The Problem with Sgt Karl Wolfe's Alien Testimony

There has been a big push for aliens lately. It makes sense. You have something that will never materialize, but at the same time most people are afraid of it. Very few people are scientifically versed enough to know that aliens cannot exist, and it is extremely easy to fake things well enough for people to buy into them. 

So, my husband was telling me about one of the latest fabrications in this area and in my looking it up, I came across this https://archive.org/details/youtube-_4hycqDNnPE

This guy comes off as if he were telling the honest truth, but there are some major issues with his own testimony. (1) His dates are a little loose. He says he served from '64-68. Okay. But then he talks about a plane that "nobody knew about." However, two had already been shot down by other governments in the early 60s. 

(2) He alludes to an intelligence school that was on the base--but his job was to fix machines. At no point, does he say his job was to interpret signals or photographs. This is important--fixing machines only requires a "secret" security clearance. Further, a person doing intelligence work would not also have to fix the machines nor would s/he get training in fixing anything. 

(3) There is no such thing as a "crypto" security clearance. This is garbage. 

(4) I find it extremely hard to believe that the machine breaks down, and they have one soldier working on it and go get a newer soldier who hasn't yet gotten security clearance to be in the building where the machine is to work on it. 

(5) They moved the machine out of the building to troubleshoot it. So, instead of moving it out of the building to begin with, they gave a guy an immediate higher security clearance to go in an off-limits area to look at the machine, and the first thing he tells them is he needs to take it out of there to troubleshoot. They then leave the guy in the room alone with only one other guy--with no reason to do so since he could not work on it in there at all. Might happen--but in a part of the base that was supposed to contain compartmentalized information you needed the highest security clearance to be in, very doubtful. 

(6) He talks about being in a "darkroom." The Lunar lander developed the film itself, and then scanned the images and sent them back to earth. Since the Lunar lander was crashed into the moon, there is no way the film inside it would have found its way back to earth if film needed to be developed. Still he talks in detail about developing 35 mm film and a "darkroom." the only film there would have been was magnetic film--no darkroom required. That said, it would have been easy for him to look up the process he describes and think that is how it worked. 

(7) Mr. Wolfe repeatedly talks about "compartmentalized" information. He was a repair tech and had no reason to know the details of how the images were getting there. The guy in the room with him presumably has an equal or higher security clearance but has no problem blabbing about everything--from details about the method of transmission (that are incorrect) to photos of the "alien base." People who have this high of a security clearance do not talk or they lose their jobs ASAP and end up in prison. He then acts like it was okay for the guy to be talking about all the other stuff but once he talked about the base that was bad. Yet, Mr. Wolfe still asked the guy "whose base"? He uses the excuse that the guy "needed to discuss it." If the guy did show him something, it was probably as a joke.

(8) They used 70mm not 35mm film (like Mr. Wolfe says) on these images. 35 mm wouldn't have gotten the needed detail. 

(9) He says that he knew the information was top secret--but thought it would be on the news some time soon. 

(10) Despite the top secret compartmentalized nature of the entire project and the fact he only seems to have worked on one machine for it once, he has pictures they gave him from it. He then has conveniently sold these pictures, and that he can't show the only evidence he had that he actually worked with this project. 

(11) NASA has released many photos from this project. They are amazing, but their resolution is about 3/10 of a kilometer-- not the often cited "you could read the license plate off a car." That is a crock of bologna. He he then tries to downplay the claim he made saying that even though he had seen these pictures of the base, but he doesn't know how good their resolution was. Did he see license plates on the base?

(12) First he tells us he got the higher security clearance when he walked into the building--then he tells us he didn't have a cryptological clearance until later. Again, why does he need a cryptology clearance when he fixes equipment? He isn't decoding any secret messages. He also repeatedly tells us his job was an electric system technician. Does he need a low-level security clearance, yes. But he certainly doesn't need top secret or anything else. "I got to go into every room in the facility...[and do] maintenance." 

(13) He talks about changing your security badge at the door for a higher level one? This makes no sense--especially in light of his statement that it took years to get security clearances. The changing badges at the doors sounds like he move up every time something broke. Now, I would except they gave him a temporary badge that warned everyone he did not have a high enough clearance to be there and was probably given a "keeper" to make sure he didn't wander off, but bragging that he was getting higher level clearances every time he went through a door is silly. 

(14) He sounds like he was a real risk, and they knew it. And, please, he was a tech. The guy with the gun was probably guarding him FROM the Vietcong. 

(15) Your security clearance expiring does not mean you can now share whatever you were told not to share.

(16) His descriptions of "buildings" sound like the natural features of the moon potentially doctored. Mr. Wolfe admits he only glanced at the supposed photo decades ago and came to this assumption after someone told him it was a "base." 

I don't know if someone played a trick on this guy or if this guy is playing a deliberate trick on everyone, but his story doesn't stack up. 

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. 

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."

If You Want to Stop COVID-19, Should You Vote Republican or Democrat?

 So, Joe Biden has said if he is elected, COVID-19 will go away. President Trump has stated similar things. Since Republicans AND Democrats are both saying they handled the pandemic better, I decided to FACT CHECK THEM. I looked at state populations, whether the state had a Democrat or Republican governor, COVID-19 case-fatality rates per state, cases per population, and deaths from COVID-19 per population. Guess what? There was NO STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE in any of these values whether you were living in a Republican or Democrat states. All Democrat controlled states locked down, but one Democrat state does not require masks, so policies were mixed across states.

The most concerning thing is that if we look at overall deaths in the United States last year and compare them to deaths this year they are much, much higher. Our increase in deaths from all causes (COVID-19, suicides, heart disease) is 25% higher THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. Why? Well, because we Americans have the unfortunate problem of being in a wicked political battle because it is an election year. We have the unfortunate position of having a CDC and FDA that care more about politics than anything else.

Think I am wrong? President Trump touted hydroxychloroquine as a treatment. The FDA banned hydroxychloroquine use in the USA. Now, I have seen some of the papers against hydroxychloroquine, but many of them contain insignificant information--and worse, the Lancet article panning it was retracted because the authors could not produce their data! There are several significant papers showing that hydroxychloroquine reduces the severity of COVID-19. I don't know if hydroxychloroquine is a good treatment or not, but I do know there was not enough grounds to completely ban experimentation on a drug that has been a safe treatment for malaria for years. I also know that African nations are relying on quinines to combat COVID-19. Every single African nation has half the COVID-19 case-fatality rate of any Western nation. This could be a coincidence, but without research we won't know. It is not acceptable to cancel research simply because there is some risk and preliminary results are not significant. Most research has some risk.

President Trump was given a treatment for his COVID-19, from which he recovered quickly. Less than two weeks later the FDA banned that drug. I didn't see all the information for that, but it makes me suspicious either they were trying to kill the President or they don't want others to recover that quickly.

The FDA is refusing to regulate masks. If you contract COVID-19 in a state that requires mask, you have a 1.16% greater chance of dying from it than if you live in a state that does not require COVID-19. I did the statistical analysis and this was a significant (albeit small) increase (p=0.0077236). The FDA is required by law to regulate medical devices, such as masks, but despite numerous reports of adverse effects of masks that have been filed with the FDA, they are still not regulating them for safety or effectiveness.

At the same time, the CDC flips from saying one thing to saying the exact opposite. It changes wording on things, seemingly to avoid legal action. Despite the failure of our national health institutions, Republicans and Democrats could look at the rest of the world and say, "Hey, we might be doing something wrong here." Instead, they jump on every chance they can to point fingers at the other side. They could question the CDC recommendations in light of world recommendations. They could force the FDA to regulate masks, but they don't. Why? Well, because this is an election year, and people dying at massive rates compared to anywhere else in the world makes good political ammo. But if you are voting for a political party instead of a person simply because you believe that political party will reduce or stop the COVID-19 pandemic, you are voting for unfounded reasons.

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. 

An Act of Treason

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." --U.S. Constitution

When a group of people gather and forcibly  try to prevent a public law from being executed, they are guilty of levying war against the United States. They can be tried under the Constitution. Under Washington law under RCW 9A. 76.020: (1) A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.

The inhabitants of CHOP/CHAZ clearly obstructed officers who were responding to an emergency. More than one member of this group did so, so it clearly fits under the levying war against the United States. I have also seen numerous pictures from inside CHAZ with "Insurrection" flags. This is not a "peaceful protest" but an attempt to take over the government. 

If our own leaders are going to look the other way, and support treason, they, too, should be arrested and tried for it. A peaceful protest (as protected under the Constitution) does not involve physical violence, property destruction, or theft. Every time we see an image from CHOP/CHAZ all we see is property destruction. That is not a peaceful protest that is protected by the Constitution, but a violent one. How long are leaders going to look the other way and allow violent traitors to continue their violence against our country?

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.

According to the FDA, that mask the CDC is requiring you to wear isn't protecting you from disease.

The CDC states here we must wear cloth face coverings because they may prevent the spread. It recommends:

 "CDC is additionally advising the use of simple cloth face coverings to slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others.  Cloth face coverings fashioned from household items or made at home from common materials at low cost can be used as an additional, voluntary public health measure.

The cloth face coverings recommended are not surgical masks or N-95 respirators.  Those are critical supplies that must continue to be reserved for healthcare workers and other medical first responders, as recommended by current CDC guidance."

However, the FDA gives guidance here (here ) for the non-surgical masks which the CDC is telling everyone to wear: 

"Masks for non-medical purposes are not medical devices and are not regulated by the FDA.

Under the policy, the FDA believes face masks not intended to provide liquid barrier protection [i.e. non-medical masks] do not create such an undue risk where:

• The face masks include labeling that:
  • Accurately describes the product as a face mask (as opposed to a surgical mask or filtering facepiece respirator);
  • Includes a list of body-contacting materials (which does not include any drugs or biologics); and
  • Includes recommendations and general statements that would reduce the risk of use. For example, recommendations against use:
    • In any surgical setting or where significant exposure to liquid, bodily, or other hazardous fluids may be expected;
    • In a clinical setting where the infection risks level through inhalation exposure is high;
    • In the presence of a high intensity heat source or flammable gas;
• The face masks are not intended for any use that would create such an undue risk. For example, the labeling does not include uses for antimicrobial or antiviral protection, infection prevention or reduction, or related uses, and does not include particulate filtration claims."

In other words, the FDA says that it is okay to manufacture and sell these non-medical masks, but they cannot protect you from infection and must be clear about stating this. So, why is the CDC recommending we all wear them? 

Think about it. If a cloth mask won't protect you from symptomatic transmission, why would anyone, including the CDC, think it would protect you from asymptomatic transmission?

To further muddy the waters, the FDA is now allowing millions of non-surgical (but surgical looking) masks to flood into the country from China. None of these masks protect anyone from disease, but they are being marketed as such because of the CDC guidelines, which imply they do. How many of our healthcare workers are now wearing cloth masks that do not protect them from anything? How many of our healthcare workers are wearing cheap, surgical mask imitations that will not protect them from liquids (i.e. the droplets that transmit the disease). 

The Bad State of NY Healthcare Revealed with COVID-19

People are trying to make excuses for New York: It's a big city... It got COVID-19 from Europe, not China...

But the fact is, that NY just has lousy healthcare. I feel sorry for the people who live there. For comparison, California has 39.5 millionish people in the state and only 28,899 cases of COVID-19. 1021 people have died there from the virus. California was one the the first states to lockdown their entire state on March 20, 2020, and right after that, like every other place that has gone on lockdown, their new case numbers began a much steeper climb to the top. Testing was increased back around March 1, so that was not a good reason for rates to skyrocket, in my opinion, but it is what it is. We will never accurately see what COVID-19 is doing until we stop putting money into quarantine and start putting money into testing and improving healthcare access among the poor, especially those making 135%-180% federal poverty income levels, which basically screws them out of any state healthcare aid (even something like HIP-2.0, where they pay small premiums for Medicaid.)

But at least California, skyrocketing as it is, is not NY. NY has a population of only 19.5 million. A little less than half the population of CA. New York's numbers are disgusting, though: 126,383 as of the same day I took CA's stats. New York also has 8448 deaths. In one instance, it was reported they stored at least 10 COVID-19 dead bodies in a nursing home. Is it any wonder they have so many cases? Apparently, they are truly trying to re-enact the 1300s. They also have been blowing up the lungs of COVID-19 patients and increasing their chances of bacterial pneumonia by putting them on ventilators when all they need is an Oxygen mask. This is something the Chinese tried to explain to us in February in a published paper, but we didn't listen.

And now people are protesting these lockdowns and the governor of MI actually said they were blocking ambulances. Really? All the hospitals I have seen on a map of Lansing were outside the protest area. An ambulance driver would need to deliberately reroute through the area (out of the way) to get to them. Not surprisingly, I saw no ambulances blocked in any news footage. I also saw a news agency claim the protesters were racist and carrying Confederate flags... so I looked. The only thing I saw was blue President Trump flags, Don't Tread on Me Flags, and USA flags from 2020. Sorry. Neither of those resemble the Confederate flag. I did see a lot of camo... but really? Its Michigan. Do they have anything else to wear up there? Especially since the Governor probably has deemed clothing "non-essential."

Hey, here's an idea: If you don't want people to protest, why don't you give them something else to do, like, I don't know... WORK! I mean really, saying that people who choose to go out are going to get everyone who is huddled in their homes sick, is like saying a person without a vaccine can get a person with a (WORKING) vaccine sick. Apparently, most Americans have thrown logic out the door.

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.

The fallacy of coronavirus being a bioweapon

This myth has been cycling through the Internet: "Coronavirus was a biological weapon accidentally/purposefully released by ____ nation." Then, people from the government of X nation blame the government of the nation from which the report came for spreading lies. The problem is multifold-- this is a myth and it is being released like crazy across the Internet, usually supported by some unsupported statement that someone hypothesized irresponsibly to the media. These people probably did not originally make these crazy original statements without the knowledge or support of their respective governments, but the governments are now somehow responsible for the actions of all their citizens (especially those in authority positions) in the midst of this pandemic.

The coronavirus could not be a biological weapon for these reasons:

First and foremost, we do not have the technology to modify one virus into another working virus that is vastly different from the original. We are not smart enough. We can only make very minute changes to the existing DNA of organisms and even then we have to often hide these changes from the organism or the organism will kill itself. Although viruses are simpler than metabolizing organisms, they would still require God-like knowledge to modify in such a way that would create something that both worked as a virus and killed people the way we wanted it to. Biological warfare involves releasing organisms that already exist. We can take almost any bacteria and make it antibiotic resistant, but we can not change one bacteria into a different species of bacteria. At most, we could call our modifications a "sub-species", whatever scientific value that word has.

It would be stupid to make a virus for the purposes of warfare that selectively attacks and kills only the aged and dying portion of the country's population. If anything, that would help the attacking country because they would no longer have to support this portion of their population and that money could be directed toward war. It would also give the opposing country a great moral boost in favor of the war- "They killed grandma! Let's get them!"

The coronavirus is not deadly enough. A 4% mortality rate (and the actual rate is probably closer to 1%), would simply not put a dent in the population. The fact that even those who are sick usually do not have any or very mild symptoms means that the country releasing this weapon would not even slightly impair the country they were attacking with it. Anthrax, for comparison, when inhaled, kills 80% of those infected and causes nasty symptoms in those who don't die. It has long been and remains the gold standard for biological warfare for this reason.

How to stop the pandemic panic

Stopping all this panic would be easy. As stated before, Coronavirus is not "deadly" nor is it "very contagious." The final report by the WHO on the China outbreak shows this. Still we see "thousands" and now over ten thousand new cases each day--primarily because we are now quarantining so families are going to spread it to each other. In addition, the United States is starting to get its act together with testing, so we are going to see the fruits of not being able to test (and quarantine) sick people for the past two months. To make matters worse, the daily counts released by the CDC are not "confirmed" accounts but "probable" accounts. We are only testing about 3000 people each day compared to the 16,000 tests per day South Korea runs and our test takes 1-3 days as opposed to the 3 hours it takes in South Korea.
But to stop all this panic, all the governments need to do is stop reporting raw numbers. New cases should be broken down into "mild," "moderate," and "severe" categories. All deaths should be broken down by age and "with preexisting conditions" or "without preexisting conditions." As soon as people see this only effects older people with preexisting conditions, they will realize this panic is crazy (since apparently seeing that the death rate is lower than the 2017-2018 flu is not calming them). Even Italy's 7% death rate is on par with a good year of the flu.

Climate Change? Or Environmentally Dangerous Farce?

For most people, warning bells should go off when they find a 17 year old at the head of the climate change movement. Do we not remember how well the Children's Crusade went? Research has shown that children are easily influenced by outside sources--much more so than adults. If you take people from childhood to adulthood and ask them to rate the riskiness of something (let's say climate change), and after they rate it you tell them that a bunch of adults rated it much higher even though the adults did not really rate it higher, then you let the person rate the risk again, older teenagers change their original views significantly, even more so than younger teenagers.

Readings from thermometers that have been averaged confirm that temperatures on the earth have risen since the first global network of temperature readings was established in 1850. That is a fact taken in its entirety, however, there are a few problems with this fact, such as the source years for the "average." One would expect this is an average of every year from 1850 until today, but it is not. It is usually a subset range instead of the full range. In other words, the numbers have been hand selected to give these results. To make matters worse, climate change advocates do not stop there with that fact. Instead, they start to make a bunch of claims that are not scientifically supported.

Unsupported claim #1: Humans caused this change. There are fossils of tropical plants under ice flows. That is a fact. If tropical trees existed in arctic Norway, the climate has changed drastically with or without human interaction. In fact, if humans effect the climate, they apparently made it much colder in Norway that what it was initially. Some non-human reasons for climate change: continental plate movement which is not constant throughout time, the fact the sun is getting larger, the number of solar flares. 

Unsupported claim #2: Since we have been recording temperatures since 1850 we have a long-term accurate record of temperatures showing that the climate is warming up. The first problem with this claim is that every scientist knows the more data points you have the more accurate your data. In 1850, there were relatively few data points to collect the global temperature of the earth. Livingstone had not even made it all the way across Africa nor had the entire continental coastline of America been charted. No there are about 30,000 points of data. At the same time, we have the second problem--thermometer accuracy. In the 1880s,weather thermometers were all mercury thermometers and the ones used were usually accurate to about +/-0.1 degree Celsius. Digital weather thermometers today are only accurate to about +/-1 degree Celsius. That is right--the temperature has supposedly changed about 1 degree Celsius since the 1900s and the weather thermometers today are only accurate (and require constant calibration to maintain their accuracy) to +/- 1 degree Celsius. The fact that mercury thermometers were being phased out right about the same time that global temperatures began to spike has not struck anyone as odd.


Unsupported claim #3: Methane/CO2 are causing climate change and increasing the Earth's temperatures.

Venus atmosphere (solar system poster child for global warming/climate change):

CO2 96.5%

Methane (undetectable)

Avg daily temperature: 872 °F

Mars atmosphere (“normal” planet):

CO2 94.9%

Methane (undetectable)

Avg daily temperature: -81 °F

Earth atmosphere:

CO2 0.04%

Methane 0.00017%

Average daily temperature: 58.62 °F

You may wonder why this hype about climate change is dangerous for the environment. For one, it takes the spotlight off true environmentally damaging activities done by corporations. These corporations can continue to pollute and still be labeled green because they have paid for carbon credits to eliminate the fictitious "carbon footprint" they are leaving. Instead, blame for the biggest evil on earth (i.e. "climate change") is placed on individual people and governments. Political action revolves around pushing for corporations to pay these fake "carbon credit" companies to continue their activities and for everyone to reduce our carbon emissions. Plants invariably resolve any excess carbon in the atmosphere. If you smoke in a green house, the smoke will effectively be dealt with by the plants.Instead of focusing on this silliness, we should focus on real pollution. I don't care how much carbon a factory is releasing; I care about how much the EMFs from power lines are polluting my environment. I care about dioxins and other cancer causing agents in my air, water, food, and household products. I care about an increase in sulfur in the air (something that climate change advocates want more of because they apparently feel anything they do no matter how damaging to the earth and its environment is better than doing nothing).

The climate will change. There is plenty of real scientific evidence showing us this. It is time people stopped focusing on one thing they cannot stop from happening and start focusing on pollution that happens and can be prevented from happening each day.