A New Lexicon for the Covid Era

Redefinitions Required for the time of Covid

Before, People were presumed healthy unless they had a proven disease;
And Now, People are presumed sick unless they are proven well.

Before, a quarantine was isolating sick people from contact with healthy people;
And now, a quarantine is isolating everyone until they are proven healthy.

Before, a vaccine is a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease
And now, a vaccine is a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.

Before, vaccination was the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.
And Now, vaccination produces protection to a specific disease.

Before, when someone is vaccinated and gets infected anyway, it was called “vaccine failure”;
And now, it’s called “breakthrough infection.”

Before, immunity meant someone who is not infected when exposed to a disease;
And now, immunity means someone who gets not very sick when infected by a disease.

Before, herd immunity was a community where an infectious disease is unlikely to spread because most individuals have already been infected and are now immune.
And now, herd immunity is when everyone is vaccinated.

Before, censors were officials who suppressed communication deemed objectionable on moral, political, military or other grounds;
And now, they call themselves “fact-checkers”

JimBob Gets It

 

All’s Well with Mid-Dec. Arctic Ice

 

The image above shows recovery of Arctic sea ice extent over the first half of December 2021. As supported by the table later, the pace of refreezing for 2021 exceeded the 14-year average since mid-Nov. and ended close to average, and well above 2020.

The month began with the Arctic core as well as seas on the Eurasian and Can-Am sides (top and bottom) already ice-covered, so no additional extent came from there.  OTOH Hudson Bay (lower right) more than doubled extent, starting with only western shore ice and grew from 320k km2 to 780k km2, 62% of last March maximum.  On the Pacific side, Bering (bottom left) went down to 255k km2 before refreezing up to 426k m2, nearly half of its last max.  Okhotsk (far left) had very little ice to start but now has fast ice growing from the northern shore.

The graph below shows the ice extent growing mid-Nov. to mid-Dec compared to some other years and the 14 year average (2007 to 2020 inclusive).

Note that the  NH ice extent 14 year average increases 2.4M km2 during this period, up to 12.2M km2. MASIE 2021 tracked above average most of the period, returning to the mean at the end. Other years were also nearly average, except for 2020. SII was slightly lower than MASIE most of the time but ended nearly the same.

Region 2021349 Day 349 Average 2021-Ave. 2020349 2021-2020
 (0) Northern_Hemisphere 12132680 12181283  -48602  11673121 459559 
 (1) Beaufort_Sea 1070776 1070021  755  1070689 87 
 (2) Chukchi_Sea 966006 931960  34047  876648 89358 
 (3) East_Siberian_Sea 1087137 1086411  727  1086981 156 
 (4) Laptev_Sea 897827 897835  -8  897827
 (5) Kara_Sea 892744 840489  52255  608199 284545 
 (6) Barents_Sea 516037 337705  178332  266917 249119 
 (7) Greenland_Sea 476250 552837  -76587  571809 -95559 
 (8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence 782600 835808  -53209  790539 -7939 
 (9) Canadian_Archipelago 854685 853275  1411  854597 88 
 (10) Hudson_Bay 778083 1126491  -348408  1163833 -385750 
 (11) Central_Arctic 3192879 3204951  -12071  3207975 -15096 
 (12) Bering_Sea 426194 229742  196452  147408 278787 
 (13) Baltic_Sea 32463 11257 21206  400 32063 
 (14) Sea_of_Okhotsk 148537 192106  -43569  114474 34063 

The table shows where the ice is distributed compared to average. Hudson Bay shows a large deficit, along with smaller ones in Greenland Sea and Baffin Bay.  Offsetting are surpluses in Bering, Barents and Kara Seas.

Illustration by Eleanor Lutz shows Earth’s seasonal climate changes. If played in full screen, the four corners present views from top, bottom and sides. It is a visual representation of scientific datasets measuring Arctic ice extents.

Omicron the Liberator

Jarrad Winter writes at American Thinker Omicron: The delta-slayer.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

In a sane world, where facts and science held sway, it would all be over soon.

The largely harmless omicron variant is absolutely unstoppable meaning that the more lethal delta variant has precious little time left to be a threat to anyone.

The former, which I call the Variant of Freedom, disperses so rapidly that it makes delta look frozen in time. To the informed and educated mind, this is a glorious thing, indeed. But those blinded by fear and ignorance cannot see the marvelous miracle unfolding before our very eyes.

The press has been loaded with doom-and-gloom stories about the omicron variant. But in reality, omicron is nature’s version of a vaccine for the Wuhan Plague.

Omicron infections are often asymptomatic (vaxxed or not). Where not completely unnoticeable, omicron cases produce short-lived, mild illness to nearly all afflicted. And at the end of the less-than-traumatic ordeal, the newly COVID-recovered is bestowed with better, more durable, natural immunity to COVID over all the vaccines in the world.

Furthermore, although pandemic viruses generally evolve to become more transmissible and less lethal, that’s not a hard and fast rule. There are known incidents of viruses becoming more deadly. By not accepting the authentic immunity that omicron offers at low cost, and instead stabbing themselves full of mRNA cocktails, rabid vaxxers deprive the herd of all the additional protection against future variants that vaccines simply cannot provide.

Scared or not, it’s absolutely laughable that some very smart people think omicron can be contained.

In a Hong Kong quarantine hotel, omicron teleported across a hallway from the room of one fully vaxxed individual into another. If you make the mistake of merely looking at someone infected with omicron from a hundred yards away, then you’re going to catch it. That’s how contagious it is in real life.

The whole planet is trying in vain to lock down and run away from the this new variant, which in reality is the Great Liberator. It’s makes no damn sense whatsoever. In my mind, we should already have omicron infection centers in operation, places people could go get omicron on purpose — and benefit from its natural immunity in order to dodge the still present delta variant. Omicron is going to force the issue for a great many people regardless, but I still think it would be beneficial to have some assurances over which variant is contracted while delta still circulates.

If they have their way, you will never be fully vaccinated

The infinite vaccine loop (source: The Telegraph)

Diversity Industry Covers Up Failed Affirmative Action

screen-shot-2021-07-09-at-12.17.46-am
Heather Mac Donald explains the origins and preoccupations of Diversity, Inclusion and Equity (DIE).  Whoops, I mean Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI)  which is now an academic degree you can acquire.  Her Quillette article is Almost Four Decades After Its Birth, The Diversity Industry Thrives on Its Own Failures.

The diversity business originated in 1984, when R. Roosevelt Thomas, a Harvard business school graduate, founded the American Institute for Managing Diversity at Morehouse College. Corporations had been practicing affirmative action for years, but the women and minorities whom employers had hired to meet equal-opportunity obligations weren’t advancing up the career ladder in acceptable numbers. Thomas came up with a novel explanation. The problem wasn’t that preferentially admitted recruits were underqualified; the problem was that their supervisors didn’t know how to “manage diversity.” It was those supervisors who needed remedial training—lots of it—not the affirmative-action beneficiaries themselves.

Managerial expectations about merit and performance often reflected cultural prejudices, Thomas and the consultants who followed him insisted. “‘Qualifications’ is a code word in the business world with very negative connotations,” a consultant with the professional-services firm of Towers Perrin (as it was then called) said in 1993. If minorities don’t meet existing employment criteria, then corporations need to expand their definition of what it means to be employable, said Alan Richter, creator of the 1991 board game, The Diversity Game. Promptness, precision, and a cogent communications style were among the attributes that diversity advisors deemed likely expendable.

A lucrative new consulting practice was born, its growth driven by a constant churn in terminology. “Valuing diversity” was different from “managing diversity.” Each newly spawned phrase came with a cadre of high-priced tutors. Lewis Griggs currently offers video trainings in such subjects as “Communicating Across Differences,” “Supervising and Managing Differences,” and “Creating, Managing, Valuing, and Leveraging Diversity,” with each video purporting to contain specialized content appropriate for different parts of an organization.

“Diversity” was eventually joined by “inclusion.” “Equity” was then added, thus yielding today’s DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) triumvirate (sometimes also going as “EDI”). The most cutting-edge organizations have lately appended a “B” (for Belonging), as at the Juilliard School in New York City. Distinguishing these terms is a core function of diversity training—and now, at Bentley, of diversity scholarship. The university’s new DEI major, the Chronicle of Higher Education reports, will help graduates understand the “nuances of and differences between diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice.”

Even by 1993, half of Fortune 500 companies had a designated diversity officer, and 40 percent of American companies had instituted diversity training. Diversity conferences were occurring regularly, attracting government and business attendees. And yet many reporters, academics, corporate consultants, and activists still insist that managers not only fail to “value diversity,” but remain complicit in creating a dangerous environment for women and racial minorities.

Example: Levi Strauss & Co., which was recognized on Forbes’s list of “Best Employers for Diversity” in 2019. The company itself boasts: “In the 1960s, we integrated our factories a decade before it was required by law. In the early 1980s, we joined the fight against HIV/AIDS early on. Furthermore, our president and CEO, Chip Bergh, was one of the first company leaders to join the CEO Action for Diversity & Inclusion™ [in 2017], and has been on the front lines of efforts to protect Dreamers knowing that diversity and inclusivity makes our company better and our country stronger (after all, Levi Strauss himself was an immigrant).”

And yet the situation for minority employees at Levi Strauss is still so dire that the company has been hosting racially segregated healing sessions with professional mental health experts. As the Washington Free Beacon recently reported, its chief executive for DEI is trying to provide a “safe space for employees to express themselves” without feeling “triggered.”

Bentley University itself has yet to yield dividends from its longstanding diversity efforts. The school has been “working for decades on issues, challenges, and opportunities” pertaining to diversity, according to its Office of Diversity and Inclusion. Over 900 faculty and administrators have attended two-day diversity retreats; numerous committees, departments, and offices have focused on improving the school’s “diversity climate.” Bentley even has its own diversity consulting outfit, the Center for Women and Business, which advises employees and managers on such diversity pitfalls as being a mere “performative ally” of oppressed colleagues (as opposed to an active ally).

And yet, despite this effort, a Bentley Racial Justice Task Force recently found that the campus still did not understand how “race and racism” operate at the university. So difficult is it to be a diverse member of Bentley that the task force, formed in July 2020, began with a moment of “restoration,” providing to all “those who had been traumatized” at the school a “time to heal” and a time to “process the pain of racial injustice.”

One of Bentley’s biggest failings, according to the task force, has been its “false confidence” in “objectivity and meritocracy.” These are the norms of a “historically and predominantly white institution (HWI/PWI),” per the task force members. Typical of HWIs/PWIs, Bentley does not pay sufficient attention to the “systemic inequality” that such white norms engender. Equally dismaying, many students and professors apparently would rather study subjects other than racism, the task force lamented, thereby betraying their “lack of understanding about why the study of race is critical to the creation of a full academic experience.”

Diversity industry proponents would argue that white supremacy is simply too ingrained in America’s institutions to be rooted out within a mere three to four decades of diversity work.

But another possible reason why diversity training has not met its stated goals is that the field is intellectually bankrupt: Its practitioners peddle empty verbiage to fix a problem that is largely imaginary. I asked Bentley’s press office what the difference is between “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” The answer was a dodge: “Rather than give students one particular view of diversity, equity, inclusion and justice, Bentley’s DEI major encourages students to compare and contrast approaches to diversity, equity, inclusion and justice from across disciplines and perspectives and show how they intersect with one another.” Other questions—how the school defines a “real discipline,” what are the core texts of this new discipline, and why Bentley’s decades of diversity work have not lessened the school’s purported racism—were ignored entirely.

Bentley sociologist Gary David says that “more and more studies have shown” that diversity training and DEI perspectives make “good business sense.” But this oft-asserted claim rests on a few studies of dubious experimental design, lacking control groups. The one thing diversity trainees reliably learn is how to answer post-training survey questions “in the way the training said they ‘should,’” reports sociologist Musa al-Gharbi. As for actually changing behaviors in a diversity-approved direction, the training is not only ineffective, it is often counterproductive, according to al-Gharbi.

race-card

Far from being institutionally racist, Bentley University, like virtually every other American college today, is filled with well-meaning adults who want all their students to succeed. Corporations, law firms, Big Tech, and government agencies are bending over backwards to hire and promote as many underrepresented minorities (i.e., blacks and Hispanics) as possible. If the number of those minorities in a college or business organization is not proportional to their population share, that underrepresentation is due first and foremost to the academic skills gap. Mention of the skills gap is taboo in diversity circles, but it is real—repeatedly documented by the National Assessment of Educational Progress exams, the SAT, the LSAT, the GREs, the GMAT, and the MCAT—and it is consequential.

Hiring based on any extraneous selection criterion inevitably lowers the average qualifications of the resulting employee group. Hiring based on race entails a particularly significant deviation from a meritocratic ideal, since the only reason why color-conscious hiring is implemented in the first place is that merit hiring often fails to produce a critical mass of black and Hispanic employees. In essence, the diversity conceit is a perpetual motion machine: If underqualified diversity hires are promoted out of diversity pressure, resentment and obfuscation follow. If they hit a glass ceiling, accusations of bias are inevitable. In either situation, a diversity consultant is waiting in the wings to teach managers that their expectations and standards are racist.

The increasing power of college diversity bureaucrats over academic affairs since the 1990s has been stunning. Diversity vice-chancellors oversee faculty hiring searches, mandate quotas regarding whom search committees may interview, and sometimes even mandate quotas regarding whom they must hire. Chief inclusion officers track departmental race and sex demographics, pressuring department chairs to correct diversity deficits. Associate provosts for diversity coordinate campaigns for required courses on identity and grievance within the curriculum. Deans of inclusion teach students to recognize their place on the great totem pole of victimization. Vice presidents for equity monitor campus speech, on the lookout for punishable microaggressions. Senior advisors on race and community lead crusades against faculty who have allegedly threatened the safety of campus victim groups through non-orthodox statements regarding race and sex.

Now that the fictions underpinning this enterprise are being enshrined as an academic discipline, the possibility that the university will return to its status as an institution dedicated to the unfettered search for knowledge—and even, dare one say it, objectivity and meritocracy—will grow yet more remote.

university lightening

Big Bullies Public Smash and Grab

Ben Garrison explains his image at zerohedge The Smash and Grab Big Government Criminals are Looting Our Country.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and some added images.

We’ve all seen the recent crime sprees taking place in the Democrat-controlled big cities. Acting in concert, flash mobs showed up to smash glass counters, steal the jewelry inside, and then make a quick getaway.

They are nothing compared to the smash and grab criminals controlling our country.  I’ve drawn three here, but there are many more.

The corporate media, for example. They smash and remove the truth and leave lies behind.

Big Pharma is unaccountable and irresponsible. It claims to own science, but what they really own is greed. Pfizer rakes in over $200 million taxpayer dollars per day for their dangerous and ineffective injections. The corporate media does not say a word about those injured or dying from the so-called vaccines. They don’t mention that thousands who are fully vaccinated not only contract Covid, but also die from the Chinese bioweapon.

Big Government makes laws in order to grow their own power as well as to enrich themselves. The so-called “Patriot Act” is a good example. It had nothing to do with patriotism. It had everything to do with stealing our liberties. Big Guv does this as a matter of routine. It keeps taking until it encounters resistance. Unfortunately they rarely get much push back. Too many people still think Big Guv is on their side and out to do good things for citizens. Nope. Big Guv is more concerned in getting reelected and growing more wealthy as it starts new wars. The latest may be against Russia. Yes, Big Guv wants to use US Troops and even threaten global nuclear war in order to protect the borders of Ukraine. Meanwhile, our southern borders remain wide open.

The Federal Reserve is an expert smash and grabber. It steals by means of currency creation at the flip of a switch. It is spent by the top of the pyramid and those at the bottom pay the hidden tax by means of inflation. The IRS makes sure it finishes the job of wealth confiscation, thereby making the working class poorer.

The criminal government gets away with it because they own a monopoly on force. Try and resist and they will send armed functionaries to arrest you. Resist arrest and you could be murdered. Included in the government mob are Big Pharma and The Federal Reserve. The politicized FBI does as it pleases, too. The CIA has been rogue almost from the start.

They will all continue until they are stopped. They will only stop when there is nothing left to grab. When that happens we will have no freedom, no privacy, and no dignity. We will own nothing and live in a technocratic dictatorship unless the war mongers decide to destroy all life on Earth first by means of a nuclear war.

The time to push back against this tyranny is now.

Two sides of the same coin.

Omicron Tipping Point?

With the arrival of Omicron variant comes the possibility of a civilizational tipping point:  Either descending deeper into hysteria and social internment, or throwing off the chains and embracing individual freedom and responsibility.  Presently, there are responses signaling forces pushing in both directions: one leading to insanity and the other to resurgence.

On the one hand, there’s the fear factor:

U.S. imposes travel ban from eight African countries over Omicron variant Reuters

Omicron is spreading fast. That’s alarming even if it’s mild  CNN

Likely that Omicron will outpace the Delta variant where community transmission occurs WHO

AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines won’t protect people against Omicron  Oxford

We’re facing a tidal wave of infection, again in a race between the vaccine and the virus. UK Health Secretary Sajid Javicl

U.K. PM declares Omicron emergency, orders immediate COVID-19 booster shots for entire country  Globe and Mail

Hong Kong Forcing UK, US Arrivals Into Quarantine Camps After Single Asymptomatic Omicron Case South China Morning Post

Dr. Fauci Warned Two Doses of Your Vaccine is Not Enough to Protect Robustly Against Omicron Infection. Three Shots is Best. msn Health

Fourth Covid vaccine doses needed sooner than expected due to omicron Pfizer CEO

On the Other Hand, there are voices urging calm and hope:

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine protects well against severe illness from Omicron, South African study shows  Globe and Mail

Omicron variant highly transmissible but “milder” could  be “best scenario” to boost “natural immunity” and bring the end of the pandemic closer. Norwegian COVID Experts

It’s getting milder, most people will get it, and they will get a natural immunity  Norway state epidemiologist Frode Forland

Omicron variant is highly contagious, but doesn’t cause severe disease. So this may signal the end of Covid-19. Richard Friedland, CEO of Netcare Ltd.South Africa

Is Omicron the vaccine we’ve been waiting for? Jo Nova

The impact of the new Omicron variant is expected to be mild and short-lived, as the world becomes better equipped to manage COVID-19 and its related challenges OPEC

OMG Omicron A Bridge Too Far

A view of the tipping point from Tom Luongo Davos’ Last Stand Flops at the Box Office.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

So Davos’ Last Stand hit theatres a couple of weeks ago. Starring OmicronVID-9/11 as the latest unseen killer this was supposed to be the horror movie of a generation.

Sure the overnight preview box office was good. The Dow off 1100 on Opening Day. Gold thwapped. Bitcoin crushed. But then people started talking about the train wreck they’d seen.

The first came from Goldman Sachs: Goldman Slams Omicron Panic: “This Mutation Is Unlikely To Be More Malicious; No Reason For Portfolio Changes”  Excerpts

Two days later, JPM’s Marco Kolanovic went on CNBC BubbleVision with his review, to blow up the idea that we should remain glued to our screens over the latest release from the Maus Haus, scared for our lives. 

Kolanovic was the first of many to say the quiet part out loud; that OmicronVID was so unaffecting as a serial killer it may wind up doing the exact opposite, immunizing the world from the next sequel in the series.

That if anything, Omicron may be, in fact, a better vaccine than anything cooked up by Pfizer, Moderna or even the Russians.

The result has been the fastest week-to-week drop off in box office I’ve seen of a Davos narrative ever.

What was theorized early on about Omicron developing multiple spike proteins to increase transmissibility and infection but lowering its lethality has borne itself out as the data came in. So, the trumped up hysteria intended as shock and awe to play to as wide an audience as possible failed to capture the imaginations of anyone with three brain cells to rub together to make a spark.

Herd immunity to viruses works in a similar way. As variants of the virus evolve, one of them, in this case Omicron, is more transmissible and outcompetes other emergent strains. That one spreads uncontrollably while the others have less chance to infect hosts and propagate.

We all get it, produce the antibodies against it and most, if not all, of the others, and reach herd immunity against all the strains that much faster.

Omicron may be the best form of vaccine against COVID-19 we could have ever produced.

And now you know why Davos were desperate to unleash the fear porn so thoroughly during a holiday weekend when everyone would be glued to their screens.

In case anyone is confused this was a Davos-produced monstrosity, note the only places even remotely trying to leverage Omicron into policy. You guessed it, Europe.

Only Europe reacted as one would expect. They loved Davos’ Last Stand! Then again, have you watched most of the winners from Cannes? *sigh*

Angela Merkel’s last act in office was to issue a full lockdown of unvaccinated Germans.

These things beg the question, if Omicron was such an obvious bomb before release why then even go through with the exercise?

Because we are setting up for a major shift in geopolitics and markets in 2022 since we have policy clarity with the Fed. The markets are finally adjusting themselves to a major shift in global politics which sees the U.S. financial and political elites breaking with Davos completely.

Davos is retreating to its fortress in Brussels while getting its man in the U.S. Biden(Obama) to sue for peace with the Russians. They are still committed to destroying the middle class all across Europe and are willing to starve them to make this happen but their influence here in the U.S. has peaked and the world is now moving past their Coronapocalalyptic narrative.

 

 

 

Brazil Kicks CV19 with Ivermectin

Hospitalizations, Mortality Cut In Half After Brazilian City Offered Ivermectin To Everyone Pre-Vaccine is a report summarizing the experience of  Itajai offering Ivermectin as a prophylaxis against the disease.  H/T Tyler Durden at zerohedge. The preprint study is Ivermectin prophylaxis used for COVID-19 reduces COVID-19 infection and mortality rates: A 220,517-subject, populational-level retrospective citywide. Excerpts below in italics with my bolds.

In Itajai, a Southern city of Brazil in the state of Santa Catarina, between July 2020 to December 2020, a citywide study was conducted involving 220,517 people. A total of 133,051 of these people (60.3% of the population) received ivermectin before being infected by COVID-19. A total of 87,466 people (39.7 %) did not receive or did not want to receive the ivermectin during the program, including its use for prophylactic, outpatient, inpatient therapeutical purposes, or after having COVID-19. The use of ivermectin was optional, based on the absence of contraindications, and given upon medical discretion. Due to the uncertainty of reinfection with COVID-19, subjects with a history of previous COVID-19 did not participate in the program, notwithstanding, they were still permitted to use ivermectin prophylactically

Baseline characteristics of the 9,956 subjects included in the above analysis are described in Table 1. Ivermectin users had a higher percentage of subjects over 50 years old (p < 0.0001), higher prevalence of T2D (Type 2 Diabetes) (p = 0.0004), hypertension (p < 0.0001), CVD (p = 0.03), and had a higher percentage of caucasians (p = 0.004), than non-users.

Of the 7,345 subjects with COVID-19, there were 232 hospitalizations (3.16% hospitalization rate). Of the 4,311 ivermectin users, there were 105 hospitalizations (2.43% hospitalization rate), while among the 3,034 ivermectin non-users, there were 127 hospitalizations (4.18% hospitalization rate), with a reduction in hospitalization rate due to COVID-19 of 42% (RR, 0.58; 95%CI, 0.45-0.75; p < 0.0001).

When the overall population is accounted for, the risk of dying from COVID-19 was 0.09% among ivermectin non- users and 0.05% among ivermectin users, with a reduction of 48% of the chances of dying from COVID-19 (RR, 0.52; 95%CI, 0.37 –0.72; p = 0.0001).

The report goes on to note that these positive results are conservative for several reasons. As shown above, persons electing to take IVM  were older and had co-morbidities, yet statistically faired better.  Secondly, the dose and frequency of ivermectin treatment was 0.2mg/kg/day; i.e., giving one 6mg-tablet for every 30kg. for 2 days every 15 days.  This is much less than protocols for sick patients.  Also, the IVM was self-administered and may have been used less than prescribed.  

When analyzed in populational, city level, irrespective of the the percentage of subjects that used ivermectin prophylactically, COVID-19 hospitalization rate decreased from 6.8% before the program with prophylactic use of ivermectin, to 1.8% after its beginning (RR, 0.27; 95%CO, 0.21 – 0.33; p < 0.0001), and in COVID-19 mortality rate, from 3.4% to 1.4% (RR, 0.41; 95%CI 0.31 – 0.55; p < 0.0001).

When compared to all other major cities in the State of Santa Catarina, where Itajaí is located, differences in COVID-19 mortality rate between before July 7, 2020 and between July 7, 2020 and December 21, 2020, Itajaí is ranked number one, and far from the second place. These results indicate that medical-based optional prescription, citywide covered ivermectin can have a positive impact in the healthcare system.

Covid19 is a FUD Pandemic

FUD is a disinformation strategy used by marketing and sales professionals that stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. It’s commonly used in the sales, marketing, polling, and public relations fields. FUD is used to influence consumer perception of a competitor’s product by appealing to fear.

Dr. Harvey Risch discusses how the Covid19 pandemic played out as a global disinformation campaign successfully inducing fear, uncertainty and doubt in the world’s populations. Thus authorities were able to exert unprecedented control over public behavior, with severe reductions of individual rights and freedoms.

The interview was conducted by Jan Jekielek of Epoch Times with Dr. Harvey Risch, a professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine on November 30, 2021. The website provides a video along with a transcript, excerpted in italics below with my bolds.

A Fabricated Pandemic of Fear
 

Dr. Risch: Overall, I’d say that we’ve had a pandemic of fear, and the fear has affected almost everybody, whereas the infection has affected relatively few. It’s serious in some of those people, as we’ve seen. But by and large, it’s been a very selected pandemic, and predictable. We didn’t know at the beginning how predictable it was. At least we laypeople, so to speak, in the pandemic, didn’t know that.

I’m sure that the pharma companies and countries who had experienced it slightly before us had a better picture than we did, but it was very distinguished between young versus old, healthy versus chronic disease people. We quickly learned who was at risk for the pandemic and who wasn’t.

However, the fear was manufactured for everybody, and that’s what characterized the whole pandemic—is that degree of fear and people’s response to the fear.

I think that the people who were in the nominal positions of authority initially spread a much worse picture of the dire nature of this. That everybody was at risk, everybody could die, everybody needed to find protection. Everybody needed to stay in their homes and not go out, not socialize, and so on—to protect themselves [and] society.

People were quite afraid of that message as anybody would be, because one trusted in those times with the government, authorities, scientific people, medical people in authority, [and] the public health institutions all saying the same message starting in about February, March of last year.

So, we all kind of believed this, and therefore, all of our anxiety levels were raised, and we all made decisions to curtail, to various degrees, our exposures to other people—some more than others. But I think everybody had levels of anxiety that really affected how they carried out their life at that time.

Shock and Awe from China

Dr. Risch: We look at the videos that we got from Wuhan and the surrounding area in retrospect to see what was real about that, and what wasn’t. You have to recognize that almost every year there’s been an epidemic release from the live food markets in China, in various places. What was different about this one is that China has admitted to those right away and tried to fix them, whereas the present one, it did not do that.

It withheld information about it for two months, at least, and that withholding of information is a totally different behavior than how China has been in the past. That appears to be a very significant difference as to why it would do that. We know now that some of those videos were not truthful videos about that man falling over in the street and playing dead and things like that. We have reason to believe that those were artificial videos made to induce fear.

While the virus did get out in Wuhan and the lockdowns were there to suppress it, and they worked, in fact, when you suppress 100 percent of the population, you weld their doors shut and so on, you can do that. We’re not as draconian in the United States, at least haven’t been, and so it’s clear that the virus got out.

Whether there was an intention that it would be controllable on the local, but exportable to the rest of the world, is a risk-benefit equation that had to have been made in China at the time. In other words, China also faced the risk that this could get out and affect the whole country.

It did get to other places besides Wuhan, but I think they calculated that they would be able to control it better than we could. They also knew that chloroquine treated it because they had published on that five or more years in the past. We published on that too from NIAID at NIH, a paper on chloroquine and virus infections. I think it might’ve been SARS1 from 2005 that that was published, so we knew.

People knew. The scientific community knew that these viruses existed—that they were hazardous, they could be treated. But nobody knew exactly the extent, the ramifications of how well the treatment would work, whether that was enough by itself, what the hazards of using that drug were, what the long-term ramifications—all of that was still unknown territory.

War on Therapeutics

Dr. Risch: I started looking at the disparate information in medical and lay media about early treatment, and it just didn’t make sense that hydroxychloroquine was being badmouthed by the media when it was being studied in hospital patients, and saying that it didn’t work for outpatients when it hadn’t been studied in outpatients.

An outpatient disease is totally different from a hospital disease. It’s like night and day. Outpatient disease is like when you get the flu. You have fevers and chills and muscle aches, headache, sore throat, runny nose and cough. That’s a typical flu-like illness, outpatient.

Inpatient is a very severe pneumonia where the immune system debris fills up the lungs, and it’s a totally different disease. The virus is more or less long gone by that time, and it’s the immune system that’s overreacting to create that. So, it’s a different disease, requires different treatment, and yet, this was being pedaled as something that didn’t work in hospital disease, therefore it didn’t work in outpatient disease.

So, I wrote a paper looking at just hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir, which were the two agents that were being talked about in studies at the time in early-mid 2020, and I didn’t expect much to come out of that other than to say, “Look, here’s something that we could be using.”

I came into this. I wrote an op-ed for Newsweek saying, “Here it is. We should use it. There’s no cost, and even if it doesn’t work, it’s 100 percent safe because it’s been used in tens of billions of doses for 60 years in hundreds of millions of people. Even if it doesn’t work, it can’t do any harm.” Then I got pushback from my colleagues saying what do I know about infectious disease and epidemics and so on.

I’m a cancer epidemiologist, but they didn’t do their homework because after medical school I got a Ph.D. on mathematical modeling of infectious epidemics, and I published on that. I had a very clear idea of how epidemics come and go, and what herd immunity is, when it happens and how it happens, and all of that stuff.

The idea about using drugs to treat things is something that I do as just a regular part of my cancer epidemiology studies. So, this was not a great leap for me to be involved in these topics, and for them it was just smear. I didn’t respond to that, which is appropriate. They have their freedom of speech to say what they want to say. I have my freedom of speech to say what I want to say, and let the readers decide which seems the truest or the most accurate.

What Scientists Believe Vs. How Nature Behaves

Dr. Risch: I was thinking of cognitive dissonance. In other words, here I know it’s safe. At that time when I wrote the paper, there were five studies. Within another four or five months, there were 10 studies involving more than 40,000 patients who had been studied, including some national studies in Iran and Saudi Arabia—with tens of thousands of patients that provided very clear fivefold or better protection against mortality with this drug, and that’s not even using the recipe.

That’s just using hydroxychloroquine either by itself or with zinc, by and large, in these studies. It was very clear that the evidence was extremely strong, as strong of evidence as I’ve ever seen in anything in my career in epidemiology for an association, the magnitude of an association.

This is my bread and butter of the field that I understand and how it does these studies. What these studies were purporting to say was accurate, and a very strong signal. So I was nonplussed to find that people were saying, “These are anecdotal.” When Dr. Fauci would come in and say, “Oh, that evidence is anecdotal,” and I’m looking at 40,000 patients.

I’m looking at clinicians who’ve now treated more than 150,000 patients with fewer than two dozen deaths with hydroxychloroquine, and he’s saying it’s anecdotal, and I’m saying, “These 50 doctors all know that it’s not anecdotal. They’ve been using it in their practices for a year or a year-and-a-half.”

So, where is this disconnect? This disconnect has to be on purpose. It’s not an accident. It’s a smear campaign against the drug for a purpose.

Where is the purpose coming from for why one would suppress something that costs 80 cents a day to treat? It’s even cheaper than ivermectin. Ivermectin is $10 a day or whatever it is. Hydroxychloroquine is a tenth of that.

You have to address what’s the economic playing field as to what is causing all of these events and all of these people to be making the arguments that they have, and in fact, without citing data? So, you find that people who disagree with me don’t provide counterevidence.

They say, “The FDA disagrees with you,” or, “The CDC disagrees with you,” or, “The WHO disagrees with you.” But is that evidence? Well, no, and in fact, Karl Popper, the philosopher of science in the 1950s, said studies of what scientists believe do not reflect on studies of how nature behaves.

Manipulation of Mortality

Dr. Risch: We believe that if the mortality numbers are accurate, and there are reasons not to believe that because as I said at the beginning, this has been an epidemic of fear, that agencies have magnified the fear component in order to control behavior.

People have conditions that aren’t really the cause of death that may or may not have been contributory, and this is a whole gray zone. COVID might’ve been the straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak, or maybe it was just contributory.

We don’t really know the degree to which this was manipulated to make the numbers of deaths larger because of COVID than what really was some other rational way of calculating the numbers of deaths. It’s very hard to understand this. Even with the statistics that we have, it’s very hard to understand.

Dr. Risch: From October to October of 2020 to this year, I think there were 491 deaths in the five-to-11-year range with COVID. Now, that’s the problem. Kids in the hospital with some serious underlying condition that happened to be COVID-positive, that are asymptomatic and tested and found to be battling or infected with the virus, get called dying from COVID. But in fact, in the CDC’s own review slides, they say COVID-associated deaths.

Marty Makary at Johns Hopkins reported on the study from his institution of 48,000 children. He asserted that no healthy children in that study had died from COVID. So, that’s the real bottom line. Are we talking about zero or one or five across the country, or 10? We don’t really know exactly, but those numbers are smaller than the number of children who’ve died from influenza each year in past years when we’ve had flu epidemics, as we usually do, except for last year.

It’s a tenth of the number that die from traffic accidents. It’s lower than the number who get hit by lightning, and certainly lower than what flu does. So, why are we potentially forcing all children to get vaccinated to save approximately zero, since we know, we can tell who are the high-risk children? Why aren’t we vaccinating the high-risk children?

Disrupting the Process of Natural Immunity

People will argue every one of the things that I just said, but in fact, it’s very clear that children do perfectly well with this illness when they get it. Either they’re asymptomatic or they have a headache, they’re a little tired, they sleep a little long for a day or two, and that’s about it. That’s the extent of COVID in young children.

It’s not much different than a light flu or a cold in children, and that is probably how the illness is essentially meant to be manifested in a society where all children get it as little children, get through it without a big ruckus, and go on. Then everybody’s protected after that, and adults don’t have to worry about it because they all had it as children.

That’s most likely how this whole thing would work, but what happened now is we as immunologically naïve adults are exposed to this and react totally differently because we didn’t get it as children, and we don’t have that immunity. Well, some people do.

You have to explain why 75 percent, plus or minus, of people who’ve had COVID had it asymptomatically. That’s the adults who have had COVID. There’s a lot of immunity in the population because of all these people who’ve had it asymptomatically.

What that means is, when a state for example, reports that it’s had 200,000 cases per million, the people with COVID, that’s by testing. So, it’s either symptomatic or people who were screened and got tested. Two hundred thousand cases per million is 20 percent of the population has had COVID by testing or symptomatic. That means if you multiply that by five, essentially, everybody’s had COVID.

If that number is five, between three and seven, I’m just saying if it’s approximately five, then that’s the ballpark for estimating where the real immunity is, and that’s why you see states like North Dakota, South Dakota, other states that have minimal or no lockdowns, where everybody mixed, lots of people got COVID early.

People didn’t get very sick because they had relatively young, healthy populations that were doing most of the mixing, that they built up large amounts of population immunity, what we call herd immunity early on, and so they were largely done.

Now, Delta came. Some of the people, some of that natural immunity might have been not quite enough to deal with the Delta, so they’ve had a very small, low-level bump over the last few months that is probably going down also. But nothing like the states that locked down like Vermont and Hawaii and so on that spent all their time locked down, and with very severe curtailments of mixing.

And now are having these waves of pandemic that are bigger than what they first saw in early 2020 because it was misguided to try to suppress something that was going to be endemic no matter what anybody did.

The realization of when you take measures that just prolong the pandemic, it just gives it more time to build up, and you have more and more waves. If you let the pandemic go through the society in a controlled, safe way in the first waves, and you control how people respond to that infection in a way that minimizes their damage, their personal damage, you get through it, and that was the exact opposite.

That was what we were trying to say early on in April, May, June of 2020. You have to let this get through the population and develop natural immunity, and that is how we would solve it. That didn’t happen because of financial interests for selling products to deal with it instead of letting it happen on its own.

Front-line Doctors Discovered Viral Protection

Dr. Risch: Did people know how to deal with that? Yes and no. It wasn’t the right thing to do, but did they know what tools they might’ve had to set up shelters for infected elderly people instead of putting them back in nursing homes? I don’t know that people knew that was something they could do. They didn’t do that, but at the same time, we weren’t using the medications that could have been used that would’ve saved those people.

Elderly people have frail immune systems, and Dr. George Fareed in Southern California recognized early on that you can’t just give hydroxychloroquine and zinc and vitamin D and antibiotics day four or five, which works for middle-aged people perfectly well. Doesn’t work for frail elderly because the virus has had no immune system growing to try to suppress it because of their age and disabilities.

In them, you have to give it on day one. How do you give it on day one? It means you have to screen them daily. You screen them for a fever and pulse oximeters, the little toys that you buy at the Walgreens for $30, and you can test your blood oxygen levels, and doing that twice a day.

When those people, their oxygens were dropping but they weren’t otherwise symptomatic. Then you found that they already had a fever that you wouldn’t have recognized. You start treating them, and that’s what he did in nursing homes. He was very effective in saving the lives of people in nursing homes because he was getting to them on day one, and this kind of aggressive, safe method of treating people is what works and should’ve been done.

But it requires people who are willing to use what they know in classic medical practice, the way doctors were classically trained, which is each one is the Sherlock Holmes doctor of figuring out what you’re supposed to do and how it works and the best you can do, and treat the patients.

Not formulaic things that your hospital board or your medical practice board says, “These are the drugs you must use, and you can’t veer from this, and we’re telling you how to practice medicine.” Okay? That’s destroyed medicine.

There’s an academic disdain for local docs in general, that academics think that they are at the top of the medical/intellectual world because they’re doing their research, their clinical research. In some respects, it’s good, and for those areas that they actually study, that’s fine.

But for diseases on the front line, the doctors on the front line who are exploring, who are saying, “Well, this treatment works, but maybe I’ll try this in this patient, and that seemed to work a little better. Maybe I’ll try it in a few more patients,” and gradually accrete knowledge about how to treat things is the classical model for how diseases on the front line are managed.

That’s what worked for the doctors who are willing to do that in this pandemic, like all illnesses have dealt with in the past. That’s what brought the realm of knowledge to how we have treatment regimens.

Using a repurposed drug is perfectly reasonable if you believe, as a doctor based on the evidence, that you should use it, that you can try it, that you could help save someone’s life. I imagine that there was some kind of bigger influence or board or organization that would be setting such things. This has been my own learning process.

Medical Bureaucrats Failed in their Public Duty

Dr. Risch: I have to get in a comment about the FDA and its website. This is something that has made me the angriest over this last year-and-a-half. In July of 2020, the FDA mounted a website warning against hydroxychloroquine used for outpatients. The website’s still there.

It says, “Warning, hydroxychloroquine should not be used for outpatient treatments because of risk of cardiac adverse events,” and then in the small print, the fine print underneath that big, bold, black letter warning, it says, “We base this warning on adverse events that we have observed in hospital patients.” This is a fraud.

They used hospital disease, which all medical professionals recognize is a different disease, as I’ve said, than outpatient flu-like illness. That has stood up there. Everyone that says hydroxychloroquine can’t be used points to that website and says, “Here’s the reason why we can’t do it.” The states, the AMA, the pharmacy boards, they all point to that. Foreign countries, their governments all point to that, saying, “We can’t do it because the FDA says not to do it.”

I’ve railed against this in the media that we are a part of, and the way that the propaganda reacts to this is, “Ignore it. Ignore all of this.” I’m saying this now because the general public has to be the one that gets angry.

The general public should be furious at the way people have been treated in the country by suppression of these drugs, by that kind of website that suppresses the ability of doctors to practice medicine.

This is what should’ve been done, and why people should be angry. They should be angry at their government. They should be angry at President Trump for not leading the fight in this when he was in power. They should be angry at the government now for not leading the fight to make these drugs available. These drugs work, there’s no question, and they should’ve been out there, whether or not vaccines are used. There’s a role for vaccines, and I’m not saying that.

There’s no role for universal vaccination, but there is a role for targeted vaccination for people who have reasons to do the risk-benefit analysis and see it’s in their benefit. There’s a reason why those people will still get COVID, because the vaccines are not 100 percent effective.

They still need to have treatment, and these drugs are the treatments of choice. This has to be there, and people need to be angry about this to see why these drugs have been suppressed from them for reasons that have nothing to do with the science and the medicine.

HCQ or IVM protocols including nutritional supplements and antibiotics fill the need for early home treatment, whether people are vaccinated or not.

 

 

Pushback on Corrosive Energy Idiocy

Congressman Byron Donalds excoriates the House Oversight and Reform Committee for biting the hands that energize the nation in the five minutes allowed him in video below.  (The settings button on the video allows you to turn on subtitles). For those who prefer reading, my transcript (lightly edited) follows in italics with my bolds and added images.

Chair: The gentleman from Florida Mr. Donalds is recognized for five minutes.

Donalds: Thank you Madam Chair and first of all to the witnesses, the the leaders of Exxon, Chevron, BP, Shell, I know that the climate activists are in twitter world which Dave Chappelle says doesn’t exist. And he’s right because it’s just people who have nothing better to do but type on their keyboards. And we do it too here in congress.

But let’s be very clear. You deserve an apology, because what I witnessed today was just rank intimidation by the chair of this committee, trying to get you to pledge on what you’re going to spend your money, is a gross violation of the first amendment. Just because we’re members of congress, and we’ve got microphones and we passed laws, does not mean that we also have the ability to infringe on your ability to organize, whether it’s API or anybody else, or what you choose to spend your money on. It is disgusting, absolutely disgusting. Somebody needs to go call Merrick Garland to tell them to get in here and watch the intimidation that came from this very panel today.

Because this is not about defending big oil or defending big anything; it’s about defending the ability of people in our country to be free to say what they want, think what they want, spend their money how they choose. And if we’re not going to be any better than the Chinese, how do we ever expect to beat them on the world stage? When we’re cutting our neck when it comes to energy production, while they are burning more coal, burning more oil. They’re increasing their emissions and they’re not showing up in Scotland. And why not?

Because they’re interested in building an economy; they’re interested in becoming the dominant economic player across the globe, in becoming the dominant military player across the globe.

Meanwhile we joke around and mess around intimidating you guys who frankly heat our homes, you cool our fridges and keep our cars going. This is insane. So I’m sorry for you and I’m sorry for the people in our country who have to witness shenanigans like this and witness circuses like this.

One show on HBO or whatever it is, is called the circus because that’s exactly what this is. Madam Chair, I’m requesting that a letter be entered into the record. This is a letter written by ranking member Comer and the other ranking members on this committee that actually speaks to the chilling effect that has come from you Madam Chair, asking you to stop intimidating companies, requesting information that is their first amendment right to have. I ask that letter be admitted into the record under unanimous consent

Chair: Without objection.

Donalds: Thank you Madam Chair.

I have a question for Mr. Sommers, now that we’re done with that. Mr. Sommers, it was asked of the executives if they believe in electronic vehicles. And it’s a noble goal to have, but Mr. Sommers: Where does the energy for electricity production actually come from?

Mike Sommers, President, American Petroleum Institute: Thank you congressman. Before I address that question, I do want to clear up one thing. Having a difference of views on electric vehicles is not climate disinformation. We as an organization support all forms of energy. We support the rapid advancement of electronic vehicles as well. But at the same time we don’t agree that the federal government should be the ones funding the build out of that infrastructure. As we built out service stations across the country, those service stations have been developed not by the federal government but by private industry. And members on this panel themselves are investing in building out that infrastructure, as is appropriate for the private sector.

First of all your question is very very important, which is: Where does that energy come from? In the United States most of the energy comes from natural gas. It has replaced coal as the primary source of energy in this country.

Donalds: Let me ask you this question as a follow-up. So if we don’t have natural gas, and obviously the democrats are against coal, where would we actually get the electricity to power all of these electric cars?

Sommers: Well congressman for most countries, and certainly for the United States, there would be likely be a fuel switch back from natural gas to coal.

Donalds: So real quick Mr. Sommers, I don’t mean to cut you off, because you make a great point, but I have 30 seconds. It is important for the American people to understand that if you follow the idiocy that’s in the bipartisan infrastructure agreement, it is going to make natural gas harder to procure. We’re actually not going to have lower emissions we’re going to have higher emissions because you’re going to have to switch back to coal fire plants.

And just for the record let’s also say the world will always demand energy. if you’re not getting it from us, where we actually do it more safely and more cleanly, you’ll get it from Russia or from China. And they don’t care what the climate activists have to say on twitter.

I yield the floor.