Why in Chile Both Covid Vax and Cases up

coronavirus-data-explorer vax apr 19

As the chart above shows Chile has vaccinated about 2/3 of its population, a world leader in that regard.  Some are puzzled how that nation would at the same time have a surge in confirmed Covid cases.  Let’s see how Chile compares on the cases metric in chart below

coronavirus-data-explorer April 19

Chile has seen a rise in cases, though still in the middle of the pack of nations shown.  The screen grab below allows a clearer picture of the Chilean experience.

coronavirus-data-explorer Chile April 19

Thomas Lifson explains what is going on in Chile in his American Thinker article COVID surging in Chile despite high rate of vaccination.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The headline and tone of this article from CNBC are alarming: “Chile has one of the world’s best vaccination rates. COVID is surging there anyway.” One must read 13 paragraphs into the story to begin to solve what looks like a mystery.

Chile’s vaccination campaign against the coronavirus has been one of the world’s quickest and most extensive, but a recent surge in infections has sparked concern beyond its borders.

Almost 40% of the South American country’s total population have now received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, according to statistics compiled by Our World in Data, reflecting one of the highest vaccination rates in the world.

Chile is an impressive country in many respects. Yet:

The number of daily cases in Chile rose to a record high on April 9, climbing above 9,000 for the first time since the pandemic began and significantly higher than the peak of almost 7,000 recorded last summer.

CNBC’s writer Sam Meredith offers possible explanations:

Health experts say the country’s latest surge in cases has, in part, been driven by more virulent strains of the virus, a relaxation of public health measures, increased mobility and defiance of simple precautions — such as physical distancing and wearing a mask.

These are all Fauci favorites. Live in fear of new strains (and be prepared for masks and lockdowns forever because viruses mutate, you see). For goodness’s sake, isolate from each other, and don’t let herd immunity develop (as it seems to have done in free states like Texas and Florida and in Sweden). And above all, wear your obedience mask and live in a world without smiles.

Oh, yes: Cut yourself off from the rest of the world. Right-wing Chile didn’t, and look what happened:

Chile’s center-right government, led by President Sebastian Pinera, had ordered the closure of the country’s borders from March to November of 2020, albeit with a few exceptions, before the decision was taken to reopen them to international passengers late last year.

Finally, after all these possibilities have been mentioned, we get to what’s really going on:
There have also been questions raised about vaccine efficacy, given Chile’s widespread use of CoronaVac,  the coronavirus vaccine manufactured by Chinese firm Sinovac.

Questions raised, eh?   A few paragraphs later, we learn:

Late-stage data of China’s COVID vaccines remain unpublished, and available data of the CoronaVac vaccine is varied. Brazilian trials found the vaccine to be just over 50% effective, significantly less effective than the likes of Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Oxford-AstraZeneca, while Turkish researchers have reported efficacy as high as 83.5%. (snip)

A study published by the University of Chile earlier this month reported that CoronaVac was 56.5% effective two weeks after the second doses were administered in the country. Crucially, however, they also reported that one dose was only 3% effective.

“This would help to explain why Chile — with one of the world’s most robust vaccine rollouts but 93% of the doses coming from China — has experienced a simultaneous significant expansion in cases, and a much slower decline in hospitalizations and deaths compared to the early rollouts in Israel, the United Kingdom and the United States,” Ian Bremmer, president of risk consultancy Eurasia Group, said in a research note.

Nowhere in the long article, which suggests that “‘comprehensive strategies’ to speed up the rollout of vaccines and stop transmission by using proven public health measures” may be necessary, is there any mention at all of therapeutic approaches using hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin in combination with zinc and vitamins, which has proven highly effective in arresting the development of cases, and even in prophylactically protecting people. Both drugs have been taken by millions of people for many years with very few reported adverse reactions.

Isn’t it curious that this obvious approach is not worth mentioning?

American Covid Phobia

screen-shot-2021-04-19-at-5.48.17-pm-998x649-1

Kylee Zempel explains in her Federalist article Americans Are Irrationally Afraid Of COVID Because The Ruling Class Has Demonized Risk

‘Why do so many vaccinated people remain fearful?’ David Leonhardt asks with a straight face in Monday’s New York Times newsletter.
Let me tell you.

Leonhardt opens with a story about judge and Yale University law professor Guido Calabresi, who for 30 years has been telling his students a tale he crafted about a god who came to society to propose an invention that would make their lives better in nearly every way. It would afford them extra quality time with loved ones and enable them to see sights and perform tasks they wouldn’t otherwise be able to do.

The cost? The god would select 1,000 young people to strike dead.

The professor would then pose the question to his students: Would you take the deal? The students’ answer would almost always be no. “What’s the difference between this and the automobile?” Calabresi would ask, revealing the moral of the story.

Leonhardt concludes in the Times that we accept the cost of automobile fatalities because it has always been an aspect of our lives. A world without cars and thus the risks they carry is a world we really just can’t imagine for ourselves. Our comfortability with vehicles, Leonhardt says, is an example of human irrationality when calculating risks. While people tend to focus on minuscule risks such as airplane crashes or shark attacks, we gloss over much riskier activities such as driving.

“One way for a risk to become salient is for it to be new,” Leonhardt says, likening the salient risk of Calabresi’s fable to COVID-19. “That’s a core idea behind Calabresi’s fable. He asks students to consider whether they would accept the cost of vehicle travel if it did not already exist. That they say no underscores the very different ways we treat new risks and enduring ones.”

Americans Used to Embrace Risk

Leonhardt’s assessment might be true to an extent. But the fact is that vehicles, which have always been risky, do exist, meaning that Americans at one point were willing to take that risk. At the turn of the 20th century, Calabresi’s fable wasn’t a fable at all. It was a reality, and Americans decided the risk was worth taking.

Thus the explanation can’t just be that we assign different treatments to “new risks and enduring ones.” It’s that Americans of today are orders of magnitude more risk-averse than our predecessors, and thus are more paralyzed and less productive. For a virus, Americans have chosen to cater to the most irrationally COVID-terrified voices among us, making us not only more paralyzed and less productive, but also increasingly less free.

COVID Terror Isn’t ‘Natural’

That’s where Leonhardt’s analysis almost completely diverges from reality. Irrational fears about COVID-19 are not “natural,” nor are they merely the result of salience and newness. It isn’t inherent in the human spirit to be terrified of things that pose such little risk for so much of the population.

These irrational fears are manufactured. They’re instilled by folks like Anthony Fauci, who said just last week that “No, it’s still not OK,” when asked whether vaccinated or unvaccinated Americans should be eating and drinking inside at restaurants and bars. Infection counts are still “disturbingly high,” he said, again fueling the fire of illogical COVID terror.

“Even after you’re vaccinated, social distancing, wearing masks are going to be essential,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki warned in February. Meanwhile, corporations and the federal government are teaming up to make you prove you’re not unclean with a “vaccine passport” so you don’t pose an existential threat to your fellow citizens, blue-state leaders and bureaucrats are double-masking even after they’re vaccinated and saying “it is possible” we’ll still be wearing face masks in 2022, and Biden’s COVID adviser is saying the pandemic in the United States is still a “Category 5 hurricane” even after millions of Americans have been inoculated.

So no, it isn’t “natural” that the vaccinated continue to cling to irrational fears. It’s a direct result of scare-mongering and lies and an unwillingness to do any type of risk assessment until a Pfizer cocktail is coursing through one’s veins. It’s the predictable outcome after a year of terrifying rhetoric and fudged data, in which The New York Times itself played a role (see here, here, here, here, here, and here) — and continues to.

stg041321dapr20210411104504

Resist the Culture of Fear

Either the Times author is too simple to connect those dots, or he’s part of the media and “expert” ruling class that still wants Americans to buy into their social experiment so they can keep normal citizens on a short leash as they craft the culture they desire of herders and sheep, haves and have-nots, and engineers and cogs.

Leonhardt is right about one thing: Most COVID fears are completely irrational. But The New York Times doesn’t get credit for pointing this out more than a year after the world went into lockdown and lives have been destroyed. When conservatives and Americans of goodwill tried to make risk assessments early on, they were excoriated by the corporate press for being selfish and conspiratorial murderers and rubes.

The irrationality of COVID fears didn’t start with the vaccine — and won’t end with it either. Today’s risk-averse Americans have decided en masse that safety is paramount, risk is unacceptable and therefore freedom is dangerous, and dissenters are malicious.

This brings us all back to Calabresi’s fable. American greatness, with pandemics as with automobiles, doesn’t come from 21st-century Yale students afraid of their own shadows. It comes from the types of Americans who can identify the dangers of the Model T, recognize that risk-taking is the sine qua non to human progress, and say, “Bring it on.”

titanic_brighter_small20210410060257

 

 

Cogito ergo sum→→Sentio ergo ita est

quote-cogito-ergo-sum-i-think-therefore-i-am-rene-descartes-282482

Historians consider that this René Descartes statement epitomizes the spirit of the Age of Reason.  The 17th century philosopher was looking for an unalterable foundation to build the knowledge, a fixed point from which knowledge could be erected. The quote comes from the Discourse on Method by René Descartes, writing which altered the course of history, ushering in a transformation also known as the Enlightenment.

Sentio ergo ita est

Now we have a new awakening and a shift away from reason and objectivity in favor of emotion and subjectivity.  The effects of this spirit are apparent in the Twitter mobs, legacy media propaganda,  in academic intolerance, and extends into virtue signalling corporate executives.  H/T to Pat Frank for his recent comment summarizing this distubing retreat from rationality.  Excerpt in italics with my bolds.

“In woke “science” there is no falsifiable hypothesis. In its place, we have the official orthodox consensus view.”

These areas of science have succumbed to sociology and culture studies. They not only include Covid and climate change, but extend to gender dysphoria, critical race theory, white supremacy, intersectionality, implicit bias, systemic racism, efficacy of diversity/equity/inclusion (DEI; right-think/quota/prejudice), the root cause of crime, and on and on.

These areas make claims that political extremism and violent riots have leveraged to the status of knowledge. Pseudo-knowledge. Things not true that are accepted widely and hotly.

Their general category is the subjectivist narrative. They assume what should be proved, the assumptions are granted the status of evidence, and all the studies are self-confirmatory.

Equivocal language and the flabby tendentious thinking of critical theorists (academic third-raters, all) makes subjectivist narratives the perfect tool for the political demagogue.

This is where universities are headed. Intolerant, prejudicial mediocrity fiercely overseen by Commisars of right-think.

Overseen because university presidents and boards, and heads of national labs, will be judged by their commitment to right-think. If an unseemly interest in merit undercuts DEI, the Commisar will see to their exit. Today, disemployment; later on, execution.

To this, the halls of science have surrendered.

It seems far too many scientists are just methodological hacks. Unable to distinguish knowledge from pseudo-knowledge, the cultural theorists have effortlessly rolled them over.

Background from previous post Revolution: Sentiment Now Overrules Sense

election-meddling-meghan-markle-all-but-endorses-joe-biden-crossing-political-line-that-is-off

Dominic Green describes the sociopolitical coup in his Spectator article Meghan ’n’ Joe’s empire of the sentiments.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Biden dispenses serotonin the way Barack Obama dispensed drone strikes

If your facts don’t care about my feelings, then my feelings aren’t obliged to care about your facts. The facts in Joe Biden’s energetic, inspiring and exhilarating address to the nation last night were frequently as unsteady as the speaker. But the feelings that Biden expressed were, unlike the previous president who must not be named, unimpeachable.

He knows how it feels, he said with that now-customary surge of anger, as if he’s not fully in control of his frontal cortex. And we know how it feels when someone says they know how we feel. Consider everything fixed: COVID, racism, opioids, deficits, the collapse of the schools, the children at the border. The Therapeute-in-Chief is here, dispensing serotonin the way Barack Obama dispensed drone strikes.

It doesn’t matter whether Biden means what he says, any more that it matters whether Meghan Markle told the truth when she implied that her son was denied a prince’s title because he might have dark skin. It’s the feelings that matter: feelings of security, empathy and contentment, and especially the feeling that Nietzsche correctly foresaw as the root feeling of modern life, resentment.

quote-resentment-is-like-drinking-poison-and-then-hoping-it-will-kill-your-enemies-nelson-mandela-38-6-0685

The result is the rule of sentiment over thought and symbols over reality. The Biden administration didn’t invent the moral and humanitarian disaster at the southern border. But it has produced a new crisis by altering the laws to satisfy sentiment.

It feels cruel to return unaccompanied minors, as the Trump administration did, and to hold them in prison-like conditions, as both the Obama and Trump administrations did. But the fact is, Biden’s policies have fostered a greater cruelty.

Biden has created new incentives for human trafficking and the worse kinds of child exploitation.

The result is a surge in border crossings that even a professional euphemist like secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas calls ‘overwhelming’, and the spectacle of would-be illegal immigrants kneeling at the border while wearing t-shirts reading ‘Biden let us in’.

kid-migrants-913x479-1

This is what Biden gets for taking a knee as a craven genuflection to BLM. This is what he gets for accusing Donald Trump of being a racist and sadist for caging unaccompanied minors — even though Biden was vice president when the cages were built, and even though Biden now presides over a greater influx. And this is what we get: a theater of the sentiments, in which the actors and audience are so jaded that their senses and check books can only be stimulated by that reliable and obscene soap-opera trick, putting children’s lives in the balance.

Asked if the word ‘crisis’ applied, the President’s spokeswoman, Jennifer Psaki, refuses to call it anything at all — because she would feel bad, and we would feel bad, and Biden would look bad, if we called it for what it is. It is easier for the administration to resent the Mexican children for putting us in this moral bind, and resent the Republicans, who aren’t short of their own resentments when it comes to immigration, for making hay with it.

bg031121dapr20210311014503

The fact is that this is a crisis. It reflects the corrupt failure of Washington DC and the cold self-interest of corporations who want cheap labor, unions who don’t want it, and, in the middle, the upper-middle-class donors who dislike foreigners who don’t speak English, but need them to bus their tables, do their lawns and wipe their children’s backsides.

Given the complexities of the facts and the appeal of a flight into sentiment, it’s no wonder that this week the administration and media did direct us to pity the children. Meghan and Harry, that is.

Jennifer Psaki commends Meghan and Harry for the ‘courage’ it took to sit down with Oprah and make unsubstantiated allegations against his family. Their kind of fact-light, sentiment-heavy self-promotion and self-therapy was, Psaki told us, one of the areas that Biden is ‘committed to in the future’.

alg031221dapr20210312044519

Biden’s increasingly vague routines of empathy are the symbolic face and velvet glove of a bureaucracy of the sentiments whose offices run from government to the media.

Biden is very old. After him, the gloves will be off and the face will be hardened with more than Botox. We’ll get this decayed form of democracy good and hard, and we’ll be told it should feel good. And that’s a fact.

sentiments over sense

See also Head, Heart and Science

Tom Wolfe tells the story about the Revenge of the Humanities against science and engineering disciplines. Synopsis and link to full essay in post Warmists and Rococo Marxists.

Spring 2021: Warm is Cold, and Down is Up

The cold Spring this year is triggering responses turning natural factors upside down and backwards, confusing causes and effects.  For example, this article at Science Daily Snow chaos in Europe caused by melting sea-ice in the Arctic.  The simplistic appeal to “climate change” is typical: “It is the loss of the Arctic sea-ice due to climate warming that has, somewhat paradoxically, been implicated with severe cold and snowy mid-latitude winters.”  In fact, as we shall see below, it is the wavy Polar Vortex causing both cold mid-latitudes from descending Arctic air, and melting ice from intrusions of warmer southern air.  Importantly, global warming theory asserts that adding CO2 causes the troposphere to warm and the stratosphere to cool.  What we are experiencing this Spring is an unstable Polar vortex due to events of Sudden Stratospheric Warming  (SSWs), not cooling.

Seasoned meteorologist Judah Cohen of AER shows the mechanism this way:

My colleagues, at AER and at selected universities, and I have found a robust relationship between two October Eurasian snow indices and the large-scale winter hemispheric circulation pattern known as the North Atlantic or Arctic Oscillation pattern (N/AO).

The N/AO is more highly correlated with or explains the highest variance of winter temperatures in eastern North America, Europe and East Asia than any other single or combination of atmospheric or coupled ocean-atmosphere patterns that we know of. Therefore, if we can predict the winter N/AO (whether it will be negative or positive) that provides the best chance for a successful winter temperature forecast in North America but certainly does not guarantee it.

He goes on to say that precipitation is the key, not air temperatures, and ENSO is a driving force:

As long as I have been a seasonal forecaster, I have always considered El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) as a better predictor of precipitation than temperature across the Eastern US. I think this is supported by the observational or statistical analysis as well as the skill or accuracy of the climate models.

There have been recent modeling studies that demonstrate that El Nino modulates the strength and position of the Aleutian Low that then favors stratospheric warmings and subsequently a negative winter N/AO that are consistent with our own research on the relationship between snow cover and stratospheric warmings. So the influence of ENSO on winter temperatures in the Mid-Atlantic and the Northeast may be greater than I acknowledge or that is represented in our seasonal forecast model.

Summary

As Cohen’s diagram shows, there is an effect from warming, but in the stratosphere. Global warming theory claims CO2 causes warming in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere. So whatever is going on, it is not due to CO2.

Cohen’s interview with the Washington Post.

its-easier-to-fool-people-than-to-convince-them-that-they-have-been-fooled

 

The current situation is described in Cohen’s most recent post at his Arctic Oscillation blog:

The stratospheric PV always disappear in the spring due to the increasing solar radiation in the polar stratosphere. However, during some springs in addition to the radiative warming of the polar stratosphere, there is also dynamic warming of the polar stratosphere due to the absorption of upwelling Wave Activity Flux (WAFz) from the troposphere. This occurred last spring, which did result in a cool May and even some rare snowfall in the Northeastern US. The predicted return of Ural blocking coupled with Northeast Asia/northern North Pacific troughing is conducive to more active WAFz. The latest PV animation (see Figure ii) shows the stratospheric PV filling (weakening) and meandering over the northern Asia in response to the more active WAFz. This could be the beginning of a dynamically assisted Final Warming that could result in a period of cooler temperatures in parts of the mid-latitudes.

imagesj5oh

Figure ii. Observed and predicted daily geopotential heights (dam; contours) and anomalies (shading) through April 21, 2021. The forecast is from the 00Z 5 April 2021 GFS ensemble.

Background is at post No, CO2 Doesn’t Drive the Polar Vortex 

graphic20-20polarvortex_explained_updated2001291920-204034x2912-1

 

The Green Mirage

Mirage (2)

John Constable writes at Civitas The Green Mirage: Why a Low-Carbon Economy May be Further Off Than We Think.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images.  h/t Real Clear Public Affairs

Spain renewables

Findings:

  • The prospects for a sustainable, low-carbon economy as the result of current UK national and EU-wide policies are poor.
  • Empirical experience in Spain and Germany shows that the costs of supporting renewable energy generation are too high.
  • Rising employment in the renewable energy sector compared to the wider UK economy stems from unsustainably high subsidies.
  • Renewables are naturally less productive, so as they are relentlessly pursued, a painful rebalancing of the economy will occur, with fewer jobs and less economic growth.

green-and-environment

Bottom Line: The current prospects for a sustainable low-carbon economy are poor in both the UK and across the European Union (EU). Germany and Spain have already clearly shown what happens when state coercion forces such a dramatic shift to less reliable and more costly renewable energy systems: unsustainably high subsidies, fewer jobs, and reduced economic growth.

Whatever the longer-term potential for a viable and prosperous global economy with a low-emissions profile, the present study demonstrates that the prospects for a self-sustaining low-carbon economy as the result of current UK national and EU-wide policies are poor.

The problem is that these policies for such a shift to renewable energy systems demand high levels of state coercion. This has the risk of stagnating economic growth and leading to lower levels of invention and innovation, thus appearing to be a weak preparation for reduced usage of fossil fuels.

In addition, empirical experience in Spain and Germany shows that the costs of supporting renewable energy generation is overly high, compared to low-carbon alternatives, and almost certainly has, over time, net economic effects that are negative both in terms of gross domestic product and employment.

An age of subsistence energy generation appears to be dawning. Overly high subsidies to force renewable energy into the system erode jobs in other sectors of the economy.

Finally, analysis for the EU suggests that the net effects of such policies would only be marginally positive if the EU retains a high share of the world export market in renewable energy technologies – something that appears rather unlikely.

Read the full study here.

Footnote:  Excerpt from the full study:

In an interview with an environmental journalist for Ecoseed in early 2011, a spokesman for the industry body ASIF (Asociación de la Industria Fotovoltaica) remarked ‘The government cheated the solar investors by changing the law after it has lured them to invest their money in PV power plants… If you know that the government would change the law, you will never have invested in that technology and never have put your money in that market’.22 This implicitly concedes that the sector was from the outset likely to be a long-term client of the state, unable to survive without support, and should serve as a warning to other governments hoping to create independent renewables industries through subsidy.

green-octopus-10270

 

Covid Cult Oppresses Public

img_9993-1

Multiple businesses were vandalized after an anti-curfew protest turned into a riot in Montreal, Quebec Sunday night.  François Legault, the Premier of Quebec, announced Quebec’s Covid-19 curfew will be pushed up from 9:30 PM to 8:00 PM beginning Sunday due to rising Covid cases.

Thy children shall suffer … and other commandments of the Cult of COVID  By Donald S. Siegel, David A. Waldman and Robert M. Sauer at NY Post.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The Cult of COVID’s spread has been made possible by an alarmingly powerful public-health establishment and large corporations.

cult-of-covid

For years, we’ve heard that a growing share of Americans don’t identify with any religion. But the past year has witnessed a remarkable religious revival in a nation that was supposed to be fast-secularizing. Only, the religion in question is grim, hopeless, more akin to a cult than true faith — and decidedly imposed from on high.

We’re speaking, of course, of the Cult of COVID, the fastest-growing religion in the United States and across much of the developed world, a religion whose spread has been made possible by an alarmingly powerful public-health establishment and large corporations.

The Cult of COVID has its own clerical elite, its own commandments and even modesty norms. And like any cult, its fanatic adherents shame and silence heretics for defying the public orthodoxy.

The faith’s First Commandment: Thou shalt stay locked down.

For the first time in history, healthy, asymptomatic people of all ages were “quarantined” and placed under virtual house arrest for long stretches.

It’s hard to remember now, since they’ve become a part of our lives, but lockdowns and “reopenings” are an unprecedented imposition on our fundamental rights to work, study, do business, freely associate and worship (God, not the COVID deities).

It’s equally hard to remember, but the COVID clerisy told us the lockdowns would last a few weeks at most, until we “flatten the curves”; we did that, months ago, yet the liturgy of lockdowns goes on.

Then there’s the faith’s Second Commandment: Thou shalt wear a mask.

So essential is this modesty norm that even those who are fully vaccinated continue to wear surgical masks whose effectiveness is questionable at best. We are told that the vaccines are overwhelmingly effective — yet not effective enough, apparently, to disrupt the liturgy of lockdowns or to obviate the mask requirement.

Next commandment: Thy children must suffer.

Like most barbarous cults, the Cult of COVID demands child sacrifice, albeit less overtly bloody than the ancient pagan variety. Pagans practiced child sacrifice in order to appease supernatural beings. Likewise, under the Cult of COVID, the educational development and physical and mental health of our children have been sacrificed on the altar of Absolute Safety, one of the cult’s most capricious and hard-to-appease deities.

The priestly class of epidemiologists, school officials and union leaders — the latter are especially important in the cult’s hierarchy — are tasked with carrying out this dark liturgy. The media supply the chorus with predictions of imminent doom if children and their parents don’t continue to sacrifice their freedom and social and academic development.

Virus Outbreak Senate

CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky became emotional at a recent White House coronavirus press briefing — her voice breaking as she warned that the US is facing “impending doom” as COVID-19 cases rise again.

The children of the poor suffer especially for lack of access to affordable, healthy food. All children pay the price by being deprived of real learning and physical activity.

The disregard for kids’ wellbeing may seem callous, but such is the Cult of COVID: Even and especially the president of the United States must pay obeisance to the cult’s supreme hierarchs, teachers-union bosses.

Which brings us to one of the cult’s most central teachings: that you and your family aren’t individuals with rights and liberties.

Instead, you are germ factories, whose movement and social interaction must be severely limited. The media lionize the experts who have imprisoned us. Politicians claim to “follow the science,” when, in reality, they are really following the cult’s edicts, which are impervious to reason and evidence — for example, evidence that children transmit the virus at a much lower rate than do adults, or that outdoor transmission is so negligible as to render wearing masks in the open downright ridiculous.

If you don’t remember choosing to join an irrational cult, well, nor do we. And nor do millions of people across the West now called to participate in its bizarre, cruel and never-ending liturgies. Whatever your religious beliefs, this was one religious revival America didn’t need.

Donald S. Siegel, is a professor of public policy at Arizona State University, where David A. Waldman is a professor of Management. Robert M. Sauer is a professor of economics at the University of London.

 

 

On “Following the Science”

mc_gender_reveal_web20210406120000

This week Tucker Carlson weighed in on Arkansas legislation, the Save Adolescents from Experimentation Act, which prohibits minors from receiving hormones, puberty blockers, and surgeries related to a gender transition.  In response, Ross Pomeroy claimed in a Real Science article, Tucker Carlson Misrepresents the Science on Transgender Youth.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Carlson’s first misleading assertion was that using hormonal treatments to halt puberty constitutes “chemical castration”. It’s true, some of the same drugs used to help dysphoric youth transition were used in the past to reduce libido and sexual activity in criminals convicted of sex crimes, and this was termed “chemical castration”. When used in adolescents, however, studies have suggested that the drugs are safe, and their effects both well-tolerated and reversible.

Puberty-blocking hormones have actually been used safely for decades to treat precocious puberty, where a child’s body begins changing to that of an adult too soon, before age 8 for girls and age 9 for boys.

Carlson terming the use of these drugs for gender dysphoric youth “chemical castration” was really an attempt to poison the well of the debate.

Tucker’s next question for Hutchinson was prefaced with outright misinformation.

“This is an emerging field. There’s not a lot of research, but the research that exists suggests that depression and the urge to self-harm and commit suicide is a side-effect of taking these hormones. A study in the U.K. showed the overwhelming majority of children on puberty-blocking hormones had the urge to hurt themselves. Why is that responsible medicine to do that to children?” he asked.

To directly resolve Tucker’s ignorance, here are two systematic reviews published late last year which document improved mental health outcomes for gender dysphoric youth given puberty-blockers.

Youth gender dysphoria and transgender medicine are complex issues. That’s why, when discussing them, it’s important to be intellectually humble, deferential to patients, doctors, and parents, and informed and honest about available scientific evidence. Tucker Carlson failed in all of these respects on Tuesday night.

jimbob trans surgery

The is a classic example of social ideology mixed with science.  Pomeroy is right about the complexity of the science, but fails to recognize the ideological bias driving the transgender phenomenon and the corruption of science in the process.  Note he makes no distinction between hormone treatments to delay puberty consistent with birth gender, and use of those agents to reverse the birth gender.  All of this is driven by a “social justice” agenda claiming that equality between men and women depends on making genders all the same, two optional identity choices among dozens of others.  The ramifications of overturning these biological and social realities goes far beyond the destruction of female sports and locker room privacy (serious as those issues are.)  The Arkansas legislation is asserting a traditional set of values and social mores, which science cannot and should not attempt to dictate.  For some clarity on why, see the video below.

For more on science on males and females see On Sexual Brains: Vive La Difference!

Richard Lindzen pointed out the abuse of scientific knowledge at the hands of social elites in his recent talk The Imaginary Climate Crisis: How can we Change the Message?  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

If this weren’t silly enough, we are bombarded with claims that the impacts of this climate change include such things as obesity and the Syrian civil war. The claims of impacts are then circularly claimed to be overwhelming evidence of dangerous climate change. It doesn’t matter that most of these claims are wrong and/or irrelevant. It doesn’t matter that none of these claims can be related to CO2 except via model projections. In almost all cases, even the model projections are non-existent. Somehow, the sheer volume of misinformation seems to overwhelm us. In case, you retain any skepticism, there is John Kerry’s claim that climate (unlike physics and chemistry) is simple enough for any child to understand. Presumably, if you can’t see the existential danger of CO2, you’re a stupid denier.

And, in case this situation isn’t sufficiently bizarre, there is the governmental response. It is entirely analogous to a situation that a colleague, Bruce Everett, described. After your physical, your physician tells you that you may have a fatal disease. He’s not really sure, but he proposes a treatment that will be expensive and painful while offering no prospect of preventing the disease. When you ask why you would ever agree to such a thing, he says he just feels obligated to “do something”. That is precisely what the Paris Accord amounts to. However, the ‘something’ also gives governments the power to control the energy sector and this is something many governments cannot resist. Information is unlikely to change this despite the fact that even the UN’s IPCC acknowledges that their warming claims would only reduce the immensely expanded GDP by about 2-3% by the end of the century – something that is trivially manageable and hardly ‘existential.’

In trying to understand the success of this claim that climate change due to CO2 is an existential threat, I propose to look at an analogous scare: the widespread fear in the US in the early 20th Century of an epidemic of feeblemindedness. I will also return to C.P. Snow’s two-culture description in order to see why the alarmist scenario appeals primarily to the so-called educated elite rather than to the common people.

Details of this situation are in my paper which you can request by email. The major takeaway points are the following:

  1. Elites are always searching for ways to advertise their virtue and assert the authority they believe they are entitled to.
  2. They view science as source of authority rather than a process, and they try to appropriate science, suitably and incorrectly simplified, as the basis for their movement.
  3. Movements need goals, and these goals are generally embedded in legislation.
  4. The effect of legislation long outlasts the alleged science. The Immigration Reduction Act of 1924 remained until 1964.
  5. As long as scientists are rewarded for doing so, they are unlikely to oppose the exploitation of science.

For how this played out with coronavirus contagion see On Following the Science

cb050820dapr20200508014509

Footnote: 

Religious creeds are a great obstacle to any full sympathy between the outlook of the scientist and the outlook which religion is so often supposed to require … The spirit of seeking which animates us refuses to regard any kind of creed as its goal. It would be a shock to come across a university where it was the practice of the students to recite adherence to Newton’s laws of motion, to Maxwell’s equations and to the electromagnetic theory of light. We should not deplore it the less if our own pet theory happened to be included, or if the list were brought up to date every few years. We should say that the students cannot possibly realise the intention of scientific training if they are taught to look on these results as things to be recited and subscribed to. Science may fall short of its ideal, and although the peril scarcely takes this extreme form, it is not always easy, particularly in popular science, to maintain our stand against creed and dogma.
― Arthur Stanley Eddington

See Also: 

Data, Facts and Information

Three Wise Men Talking Climate

Head, Heart and Science

Post-Truth Climatism

How Science Is Losing Its Humanity

 

Voting Systems Connected to Internet

More discoveries regarding computer voting systems used in the 2020 US elections.  Patrick Colbeck reports Modem Chips Embedded in Voting System Computer Motherboards.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.  H/T Gateway Pundit

While all of the attention has been focused upon manipulation of election results via software, there has been very little attention paid to hardware. Malware can be embedded in hardware as well as software. That’s why the following discovery unearthed by Attorney Matt DePerno during his investigation into Antrim County election fraud is so important.

What was discovered?
SEE Exhibit 6 in Antrim County Lawsuit

ES&S DS200 voting machine was found to have a Telit LE910-SV1 Modem Chip installed on its motherboard
Chip utilized a commercial Verizon SIM card with an Access Point Name (APN) configuration specific to the ES&S DS200 provisioning.

chip-1

ESS DS200 Motherboard with Telit LE910-SV1 Modem Chip

What does the Telit LE910-SV1 Modem Chip do?

-Enable communication between voting system equipment and election servers
-Designed to operate on a virtual private network
-Testing has revealed that the same SIM card could be used in a separate wireless hotspot device. This device could then join the same APN as the ES&S voting machines.

alg040821dapr20210408014516

Why is this important?

– ES&S equipment is used in eight Michigan counties: Alcona, Bay, Emmet, Grand Traverse, Kalamazoo, Macomb, Mason, Roscommon
-It demonstrates that computers can be connected to internet without any discernable ethernet or external modem connection
-It demonstrates that Dominion Voting Systems are not the only electronic voting system with security vulnerabilities
-It is very difficult to detect unless you pry open the machine case to investigate the hardware
-It drives the imperative for disciplined hardware certification as well as software certification
-Anyone with access to any SIM card could have pre-programmed access to the APN.
-It demonstrates how electronic voting systems could be connected to the internet with minimal risk of detection.

Additional Reporting on Michigan Election Fraud Attorney Matthew DePerno Releases Michigan Elections Forensics Report – 66,194 Unregistered Ballots Tallied in JUST 9 COUNTIES

Background from previous post Data Mining for Election Fraud

cb010621dapr20210105104502

Jay Valentine explains in his American Thinker article Election Fraud Hotspots – 10% of the Data are 70% of the Fraud  Jay is an expert in uncovering insurance fraud and points out that the same analyses will disclose fraudulent ballot patterns. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images.

The more our team looked at the 2020 election fraud from publicly available records, the more it appeared to have similar characteristics to property casualty insurance fraud.

Beginning in November, like many citizens, we witnessed election fraud possibilities any sentient person would investigate. Having backgrounds in fraud detection, particularly in the property casualty insurance business, Medicaid fraud, and cyber fraud, gave us a curiosity that never dissipated.

Our interest is 100% in data analysis. That means looking at the actual votes, the addresses, the information about ballots reported to Secretaries of State. While there are all kinds of other fraud, the best way to light it up is with data analysis.

Not just the statistical stuff with the graphs and Greek symbols, but old fashioned rows and columns. Nothing illegal, just the same public data Google uses to profile someone for new running shoes.

sk040121dapc20210401124505

If Jesse Morgan did drive a tractor trailer truck with 100,000 ballots from New York to Pennsylvania, how can we find out? Chris Wray and our hardy pals at the FBI may not want to open that truck’s back door, but we do – with database analysis.

Every one of those ballots has a person’s name and address. The ballot is cast, illegally for sure, and counted. The local government is involved as well as the U.S. Postal Service officials at that particular location. That makes this sovereign, industrial election fraud.

They can hide the truck. They can claim it never happened. They cannot hide the record of the ballot.

Imagine yourself trying to fake 100,000 ballots. Even with some of your pals, lots of them, sitting around tables with pizza and Cokes and #2 pencils, it’s daunting. Every ballot needs to tie to an address. Each ties to a name. This is fraud infrastructure.

While you and your friends are filling out 100,000 ballots with Biden circles, do you think you took the time to use a different, real address for every one of them? Or, more likely, did you use a small group of addresses over and over? You get the picture.

If you filled out birth dates, did you use a different one every time you thought about it? How about those surnames? They are tied to real people and they better live in Pennsylvania.

We are getting reports some Secretaries of State are modifying mail-in ballot data to hide the tens of thousands of ballots received before they were sent.

This is a very bad idea.

Fraud data is like the world’s messiest crime scene.

Think of your worst nightmare crime scene with blood, bullet casings, broken furniture, spatterings, and that is how complex a fraud database is. If a criminal alters a crime scene, they always make things worse for themselves. They leave traces of who they were. More troublesome, they leave traces of what they are trying to hide.

We are thrilled people are trying to alter data after the fact.
They are leaving tracks like a dinosaur walking through a field of peanut butter for database tracking.

Citizen election fraud investigators are coalescing across multiple states sharing information, fraud profiles and actual data. We are helping with fraud investigative expertise and search technology beyond anything commercially available.

Our thesis is that 70% of all 2020 election fraud will be tied to 10% of the records. Like insurance fraud, election fraud has cultural affinities. It also has geographic patterns and links to a small number of people who deliver the overwhelming amount of fraud.

Cultural affinities?

We broke a major insurance fraud ring showing a group of Somali immigrants, living in the same building, driving the same car, had scammed a major insurance company. Sure they did, they knew each other. This happens all the time; the data show it.

Election fraud is no different. People who hang out together may have similar world views. If they are aggressive enough to join in an election fraud conspiracy, they don’t bring in strangers, they bring in friends and family. This kind of relationship shows up as a hot spot in data visualization.

Data visualization shows hotspots – like red wine stains on a white tablecloth.

Isn’t it interesting that 634 people with the same birthday, including the year, live at these seven addresses? Digging deeper, look, the address is not a physical location, it is a UPS store with mailboxes. That’s a crowded P.O. Box!

Look here, different family members live in different mailboxes with the same surname. The mailboxes are consecutive numbers, too! That’s so convenient for Thanksgiving dinner!

This is what industrial fraud starts to look like and there are plenty of data from December Secretary of State data files to prove this.

In fraud analysis, connections count big time. Industrial fraud is by definition a connected enterprise with a few actors driving lots of transactions. As we build a likely fraud database, think more of Ancestry.com rather than those rows and columns.

mrz033021dapr20210330044511

Ancestry.com allows you to build a family tree. As you build it, your family connects to other families. Those families add their long lost relatives you did not know existed enriching the tree. Connections count.

That is what an organic election fraud database starts to look like. Here, let’s do one!

Billy X has 239 people living in his one-bedroom Pennsylvania house and they all voted. All public information. Billy should be proud of his diligence.

We connect Billy via 100 social media posts floating on the internet using a web crawler. Look, Billy is a steward for the local trade union. He hates Trump.

Data visualization indicates Billy corresponds with Sally B. and Mortimer W. They live in Virginia. They too, hate Trump; so says social media. Our new friends in Virginia interested in election fraud start adding their data about Sally and Mort. Here are two addresses for Sally and they tie to over 600 registered voters. Mort has over 150 living in his one bedroom flat.

This is how it looks, folks. This is just the surface of what can be found from current, available, public records, social media and internet communication. We can go hundreds of layers deeper and it is delivered in the blink of an eye.

So when you freak out about H.R. 1, which is terrible, remember, they may have Marc Elias in their corner but the Patriots have data, technology, and adversaries who leave dinosaur tracks.

My Comment:  Those of us who watched the 2020 election go off the rails are waiting and hoping for the perps to be caught.  Forensic audits with competent analysts are under way in Arizona  with Maricopa officials trying to block it.  Ballot audits in Montana and New Hampshire turned up irregularities large enough to change the results.  The ‘Scan the Ballots’ Effort Is Moving Forward In Georgia Involving Jovan Pulitizer’s Technique of Forensically Reviewing Ballots from the 2020 Election (here).  The Georgia exercise shows what is a proper election forensic audit.  A 2020 audit will review all the ballots, not just a sample. Every ballot will be reviewed for the paper the ballot is on, the ink used, the shape of the circles being filled in, the sequence of the ballots, the creases in ballots, etc. This type of physical review, just of the ballots, will identify invalid ballots. These ballots can then be reviewed and eliminated if no proper excuses for their oddities are available. This can be done for every ballot in every audit.

A random thought:  What if Pelosi dropped her idea of contesting the Iowa seat won by a Republican by six votes because she was warned what an in depth analysis would show?  And another: What if Biden’s handlers are in such a rush to overturn everything because they know what kind of dirt will be coming out in coming months?

filtering_the_biden_fauset_small20210331015603

Beware Biden’s Push for a Global Taxation Regime

763588789-e2a1a4de1fbd4a732edea5c721acbd75

Dan Mitchell writes Three Reasons to Reject Biden’s Tax Harmonization Scheme for “Global Minimum Taxation”.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and some images.

Way back in 2007, I narrated this video to explain why tax competition is very desirable because politicians are likely to overtax and overspend (“Goldfish Government“) if they think taxpayers have no ability to escape.

The good news is that tax competition has been working.

As explained in the above video, there have been big reductions in personal tax rates and corporate tax rates. Just as important, governments have reduced various forms of double taxation, meaning lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains.

Many governments have also reduced – or even eliminated – death taxes and wealth taxes.

These pro-growth tax reforms didn’t happen because politicians read my columns (I wish!). Instead, they adopted better tax policy because they were afraid of losing jobs and investment to countries with better fiscal policy.

Now for the bad news.

There’s been an ongoing campaign by high-tax governments to replace tax competition with tax harmonization. They’ve even conscripted international bureaucracies such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to launch attacks against low-tax jurisdictions.

And now the United States is definitely on the wrong side of this issue.

Here’s some of what the Biden Administration wants.

The United States can lead the world to end the race to the bottom on corporate tax rates. A minimum tax on U.S. corporations alone is insufficient. …President Biden is also proposing to encourage other countries to adopt strong minimum taxes on corporations, just like the United States, so that foreign corporations aren’t advantaged and foreign countries can’t try to get a competitive edge by serving as tax havens. This plan also denies deductions to foreign corporations…if they are based in a country that does not adopt a strong minimum tax. …The United States is now seeking a global agreement on a strong minimum tax through multilateral negotiations. This provision makes our commitment to a global minimum tax clear. The time has come to level the playing field and no longer allow countries to gain a competitive edge by slashing corporate tax rates.

sbr040921dapr20210409024516

As Charlie Brown would say, “good grief.” Those passages sound like they were written by someone in France, not America

And Heaven forbid that countries “gain a competitive edge by slashing corporate tax rates.” Quelle horreur!

cb030221dapr20210302094524

There are three things to understand about this reprehensible initiative from the Biden Administration.

  1.  Tax harmonization means ever-increasing tax rates – It goes without saying that if politicians are able to create a tax cartel, it will merely be a matter of time before they ratchet up the tax rate. Simply stated, they won’t have to worry about an exodus of jobs and investment because all countries will be obliged to have the same bad approach.
  2. Corporate tax harmonization will be followed by harmonization of other taxes – If the scheme for a harmonized corporate tax is imposed, the next step will be harmonized (and higher) tax rates on personal income, dividends, capital gains, and other forms of work, saving, investment, and entrepreneurship.
  3. Tax harmonization denies poor countries the best path to prosperity – The western world became rich in the 1800s and early 1900s when there was very small government and no income taxes. That’s the path a few sensible jurisdictions want to copy today so they can bring prosperity to their people, but that won’t be possible in a world of tax harmonization.

bok-c-main

 

Four Myths Drove Covid Madness

cormasks

Myth: Sars-CV2 is a new virus and we have no defense.
Fact: Sars-CV2 has not been scientifically established as a virus.
Myth: Testing positive for Sars-CV2 makes you a disease case and a spreader.
Fact: PCR tests say nothing about you being ill or infectious.
Myth: Millions of people have died from Covid19.
Fact: Life expectancy is the same before and after Covid19.
Myth: Wearing masks prevents viral infection.
Fact: Evidence shows masks are symbolic, not effective.

Jack Kerwick has written a series of articles at FrontPage Mag over the last year discussing how facts have been overwhelmed by fears, a mythology replacing scientific knowledge and reason. From the beginning this contagion was different, being the first one in an age of 24/7 cable news and rampant social media. So emotion and exaggeration were spread and political leaders pressured to act as protectors, clamping down on social and economic transactions. This post provides a synopsis of what went wrong, based on Kerwick’s recent essay Masks and Stopping COVID. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

What the science – lots of science – really tells us.

In previous essays, I argued for three theses against the prevailing COVID Orthodoxy:

(1)SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated, purified, and extracted in accordance with the scientific method that has long been in place for isolating, purifying, and extracting other viruses (like bacteriophages and “giant viruses”), and neither has the scientific method been observed with respect to establishing whether this virus is in fact the cause of a disease called “COVID-19.”
Discussion:

Has the existence of “the Virus” been established according to a universally acknowledged set of scientific procedures that must be observed to establish the existence of any and all other viruses?

From the sounds of it, the answer is a resounding no.

Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, and Sally Fallon Morell, are among those who have noted in a paper published last year that in demonstrating the existence of a new virus, samples must, firstly, be taken from the blood, phlegm, or other secretions of hundreds of people exhibiting symptoms that are “unique and specific enough to characterize an illness.”

Then, “without mixing these samples with ANY tissue or products that also contain genetic material, the virologist macerates, filters, and ultracentrifuges, i.e. purifies the specimen.” This, the authors explain, is a “common virology technique, done for decades to isolate bacteriophages [viruses that infect bacteria and reproduce within them] and so-called giant viruses [a virus larger than typical bacteria].”

Thirdly, once virologists perform this procedure, they are then able to “demonstrate with electron microscopy thousands of identically sized and shaped particles.” The latter are “the isolated and purified virus.”

Fourthly, upon determining the purity of these particles, virologists are able to examine their “structure, morphology, and chemical composition [.]”

Fifthly, “the genetic makeup” of the particles [the virus] “is characterized by extracting the genetic material directly from” them and “using genetic-sequencing techniques” that have long been in existence.

Finally, an analysis must be conducted to prove that “these uniform particles are exogenous (outside) in origin” as viruses are held to be and not just “the normal breakdown of products of dead and dying tissues.”

The authors conclude: “If we have come this far then we have fully isolated, characterized, genetically-sequenced an exogenous virus particle” .
They add that nowhere in the literature does it show that any of these steps have been taken with respect to SARS-CoV-2.

Neither—and this is crucial—have the scientific steps for determining that SARS-CoV-2 is the cause of a disease, COVID-19, been taken. What are these steps? There really isn’t much to it:

A group of healthy subjects, typically animals, is first exposed to “this isolated, purified virus in the manner in which the disease is thought to be transmitted.”

Subsequently, virologists will wait to determine whether these subjects fall ill with “the same disease, as confirmed by clinical and autopsy findings [.]” If so, “one has now shown that the virus actually causes a disease.” In other words, the “infectivity and transmission of an infectious agent” will have been demonstrated.

Again, according to the authors, nothing like this has been performed to show that
there is a virus, SARS-CoV-2, that causes what has become known as COVID-19.

An ever growing number of citizen journalists in over ten different countries from around the world have, via the Freedom of Information Acts of their respective homes, requested from scores of health agencies an account of the process by which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated (i.e. separated out from all other stuff). To date, no account has been provided.

(2) The explosion of COVID “cases” is an illusion generated by a combination of two things: (a) the redefining of a “case” from meaning “infection in need of medical attention”—which is how it was defined in the pre-COVID era—to meaning “anyone who is presumed to have, or to have had, COVID and/or anyone who tests positive for COVID” plus (b) an intrinsically limited PCR test that is deliberately run at a number of cycles guaranteed to produce a tsunami of false-positives.

The official case numbers, in other words, are meaningless.

Discussion:

Right from the jump, it’s crucial to take note of the fact that for the first time ever, beginning just last year, “cases” was radically redefined in such a way that would have been unthinkable in just February of 2020 (one month before The Virus Apocalypse engulfed the universe).

For starters, as indicated above, many of these “cases,” per the CDC, included those patients who were labeled as “probable” carriers of the virus. This means that they were diagnosed as “cases” in the absence of any “confirmatory laboratory testing.” And yet they were identified as COVID “cases.”

Moreover, even when testing is figured into it, with respect to no other virus or disease has the CDC ever counted as a “case” a merely positive test. A positive test, in other words, has never been regarded by the medical establishment as sufficient grounds upon which to determine a “case.” Rather, in order for something to count as a “case,” a person had to have been sick and in need of medical attention like, say, hospitalization.

In the COVID era, however, the CDC began accumulating positive PCR test results (about more of which will be said below) from people the vast majority of whom are “asymptomatic,” meaning they feel just fine, and combining them with positive antibodies tests from people who also feel just fine: The final sum, this compound, comprises all “cases.”

Now, as for those PCR tests: There are two problems.

First, as Karry Mullis bluntly remarked: “Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron.” Who was Karry Mullis? He was the inventor of the PCR test. And he won a Nobel Prize in Science for this achievement. What did the late Dr. Mullis mean by his characterization of his own invention?

“PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers [of viruses]. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves” (emphases added).

Lauitsen explains further:

“What PCR does is to select a genetic sequence and then amplify it enormously. It can accomplish the equivalent of finding a needle in a haystack; it can amplify that needle into a haystack. Like an electronically amplified antenna, PCR greatly amplified the signal, but it also greatly amplifies the noise” (emphases added).

What this implies is that given that “the amplification is exponential, the slightest error in measurement, the slightest contamination, can result in errors of many orders of magnitude.”

There is still another problem with the PCR test as it is currently being used that guarantees its utter worthlessness. More exactly, that guarantees that the “case” numbers built upon it are wholly inaccurate and, hence, meaningless.

This past fall, none other than the New York Times noted that possibly as high as 90% of all positive test results are false.

Per the CDC and FDA guidelines, the vast majority of PCR tests are run at a threshold of 40 cycles. Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist from Harvard who is quoted in the Times piece, notes that when PCR tests are run at 35 or more cycles, they “may detect not just live virus but also live fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risks—akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left.”

The French researcher Didier Raoult has shown that when the PCR test is run at 25 cycles, about 70% of samples were genuinely positive—meaning infectious. However, when the test is run at a threshold of 30 cycles, only 20% of samples were infectious. At 35 cycles, but three percent of samples were infectious.

And when the test was run above 35 cycles? Zero samples were infectious.

(3)People are getting sick and dying from all manner of things from which people get sick and die each and every year. Only throughout this past year, these causes of sickness and death have been repackaged as COVID sickness and death.
Discussion:

Think about it: a cough, running nose, sore throat, chills, chest congestion, fever, loss of taste and smell—these are all symptoms of a plethora of things, from the common cold to seasonal influenza and a whole lot else. Particularly since the vast majority of COVID cases are “mild,” it’s with the greatest of ease that any single one of these symptoms or any number of combinations of them can be used as a pretext by which to establish a “COVID case.”

This is not necessarily to say that the symptoms in question are not signs of COVID or the SARS-CoV-2 virus that is claimed to be its cause. It’s only to note that in the absence of scientifically confirming definitively that (a) there is a unique strain of a coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2, (b) that it is the cause of something called COVID-19, and that, (3) given the scandalously unreliable PCR test, people do in fact have COVID, symptoms that are associated with the latter are more economically, more plausibly explained by way of reference to illnesses that have long been with us.

The Principle of Parsimony—better known since the 14th century as “Ockham’s Razor”—applies: When confronted with two or more explanatory hypotheses, all things being equal, reason dictates that we opt for the one that is simplest.

Since many of the symptoms now being associated with COVID until recently were explained in terms of, say, the flu, and, given the foregoing facts regarding the science—or lack of science—behind the COVID Narrative, it makes better sense to continue explaining those symptoms in terms of the flu.

Indeed, there is no doubt that a great shell game has been transpiring for a year now as cases of various illnesses have been re-labeled as COVID cases.

For example, over at John Hopkins University, Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s program, used data from the CDC to analyze the effect of COVID-19 deaths in America on all other deaths. Reasonably enough, she had expected to witness a substantial number of excess deaths in 2020, i.e. deaths by all other causes plus the orgy of COVID deaths with which politicians and those in the media had been singularly preoccupied.

She was mistaken. Sorely mistaken. Yanni Gu, a writer for the university’s student newspaper, reports: “Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19.”

This was surprising because COVID (not unlike virtually everything else) overwhelmingly affects elderly people. Thus, “experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data.” Furthermore, “the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same” (emphases added).

Whoa. Briand would soon discover that the plot was just beginning to thicken. What the “data analyzes suggest,” Gu writes, is “that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States” (emphases added).

There is a perfectly rational, and simple, explanation to account for the unbridgeable chasm between the media-concocted perception of COVID and the reality that Briand discovered:

Deaths from all other causes were being re-classified—misclassified—as death from COVID.  And how did Briand determine this?
For the first time ever, deaths from all other causes—heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza, and pneumonia—decreased.

Especially shocking was the realization that heart disease, which has always been the number one killer in America, appeared to have suddenly lost that distinction with the onset of COVID.

Moreover, deaths from all other causes decreased just in proportion to the extent to which COVID deaths increased. “This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years. Interestingly…the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19.”

Within 24 or so hours of the publication of the article relaying Genevieve Briand’s discoveries, the student paper at John Hopkins University retracted it. They never, however, denied the truth of a single syllable of either Briand’s analysis nor its summary of it. That it was political pressure, and not shoddy scholarship that informed its decision is clear, for the school paper saved its article in a PDF file (to which I link above) for all of the world to read.

Wearing of Masks is Not Supported by Scientific Evidence

In this essay, we will revisit the topic of masks. I’ve already written about the psychological, moral, and social costs of mask-wearing. Here, I will focus specifically on the science—or lack of science—behind it.

Scientists recognize that the RCT—Randomized Control Trial—is the “gold standard” as far as “effectiveness research” is concerned. Drs. Eduardo Hariton and Joseph J. Locasio explain that randomization “reduces bias” while providing “a rigorous tool” by which “to examine cause-effect relationships between an intervention and outcome.” RCTs eliminate the risk of confirmation bias, something that is “not possible with any other study design” (emphases added).

This is critical for our purposes, for the largest study of the effectiveness of mask-wearing by the general public to thwart the transmission of COVID utilized not one, not two, not three, but a staggering 14 randomized control trials.

The study was performed at the University of Hong Kong. What Dr. Jingyi Xiao and her team of researchers there concluded will doubtless be written off as the stuff of “conspiracy theorists” by Mask Nation. So be it. But those on the editorial board of Emerging Infectious Diseases, the widely esteemed journal of none other than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), determined that the findings were worth publishing.

The verdict: Masks are ineffective.

The authors of a review of studies on face masks published last year by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine determined that there is no evidence indicating the effectiveness of cloth masks when it comes to COVID. They lament how the “abandonment of the scientific modus operandi and lack of foresight has left the field [of science] wide open for the play of opinions, radical views and political influence.”

The authors, one an epidemiologist, the other a professor of Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford, do note that all randomized control trials that have been conducted over the last decade or so have demonstrated that “masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI [Influenza-Like-Illness] or influenza” in neither “the general population…nor in healthcare workers” (emphases added).

We could continue in this same repetitive vein. Readers who are interested in pursuing this topic further can check out this piece of mine from October of last year. I review still other studies there, including remarks from such media-adored “Experts” as Anthony Fauci that dovetail seamlessly with these findings on the essential uselessness of masks with respect to COVID. More research confirming these findings are here, here, here, here, and here. Neither have we yet touched upon the numerous studies showing that countries and states with mask mandates did no better and, in some instances, worse than those places that had no such mandates. Nor have we looked at those studies demonstrating that those who faithfully wore masks were not less likely to contract COVID than those who did not wear masks, with some of these—like this one from the CDC—showing that most people who became infected with COVID wore a mask “always” or “often.”

The science, it should now be obvious, does not support Mask dogma.

cv-2019-2020