mRNA Covid Vax Highly Effective . . .For Aborting

Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law paper Spontaneous Abortions and Policies on COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Use During Pregnancy Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The use of mRNA vaccines in pregnancy is now generally considered safe for protection against COVID-19 in countries such as New Zealand, USA, and Australia. However, the influential CDC- sponsored article by Shimabukuro et al. (2021) used to support this idea, on closer inspection, provides little assurance, particularly for those exposed in early pregnancy. The study presents falsely reassuring statistics related to the risk of spontaneous abortion in early pregnancy, since the majority of women in the calculation were exposed to the mRNA product after the outcome period was defined (20 weeks’ gestation).

In this article, we draw attention to these errors and recalculate the risk of this outcome based on the cohort that was exposed to the vaccine before 20 weeks’ gestation. Our re-analysis indicates a cumulative incidence of spontaneous abortion 7 to 8 times higher than the original authors’ results (p < 0.001) and the typical average for pregnancy loss during this time period. In light of these findings, key policy decisions have been made using unreliable and questionable data. We conclude that the claims made using these data on the safety of exposure of women in early pregnancy to mRNA-based vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are unwarranted and recommend that those policy decisions be revisited.

The study indicates that at least 81.9% (≥ 104/127) experienced spontaneous abortion following mRNA exposure before 20 weeks, and 92.3% (96/104) of spontaneous abortions occurred before 13 weeks’ gestation

We question the conclusions of the Shimabukuro et al.[4] study to support the use of the mRNA vaccine in early pregnancy, which has now been hastily incorporated into many international guidelines for vaccine use, including in New Zealand.[1] The assumption that exposure in the third trimester cohort is representative of the effect of exposure throughout pregnancy is questionable and ignores past experience with drugs such as thalidomide.[38] Evidence of safety of the product when used in the first and second trimesters cannot be established until these cohorts have been followed to at least the perinatal period or long-term safety determined for any of the babies born to mothers inoculated during pregnancy.

Additionally, the product’s manufacturer, Pfizer, contradicts these assurances, stating: “available data on Comirnaty administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine- associated risks in pregnancy”, and “it is not known whether Comirnaty is excreted in human milk” as “data are not available to assess the effects of Comirnaty on the breastfed infant” (page 14).[39]

Pfizer, it was noted, says on its vaccine’s label that the available data on the vaccine “administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”


It would be great if there was a central source for factual information that isn’t tainted by political opinions and government agencies or elected leaders, including those who benefit from financial contributions made to them by big pharma that stands to make billions on the production and sale of their COVID vaccines. No wonder Americans no longer trust our government or the DNC’s corporate media.

African Covid Miracle

(AP Photo/Tsvangirayi Mukwazhi)

Update Nov. 25, 2021
See also Post Ivermectin and the African Enigma

Hot Air reports An African mystery: Where did COVID go? Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

There’s something strange happening in Africa which, according to the Associated Press, has scientists “mystified.” The curious situation is particularly prevalent in Zimbabwe. It’s a nation with a population of 14.8 million people and a vaccination rate of less than 6%, a fact that the World Health Organization lectures us about endlessly. And yet in the past week, they recorded a total of 33 COVID deaths. How is this possible? The AP interviewed a number of people who were shopping in a township outside Harare, almost none of whom were wearing masks. One man declared that the virus was “gone” and asked the reporter, “when did you last hear of anyone who has died of COVID-19?” He said that he carries a mask in his pocket because the police demand bribes from people without masks or they are threatened with arrest, but he rarely puts it on. Doctors have a few theories they are tossing around, though many are simply stumped. But I bet some of us who aren’t medical professionals could make a guess.

When the coronavirus first emerged last year, health officials feared the pandemic would sweep across Africa, killing millions. Although it’s still unclear what COVID-19’s ultimate toll will be, that catastrophic scenario has yet to materialize in Zimbabwe or much of the continent.

Scientists emphasize that obtaining accurate COVID-19 data, particularly in African countries with patchy surveillance, is extremely difficult, and warn that declining coronavirus trends could easily be reversed.

But there is something “mysterious” going on in Africa that is puzzling scientists, said Wafaa El-Sadr, chair of global health at Columbia University. “Africa doesn’t have the vaccines and the resources to fight COVID-19 that they have in Europe and the U.S., but somehow they seem to be doing better,” she said.

As already noted, one of the most stunning statistics in that story is that the vaccination rate in Zimbabwe is only 6%. If you found a single county in the United States with a 6% vaccination rate, Joe Biden would probably already have ordered everyone to be shipped off to prisons. If it happened in Australia they would likely have started executing people by now. But in Africa, it’s just a fact of life.

Reading through the commentary provided to the AP by various medical experts, there seem to be three general theories being suggested to explain the absence of a COVID catastrophe in most of Africa except for the nation of South Africa where they have a significantly higher caseload. The first theory is that the COVID epidemic is just as bad as everywhere else but we simply don’t collect enough data to realize it. The second theory is that scientists should be studying the African people to see if they are somehow more naturally resistant to the novel coronavirus. The final theory is that the average age of people in Zimbabwe (for example) is roughly 20 because life expectancies are much lower. Younger people are less likely to die from the disease.

Let’s consider all of these ideas from the layman’s point of view. Is it possible that there are a lot more cases of COVID in Africa than are being reported? Of course. That only makes sense because most areas in countries like Zimbabwe simply don’t have the resources to be testing everyone. In many cases, the only people being tested are the ones who show up at a medical center displaying symptoms. But one thing they are fully able to record is the number of people who are dying. If deaths of all sorts aren’t rising significantly, then not that many people are dying from COVID.

The idea that Africans are somehow naturally more immune to the virus sounds a bit wacky, at least at first glance. In the United States we have plenty of African-Americans who should be essentially drawing from the same gene pool, right? And yet COVID rates in those communities (where vaccine hesitancy remains higher than the national average) have been quite high during surges in the pandemic. Something doesn’t add up here.

And then there’s the idea that a population with a much lower average age won’t produce as many deaths. While that should statistically be accurate, I would suggest that we can expand on that theory. Residents of Zimbabwe have lower life expectancies so their average age is considerably lower. That much is true. And their vaccination rate is in single digits. Now let’s combine those facts with the reality that almost nobody is being tested for the virus and add in the fact that the COVID survival rate for younger and otherwise healthy people is well over 99%.

Putting all of that together, isn’t it just possible that most of the people in Zimbabwe have already had COVID, developed their own antibodies, and just gotten on with their lives?

Dare we use the forbidden words that the American media refuses to speak and suggest that just maybe the people of Zimbabwe have developed herd immunity? We know the virus exists in the country because a few people died of it last week. We also know how contagious it is. Doesn’t it just make sense that COVID swept through the country and there are no large pockets of people who have never been exposed, so the damned virus is simply dying out on its own?

I’m sure I’ll be locked up in the COVID “misinformation” jail for suggesting this, and I will once again repeat the disclaimer that I have no formal medical training. But it’s something to think about. Perhaps the situation in Zimbabwe really isn’t all the much of a “mystery” after all. Maybe… just maybe… all we’re seeing is mother nature taking her natural course. The human body contains all sorts of marvels and surprises from time to time. We just recently learned of the second person confirmed to have completely recovered from HIV without any medical treatment. It makes me wonder how many other people have contracted HIV but were never tested for it and went on to fight it off on their own. When was the last time anyone tested you for HIV? I haven’t had a test since right before I was married, nearly 30 years ago. Just some food for thought for you on a Friday.


From Zimbabwe Independent (July 23, 2021): Sharpe donates US$50 000 for Covid-19 drug

Property mogul Ken Sharpe last Friday donated US$50 000 to government for the purchase of Ivermectin, which he said saved both his life and that of his wife after they contracted the Covid-19 virus.

The donation, which was made during an event held at the State House headed up by President Emerson Mnangagwa, was Sharpe’s way of giving back after missing death by a whisker.

Sharpe who is the chairperson for West Property said he would not have made it if he had not taken Ivermectin after contracting the virus .

Ivermectin is a broad spectrum anti-parasitic agent.

It is included in WHO essential medicines list for several parasitic diseases and is used in the treatment of onchocerciasis (river blindness), strongyloidiasis and other diseases caused by soil transmitted helminthiasis.

“It is a fact that I had been vaccinated and I believe, as you can see, I am a strong man in good health of just under 50 years of age. However, even having observed all the Covid-19 protocols of social distancing, without the assistance of the medicine that I took … I would not be standing here today,” he said .

He shared how he battled with the most severe symptoms until he started taking Ivermectin to which he owes his life.

Sharpe, however, said it was hugely unfair that currently the life-saving drug was pegged at a high price and yet a bit of research had proved that it could be sourced for a few cents.

This he said, would expand and widen access to many people who were currently failing to buy at the current prices.

Don’t Fence Us In!


Reasons to be Skeptical about Covid Vaccines

Here are five reports raising concerns that these Covid vaccines are not what they are cracked up to be.

1.  Bureaucrat obsession with “silver bullet” vaccines

As Scott Atlas observes in his book about the US pandemic response:

Dr. Birx, Dr. Redfield and Dr. Fauci—often called “the nation’s top expert in infectious disease”—dominated all discussions about the health and medical aspects of the emerging pandemic. One thing was very clear: all three were cut from the same cloth. First, they were all bureaucrats, with a background in various government agencies. Second, they shared a long history in HIV/AIDS as a public health crisis. That was problematic, because HIV couldn’t be more different from SARS2 in its biology, its amenability to testing and contact tracing, its spread and the implications of those facts for its control.

Indeed, the three of them spent many years focusing on the development of a vaccine, rather than treatment, for HIV/AIDS—a vaccine that still does not exist.

Drs. Birx and Fauci commandeered federal policy under President Trump and publicly advocated for a total societal shutdown. Instead of focusing on protecting the most vulnerable, their illogical and extraordinarily blunt response—despite its predictable, wide-ranging harms—was instituted as though it were simple common sense.

How Panic Spread in the Early Days of COVID-19

As we all recall, the lockdowns were initially for two weeks to protect the health system, and then were perpetuated as being necessary until vaccines were available. That initial obsession with a vaccine-only solution has grown tyrannical with “No Jab, No Job” mandates.

HCQ or IVM + nutritional supplements fill the need for early home treatment whether people are vaccinated or not.

2.  Cancellation campaign against repurposing anti-viral medicines

Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson together with his Solicitor General and Assistant Attorney General issued their opinion in response to a request by Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services CEO, Dannette Smith. She wanted the AG’s office to examine carefully whether doctors could face legal action or be subject to discipline if they prescribed the meds for COVID treatment.

Allowing physicians to consider these early treatments will free them to evaluate additional tools that could save lives, keep patients out of the hospital, and provide relief for our already strained healthcare system,” AG Doug Peterson wrote.

The Office of AG pointed to multiple medical journal articles, research, and case studies. They mentioned the study from Lancet that was later on retracted because of its flawed statistics regarding the use of HCQ.   Because of conflicting data on the treatments by the principal authors, “We find that the available data does not justify filing disciplinary actions against physicians simply because they prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine to prevent or treat COVID-19,” the opinion said.

Office of AG also used the study from the Mahmud and Niaee research team and many more about Ivermectin’s role as prophylaxis.

The office of AG even attacked the company, Merck, on their agenda.

Why would ivermectin’s original patent holder go out of its way to question this medicine by creating the impression that it might not be safe? There are at least two plausible reasons. First, ivermectin is no longer under patent, so Merck does not profit from it anymore. That likely explains why Merck declined to “conductI] clinical trials” on ivermectin and COVID-19 when given the chance.

Second, Merck has a significant financial interest in the medical profession rejecting ivermectin as an early treatment for COVID-19. “[The U.S. government has agreed to pay [Merck] about $1.2 billion for 1.7 million courses of its experimental COVID-19 treatment, if it is proven to work in an ongoing large trial and authorized by U.S. regulators.”

That treatment, known a “molnupiravir, aims to stop COVID-19 from progressing and can be given early in the course of the disease.” On October 1, 2021, Merck announced that preliminary studies indicate that molnupiravir “reduced hospitalizations and deaths by half,” and that same day its stock price “jumped as much as 12.3%.” Thus, if low-cost ivermectin works better than–or even the same as-molnupiravir, that could cost Merck billions of dollars.

Nebraska AG Frees Doctors and Patients to Use HCQ and IVM

3.  Covid vaccine-induced immunity is incomplete

THE FOURTH issue is the recognition that genetic vaccines have limited value. While doctors support the current vaccine roll-out, reported “danger signals” must be clarified. Both the DNA-vector vaccine (AstraZeneca) and mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) behave as predicted by biology relevant to airways’ protection (something not understood by the vast majority of “experts”): short duration of protection limited to control of systemic inflammation, with little impact on infection of the airways.

Israel was used as a laboratory for the Pfizer vaccine. Six months after vaccination, there was essentially no protection against infection or mild disease, although protection against severe disease remained at 85-to-90 per cent. Thereafter came a rapid and progressive loss of protection against more severe disease. Infected vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects have similar viral loads and transmission capacity.

Immunity following natural infection is better and more durable than that induced by vaccination, so there is no sense in immunising those who have had COVID infection in the preceding six months.

We Can’t Vaccinate This Pandemic Away

4. Pandemic policies driven by opinion polls

From zerohedge Jordan Peterson: Government Adviser Told Me COVID Rules Based On Opinion Polls, Not Science. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Jordan Peterson says he spoke to a senior government adviser who told him Canada’s COVID restriction policies are completely driven by opinion polls and not science.

“In relation to the COVID restrictions, I talked to a senior adviser to one of the provincial governments a couple of weeks ago,” said Peterson.

“He told me flat out that the COVID policy here is driven by nothing but opinion polls related to the popularity of the government,” he added.

“No science, no endgame in sight, no real plan, and so what that means is that the part of the population that is most afraid of COVID,” are driving the policy.

Peterson pointed to figures that prove people vastly exaggerate the risk of being hospitalized by COVID due to relentless government fearmongering campaigns.

The author said he found the conversation “extremely disheartening” because he had hoped lockdown policies were “at least driven by something remotely resembling a scientifically informed plan.”

Peterson said the government adviser was “irate at what had been happening, enough to consider resigning.”

5.  Under 60 unvaccinated have better life expectancy than vaccinated

A previous post reckoned that the drive to mandate 100% vaccination is motivated by the need to eliminate the unvaccinated as a control population for comparative evaluation.  That possibility is now allowing discovery of ground truth, as evidenced by the UK medical records, and also worldwide data.  From Gateway Pundit Shocking UK Study Stuns Medical Community: Vaccinated People 60 and Younger Are Twice As Likely to Die as Unvaccinated People  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Vaccinated people under 60 are dying at twice the rate of unvaccinated people in the same age group.

The original data is here.

This ought to be the death knell for the push for mandatory vaccines. Will it?

Via Alex Berenson.

The brown line represents weekly deaths from all causes of vaccinated people aged 10-59, per 100,000 people.

The blue line represents weekly deaths from all causes of unvaccinated people per 100,000 in the same age range.

I have checked the underlying dataset myself and this graph is correct. Vaccinated people under 60 are twice as likely to die as unvaccinated people. And overall deaths in Britain are running well above normal.

Now we know why the globalists want to hide the Pfizer vaccine results for 55 years.

See also at Daily Expose UK A Deadly Pandemic of the Fully Vaccinated – Worldwide data from 185 nations proves the highest Covid-19 Death rates are in the most vaccinated countries

White columns are age-adjusted

The charts and graphs show…

  1. The above shows that the incidence of cases increases fairly linearly with the percentage of vaccinated people at a rate of 800 cases per million per extra percentage vaccinated.
  2.  Heavily vaccinated countries (over 60%) have 3x the case rates of lightly vaccinated countries (under 20%) and have 7x the case rates of very lightly vaccinated countries (under 10%).
  3. Raw death rates from Covid-19 increase with vaccination percentage from 0% to 50-60% and then decrease thereafter. Heavily vaccinated countries (over 60%) have twice the Covid-19 death rates of lightly vaccinated countries.
  4. The death rates are very high for partially vaccinated countries and come down for highly vaccinated countries because the old are vaccinated first. This skews the early or partially vaccinated death rates against vaccination because the unvaccinated group have a lower average age.

But by the time 80-90% are vaccinated, everyone has had the chance to be jabbed and the age skewing will have almost vanished. So the age adjusted death rate will run in a straight line from around 120 deaths per million for unvaccinated nations to around 600 deaths per million for fully vaccinated nations.

On that basis this data shows that each percentage of vaccination increases the death rate by around 6 deaths per million

5.  This data shows that a 2nd Jab offers no significant benefit over a 1st jab.

The inescapable conclusion from all the data we have up to October 31 is that vaccines increase case numbers by 3x-7x and increase death rates from Covid-19 by 2x-4x..

This is not a representative sample of a few thousand cases or deaths from one nation. It is the full study of all the cases so far in every reporting nation. The results are in. There is a massive positive correlation between vaccination percentage and case numbers and deaths.

Covid-19 vaccination has been the largest experimental intervention in the history of medical science. The work of every Government statistics department in 185 nations collated by Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore has produced the largest cohort study ever to be considered. We include the full dataset used below for further analysis by interested parties.




Brits Run Con Game at Glasgow COP

Doomsday was predicted but failed to happen at midnight.

Vijay Jayaraj explains in his Real Clear Energy article COP26’s UK Hosts Peddle Climate Misinformation.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

As hosts of the Glasgow COP26 climate conference, UK leaders were models for the meeting’s steady stream of misinformation and fearmongering that came from the likes of Barack Obama and Greta Thunberg.

The clock on the doomsday device is still ticking, but we’ve got a bomb disposal team on site,” said British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. “They’re starting to snip the wires – I hope some of the right ones.” If the specter of catastrophic global warming is not sufficiently scary, how about the image of an explosion?

As for misinformation, Boris claimed that “India (is) keeping a billion tons of carbon out of the atmosphere by switching half its power grid to renewable sources.”

Actually, India is increasing emissions, not reducing them.

The country is determined to raise coal production by 50 percent — from 700 million tons to 1 billion tons a year. The country has invested heavily in the coal sector and is asking coal utilities to implement fresh strategies to achieve the new target.

Also, the claim of India’s power grid being 50 percent renewables is misleading. While the total installed renewable capacity is around 40 percent out of the total installed power generation systems in the country, only nine percent of all electricity consumed comes from wind and solar because the so-called green technologies are available much less than are baseload sources. Seventy percent of all electricity comes from coal, followed by hydroelectric and nuclear. Even if wind and solar ever achieve 80 percent of total installed capacity, the actual generation from them would be less than 20 percent.

Also, there is no imminent threat from the climate as Boris so dramatically claims. Certainly not anything thing like a ticking bomb. Antarctica has been colder during the last four years, polar bears have thrived, islands are gaining land mass, and fewer people die from climate disasters than ever before.

Of course, understanding these realities requires unbiased research of data, which seems to be too much of a bother for Boris Johnson. Perhaps, the prime minister’s aides could read him page 256 of the United Nation’s special report, “Global Warming of 1.5°C.”

The report states that if we do nothing on climate, the subsequent theoretical increase of 3.66°C in temperature by the year 2100 will cost a meager 2.6 percent of the global gross domestic product — a loss that gives no reason to panic nor any justification to declare a climate emergency. And that is assuming UN projections are not overstated, which they often are.

To balance the scare tactics of the prime minister, UK Chancellor Rishi Sunak employed alluring cliches to promote the financing of climate polices. “We’re talking about making a tangible difference to people’s lives,” said the chancellor. “About cheap, reliable and clean electricity to power schools and hospitals in rural Africa. About better coastal defenses in the Philippines and the pacific islands to protect people from storm surges. About everyone, everywhere having fresher water to drink…cleaner air to breathe.”

Instead of real-world data, the chancellor uses high-sounding language as poetic musical prelude and endnote to sell his vision of spending money on climate policies for a supposedly better world. He ignores that more people in the world have better access to clean water than ever before in modern history. The share of global population with access to safe drinking water went up from around 60 percent in the year 2000 to around 73 percent in 2020 despite a rapid increase in population and growing groundwater problems in cities.

Our World in DataImage: Improvement in access to clean water globally, Source:

Western economies — Europe, UK, and U.S. — that have been dependent on fossil fuels boast some of the cleanest air in the world today. This is because fossil fuels provide the fastest creation of wealth, which can be spent on reducing pollution. Average life expectancy in the world went up from just 45 in 1950 to 71 in recent years. These are all markers of improvement, not degradation.

When it comes to extreme weather events, there has been no increase in the global tropical hurricane frequency, a fact that is conveniently overlooked by leaders like Sunak when they bemoan storms in cyclone-prone regions of the world.

Global Hurricane Frequency — 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached at least hurricane-force (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 64 knots). The bottom time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached major hurricane strength (96 knots+). Source:

If the chancellor really intends to provide affordable and reliable energy to the poor in Africa, then fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydro are the only probable solutions. Wind and solar are unreliable, and available battery technologies are simply not viable for on-demand baseload.

For those who care about facts, it is frustrating to have media-enabled leaders utter absurdities with few holding them to account. Billions of energy-starved people deserve better.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va., and holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, England. He resides in Bengaluru, India.

How Panic Spread in the Early Days of COVID-19

Scott W. Atlas writes at Newsweek on the panic response instilled in the US from the beginning in his article with the same title.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

It was February 2020, and news accounts had been describing increasingly alarming information about a deadly new virus emanating from Wuhan, China. Apart from my general concern about the spread of the infection, I was confused about some of the basic numbers being aired. The overall message coming from the World Health Organization (WHO) seemed to have obvious flaws. The extremely high risk estimates seemed very misleading. Even worst—the reported fatality rates were based only on patients who were sick enough to seek medical care rather than on the undoubtedly much larger population of infected individuals. I was stunned that this basic methodological flaw was being overlooked by almost everyone, while the resulting fatality rate of 3.4 percent was highlighted throughout the media. Every legitimate medical scientist should have called that out. Their silence was puzzling.

In the United States and throughout the world, a naive discussion about statistical models ensued. To an extraordinary and unprecedented extent, these epidemiological models were featured front and center in news coverage, with no perspective on the models’ usefulness. Reminiscent of other legendary frenzies in history, like the tulip bulb mania or the tech stock bubble, hypothetical extreme-risk scenarios went seemingly unchallenged and were given absolute credence.

At the same time, common sense and well-established principles of medicine were being ignored. Every second-year medical student knew that the elderly were almost certainly the most vulnerable group of people, since they were virtually always at highest risk of death and serious consequences from respiratory infections. Yet this was not stressed. To the contrary, the implication of reports and the public faces of official expertise implied that everyone was equally in danger. Even the initial evidence showed that elderly, frail people with preexisting comorbidities—conditions that weakened their natural immunological defenses—were the ones at highest risk of death. This was a feature shared by other respiratory viruses, including seasonal influenza. The one unusual feature of this virus was the fact that children had an extraordinarily low risk. Yet this positive and reassuring news was never emphasized. Instead, with total disregard of the evidence of selective risk consistent with other respiratory viruses, public health officials recommended draconian isolation of everyone.

The architects of the American lockdown strategy were Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx. With Dr. Robert Redfield, the director of the CDC, they were the most influential medical members of the White House Coronavirus Task Force.

Dr. Birx, Dr. Redfield and Dr. Fauci—often called “the nation’s top expert in infectious disease”—dominated all discussions about the health and medical aspects of the emerging pandemic. One thing was very clear: all three were cut from the same cloth. First, they were all bureaucrats, with a background in various government agencies. Second, they shared a long history in HIV/AIDS as a public health crisis. That was problematic, because HIV couldn’t be more different from SARS2 in its biology, its amenability to testing and contact tracing, its spread and the implications of those facts for its control.

Indeed, the three of them spent many years focusing on the development of a vaccine, rather than treatment, for HIV/AIDS—a vaccine that still does not exist.

Most others on the task force were juggling several concerns or had no medical background. This was one more responsibility added to their portfolios, so they deferred to those deemed medical experts. Drs. Birx and Fauci commandeered federal policy under President Trump and publicly advocated for a total societal shutdown. Instead of focusing on protecting the most vulnerable, their illogical and extraordinarily blunt response—despite its predictable, wide-ranging harms—was instituted as though it were simple common sense.

Over those first several weeks, fear had taken hold of the public. Media commentators and even policy experts, many of whom had no expertise on health care, were filling the airwaves and opinion pages with naive and incorrect predictions. This misinformation was going unchecked, and was indeed repeatedly endorsed and sensationalized. Some whom I had previously considered among my smartest colleagues and friends expressed great confusion and a striking absence of logic in analyzing what was happening.

I asked myself time and again, “Where are the critical thinkers?”

After more than 15 years a health policy researcher and decades in medical science and data analysis, I had never seen such flawed thinking. I was bewildered at the lack of logic, the absence of common sense and the reliance on fundamentally flawed science. Suddenly, computer modelers and people without any perspective about clinical illnesses were dominating the airwaves. Along with millions of other Americans, I began witnessing unprecedented responses from those in power and nonscientific recommendations by public health spokespeople: societal lockdowns including business and school closures, stay-at-home restrictions on individual movements, and arbitrary decrees by local, state, and federal governments.

These recommendations were not just based on panic; they were responsible for generating even more panic. COVID rapidly became the most important health policy crisis in a century.

Scott W. Atlas, M.D. is the Robert Wesson Senior Fellow in health care policy at the Hoover Institution.


Don’t Forget Biden’s War on Energy Producers

Hugo Gurdon writes at Washington Examiner that  Biden Hopes You Forget His War on US Energy Producers.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Joe Biden’s decision to order the Federal Trade Commission to investigate high gasoline prices and see if Big Oil is manipulating them prompts an ironic chuckle, for it is perfectly emblematic of this presidency. It is calculated to suggest concern about a widely felt problem without actually giving two hoots about it except insofar as it might do serious electoral damage to the party of the Left.

Since their drubbing in the Virginia governor’s race and elsewhere on Nov. 2, panicky Democrats have scrambled to create the illusion that they’re still in touch with the concerns of ordinary Americans. Biden touts his Build Back Better — or is it Bankrupt? — welfare plan as a “blue-collar blueprint” for prosperity. Translation: Hey, little people, I’ve got your back. The hapless veep nods toward government’s need to hear everyone’s voice. Translation: We don’t think you’re deplorables.


And now, because everyone notices and dislikes rising pump prices, Biden wants to persuade us saps to disregard Occam’s razor and believe corporate baddies are to blame, not his mismanagement and cheek-by-jowl adherence to the Left’s anti-energy agenda.

The reality is that Biden and his minions have waged war on domestic energy producers since his first day as president. Even now, he is doing his best to foist a comptroller of the currency onto the nation who explicitly calls for the ruin of oil companies, saying she wants them to “go bankrupt.”

Prices are soaring because demand outstrips supply, and several of the reasons can be laid at Biden’s door.

He’s weakened the supply chain, discouraged domestic production in part by raising costs, and failed to persuade Russia, the Saudis, and others to bail him out with more output. (He begged them to increase production — another national embarrassment — which would substitute dirty overseas output for the world’s most regulated and cleanest production here at home. So much for concern about greenhouse gas emissions).

The problem for Biden is that sleight of hand, extra PR, and frantic communication efforts don’t fix underlying problems, as the Washington Examiner’s Byron York recently noted . The administration can spin like a dreidel — goodness knows, it’s trying — but spin doesn’t change the facts.

Obscuring the real causes of rising prices won’t make prices come down or people feel them less. Saying inflation is a luxury concern and anyway is only temporary won’t make it so. Saying another $4 trillion of spending, much of it with borrowed money, will reduce price acceleration won’t achieve that end.

So, as you drive to join family members to celebrate Thanksgiving this week, you’ll know who to thank for the extra $20 you must pay to fill your gas tank each time. When you sit down to dinner, you’ll know who to thank for the fact that your favorite foodstuffs were out of stock.

Yet, for all that, there are real reasons, even in today’s politics, to be thankful. One is that voters have already seen through the Democrats’ spin and are signaling that change is a-coming. Another is that presidential terms don’t last longer than four years.

War on Energy Case Study:  Trainer Refinery south of Philadelphia

Gordon Tomb writes at Real Clear Energy East Coast’s Remaining Refineries’ Daunting Domestic Threat.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The modernization of the Trainer Refinery south of Philadelphia is initially obscured by aged brick buildings and hulking equipment. With closer examination, however, emerge brightly painted pipes, scores of gleaming white tanks and towering construction cranes that hint of ongoing upgrades.

With a growing post-pandemic economy and strong energy prices, prospects are bright save for threats of a controversial carbon tax scheme by the governor and federal regulations. Federal rules have contributed to the closure of seven independent refineries on the East Coast since 2009, leaving only Trainer and three others remaining. And one of those — owned by PBF Energy in New Jersey — closed half its refining units and laid off 250 employees last summer.

Monroe Energy, which owns the Trainer Refinery, annually spends tens of millions of dollars on improvements to keep abreast of government regulations and customer needs. A few years ago, it invested nearly $200 million on installing equipment to make low-sulfur gasoline. Currently, the company is building high-efficiency electrical substations, as well as water-cooling units that enable millions of gallons of water to be reused, drastically reducing dependence on Delaware River water.

It employs approximately 500 people and hires at any one time up to 1,400 members of the Philadelphia Building Trades for maintenance projects that can last for months. Because of their work, Trainer produces daily more than 8 million gallons of fuel, mainly for transportation and heating.

Among the worries is Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf’s proposal to institute a tax on electricity generators that use fossil fuels through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). This taxation scheme is intended to replace fuels like coal and natural gas with more expensive wind and solar energy.

In comments to regulators, Monroe Energy noted its extensive use of electricity and cited data showing that the cost of power was 38 percent less outside existing RGGI states. The company has spent hundreds of millions on environmentally beneficial investments with plans for more. “However, Monroe added, “we fear that enacting a program like RGGI will increase costs to such an extent that we may be unable to move forward with some of these projects.”

RGGI also would put at risk tens of thousands of jobs in Pennsylvania’s electric-power and manufacturing industries by inducing operations to move away.

An even more immediate issue for Monroe is the federal government’s 16-year-old Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which requires refiners to add ethanol to transportation fuels or buy credits. The RFS has expanded since its inception creating a burden that threatens to put Monroe out of business if not addressed.

Ethanol is added to fuel as it is distributed to end users — or shortly before — to protect the equipment of refiners and transporters from the additive’s corrosive effect. Because Monroe does not sell to end users, it has virtually no ability to add ethanol and has to buy credits, whose price has risen from a few cents to nearly two dollars.

“The difference between credit prices of 2 cents and 2 dollars for us is hundreds of millions of dollars in compliance-obligation costs,” says Mr. McGlaughlin. Since buying Trainer in 2012, Monroe has spent more than $800 million on RFS compliance — multiples more than the refinery’s purchase price.

The negative consequences of both RFS and RGGI — including job losses and diminished fuel security — seem obvious to nearly everybody. Yet the employees at Trainer are still waiting for relief from Washington while also hoping to avoid the economic wreckage proposed by the governor and the absurdity of bureaucrats trying to improve the climate.

“We hope people will side with us and allow us to keep doing our jobs,” says Ron Pierce.

See also Energy Industry Fights Off Biden Hostile Takeover






Financial Systems Have Little Risk from Climate

At John Cochrane’s blog readers can access studies showing how activists like Mark Carney are distorting and exploiting imaginary risks to the financial system from global warming/climate change.  Firstly Cochrane discusses a current Federal Reserve research document How Bad Are Weather Disasters for Banks?   Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images are from his blog article Fed Courage

How Bad Are Weather Disasters for Banks?

Kristian S. Blickle, Sarah N. Hamerling, and Donald P. Morgan

Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports, no. 990 November 2021


Not very. We find that weather disasters over the last quarter century had insignificant or small effects on U.S. banks’ performance. This stability seems endogenous rather than a mere reflection of federal aid. Disasters increase loan demand, which offsets losses and actually boosts profits at larger banks. Local banks tend to avoid mortgage lending where floods are more common than official flood maps would predict, suggesting that local knowledge may also mitigate disaster impacts.

Key words: hurricanes, wildfires, floods, climate change, weather disasters, FEMA, banks, financial stability, local knowledge

In addition to the paper’s good analysis, there is a useful literature review,

Our main findings are generally consistent with the few papers that study the bank stability effects of disaster. Looking across countries, Klomp (2014) finds that disasters do not effect default risk of banks in developed countries. Brei et al. (2019) find that hurricanes (the most destructive weather disaster) do not significantly weaken Caribbean banks. Koetter et al. (2019) finds increased lending and profits at German banks exposed to flooding along the Elbe River. The study closest to ours by Noth and Schuewer (2018) finds default risk increases at U.S. banks following disasters but the effects are small and short-lived. Barth et al. (2019) find higher profits and interest spreads at U.S. banks after disasters but did not look at bank risk.

Based on four case studies of extreme disasters and small banks, FDIC (2005) concluded that …”historically, natural disasters did not appear to have a significant negative impact on bank performance.”

This is a courageous paper to write, and to write so clearly. The fantasy of “climate risks to the financial system” is passed around and around in order to justify using financial regulation to implement this Administration’s climate policies, centering on defunding fossil fuel development and subsidizing deployment of particular technologies such as electric cars and windmills. Documenting that this particular emperor has no clothes takes great courage.

As a small indicator of the forces at work, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen offered an eloquent summary of a the “whole-of-government’ effort to integrate climate into financial regulation

“FSOC is recognizing that climate change is an emerging and increasing threat to U.S. financial stability. This report puts climate change squarely at the forefront of the agenda of its member agencies..”

News that climate change is not a threat to financial stability will not go down well.

Governor Lael Brainard, currently a leading candidate for Fed Chair, is a strong proponent of “climate risks to the financial system.” = Just read here speeches. Here, for example,

Climate change is projected to have profound effects on the economy and the financial system, and it is already inflicting damage.

We can already see the growing costs associated with the increasing frequency and severity of climate-related events.


It is increasingly clear that climate change could have important implications for the Federal Reserve … Given the implications of climate change for both individual financial institutions and the financial sector as a whole...,

Climate change and the transition to a sustainable economy also pose risks to the stability of the broader financial system. …

And a hint of the vast institutional commitment to these ideas

To complement the work of the SCC, the Federal Reserve Board is establishing a Financial Stability Climate Committee (FSCC) to identify, assess, and address climate-related risks to financial stability.

“We looked and there is nothing here” is not going to go down well. It’s hard to publish papers and get jobs as climate and finance researchers these days if you come up with the “wrong” answers.

New Zealand Study Confirms Financial System Safety from Climate Change

A commenter at the blog provided a link to another recent NZ study Climate Change and the risk to Financial Stability.  Reality or overreaction? Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The Reserve Bank is not alone in suggesting that climate change could represent some kind of existential threat to the financial system. Over recent years a number of central banks, supervisors and international financial institutions have made claims that global warming poses a serious risk to financial stability. The Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), a club of central banks and supervisors, is pushing a more coordinated international approach. Further, the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) has identified financial stability as one of the two major economic risks in its recent Climate Change Risk Assessment report.

At first sight it is difficult to understand what is driving the Reserve Bank’s concern. The physical risks from climate change to the New Zealand economy are small, and over the period up to 2100 the benefits of a warmer climate may well exceed the costs. While there will be some impacts as the economy adapts to a zero carbon future, economies have always been changing and, with some exceptions, financial systems have been able to accommodate those changes. To cite an obvious example, the US substantially shifted from horse to motorized transport in the space of 20 years, without any one being in charge or worrying about systemic risk to the financial system.

As the physical effects of climate change are slow-moving and relatively predictable over relevant time horizons, we should expect the financial systems to adapt to this changing world, and readily accommodate the impacts of climate events such as a slowly rising sea levels and the occasional stronger storms.

The issue we address in this report is whether climate change is such an exception to this benign adaptation picture, that central banks and supervisors need to respond to the ‘challenge’ with some urgency. Or is this just a case of the Reserve Bank wanting to be seen to be ‘relevant’ and getting into the action in what is one of the biggest issues of our time?

The main purpose of this report is to assess the papers on the Bank’s list and other relevant documents on the impact of climate change on financial systems. We have also focused on climate change risk disclosures, which have become a flavour of the month in regulatory quarters, and are set to become mandatory for larger New Zealand institutions.

The focus of our analysis is on the banking sector, which is the core of the New Zealand financial system. We have paid less attention to risks to the insurance sector because it is generally accepted it can readily manage climate risks by adjusting its exposures and pricing.

Our conclusions are very clear. We have reviewed a large number of documents and despite the best efforts of many supervisors none have been able to come up with convincing evidence that climate change represents a threat, let alone a systemic threat. For example a very recent full scale stress test for France found that the transition costs to a zero carbon economy would at most be four or five basis points and that it did not matter whether the transition was early or late. The physical risks from climate change were so slight that they could not be analysed.

We did find a disturbing pattern of exaggerations and misrepresentations. For example the Bank of England instructed banks, when stress testing, to assume that all river flooding defences would be removed, in an effort to inflate the costs of future flooding events. The United Nations Environment Programme used climate change assumptions for 2100 to assess financial system impacts for 2025 and 2045.

Climate change does not represent some kind of existential threat to the New Zealand financial system.

The Governnor is over-reacting. This climate change ‘hysteria’ is mostly noise, but it might have some efficiency costs for the system, which could be avoided if a more measured approach is taken. The Reserve Bank’s role should be to correct and hose down ill-informed responses, not to create them.


Background from John H. Cochrane writing on central banks mistaken preoccupation with global warming/climate change at post Deception: Climate Financial Risk

Also Cochrane’s remarks at European Central Bank’s Conference on Monetary Policy. Synopsis at post Bankers Should Mind Their Own Business, not the Climate



The Economic and Health Effects of Mass Covid-19 Vaccination

John Gibson provides this timely analysis at Brownstone Institute: The Economic and Health Effects of Mass Covid-19 Vaccination.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

On or about the 1st of December 2021, the world will pass a notable milestone: more doses of Covid-19 vaccines will have been administered than there are people in the world. The two ‘clocks’ that let me predict this date are here and here. Of course, some people have had three (or more) doses, and others none but already a majority of the world’s population have been jabbed at least once with a Covid-19 vaccine.

Given this massive rollout, we should start to see some effects in the aggregate data. Such data provides observational evidence—correlations rather than causal relationships. Yet these correlations can be informative, especially as pivotal randomized control trials for Covid-19 vaccines, that might be expected to reveal causal effects, were not designed to answer the questions many people have about the vaccines.

It was therefore disingenuous, dishonest even, for health bureaucrats Walensky, Walke, and Fauci to write a “Viewpoint” in JAMA in February 2021 that claimed:

“…Clinical trials have shown that the vaccines authorized for use in the US are highly effective against COVID-19 infection, severe illness, and death.”

Quite rightly, Dr Peter Doshi, a BMJ editor and expert on critiquing clinical trials, wrote a comment showing the claim is false.

Of course this claim, along with many others purportedly based on the trials, is untrue. Given that the clinical trials have been so prone to misinterpretation, and that they were unblinded early, meaning that efficacy beyond six months cannot be established from the trial data, we have to look elsewhere for evidence.

Irrespective of reasons for this prior invisibility, economists are now starting to emerge from their cocoons and their analyses of the aggregate data are becoming available. In terms of the global vaccine rollout, it seems that economic conditions matter more than health conditions. Across 112 countries, the rollout was faster for richer not sicker countries. Amongst OECD countries, which have timely and reliable mortality data and are highly vaccinated, rollout was faster for countries where the negative economic shock in 2020 had been bigger, but not where the health shock (excess mortality) had been bigger.

Evidence is also emerging on aggregate effects (and non-effects) from mass vaccination. For 68 countries with full data available, a simple scatter plot shows there was no relationship between the percentage of the population fully vaccinated (by early September, 2021) and new Covid-19 cases in the last 7 days. A concern with such cross-sectional studies is that omitted factors drive the correlations.

A standard economics approach to these issues is to use panel data (repeated observations on the same countries). With such data we can remove the effect of (time-invariant) unobserved characteristics of countries and (spatially-invariant) unobserved features of time periods to mitigate the impact of omitted factors in driving correlations.

Such panel data for 32 highly vaccinated OECD countries (over 1.3 billion doses to date) that also have high frequency all-cause mortality data indicate that aggregate effects of mass vaccination are showing up in the political-economy sphere but not in health terms. The chart below shows relationships between the fully-vaccinated rate and two health outcomes (deaths from Covid-19 and from all-causes), three economic outcomes (personal mobility to various types of places tracked by Google), and one policy outcome (stringency of lockdown rules).

The outcomes are the change from the same month of 2020, when vaccines were unavailable, versus 2021, when mass vaccination was underway (for each month to September). The units for the chart are standard deviations, to allow comparisons across outcomes in various native units (an index for lockdowns, percentage changes for mobility, rates for deaths).

A standard deviation higher fully vaccinated rate is associated with lockdown stringency of one-half a standard deviation lower. This reflects politicians of all stripes tying lockdown to vaccination rates. For example, in September 2021 the New Zealand Prime Minister said “We’re in lockdown because we do not have enough New Zealanders currently vaccinated…” Earlier in the year, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said “The way to ensure this [lockdown easing] happens is to get that jab when your turn comes, so let’s get the jab done.”

The rebound in economic activity, as measured by change in consumer mobility compared to the same month of 2020 (so accounting for seasonal factors) is more than one-half a standard deviation higher per standard deviation of the fully vaccinated rate, for retail and recreational locations (and almost as large for transit stations). Conversely, time spent in residential places is about one-half a standard deviation lower, compared to the same month of 2020, in months or countries where the fully vaccinated rate is one standard deviation higher.

Is this rise in being out-and-about due to the vaccines per se, perhaps by making people feel safer, or is it just the response to relaxed lockdown controls? It turns out that it is just the relaxation in lockdown stringency that drives the rise in consumer mobility. Once this is accounted for, there is no independent effect of the vaccination rate on the Google Mobility indicators.

So we can think of the jabs as being a jab in the arm of politicians to relax their iron grip on the freedom of movement for people.

While the correlations for mobility (as an economic activity proxy) and lockdown stringency are large and precisely estimated, the corresponding effects on aggregate health indicators are not apparent. Specifically, for these countries through September 2021, vaccination rates have no relationship with changes in new Covid-19 deaths per million, nor with changes in all-cause mortality. After 1.3 billion doses for these countries (and seven billion doses worldwide), one would expect to see some reduction in deaths. Yet such an effect does not show up in these data.

From these results it seems that mass vaccination is some sort of get-out-of-jail card, as a way to get out of ruinously expensive lockdowns and allow some rebound in economic activity. Yet it was politicians and health bureaucrats who put us in jail in the first place. At any time they could undo what they imposed, with or without mass vaccination. As lockdowns failed to control the virus, and did not reduce excess mortality, politicians could have undone these costly and ineffective interventions without needing to rely on mass vaccination.

Click to access 2111-johngibson.pdf



JIT: US Gas Pipelines Expanded

Some good news from EIA (US Energy Information Administration) that natural gas supplies will be enhanced Just In Time for the winter heating season.  The article is New natural gas pipeline capacity expands access to export and Northeast markets.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

In our recently updated Natural Gas Pipeline Projects Tracker, we estimate over 4 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of new natural gas pipeline capacity entered service in the third quarter of 2021, primarily supplying Gulf Coast and Northeast demand markets.

In the Gulf Coast, three projects either entered service in the third quarter or were partially completed, totaling 3.6 Bcf/d of additional pipeline capacity. These projects connect U.S. natural gas production to growing U.S. export markets. They include:

♦ The Whistler pipeline, completed on July 1, 2021. The new 2.0 Bcf/d pipeline, constructed by NextEra, connects Permian Basin production at the Waha Hub in West Texas to the Agua Dulce Hub in Southeast Texas. The Agua Dulce Hub serves as the supply point for several pipelines that cross the border to supply demand markets in Mexico.

♦ The Acadiana Expansion Project, partly completed as of August 6, 2021. This 894 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) expansion on the Kinder Morgan Louisiana intrastate pipeline increases takeaway capacity out of the Haynesville Basin, connecting it to the Sabine Pass LNG terminal. The project is expected to be completed in early 2022.

♦ The Cameron Extension Project, partly completed as of August 12, 2021. This 750 MMcf/d expansion on the Texas Eastern Transmission (TETCO) interstate pipeline delivers feedgas to the Calcasieu Pass LNG terminal, which is currently preparing to start commissioning activities. The project is expected to be completed by the end of this year.

Several other projects have also entered service, increasing supplies to constrained demand markets in the Northeast. In New England, two projects will improve the region’s access to winter supplies of natural gas by over 100 MMcf/d:

♦ The 261 Upgrade Projects completed its second and final phase, entering service on October 6, 2021. With the new, upgraded compressor at Station 261, an estimated 20 MMcf/d of additional natural gas supply can be delivered by the Tennessee Gas Pipeline (TGP) into New England.

♦ Portland Natural Gas Transmission System’s (PNGTS) Westbrook Xpress Project, Phases 2 and 3, entered service on October 21, 2021, increasing natural gas pipeline import capacity from Canada at Pittsburg, New Hampshire, by 81 MMcf/d. The new Westbrook compressor station in Westbrook, Maine, will increase capacity on the co-operated Maritimes Northeast pipeline by 50 MMcf/d.

In addition, the Middlesex Expansion Project entered service in New Jersey on September 28, 2021. This 264 MMcf/d TETCO expansion delivers natural gas—via interconnections with other interstate pipelines—to the 724 megawatt (MW) Woodbridge Energy Center combined-cycle power plant in Woodbridge Township, New Jersey.

Some Bad News

The pipeline project tracker update also includes the cancellation of the 1.3 Bcf/d PennEast Pipeline, which was announced in late September. This 1.3 billion dollar project was designed to bring natural gas supplies from the Appalachia Basin into constrained demand markets in New Jersey and southeastern Pennsylvania.

In total, the Natural Gas Pipeline Projects Tracker includes updates to 25 interstate and intrastate natural gas pipeline projects, including announcements of new projects and estimated dates of completion. We update this resource quarterly; the next update is scheduled for late January 2022.


Background on PennEast cancelation at PA advocates laud cancelation of PennEast pipeline

The PennEast decision was a victory for the opponents that have waged a seven-year campaign against the project. “The announcement that the PennEast pipeline is effectively dead is a huge relief for PennFuture and the impacted communities across the Delaware River watershed who have been tirelessly working to defeat this terrible pipeline,” said Abigail M. Jones, vice president of legal and policy at the environmental advocacy group PennFuture.

Not everyone was pleased with the PennEast decision.

“We are disappointed, although not surprised, to hear that PennEast has decided to cancel the development of this important pipeline project in New Jersey,” Mark Longo, director of the Engineers Labor-Employer Cooperative, said in a statement. “The benefits of the project were clear: It would have provided New Jersey and the entire region with the clean, affordable energy needed to grow our economy. However, many policy makers and special interest groups shamefully fought hard to stop the project and ultimately succeeded, putting the future of our energy infrastructure at risk.”

The Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry lamented the economic impact of the cancelation.

“Activists are cheering upon the recent news that the sponsors of the PennEast project, a more than $1 billion investment that would have delivered Pennsylvania-produced natural gas into markets in New Jersey, have cancelled the project. Let’s be clear: this is no victory — not for ratepayers, who are now lacking a reliable source of gas and electricity; not for the economy, which is now out several thousand well-paying construction jobs at a time when the economy continues to struggle; and not for the environment, as this obstruction results in the mid-Atlantic being more reliant on imported fuels from foreign nations that do not have our strict environmental standards,” said Chamber President and CEO Gene Barr.


The Inflationary Road to Serfdom (Great Reset)

Tyler Durden posted at zerohedge This Is How They Intend To Get Us To “You Will Own Nothing And Be Happy”.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The pieces of the puzzle may fit together in ways that you do not expect. For years, the global elite have been openly telling us that one day we will all own nothing, we will have no privacy, and we will be extremely happy with our new socialist utopia. But exactly how do they intend to transition to such a society? Are they going to come and take all of your stuff? Needless to say, there are millions upon millions of very angry people out there that aren’t just going to hand over their stuff to a bunch of socialists. So how are they going to overcome that obstacle?

Well, the truth is that they don’t need to take your stuff to implement their goals.  All they need to do is to destroy the value of your money.

If your money becomes worthless, you will start descending into poverty and it won’t be too long before you become totally dependent on the government.

And as the stuff that you have right now wears out, you won’t be able to replace it with the worthless money that you are now holding.

Eventually, you will own virtually nothing, but you probably won’t be very happy about it.

So high inflation is actually a tool that the global elite can use to further their goals.

The good news is that I do not believe that the global elite will ever be able to achieve their utopia.

The bad news is that they won’t be able to achieve their utopia because western society is going to completely and utterly collapse during the times that are ahead.

But as I demonstrated last week, the truth is that inflation is rising much faster than our paychecks are, and that means that our standard of living is going down.

And inflation is one of the big reasons why the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index just hit the lowest level since 2011.

The Federal Reserve has lost control, and 2022 is going to be a very “interesting” year from an economic standpoint.

On Sunday, we learned that the average price of a gallon of gasoline in California has almost reached five dollars…Gasoline prices are going to continue to move higher, and that is really bad news.

Just about everything that we buy has to be transported, and so higher gasoline prices are going to fuel even more inflation.

Sadly, those that are on the bottom of the economic food chain are the ones that are being hurt the most. At this point, many food banks are really struggling to purchase enough food because price hikes have become so severe…

So many problems have converged all at once.  Some have used the term “a perfect storm” to describe what we are facing, and I think that is definitely quite appropriate.

If you are waiting for life to “get back to normal”, you are going to be waiting for a very long time. As MN Gordon has noted, pre-2020 prices are now gone forever…

But sooner or later, this is what socialist regimes always do.  They tell us to study hard, get a good job and work as hard as we can.  And then they give our money to people that haven’t done any of those things.

Eventually they run out of other people’s money, and so then they just start wildly creating more.

Unfortunately, every time that this has been tried throughout history it has always ended in disaster, and now it is our turn.

More from Jeff Greenfield at Politico Joe Biden’s Empty Inflation Toolbox

Presidents have little power to bring down rising prices.
History shows the public doesn’t care.

Left unspoken was a chilling reminder from history: Inflation has a unique power to kneecap a presidency. Incumbent presidents and their parties do not do well at all when inflation (and attempts to cure it) are on voters’ minds come election time. The gas pump, the supermarket check-out counter, the heating bill, the sticker on the windshield, provide — or seem to provide — powerful indictments against the party in charge.

If that’s not enough to unsettle the White House and its allies, consider this: Presidents have almost no power to ease the pain of inflation, and the voting public cuts presidents no slack at all because of that impotence. Look into the toolbox of our country’s chief executive and you’ll find it empty of effective tools, filled instead with devices now obsolete or laughable or meaningless or politically destructive.

But if you’re looking for a president who did in fact do something to tame inflation — albeit indirectly — it was Jimmy Carter. When he appointed Paul Volcker as chair of the Federal Reserve Board, he put someone in a position of real power who was determined to fully exercise that power, no matter the consequences.

With an inflation rate in 1980 of more than 13 percent — “It was the biggest inflation and the most sustained inflation that the United States had ever had,” Volcker recalled — he led the Fed to a historic tightening of the money supply. Interest rates rose vertiginously; at one point the prime rate hit 21 percent. The consequences were dramatic and ugly — a recession more severe than any since the Great Depression. Four million workers lost their jobs.

The “stagflation” — a toxic combination of inflation and unemployment — helped send Carter down to a landslide defeat in 1980. By 1982, the unemployment rate hit 10 percent, a number high enough to cost Republicans 27 seats in the House. By 1984, however, unemployment was moving in the right direction, dropping to just over 7 percent. Economic growth was over 7 percent, inflation had dropped to under 4 percentand Ronald Reagan won a 49-state re-election.

The United Sates has not faced a genuinely worrisome inflation rate since, and that’s another source of pain for Biden and his party. Americans have had no experience in decades with prices rising across the board; a 6 or 7 percent inflation rate is nothing compared to the Carter era, but it looks particularly worrisome compared with the recent past.

If Biden’s advisors are right, 2022 will see the lessening of inflation, as goods flow into the stores and automobile lots where cash-flushed customers will no longer bid up the costs of scarce items. But that’s more of a hope than a certainty; the White House description last summer of the “transitory” nature of this inflation seems a lot less convincing now, and the prospect of Christmas season with high priced or unavailable goods and sharply higher fuel costs does not bode well for the president’s already-sinking approval numbers.

Footnote:  Road to Serfdom

In ‘The Road to Serfdom’ F. A. Hayek set out the danger posed to freedom by attempts to apply the principles of wartime economic and social planning to the problems of peacetime. Mises Institute provides a text in pdf format here