America--No Longer a Democratic Republic

The Founding Fathers of the United States set up a clear system of checks and balances between Congress, the Courts, and the President. However, since that start, we have been eroding that balance. At first, it was the switch from senators being elected by state legislature to being directly elected. By the early 1900s, it was further eroded by excluding or making it nearly impossible for third parties and independents to get on state ballots. Since NATO, Congress has slowly given up its sole right to declare war and has looked the other way as presidents executive ordered their way around things. 

In the past ten years, Americans have seen government supported online censorship and AI-algorithms that intentionally censor certain topics or create a soundbox where people only see information they support pushed back at them--making them more likely to believe false theories as they see them promoted over and over again. 

I in no way shape or form believe Trump is like Hitler, but he certainly seems to be trying for that image right now. There are a few similarities. When Hitler invaded Austria, the rest of the world looked the other way and claimed Austria wanted it. (Obviously,  The Story of the Trapp Family Singers had not been published, but one would think governments might have realized no country in the history of the world has ever been like, "Oh-oh-oh!! Colonize me!! Please! Please! Please!" It took several countries before the rest of the world was like, "Hmmm, maybe we shouldn't let him go unchecked like that." Now, we are invading many countries and setting up puppet governments. This is no different than colonizing them.

The United States has also been selling its balanced government to its intelligence agencies--as have most countries. If you think about it, no agency should ever be doing something so secret that its country's leaders are not told about it, but that is what our intelligence agencies have been doing for over half a century. I am not talking about military intelligence, which I believe is very important, but this is general intelligence operating outside the military. U.S. agencies were staffed with Nazi's who were basically given pardons for their war crimes if they came and worked for our government--including in research, teaching, and intelligence areas. What did these people who apparently had no problem acting outside the laws do? Well, one of the main jobs of our intelligence agencies have been to take over other countries and interfere in their elections--all in the name of "democracy." The also form alliances and share information with the intelligence agencies of other nations. 

Now, congress has become obsolete. The people who have been in are apparently too old and too tired to care that Trump will spend $1 trillion every three months just to invade and put a puppet government in Iran, Venezuela, and other countries. The puppet government in Ecuador has already been there for a while. Hegseth talks about the Monroe Doctrine while ignoring that we can't have troops around the world, start a war with Iran, taunt China in its own waters and train troops for Ukraine if we are following the Monroe Doctrine. He isn't practicing the Monroe Doctrine--he's empire building, which is in complete opposition to the Monroe Doctrine.

While Trump lets Hegseth do whatever he wants, Congress lets Trump do whatever he wants. Why? I think they believe they can escape the American wrath by pushing it all on Trump. But a Congress that ignores Trump is a Congress that supports him. A Congress that refuses to act when the people of the United States want them to act is a useless instrument.

In my opinion, Trump is more like Chairman Mao. He has surrounded himself with his own soundbox that tells him what he wants to hear. But when the U.S. Navy has to attack a ship that was granted protection to participate in a military display with the United States by India, that doesn't show a strong military. That shows a military that is so broken and defunct it can only attack dirty or risk losing. If that ship had been aware it was not protected, we would not have murdered the people on it so easily. In fact, as much as I am glad we aren't putting boots on the ground, not doing so shows how afraid our leadership is that it will get its butt kicked.

Will the American people care enough to vote for and run as independents to get these good-ol'-boys out and get real people in? I hope so, but it might be too late. Terrorists have struck American soil before, and Iran is reportedly the biggest state sponsor of terrorism, but our leaders think attacking their country and taking out their leaders is fair game. This time, however, we are working with an underpaid military made up of mostly new rejects so they can meet their recruiting goals. It is spread across the world and the U.S., and we just took out a beloved religious leader. 

The Noble committee showed wisdom beyond Trump's bluffs about ending wars (that actually are still going on). Instead of going down as the President of Peace, he will go down in history as the President who was responsible for World War III while Congress looked the other way. 

A New Lancet Study that Failed to Show Its Results Weren't Random Says Tylenol Isn't Linked to Brain Damage

News stations have jumped on the bandwagon, claiming 40 studies were reviewed in this Lancet paper that makes me realize just how lax and/or bought-out the Lancet is. The problem is that they only included 17 of those studies in the meta-analysis. Digging deeper, we find they didn't get statistical significance with p-values over 0.4 (they should be below 0.05). Why was this study published? This isn't a randomized controlled trial that was simply too small to be significant. No, this was a literature search. The entire purpose of meta-analyses is to combine small studies to achieve statistical significance. They failed. Further, they used estimated estimates to help shape their data and computer AI to model the results. 

If you really want to know the truth, scientists have known for a long time that Tylenol/ acetaminophen/ paracetamol causes brain damage in kids just as it causes liver damage in adults: 

Acetaminophen causes neurodevelopmental injury in susceptible babies and children: no valid rationale for controversy

This study is from 2023, before politics were attached to it.

News agencies should be ashamed of themselves

DON'T Say Their Name

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. 

Yes, the Bible Specifically Mentions COVID-19 Vaccines Are Prohibited

I read today in the Atlantic that the Bible does not specifically mention a prohibitions against vaccines. According to them this leaves religious leaders scrambling to find reason for a religious exemption, and they also believe lawmakers should not grant one on religious basis. First, what a person believes the Bible says is their religion--it is not up to the Atlantic or any lawmaker to say just because they read something differently it does not qualify for religious exemption.

Second, the Atlantic, a journal I respect but which is clearly left leaning most of the time, has completely erred due to its ignorance of both the Bible and COVID-19 vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines (except for two developed in China) are not simply dead COVID-19 viruses. Covid-19 vaccines are a mixture of mRNA viruses (they won't tell us which ones) and COVID-19 virus spikes. Some are a mixture of adenoviruses and coronaviruses. If viruses were alive, they would be mixing two different species of viruses to create this. God has specifically forbidden such mixing in Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 20:11. If they wish to argue that is Old Testament, Jesus specifically stated not one dot shall pass away from the law in Matthew 5:18. Further, 1 Corinthians 8:12-13 says that even if you are strong enough to eat meat forbidden by the Old Testament, if your brother is not and you eat meat forbidden in front of him, you are responsible for his fall. 

In short, no minister or Christian should be grasping for a Biblical reason to avoid COVID-19 vaccines--especially since they do not prevent anyone from getting COVID-19, do not prevent anyone from spreading COVID-19, and come with side effects. The Bible specifically warned us against creating these vaccines, just as it has warned us not to stick human genes in flies eyes among other things secular scientists do. Ministers promoting vaccination and shaming those whose conscience prevents them from doing so are the ones who will have to bring their case before God.

More Bad "Science"

 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. 

Perfect Study to Show Pro-Mask Bias

 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. 

Here is some information with citations you can share if you want to know the truth about Dr. Fauci and his relationship with big pharma: in the 1980s, Dr. Fauci made an announcement that the FDA should fast track AZT trials for HIV. This shocked the FDA because they knew AZT had failed as a cancer treatment. The company that makes AZT stopped trials after 17 weeks because they stated it would be "unethical" to deny it to the placebo group. AZT caused people with HIV to be more sick, die sooner, and it accelerated HIV mutations into resistant strains. Currently, AZT is not recommended as a sole treatment for HIV, and when used in combination with other drugs 50% of the people who start it have to be pulled off it. Unfortunately, many of the people with HIV who suffered because they took AZT that had been recommended for general use by Dr. Fauci (instead of last resort emergency use as approved by the FDA) are now dead. Big pharma charge $8000 per month to every person who took AZT during its height. 

After that, Dr. Fauci legally took kick-backs from pharmaceutical companies for developing and getting Interleukin-2 approved as another HIV drug. Fauci claimed he felt uncomfortable about taking the kickbacks and "donated them to charity." Still, despite Fauci's research showing Interleukin-2 helped fight HIV, four years later independent research showed Interleukin-2 was ineffective and detrimental to HIV patients because it weakened immune cells and made the ineffective. 

Dr. Fauci continued to take kickbacks from big pharma and use funds donated to the NSAID/NIH to specifically support big pharma research. This creates questionable ethics cycles: for example in the current pandemic, Bill Gates invested in Moderna and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has regularly donated money to NSAID which Dr. Fauci directed to Moderna research. Dr. Fauci became the gatekeeper between Moderna and the FDA (and here), and in an ironically similar situation to that during the AZT release, Moderna stopped placebo trials as soon as it received emergency use authorization (before determining statistically significant effectiveness or side effects) because it would be "unethical" to deny the vaccine to the placebo group. 

During the 2014 Ebola "crisis," Dr. Fauci pushed for emergency use of Remdesivir, again this drug was found to be ineffective against Ebola after independent studies. 

Dr. Fauci refuses to disclose his financial ties, but his net worth is apparently in the millions. When he completely flipflopped on masks, no one questioned him despite the NAS stating there was no scientific evidence that masks prevented asymptomatic spread (and that it was highly unlikely they did). With his past history of promoting bad drugs and flipflopping suddenly, why hasn't he been investigated?

Further, just as with AZT, Dr. Fauci again promoted Remdesivir as a COVID-19 treatment and pushed it through emergency use. Independent studies showed that people who took Remdesivir early showed no statistically significant benefit (however, Remdesivir patients suffered twice the number of side effects), were ignored. Further Remdesivir did not significantly reduce death rates or rates of serious disease even in the NIH funded study. When the WHO stated Remdesivir given to the sickest later in the course of the disease did not help them at all, WHO was attacked for not taking into account people who had been given the drug earlier. In fact, Fauci has criticized all studies that show Redmesivir is not clinically effective at treating COVID-19 and comes with serious side effects (as seen in the article above). 

Although the past evidence is enough to raise question about Dr. Fauci's conduct, full research should be done, including his financial situation and how he has handled NIH funds and determined which companies get grants to perform research. At the least, the FDA should immediately cancel EUAs without independent research and full clinical trials because of the misinformation leading to deaths surrounding Dr. Fauci's previous research projects. 

Blood Clots and Vaccine Safety

 Yes, previously when mRNA vaccines were given to animals, they developed blood clots from the vaccines. Since none of the new vaccines, including the ones with adenovirus instead of mRNA, have been tested for safety and effectiveness in a random control trial that produced significant results, no one should believe they are getting a safe vaccine. Nor should anyone believe they are getting a well-tested, effective vaccine. Effectiveness could only be determined if during the trials 30,000 people had come down with COVID-19 (vaccinated + placebo groups). Fewer than 180 came down with it. Further, trials were stopped one week after people received their second shots. Moderna specifically stated that it was going to stop all placebo groups as soon as it got FDA approval. This destroys the experiment and any data that may now come from it and is one of the worst kinds of vaccine fraud. 

So, when my friend's neighbor dies of a blood clot after getting the vaccine, my eyebrow raises. When European countries stop vaccines because of blood clots, I take notice. This fits with what we know about mRNA vaccines and it fits with a push to "get everyone vaccinated ASAP." Big guys have a lot of money invested in these vaccines, and with Facebook squelching all reports of adverse effects and VAERS - the nations data gathering system for vaccine side effects- not being talked about, it seems like they are trying to make as much as they can before the house of cards finishes collapsing.

The house of cards has already started to fall. Norway detected an unusual number of people who died from the vaccine. The EU has noted a spike in blood clots. The US noticed an uptick in allergic reactions and the FDA warned the vaccine makers about it. Still we plod on-- VACCINATE! VACCINATE! VACCINATE!

I have had a lot of vaccines in my life. I have never had my entire arm swell up nor have I had to miss a day of work because of them... granted the vaccines I have had spent decades being researched for safety and effectiveness before they were released. 

In the US, you cannot sue a vaccine maker, but you can be reimbursed for medical expenses by the US government if you have an adverse reaction to a vaccine. The problem is that the COVID-19 vaccines are "experimental." They are not FDA approved--nor have they undergone the necessary trials to become FDA approved. Why would they need to? They were given emergency use status and the companies not only have no liability for their products but also are being promoted everywhere using Nazi propaganda techniques. They will never get FDA approval because they are neither safe nor effective. If they were safe and effective they would not have stopped the trials prior to achieving significant results that would have given them FDA approval. 

It is one thing to have an experimental vaccine available for those in the population who wish to take it or participate in the experiment. It is quite another to force an experimental vaccine on everyone in the World. So far, it hasn't been forced on anyone. But the vaccination passports in development should scare us all. There are many diseases more deadly than COVID-19--why haven't we had passports for any of those? Finish testing the vaccine and have significant results. THEN countries can decide if they want to force it on people and provide them with "Vaccine passports."

The United States Democrats Orchestrated the Largest Human Rights Violation and Voter Fraud in History--and It HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COUNTING VOTES

 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. 

Stop the Lies

 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. 

Hitler's Big Lie and the COVID-19 Pandemic

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. 

Psychology Today Breaks Many Ethical Standards

I recently read an article here in Psychology Today. In the past, I have considered articles on this website to be slightly biased, but I have used them to gather general information and as springboards for other research. However, this article is concerning on many levels and it shows the depths that media of any kind has sunk to in trying to affect presidential race outcomes.

(1) If the President were under the care of a mental health provider, that provider could not release ANY information about his diagnosis to the public unless subpoenaed by a court. Mental health professionals can lose their license if the violate patient confidentiality.

(2) The article claims that 70,000 unnamed mental health professionals have "diagnosed" the President without even seeing him. This is another very unprofessional thing to do. In addition to this "diagnosis," they have decided to not only discuss it with their colleagues, using the President's name, but also to publish an article about it.

I am not a President Trump fan. He is obnoxious, undignified, and uncouth. He raised taxes on the poor while lowering them for the rich. He has had what I feel are brief moments of genius, but 90% of his presidency and the decisions he has made and actions he has taken have been offensive and upset me greatly. But, when the media is trying so extremely hard to try and convince me the President is somehow "dangerous" or like "Hitler," when I for a fact know that President Trump is nothing like Hitler (based on extensive historical research and talking to people who lived under Hitler's regime), I begin to wonder what they are so scared of?

As an independent, I am going to suffer for the next four years under whomever is elected in November, but I am most certainly NOT going to choose someone simply because the media has made unfounded claims (and in this case claims that should have every one of those 70,000 professionals as well as the article's author's licenses revoked) trying to scare me away from his/her opponent. In fact, when they make these claims that are clearly scare tactics, it makes me want to vote for President Trump even more in November, if I could bring myself to stomach it. But whether or not I vote for him, I can tell you that in no way would I vote for Joe Biden. I refuse to vote for someone that the media tells me I have to vote for.

Dr. Fauci Has a Long History of Promoting Bad Drugs Despite Ineffectiveness and Deadliness

Why does everyone act as if Dr. Fauci was so amazing during the 1980s AIDS epidemic that continues today? 

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/aids/orgs/ACTUP/sf/1995/fauci.zap.flyer-05.06.95 

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-rise-and-fall-of-azt-it-was-the-drug-that-had-to-work-it-brought-hope-to-people-with-hiv-and-2320491.html 

https://www.cochrane.org/CD002039/HIV_while-azt-slows-down-the-progression-of-hiv-disease-in-the-short-term-the-improvement-does-not-last-and-it-does-not-increase-survival

When People in Charge Believe They Are God or the Voice of God

Sometimes, we appoint people to positions of power, and they let that power go to their heads. These people are frequently charismatic and well-spoken. However, their appointment affects their logic and reasoning skills. This can be especially dangerous when a medical authority stops looking at scientific research and believes he has found the answer to a health solution--even if that solution is extreme and not supported by facts.

The model example of this is Benjamin Rush. Benjamin Rush was a Founding Father. He was also one of the first doctors teaching at the first American Medical University. He held many high positions, but when Yellow Fever struck, he believed that he had the best idea for dealing with the plague. Bleeding patients had actually fallen out of favor in Europe. It was an old-fashioned method of dealing with disease by the 1790s. Supportive care was becoming the norm, but when Rush tried it he claimed it killed 4 out of 5 of his patients. He switched to the old tried and true method of bleeding and purgatives to make people throw up. Since severe yellow fever causes stomach bleeding, he saw that they would vomit "black bile" and felt he was doing his job to get rid of the excess. He still lost patients, so he took his measures to the next extreme. He drew so much blood from his patients, his front yard became a bloody mess--literally. He even caused the other doctors of his day to squirm. He prescribed ten times the amount of purgatives that any other doctor would prescribe. A battle between the doctors raged in the newspapers. Throughout it all Rush maintained that he never lost a patient once he enacted these measures. He believed that despite bleeding falling out of favor in Europe, America was a different place and therefore required different treatment methods. He believed there was only one disease--fever-- and there was only one treatment for that disease--aggressive bleeding. He believed God had divinely given him this idea. And he taught this to all his students and published books on it for other doctors to read.

That Rush had 5 assistants and 3 of them died during the Yellow Fever outbreak, makes the modern historian question his record. If he lost 0 of the patients he treated, how did he lose 60% of his assistants? One researcher traced as many of his patients as he could and discovered 46% of them had died from Yellow Fever. His school of medicine probably contributed to George Washington's death.
Although the debate during and after the Yellow Fever epidemic was harsh, he only was pushed into resigning from his position regulating public health. He kept his teaching job, and was almost appointed to another one, but Alexander Hamilton, one of his most vocal opponents blocked it. Rush had radical ideas, but unfortunately they were not founded on science. His zeal caused him to ignore the deaths he caused or perhaps his stubbornness caused him to keep killing others. His followers loved him regardless.

The result was that bleeding remained prominent as a treatment for more than 50 years--but only in the United States. Leaders are important, but it is also important to recognize when someone should not be in a leadership position, especially in medicine, and those people who make bad choices, such as when doctors supported smoking, they should be removed from their positions and more humble people placed there instead. Medical leaders must look at research and never assume they have all the answers.

Why Italy and the USA have failed the Covid-19 test (part 2)

The USA has also failed. Our CDC did not enact early testing. Testing from case 1 has taken a minimum of 3 days, unless you are rich. For some reason, rich people can still go on vacation and travel throughout the country, they can get tests even when they are not sick or seriously sick (which increases the chances of a false negative), and they can get the best healthcare if they do fall ill.

However, the fact is that the average American and his or her doctors must wait up to two weeks for test results. Covid-19 usually lasts 12-15 days. People are forced out of their jobs simply because they have been "exposed." It is a bit late for this. If you have mild symptoms, you are refused a test and told you "probably have it." This is a "precaution" but illogical. If, for example, almost 12,000 people in the state of Indiana have been tested because they had serious symptoms of the illness, and only about 2000 of them ACTUALLY HAVE IT, then our prediction rates are estimating 6x more cases than what we really have.

This is why we have run out of medical supplies. The lack of testing kits and testing ability has made it so that doctors err on the side of caution and wear protective gear 6x more often than necessary. It is still forcing doctors and nurses to use gear more than needed.

Now, we have rapid tests. This means that the number of cases will drastically increase, but we are still 1-2 months out before we will be able to test anywhere near the number of people we need to test each day (at this point). The WHO has stated repeatedly that the way to contain this disease is early detection--not mass quarantine, not more ventilators. The USA created an "emergency" situation by not testing and now is continuing to play on that emergency by enacting everything they can for "support" without actually doing what is really necessary: increase testing. The state of Indiana released information that one of its many universities was going to begin testing and expected to soon be testing up to 2,500 patients each day. Two weeks later we are testing less than 2,000 statewide. If students were back at their colleges instead of holed up at home, perhaps more universities could test. Although anyone can get Covid-19, I have found no reports of anyone under the age of 30 dying in the United States, yet, so this would be a wiser use of our resources.

On top of mass shelter-in-home orders and poor testing, the US has been putting out conflicting orders and statements that do not help calm the public. In some cases it is better to say "We don't really know yet, but we are working on it" instead of saying "We know this..." and then later saying "Wait, that wasn't right." A few states have responded well to calming the panic, for example, Georgia's Covid-19 website clearly shows that about 80% of the people who have died had pre-existing conditions. In another 15%, the status of preexisting conditions is unknown. Out of the current 102 deaths that are recorded, only 4 did not have a pre-existing conditions and all of these were over the age of 55. This isn't reassuring for the sick population over 55, but for the rest of us it should be. They also report the number of cases that are hospitalized, letting people know that everyone does not end up in the hospital. The neutral, calming, blacks, blues, and grays, make it more a page for statistics than sensation. The only thing I could complain about is that there could be a few more pie graphs.

On the other hand, you have Indiana, which gets an F in webpage design. At this time, they have the number of deaths in bigger font that is blood red. The yellow and blue fonts for number of tested and number of confirmed cases fade into the background. They do not report whether the people who have died had pre-existing conditions, and they break down newly confirmed cases by age, without any reference to whether the cases are mild, moderate, or severe. Instead of the light blue Georgia used in reporting the counties with only a few cases, which puts them in the background. Indiana again has opted for a light, reddish-brown that makes counties with even 1 case stand out on the map. How much did they pay for this fear inducing visual? Probably a lot more than Georgia's basic display. Of course the governor himself says the numbers should "put the fear of God in you." As someone who has studied pandemics, they don't. Nor should they make anyone afraid if they are looked at objectively in terms of other more deadly illnesses.

Increasing fear and panic across the USA instead of quieting it means that more people are going to commit abuse, more people are going to commit suicide, and more people are going to be casualties of Covid-19 than just those who contract and die from the disease. Issuing "emergency stay-at-home" orders instead of closing state and locality borders to prevent the spread, failing to test people quickly who go to the doctor with symptoms will increase spread and continue the lack of medical supplies, and failing to diagnose and treat people early will increase the deaths. If this virus were truly a threat, the USA would be in trouble.

A Scientific Critique of "Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand"

True, I am not a professional epidemiologist, but I am highly disappointed in those of them who support this farce of a paper. In fact, I am completely disgusted by my fellow scientists who are accepting this false model.

I have no doubt the authors crunched the numbers correctly, but all they did was recycle numbers from a previous paper on influenza. By doing this, they committed serious scientific fallacy with the numbers they chose. First, they used the transmission rates among children for influenza which are on the range of 9.8%. Why did they choose flu? Well, because by choosing the flu they didn't have to change their paper very much. We know Covid-19 is NOT highly transmissible among school aged children. Neither is SARS, which they could have used for their model. But SARS and MERS and other coronaviruses like Covid-19 have a transmission/ infection rate among school children of only 0.0098%. That's right, they increased the transmission rate by 1000%--is it no wonder they had such a breakout in schools through their model.

In addition, they assumed transmission would occur 1/3 of the time in schools, 1/3 of the time in the workplace, and 1/3 of the time in the community. Again, this is not even remotely what we see in Covid-19. A better model would have assumed 1/3 of the time in households, 1/3 of the time in hospitals, and 1/3 of the time in the community (including the workplace and schools). This is what we are seeing when we see that most of the country of Algeria has been infected by family members. Granted, if they used the real model, they would not have been able to encourage every country to lock down, since they would have quickly realized that lock down increases transmission when the primary method of transmission is households. Look at every country that has gone on lock down from the WHO situation reports. Five days after they go on lock down, their transmission rates double and then skyrocket--so much for flattening the curve.

This paper is so poorly written, that while the authors used the 5.1 days after infection before symptoms appear, they neglected to change the flu windows of transmission which begin 2 days before symptoms appear and continue only 5-7 days after symptoms appear. Covid-19 is currently thought to be transmissible through droplets from the first day of symptoms to about the 14th day of symptoms and through feces from the 9th day of symptoms to the 28th day of symptoms.

The fact they admit in the very beginning that lock downs did not help during the Spanish flu (and manage to leave out the fact that they also did not help during the swine flu or even the SARS outbreaks), they simply state that this is because during the Spanish flu they did not have pharmaceuticals or vaccines, just like now. Apparently, they did not realize (1) yes, aspirin saved many lives during the Spanish flu and is technically a pharmaceutical and (2) we are using pharmaceuticals such as antiviral drugs, respirators, and a myriad of other interventions including Tylenol(t), Aleve(t), and Advil(t). They also don't seem to care that the lock down has not worked before, but still claim it is needed today.