathogen has no precedent. It has been a science experiment in real-time, with most of the human population used as lab rats. The question is whether and to what extent lockdowns worked.

We have already seen many instances during the Covid pandemic where despite assurances to the contrary, things did not evolve as expected. It seems clear that we simply don’t know what is going to happen next, or what the consequences of our actions and choices will be. What is perhaps most troubling is that this acknowledgement has been almost completely absent from the rhetoric of our leaders and decision makers. It does not show ignorance or weakness to be honest about this reality, it shows wisdom and discernment.

An American journalist once wrote that unaccounted excess deaths were related to “the circumstances of the pandemic.” These circumstances have been created by officials in Israel and elsewhere: panic, fearmongering, lockdowns, disruption of normal life, coerced vaccination — with all of their consequences, including death. None of that happened in a previous pandemic

The entire proposition is just silly. The concept of innate differences in populations is a well established consideration for those who study population health. One might think that our nations most prestigious newspaper might require their top writer to consult with population health experts or even an actuarial scientist in order to obtain a more informed perspective and give the data more rigorous analysis.

If the vaccines were highly effective against death, why was excess mortality in Denmark so much higher than in the previous flu year? Why was it so much higher than excess mortality in Sweden in the first pandemic year — without vaccines — when the virus was much more virulent than Omicron? Unlike Sweden, there was no “mortality deficit” to account for.

The inference from the lengthy paper is the opposite of what many would have thought: the greater the mitigation efforts in US nursing homes, the higher the death toll during the pandemic. Those efforts not only largely failed to reduce Covid mortality, but they also added non-Covid deaths. The more they tried to mitigate, the worse the outcome was.