So, CPI is not a real number anyway. How it is calculated constantly gets "adjusted." For example, they negate price increases because the "new" version is "better" so "there wasn't really any inflation." (Think about how your car now comes with a standard radio and power windows, so since it is "better" the price increase since the 1950s isn't really a price increase and won't go into CPI.)
And then there is the whack way they calculate how much inflation there is. For example. Let's say you bought a house for $112,500 last year and a "similar" house costs $121,500 this year. Normal people would simply see how much that increased: (112500/121500) * 100= 9.3%
That isn't, as you might have guessed, how the government does it. They use this math problem, which makes little sense to me but lowers the numbers nicely: ((121500-112500)/112500) * 100= 8% Voila! Less inflation despite the truth.
But, this month, the news agencies decided to flat out lie in their headlines about what the report says to push their anti-tariff agenda:
By now, everyone has probably heard of at least one woman who couldn't get an abortion and needed one because her baby had a fatal condition and would die soon after earth. The problem is that the conditions these babies have are not always fatal--therefore, the doctors in states where abortion has restrictions and who deliberately tell these women their child will "probably" die are not being good doctors. Any woman who is told by a doctor that her baby has a condition that will "probably" kill it but which does not qualify for fatal condition clauses in state laws should question the doctor.
I refused genetic testing for all five of my kids. There was no medical reason to conduct it in my opinion--if something is "found," I was told at the time there was nothing they can do about it to help the baby better survive. The sole purpose of genetic testing, to the best of my knowledge, is to encourage women who may give birth to a disabled child to have an abortion. The only other thing it can do is cause pregnant women to worry more--which is not good for the pregnancy.
This is not the only story of a woman complaining that she had to leave her home state to get an abortion when she found out her baby had the almost always fatal Trisome 18. The problem is that like other stories I have heard where mothers are told their babies will die, these are almost old wives tales doctors are passing on. This woman, for example, lived to be at least 40 years old with Trisome 18. Doctors tell people their baby will "probably" not live past the first year, but 1 in 20 do. If you have an abortion, your baby will die immediately. Trisome 13 is another "fatal" syndrome. The oldest documented man alive was 31 years old.
Then there is the Florida ad that is being banned by DeSantis. DeSantis is right: the ad is false based on what has been leaked about "Caroline" the Tampa woman in the ad. She was purportedly 20 weeks pregnant when she found out. Once again, doctors played on this woman's emotions and told her she would die and the baby would die if she did not have an immediate abortion. The last I checked, real medical scientists would never say something like this because no one can predict medical outcomes with 100% accuracy. That is the thing that was driven in to me and my father when he was undergoing cancer treatments. He died even without being pregnant. My grandma went through her treatments and lived--and is still alive.
Surgery and radiation are the main treatments for most brain cancers. 1 in 50 people need surgery during pregnancy, so this is a doable thing--although it is recommended to wait until 12 weeks. Her doctors apparently did not advise her of this. In the 1990s--i.e. 30 years ago, there wasn't the technology to pinpoint spots on the body like the head. Now there is. Radiation for cancer can be performed while a woman is pregnant. There are even some chemotherapy treatments that can be given after 14 weeks. Why were these doctors not telling her that at 20 weeks she could begin treatment while pregnant?
Finally, this baby was 20 weeks old. Old school rules that refuse to die state that a baby is "viable" at 22-24 weeks. What that means is that each hospital or government sets an arbitrary time between 22 and 24 weeks where they will attempt to save babies who are born. If the baby is earlier than that, they won't do anything to try to save it and basically will watch it die if it was born alive. This is solely a cost measure that was established to help deal with the ethics of letting a needy baby die. Premature babies--especially this early--cost a lot of health care services. However, AIDS patients cost $32,000 per month for their AIDS medication alone and are susceptible to diseases that do not effect people without it. Are we just going to let AIDS patients die because their care is expensive?
Doctors justify allowing premature babies to die by saying the baby probably would have died anyway. The problem is (as the study above says) that when all babies who are alive at the start of labor are given survival care after birth (as is the law in Japan), 60% survive.
Further, because age is sometimes not accurately predicted, many hospitals instead used weight averages. The hospital where I did an internship in the 1990s set it at 900g. (Don't quote me on that exact number--its been 30 years!) So, if your baby was born at 20 weeks, and it was struggling, they would immediately put it on a scale and see if it was heavy enough. If it met the weight criteria, the doctors would work to save it and even resuscitate it if necessary. Because the weighing was done in a hurry, a few "light" babies were worked on--and survived.
These arbitrary "viability" numbers are so wrong in our medical world today. Babies as young as 19 weeks have survived and are fine. Babies as light as 212 g have survived and are still alive and doing fine. It is crazy that our doctors tell pregnant women they should have an abortion, instead of just letting them give early birth.
Now, if "Caroline" had been diagnosed with terminal cancer at 8 weeks instead of 20, then of course she should have been given the option--have an abortion, undergo treatment, and extend your life by possibly a few years or stall treatment, potentially die within the year (leaving your daughter and baby motherless), and have the baby (she might have had to go on life support the last trimester to continue allowing the baby to grow if the late treatment did not slow its progression). The latter would come with the extremely rare risk that the cancer could spread to the baby, but if they noticed the cancer metastasizing, they could have made the decision about inducing labor early. Instead, the doctors pushed a political agenda, telling her she would die and her baby would die no matter what if she did not get an abortion--at least this is what she says.
Either the doctors lied to her or she is lying to us. Either way, DeSantis should stop it. I mean, I couldn't even make a post on Facebook during COVID that cited the CDC, FDA, and academic papers supporting my conclusion and was against mask mandates. This lady shouldn't be allowed to give out bad health information either.
Sometimes the news is just ridiculous. It plays upon the ignorance of the American people. Zelenski is apparently going to hold the land they "took" from Russia.
Now, if you have been following me, you know that I think the whole "Russian Invasion of Ukraine" is bunk. Ethnic Russians living in Ukraine have been treated horribly for quite some time (and Ukrainians living in Russian controlled areas of Ukraine were also treated horribly). In 2014, there was a coup created by the U.S. and President Biden's unemployable son, who had been dishonorably discharged from the military for doing drugs, was given a job he didn't qualify for as a result. Russian-Ukrainians were treated pretty awful after the coup we created so millions fled into Russia and Amnesty International (which is not bought out by billionaires unlike Human Rights Watch and other bunk "rights investigators") reported on it.
But now, we have Russia, which was ticked off at having millions of people begging for help flooding into its borders, "invading" Ukraine. To accept this we have to ignore, of course, all the rules and treaties that Ukraine and the West had broken and the human rights violations that we were ignoring along with other things, but if we do accept that and close a blind eye to what was really going on, let's take a look at this and the current Ukrainian "occupation" of Russia in perspective.
First, Russia advanced all the way to Kyiv, took out key infrastructure and then moved back to exactly where it said it would--after allowing ethnic Russians the opportunity to flee. Russia then pulled back to about where it said it would pull back to, and the West dumped billions of dollars into Ukraine to fight Russia. Ukraine advanced and won some ground. Now, Russia is advancing and Ukraine decided to take Russia.
In perspective: Russia is about twice the size of the USA. Ukraine is slightly smaller than Texas. The area that Russia held (and is now increasing to the lines it wants to hold) is a little bigger than Maryland. The area Ukraine took is either half the size or about the size of Rhode Island. Now, I am sure Rhode Island would be pretty upset if Ukraine took them over, but in the grand scheme of things, if we were taking a state the size of Maryland away from Canada or Mexico, would it really make us stop? (especially since the Russians were somehow able to evacuate most of the area)
Now, I got it, Ukraine is such a bastion of democracy that the USA is going probably have to start taking lessons. I mean we already have some government censorship of individuals through social media and Amazon, so it will be a small step when only government sponsored media is allowed to continue in order to save us from "disinformation" while all other media is shut down. We already have 20,000 people with exactly the same name and birthdate as 20,000 other people (a statistical impossibility) voting in Arizona and we were happy with our lockdowns, so it will be an easy step to stop elections as they have already done in Ukraine. And then we will just have to ban the Christian church like Ukraine did when it banned the Russian Orthodox Church, so we can be a real bastion of democracy just like them.
I get it. I grew up in the 1980s watching MacGyver and waiting for the USSR to drop a nuke on us. But Russia isn't the USSR, and there are too many pieces of this story that the news is leaving out.
Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court's ONLY black man, is being crucified in the news this week because he happened to have a rich conservative friend (gasp--a conservative has a conservative friend) with whom he went on vacations. No where in the judicial code does it say that Supreme Court Justices (or any judges for that matter) cannot have friends, attend parties, or go on vacations with other like-minded people. In fact, Courts across the nation have ruled that you must get your paycheck from a Plaintiff/Defendant or someone who could be a Plaintiff/Defendant in the case or one on a similar subject matter in order to recuse. They have also ruled that if you were put in your position by one of the Plaintiff/Defendants, (i.e. if someone made large donations to your election or re-election campaign), you also should recuse. Justices do not even have to disclose their financial information. But Clarence Thomas wasn't involved in an election campaign and the person he was vacationing with has never, to the best of my knowledge, been before him in a legal case. Remember that.
The Code of Conduct for Judges also specifically states that a Judge cannot publicly give his or her opinion on a case prior to it coming before the judge, the judge reviewing the evidence from both sides, and then the judge officially giving his/her ruling. So, why wasn't RBG impeached or at least threatened with impeachment as Clarence Thomas is being threatened with impeachment? Ruth Bader Ginsberg (RBG) performed several gay marriages and attended both the wedding (obviously) and the party afterward--PRIOR TO RULING ON WHETHER OR NOT GAY MARRIAGE WAS LEGAL. When the case came before her, she didn't even think about recusing despite the clear guidelines that she must do so. Again, Clarence Thomas is a conservative black man. RBG was a liberal white woman. Clarence Thomas went on vacation with a rich, outspoken conservative. At no point did he discuss any of his cases or publicly make statements about them prior to deciding them based only on the evidence before him and the law. RBG, on the other hand, publicly supported gay marriages and performed them even when they were not legal, but her failure to recuse went by silently.
But let's talk about another judge who hasn't recused--probably the reason everyone is trying to crucify Clarence Thomas--so people don't talk about him. Let's talk about Justice Juan Merchan. In New York, you see, this judge was put into his position directly by the Democratic Party. That's right, in New York, home of Tammany Hall--the poster child of political corruption. Now, there are 136 judges in New York that are supposed to randomly get cases. Justice Juan Merchan has remarkably managed to draw 4 separate Trump cases and have them assigned to him in just a couple years. Please correct my math if its wrong, but that's like 3 in 1 billion odds. For comparison, in 2021, 65,000 criminal cases were filed during the entire year across the entire United States in the Federal Court System. Why isn't anyone questioning this?
I am willing to say that a judge put in place by the Democrats could rule in an unbiased manner against someone the Democrats loath and absolutely do not want running for office in the next election, but I start to waver on that when I look at Trump's current indictment. Justice Juan Merchan allowed Trump to be indicted for 39 counts of hiding criminal actions. The problem is that Trump was not indicted for said CRIMINAL ACTIONS. How can a person be indicted for hiding criminal actions without BEING INDICTED FOR THOSE ACTIONS? The district attorney brought absolutely no other criminal charges. If Trump was hiding a crime, why wasn't he charged with that crime? If you don't have enough evidence that he committed one or more crimes, why in the world are you charging him with anything?
Well, that's simple--although it is something that most unbiased courts frown upon. During court discovery, the Prosecuting attorney can ask for pretty much anything and Trump has to give it to him or try to get the judge to agree that the Prosecuting attorney doesn't need it. Now, imagine that every single detail of your life could be brought into a lawsuit--that little monitor in your car that records your speed wherever you go, for example, or all your checkbook records, your personal diary, your calendars...Can you say you have never broken a single law in all your life? Most people don't even read and know all the laws. So, if the judge doesn't stop it, the prosecuting attorney can go on a fishing expedition. And even if he doesn't find anything, he can still say Trump was hiding criminal intent and did it so well there isn't evidence of the actual crime. That's not the way the courts are supposed to work, but the case should have been thrown out from the beginning unless the prosecutor charged Trump with an actual crime that he was hiding. That Justice Juan Merchan did not do that is what makes me believe he should recuse. When that is added to all the other information about him, I question whether he could rule against the wishes of the party that put him in office.
But Clarence Thomas going on vacation with friends is the topic of the poor news agencies this week. For them, Justice Juan Merchan is a hero, just as RBG was. I, personally, would like MORE black men on our Supreme Court. I fail to understand how going on vacation with a like-minded person could influence you in any way as a judge. You already agree on most topics--so where is the influence?
Active shooters have one thing in common--they want to go down in an infamous blaze of glory with their names plastered across the news. Not only does the news media grant their dying wish and encourage others to do the same, but some news agencies try to look into the psychology of the person doing the shooting and empathize with them. Yes, when sociopaths and those with untreated mental illness attack others, those of us who are sane question why they would do that. The answer is simple: They are insane. Never should a news agency use mental illness as an excuse for what these people do--hundreds of millions of people suffer with mental illness every day and most who get treatment are still suffering due to the trial and error process that no scientist has been tasked with resolving. Poverty or abusive families is also not the answer--again hundreds of millions of children suffer abuse and poverty and do not shoot anyone.
The Tennessee shooting, where we have evidence the shooter wanted to both die and to make it on the news--the real motives of this evil person, shows us that our media needs to be more discrete in granting these shooters wishes. Imagine if all news agencies stopped printing shooter names and pictures and solely focused on the victims. Imagine if all news agencies simply referred to the perpetrators as "the evil shooter" and solely stated the person did it because s/he was evil. Some shooters wouldn't care that they were considered evil, but all of them want their names and images in the press.
I would love to say that people can fix this by simply not clicking on the articles, but unfortunately, you don't always know if an article is going to talk about the shooter or the brave souls who confronted the shooter and the victims. Everyone can complain to news agencies and block them for a month if they use shooter names or try to empathize with mass shooters. It is time for our society to stop making bad people seem justified in their action. Scientists have long realized that people who don't suffer any negative consequences for their bad actions continue doing bad actions.
Unfortunately, bad scientists who grouped abusive practices in with spanking on the butt convinced parents they don't need to discipline their children. Worse scientists convinced everyone involved in children's lives to give them unearned rewards and praise that was not earned and to downplay half-hearted efforts. These humanists did what they could to push a lie: People are inherently good. Real science shows that people left to their own means will inherently do bad things (although the level of bad varies among them). People need to suffer consequences for their bad choices and putting a killer's name and image all over the news when that is exactly what they want is encouraging others to make the same bad choices.
You remember Snake Island--the brave Ukrainians who lost their lives defending it and the Ukrainian President's vow to posthumously award them the equivalent of a medal of honor? Except they aren't dead. By why quibble over words? After all, Ukraine will say one thing and then say the exact opposite without blinking an eye.
Remember that the Ukrainians were winning--they were stopping Russian forces? Oh, but they also were losing and needed NATO's help and weapons. Which is it?
Remember that the Russians ran out of food and gas? This was spread all over the Western news while the Russian news reported that they would periodically halt troop movement because they thought Ukraine wanted to negotiate or in some cases to allow citizens to flee. But we can't have Russians looking like humanitarians, so we came up with the most ridiculous scenario we could find: they were out of food and gas. Because Russia isn't one of the largest exporters of wheat and gas? Why are the Russians advancing now? Did they suddenly figure out how to fill up?
Then there was the holocaust memorial that was bombed. Note: this was not done in the first days of the attack, although it could have been, but people still stayed in Kyiv and that museum happened to be close to communications targets. So, five people, who apparently chose not to evacuate, lost their lives. Was it a direct target attacking Jewish people? Or was it a missile gone astray from its communications target?
Then there is that: Western news reports more than half a million people have evacuated Ukraine while at the same time stating that Russia is surrounding cities and preventing people from evacuating. Which is it?
Lies like this that were blatant throughout COVID-19 should be easy for Western readers to spot--but apparently we have lost all our common sense. When "four legs good; two legs bad" becomes "four legs good; two legs better" we all have a lot more than Russians to worry about.
Several news agencies report that NATO is completely in agreement with our choice to invade: SEe for example, Fox, the Hill. Really? "Unanimity" means "agreement by all people involved." Croatia is in NATO. It's president has said that if the United States goes to war with Russia over Ukraine, Croatia will drop out of NATO. Now, although the Croatian president is not the Croatian's NATO contact, he has full control of the military--if he doesn't send troops and drops out of NATO that is what will happen. I suppose since Croatia will no longer be a member that would return the "total unanimity" but as of right now many nations see the United States as the aggressor here.
Keep in mind that way back when the first revolt broke out in Ukraine, the president that was ousted had been elected in a legal, U.N. supervised election... and the U.S. funded his removal. Since then, we have dumped billions into equipping and training our Ukrainian puppet government--will Americans ever get tired of this scenario that started with Korea and Vietnam? Hunter Biden, who was no longer employable in the U.S. because of his dishonorable "general" discharge from the military was given a cushy job in Ukraine because he was the vice-president's son. When Burisma was investigated, former Vice-President Biden said if Ukrainian officials didn't drop the charges, the U.S. would withhold aid... and then bragged about doing so on television. Last year, in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, when our government was printing money like there was no tomorrow--increasing inflation--we gave Ukraine, out of the goodness of the American people's hearts, more than half a billion dollars! This didn't go to the people of Ukraine, by the way, this went to their military, so they could attempt to retake the land Russia has refused to release: The parts of Ukraine that are populated by Russian citizens.
The biggest question should not be whether the other NATO member countries are willing to go to war over non-NATO Ukraine just to keep U.S. secret dealings there secret. After NATO's failure in Afghanistan, they were already questioning the alliance. The real question is are Americans willing to sacrifice their children to the war effort? Consider the fact we already have American troops on the ground "training" Ukrainian military--I don't think the current Administration cares what Americans, or any other European nation, wants.
The worst thing is that the Pentagon is not filled with time-tested military generals. No, it is filled with defense contractors all set to make money off any war. These are the people telling us we have to go to war with Russia...
NBC reported on how many people who came down with COVID-19 and had been vaccinated then died from COVID-19. Now, sceptic that I am, I crunched the numbers in the article, and... well the case fatality from COVID-19 among the vaccinated is about 1.1%. Then, I did a quick check by crunching the numbers of cases in the US and the case fatality from COVID-19 in general (over the past two years mind you--and doctors were killing them left and right in the beginning)... its 1.6%. So, if you get the vaccine, you are "drastically" reducing your chance of dying from COVID-19 by 0.5%.
Then I stumbled across this gem published by the CDC. Again, the title and a bunch of technical wording makes it seem as if your chance of dying from COVID-19 is lower if you are vaccinated. This is false. Crunch the numbers yourself. In the 569,000ish people who were not vaccinated and got COVID-19, 1.1% of them died. In the 45,000ish people who were vaccinated and caught COVID-19, 1.3% of them died. That's right--the fully vaccinated were MORE likely to die from getting COVID-19. I also note that while they talk about the "substantial" differences, they fail to mention "significant" differences. This is important. If the paper does not find significant results (and that word is not mentioned at all!!!!) its conclusions should not be trusted. That is the purpose of significance in a scientific study. Shame on the CDC (again) for publishing this piece of fake science.
Now, lets think about this. Countries in the EU are no longer allowing this or that vaccine because there is an increased risk of heart failure. According to Moderna's own information submitted to the FDA, there is an increase in other major organ issues too. And most mRNA vaccines in the past have also increased your chances of blood clots. I can't tell you how many obituaries of vaccinated people I have read that talk about them dying of stroke and then saying it is "unconnected" to their recent vaccination... For those of you who don't know, a stroke is basically a blood clot in the brain. I know personally of eight people who died "suddenly" within a few days of getting vaccinated and had no previous health issues. So your chance of dying or getting serious internal organ issues after being vaccinated are real.
Further, the vaccine will protect you from COVID-19 for less than 6 months. We have been doing mRNA vaccine research for 20 years and nothing they do has ever made it last very long. After that, your chance of getting COVID-19 doubles. I was wondering why new case numbers are climbing astronomically compared to last year despite the fact more than half the worldwide community is vaccinated.
I mean, we are used to getting flu vaccines every year--but they have always told us it was a different flu. They are trying to do that with COVID-19, too by pushing "variants." There are thousands of variants out there, but you only hear about one or two. Ironically, the vaccines are supposed to cover all these variants, but "might not" cover any new variants...
Are people willing to get 2 booster shots every year (or 3...or 4) for the rest of their lives when each shot puts their lives at risk? Keep in mind that unlike smallpox and polio, COVID-19 has MANY animal vectors who can get and give it: in other words, we can NEVER eradicate it.
On the other hand, the people who get it naturally have immunity for at least a year and most research is saying they think it will be lasting. Granted, this research was not done on people who got it after being vaccinated.
This study was perfectly written to show a pro-mask point of view.
First and foremost, it is not a randomized controlled trial but rather an after-the-fact, what-do-you remember about your illness study. The researchers conclude, however, that the study (done on only 124 households) confirms that wearing masks will stop COVID-19 transmission and that transmission occurs in the first couple of days after symptom onset because all the primary subjects were hospitalized immediately as per China's policies.
"This study confirms that the highest risk of household transmission is prior to symptom onset, but that precautionary NPIs, such as mask use...can prevent COVID-19 transmission during the pandemic."
Wait a minute... Look at this data published in the study:
Time interval from illness onset to medical isolation (days):
Total Families without Families with
secondary transmission secondary transmission
≤2 32 (25.8) 26 (31.3) 6 (14.6) – Ref
>2 92 (74.2) 57 (68.7) 35 (85.4) 0.05 2.66 (1.00 to 7.12)
So, according to their own data 85.4% of the families that caught COVID-19 from a loved one in their homes had that same loved one in their homes for MORE THAN 2 DAYS. How does that mean you are most likely to get it in the first two days or before symptoms appear?
Now, these researchers were not asking people after the fact if they had caught COVID-19 from the primary case. Nor were they testing everyone in the family to see if they had really gotten COVID-19 from the person during the first two weeks when they could have caught it. No. Instead, a family member had to not only catch COVID-19 from the primary case, but then that person had to have symptoms severe enough that they went to the hospital, have a test confirming it, and where they would then be quarantined for who knows how long. Now, lets say you are family and Dad comes home sick from work with COVID-19. He goes to the hospital and is put there for a minimum of 2 weeks (and probably longer since this was in the first months of the pandemic when everyone thought you could get it for two months afterward). Jr. gets COVID-19 from dad, but at 10 years old he has no symptoms and nobody knows because they never test him. Mom also gets COVID-19 from dad, but she only has minor symptoms and she is already under forced quarantine because dad had it. As a mother, do you (a) go to the hospital (where you will be quarantined) and try to find someone else to watch your son who is supposed to be quarantined from everyone because of his exposure or (b) suck it up and take care of your son and household? Grandma gets COVID-19, but she doesn't have it that badly and doesn't want to go to the hospital, so she spends time in her room using old-school traditional medicine. Voila, no secondary transmission in that family.
Now, lets remember, the WHO tested 70,000 people in the beginning of this and confirmed that the transmission rate among household members was about 80%. This study of 124 families says household transmission is only 23%!!! Wow. There were 26 families that did not have secondary transmission and never wore masks. There were 21 families with secondary transmission that never wore masks. So, 47 families never wore masks and 55% of those families did not have secondary transmission as defined by the study's perimeters. Either WHO and their huge study were wrong or this study is wrong. Considering most of the data in this study did not have statistical significance, I think I will go with WHO.
But let's look at the real mask data they are promoting (as well as the 100+ news agencies that picked this up).
No of family members wearing mask at home before primary case’s illness onset date (median (IQR))
Total Families without Families with
secondary transmission secondary transmission
None 31 (25.6) 27 (33.3) 4 (10.0) – Ref
One or more 90 (74.4) 54 (66.7) 36 (90.0) 0.009 0.22 (0.07 to 0.69)
There is a lot wrong with this data. My first impression was that it is almost identical to the data above concerning how long it took to get into the hospital quarantine. Were the same families that were not wearing masks prior to the onset of the disease also waiting to go to the hospital? If that is true that could invalidate all the data--but this similarity is not mentioned or explained anywhere in the text. Second, why are only 121 of the 124 families recorded here? Third, and this is the most interesting: why isn't the data broken down into "none" "some" and "all"? Or better yet, "all" and "none or not everyone wore a mask"? What the authors are trying to say and what they have statistically proven is that only one person in your family has to wear a mask at all times and the entire family will be safe. If Grandma wears a mask, no one will get COVID-19 according to the way this data is set up and analyzed. Ironically, the authors did divide the categories into "none" "some" "all" for mask use after the illness onset. No reason was given for combining the two categories. This is concerning since one person wearing a mask in a household of four would have questionable effect on disease transmission. It could be argued if the person was the primary case or the only caregiver for the primary case prior to hospital admission, there may be some benefit, but the problem with that scenario is that this statistic is covering mask use before the primary case had symptoms. It is highly unlikely the only person wearing a mask would fall into these two categories. Further, it would be impossible to replicate these results if that happened.
In the yellow journalism that has encompassed the peer-review process, this paper has been cited again and again as well as in news stories.
I have been researching the links between the Weather Underground and Antifa because I believe they are very real. Due to bad evidence gathering practices of the FBI under Hoover (COINTELPRO), the leaders of this terrorist group were removed from the most wanted list and now teach in our colleges. Their final announcement to the small groups of cells that didn't know about the activities of other cells (similar to the way Antifa is run) was that they needed to go public so they could further their cause. Bill Ayers was a mentor to former President Obama.
It is, of course, difficult to find any real evidence that links the two. Antifa could have simply adopted the organizational methods and ideologies of the Weather Underground.
I stumbled across THIS article that mentioned the similarities of both groups. The person who wrote this came across the same irony that I noticed:
"Classically, fascism is defined in socio-economic terms. Curiously, the 1919 Fascist Manifesto’s political, social, military, and financial objectives read more like talking points from today’s Democratic Socialists’ platform. However, Bray (the Author of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook) defines fascism as “a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood.” The Antifa movement adapted “preexisting socialist, anarchist, and communist currents to a sudden need to react to the fascist menace” within Western capitalism. According to Antifa, you are a fascist if you are a conservative, independent, libertarian, a moderate Democrat, or simply anywhere to the right of Marx. Bray disregards the fact that it was the very people he labels fascists (capitalists, classical liberals, and conservatives) who stood up to and defeated the fascist regimes in World War II."
The author notes that "Bray argues for the Antifa tactic of “no platforming” by using physical violence to deny fascists the opportunity to speak in public. A recent example is when radio commentator Ben Shapiro was canceled from speaking at Gonzaga University by the threat of Antifa violence. Gonzaga stated that it wasn’t Shapiro’s viewpoint that canceled the event but rather the fear of the protesters. Similarly, UC Berkeley canceled a speaking event by Milo Yiannopoulos when 150 black bloc Antifa members started rampaging. Berkeley did allow Shapiro and conservative commentator Ann Coulter to speak on campus, but it cost the school $600,000 at each event for security to protect free speech from weapon-carrying Antifa thugs. I use Shapiro as a clear example of Antifa’s real goal. He is neither a fascist nor a white supremacist. He is a libertarian (capitalist) and practicing Orthodox Jew. But he has been labeled as a fascist because his words are offensive to radical ears."
Fascists, like Hitler, believe in silencing the opposition. They hate free speech and dissenting opinions. This is probably because they are not smart enough to use words to overcome the objections of the opposition and logic would have you siding against them. That a former President allowed this group to rise and that Democrats allowed them to destroy their cities, should have us greatly concerned. Not because of the violence and madness they have created worldwide, but more because of the human rights violations, such as destroying the ability of the other side to speak, which have arisen.
The news, as it has been doing since the beginning of COVID-19, is not being held accountable for its misleading headlines.
I have gotten many vaccinations in my lifetime. However, I have never had to miss a day of school or work because of it. Entire schools are closing down because the "mild" side-effects of the new COVID-19 vaccines are so serious that teachers must take a day or two off work. Hospitals are rotating who can get it so that an entire ward is not out of work for these "mild" side effects.
In the trials, 1 in 10 people had serious side effects from the vaccine after receiving the second shot. These were not the standard "mild" flu-like symptoms, these were serious issues affecting major organs. The younger the person, the more likely these side effects were.
At last check, 12,000 adverse events for the COVID-19 vaccine had been reported. For comparison, 48,000 were reported across all the vaccines given in 2017 for the entire year. In one month, the COVID-19 vaccine alone has reached 1/4 that. More disturbing, about 2,000 of these adverse events were deaths.
Only some of these adverse effects can be traced to allergic reactions (about 175 according to this paper), but even the number of allergic reactions is greatly increased. Normally, across all vaccines, 1.31 people out of 1 million people develop an allergic reaction. 92 people per 1 million have an allergic reaction to COVID-19 vaccines.
Further, we have no clue if the vaccine is effective at preventing hospitalizations, serious cases of COVID-19, or death. The vaccine could even increase death rates. If it causes deaths without preventing deaths from COVID-19, it should not be used. The studies that should have been done for effectiveness, have not been done. According to the vaccine makers, this is because it would have required a study on 30,000 people. They did the study on 125 people to save time. Shame on them.
Further, there are (at last count) 4000 variations of COVID-19 that have already been "discovered." About 1000 of these exist in the United States. Are you going to take 4000 vaccinations that cause you to miss two days of work?
So, why does the news say it is "95%" effective? Well, because 95% of the people who receive the second dose will develop antibodies to the vaccine but this is not an antibody to COVID-19. The vaccine itself contains a man-made virus that is not COVID-19. It also contains a chemical that has never been used in shots before and is suspected of causing severe allergic reactions.
We have no idea how long antibodies to the vaccine lasts, even if it is effective against COVID-19. If it is anything like previous mRNA vaccines, you will be covered for less than 6 months. Are you willing to take 4000 vaccines every 6 months to prevent a disease that kills less than 3% of the people who get it, when the vaccine itself kills people--especially when each vaccine can cause you to take 1-2 days off work because of their "mild" side effects?
The vaccines are dangerous and might not be effective, just as wearing masks and closing schools and businesses is dangerous and might not be effective. The problem is that vaccines could cause deaths two years later--so we have no clue just how dangerous this one could be without proper testing. Forcing or requiring anyone to get one is immoral.
The real questions are: How long is the news going cover for big pharma COVID-19 vaccine makers? How long are people going to to look the other way? Will the news media companies be held accountable for their lies?
Shame on Trump for pushing for a vaccine in one year--it did not save his Presidency because the news refused to report on it prior to the election. Shame on the Dr. Fauci, for pushing everyone to get a vaccine, while acknowledging it will not protect anyone.
If you choose to get vaccinated, that is your choice. Just make the choice understanding the vaccine has serious side effects and may not protect you or anyone else from COVID-19.
The Freedom of Speech is an American's first amendment right. In past years, "fact checkers" have sprung up everywhere. Now, originally THE fact checking organization was Snopes, but even they started to have problems. Fact checking organizations were, for the most part, harmless when it came to free speech. People still had the right to speak out and say what they believed and those reading or hearing their message were able to do their own fact checking using their preferred fact checking organization.
By freedom of speech, anyone should have the ability to say anything about anyone else, unless what they say is a direct threat to another person. For example, a person who says "I want to kill XXX" should be investigated. Detailed plans on how to kill yourself or others should also be removed.
The problem with this election is that the Democrats moved direct threats into a gray area. It started with COVID-19--no one, even scientists who have for centuries been openly debating ideas as a part of the scientific process, was allowed to publicly say anything different from the mainstream because it "might" put someone's lives at risk. The problem is that the CDC stopped putting out good information and started putting out garbage--even going against National Academy of Sciences advice on masks. Once this freedom of Speech was taken away without any formal protests, it moved to the next level.
Nancy Pelosi told FB and other social media to censor President Trump if he made ANY negative statements about her or other female Democrats because they would interpret that as direct attacks on women. This took away President Trump's freedom of speech, and as it has always been, once they took away someone's right to free speech they began to expand that power. FB and other agencies employed "fact checkers" that selectively silenced not only President Trump's voice, but also the voices of many Republicans. It is for this reason that I refused to vote for a single Democrat this year--a first to the best of my knowledge. I refuse to support a party that prohibits free Speech.
How can you run for a political office without being allowed to say anything inflammatory about the other side or good about the things you have done especially when the other side is allowed to tell whatever lies they want about you? This is one reason why the Democrats thought they would win by a landslide. The problem is they did not stop their Human Rights violations there.
The Democrats then petitioned to get the Green Party and Socialist Parties off the ballots in several states. In the case of Pennsylvania, the Green Party collected more than the required signatures in time (8,000+ when they only needed 5,000). The signature of the elected vice-president was not on an affidavit switching her out for the stand in vice president. Now, either this woman should have been allowed a chance to sign the paper or the stand in vice president should have gone on the ballot. Instead, the Democrats and the Democrat controlled Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to allow the Green Party Ballot Access. Ballot Access is already a trampled right in America. In Wisconsin, it was even worse. The Green Party filed a lawsuit 2 weeks after being told they could not be on the ballot there, and the judge threw it out because it wasn't filed in a "timely" manner. For most other things, you have at least 30 days to file against things. Michigan locked down, and when the Socialist Party asked to have the 30,000 required signatures reduced because of the difficulty of collecting during lockdown, they were denied this request. Democrats and Republicans in Michigan only had to get less than 12,000 signatures to be on the ballot.
American Political Third-Parties need equal access to ALL BALLOTS. There needs to be a federal law stating that (1) it is illegal to deny access to any party who has not previously appeared on a ballot and (2) all political parties must be subject to the SAME ballot laws. Unfortunately, Democrats were elected by their blind followers.
Unfortunately, Democrats are still blind to the fact that the Democrat party has decided to trample rights akin to China. Chinese people do not get to vote because they only have one party for whom they can vote. Democrats denying ballot access is a step in that direction. Chinese people do not have freedom of Speech. They are not allowed to say anything against the ruling party.
Now, before you argue that the Republicans are equally bad you should know (1) Republicans helped pay court fees so the Green Party could fight to get back on the ballot in court and (Republicans did not try to get Libertarians off the ballot until it was too late (i.e. they started the process after getting the idea from Democrats).
As long as people continue to support Republican and Democrat nominees and their myriad of laws against third parties, Americans will never get a choice. Third parties have been getting more and more of the vote and in some cases beating Democrat challengers. These partisan laws need to be removed from the books and equal ballot access needs to be required throughout the United States. Third-parties need to start at lower levels (which are even more difficult to get ballot access for). They need to challenge unfair discrimination in ballot access laws in court. It is not a coincidence that once third parties started getting significant numbers Democrats decided to remove them and Republicans followed suit.
Oh, Snopes, what a tangled web of lies you weave sometimes. You admit Hunter Biden was "dismissed" as an officer, but then say that is "most likely" a "general discharge." False. Hunter Biden stated he had an administrative discharge, but he also seems to have lost everything as if he had been court martialed and dismissed. The "dismissal" of an officer is the equivalent to a dishonorable discharge. Officers cannot be dishonorably discharged--only "dismissed." "If an officer is convicted by a General Court-Martial, then that officer's sentence can include a "dismissal." This is considered to be the same as a dishonorable discharge." Further, if Hunter Biden resigned before his court martial, he would have been given an administrative discharge that was Other Than Honorable (which is similar to a dishonorable discharge but not as severe). If he received a "general" administrative discharge, this would draw some scrutiny, especially since others in the military have served 19 years honorably, tested positive for cocaine once and were not only dishonorably discharged, but also jailed. But with the military sealing the records, we will probably never know if Joe asked former President Obama (as head of the military) to pull a few strings for his son. That's right: the military has not released any details about the discharge Hunter received. Ironically, if Hunter had been court martialed, President Obama could have been the judge, sealed the records, and Hunter could have said anything he wanted about his discharge. President Trump, however, does have access to those records, so it blows my mind Snopes would feel they can fact-check his statement accurately. Fact checking requires finding original documents to support or disavow the claim. Snopes did not have access to any documents and merely gave their opinion on the matter based on Hunter Biden's own claims.
If Joe wouldn't have found a job in Ukraine for Hunter, his boy probably wouldn't have been able to afford any more cocaine since his discharge had civilian effects apparently similar to the dishonorable or "other than honorable" discharge. Granted, Hunter Biden managed to jump through many walls that normal people could not have just to join the military the way he did. At the time, I wanted an investigation into whether the whole war in Ukraine was because Hunter needed a job after his "dismissal. It was all too convenient in my opinion especially with documented inappropriate US interference. Why don't people care that while making $80,000+ per MONTH in Ukraine that Hunter stated he couldn't afford to pay child support to an out-of-wedlock kid he had in court? Please Democrats, you love to jump on everything the President does wrong, why don't you let Joe's faults come out, too... oh, I forgot. You don't support free speech. I don't understand how you are okay with Joe getting a job for his son numerous times but you are also okay with Joe locking down the country again and putting millions of hard-working Americans out of work--perhaps permanently.
I love "research" like this.
This shows just how stupid and uninformed these researchers and news article writers are. Whenever you read a paper that talks about how they "saw" a reduction in "droplets" you can toss it.
The average droplet that comes out of your mouth and spreads disease is 0.7 um. That is smaller than a single red blood cell. You CANNOT SEE IT with the unaided human eye. Any "research" that is looking at droplets you can see unaided is not even remotely looking at the real problem.
Cloth masks and non-medical masks do not stop the spread of disease and should not be sold in the United States as medical devices for this purpose because the FDA is refusing to do its job and regulate them. The CDC should be fined and arrested for pushing snake-water, but the FDA is looking the other way. This government corruption needs to stop.
Stop the lies--don't share this garbage. If you see someone sharing a video or research paper that shows droplets that are visible to the human eye and then shows how masks affect these droplets, please do not share it and let others know that despite the large number of droplets you can see there are millions more that you cannot see and the mask cannot stop these.
I normally would like citations for this information, but my $3 e-book has an entire chapter with over 100 citations against the use of masks because of their inability to filter disease, their increase of disease spread, and the numerous health problems they cause. The benefit of the e-book is that all you have to do is click since more than 90% of the links are to free online journal articles.
I just wish I knew why governments are encouraging and forcing people to do things that will increase the spread of COVID-19.
I saw a Business Insider article in my RSS Feed that Sweden had the most deaths in 2020 on record since a famine decades ago. They seem to attribute this to not locking down for COVID-19. The problem is that if you look at the WHO situation report this is the real picture that unfolds:
Sweden (which did not lock down and cause economic damage to its people) had 573 deaths per million from COVID-19 so far this year.
From that same report:
Italy (which locked down and caused serious economic damage to its people) had 585 deaths per million.
The UK (which locked down and caused serious economic damage to its people) had 609 deaths per million.
Spain (which locked down and caused serious economic damage to its people) had 612 deaths per million.
Locking down did not prevent anyone from dying. Articles that only look at one country and try to make an example of it, without comparing it to others are not telling you the truth.
Right now, Sweden's unemployment rate is 6.1 percent, similar to what it was before the COVID-19 experiment. The USA has a recorded rate of 10 percent and we have been out of lock down in most states for months. Sweden's unemployment rate remained even while ours went up to almost 20%.
In the United States, we will not be able to examine how badly COVID-19 affected us until 2022. The people at the CDC are counting on that. They know real research takes time. They do not want you to see how badly we hurt ourselves without stopping COVID-19 until you can no longer do anything about it.
Learn more in my book:
I have written a new book, filled with citations to help clear up the mystery surrounding all the COVID-19 misinformation. Here is the description:
The misinformation surrounding COVID-19 has possibly been the largest since the propaganda created in Nazi Germany. With even the CDC first telling everyone not to wear masks and now telling everyone to wear them, it can be extremely difficult to discover just what is right and what is wrong. Who do you trust? This book, filled with more than 300 cited references, was written to help you find the truth. It is a must-read if you are confused or if you want to find out if you have been able to sort through all the lies successfully. 30% of all the profits from the sale of this book will be divided equally and donated to a local YMCA and a summer camp that have been hit hard financially because of the COVID-19 business closures.
You can find the book on Amazon at the following links:
Full color version paperback: https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Big-Lie-COVID-19-Pandemic/dp/B08FP5V3JN/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&qid=1597677713&refinements=p_27%3AJennifer+J.+Reinoehl&s=books&sr=1-1&text=Jennifer+J.+Reinoehl
Color E-book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08G56JQVB
Black and white version paperback & black and white large print paperback--links to be posted within the next week or so.
I am also going to be running some Goodreads Giveaways and will post those links as soon as they are ready.
