This is blowing my mind. It bouys my spirits like nothing I’ve heard since the election was “called” for Biden.
Not for nothing but this is Jones crowd surfing with no mask at a Trump rally. It does not give me high confidence in his judgement.
Yeah, crowd surfing is dangerous! (Just kidding.) The fact that he’s at a Trump rally at all is pretty amazing. Maybe it’s the only place where he’s safe to give that speech. Let’s wait a few days and see whether he gets COVID. Is anyone keeping stats on how many people have gotten COVID from Trump rallies?
So I found this immediately but it was published Nov 1 and there is a 10-14 day lag time for symptomatic development and the equally concerning asymptomatic cases would not be captured.
Forbes article- 700 deaths traced to Trump rallies (with caveats)
Also I do think fraud should be investigated. In 2016 the Trump also claimed outrageous levels of fraud, “millions of illegal votes”. He had four years to address the issue; as far as I can tell he didn’t because they failed to uncover widespread abuse or fraud. He formed a commission to investigate fraud shortly after the election and they asked the states for a wide range of voter data, and non voter data like a list of names, addresses, and party affiliation for anyone rejected for jury duty and a variety of metrics on voters and immigrants that seemed excessive to me. In response Ohio noted that it would be much easier for states to prevent any problem arising from ineligible voters if the states could access the federal social security data as the state requires a valid social security to register to vote and an ineligible immigrant voting would be easily avoided if the state could crossreference the social with federal data. In any case the commission failed to uncover rampant fraud and disbanded after Rep. Dunlap of Maine (D) sued. Dunlap was on the commission in name only and was shut out from actual proceedings. It appears they disbanded to avoid giving him access to commission documents, the documents were released anyway as part of the suit prompting this Rolling Stone article on failure to find fraud
Anyone interested in putting the data together can access the documents which I found useful as they include the states responses on how to access the voter and election data, many are reporting new election data the same way
Interesting article! Lots of fun similes make for easy reading. I guess we have to wait for peer review. Too bad it cites Flip-Flop Fauci, as I have stopped believing what he says.
Interesting, I consider Fauci credible, I am curious where you find fault with him? He is a leading expert in the field and has served 6 presidents I think, and we hit the 100k a day he predicted months ago right on schedule. It would be great if his next prediction is wrong, "We’re in for a whole lot of hurt. It’s not a good situation,’ Fauci said. ‘All the stars are aligned in the wrong place as you go into the fall and winter season, with people congregating at home indoors. You could not possibly be positioned more poorly.’ (Not my go to source but first to pull the quote)
First, go back to 1976. The following is an important piece by 60 Minutes on the Swine Flu vaccine and its disastrous consequnces.
Fast forward to 2009, when Fauci was pushing the panic button on Swine Flu.
Here’s what Jon Rappaport has to say about Fauci and that debacle.
[https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/08/jon-rappoport/tony-fauci-and-the-swine-flu-disaster-betrayal-of-trust/](https://Tony Fauci and the Swine Flu Disaster; Betrayal of Trust)
I can cite numerous examples of Fauci alerting us to the possible danger of a new swine flu developing in China now. Here’s one:
I see a pattern here. There are plenty of people who are skeptical of vaccines who think him a monster, but I have avoided citing those articles. I think his history of repeatedly hyping swine flu, including his support of a dangerous swine flu vaccine in the past, is evidence enough. Wanna bet that this Swine Flu will be our next pandemic? I think it possible that he is trying to condition us to be ready for that.
Thank you! Truly, I appreciate you taking the time to send citations. I will start digging into these
Only part way through, but 60 minutes explains a lot about how medical consent forms got to their present form, and why medications list increasingly long and bizarre potential side effects I don’t find the claim particularly alarming though, if 46,000,000 million people took the vaccine and 4000 developed neurological complications they represent .0001 of the sample or .01% percent, effectively indicating that the risk is incredibly small; if they are the only complications the vaccine was 99.99 % safe. I actually have a neurological condition, I am not suggesting the side effects weren’t tragic for those affected. I’ll keep going and report back.
In the medical express article H1N1 is described as relatively mild:
The good news is that while the virus spreads easily, it produces mild disease in most people, said Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. So far, the death rate has been less than 0.1 percent, he said.
I don’t think the Lewrockwell article accurately portrays that stance at all:
I take you back to the summer of 2009, when the CDC and the World Health Organization were hyping the “deadly H1N1 Swine Flu pandemic.”
The medical xpress article also clearly states the vaccine is not suitable for high risk populations,
it is not supposed to be used in some of the high risk groups who should be among the first vaccinated against H1N1, including pregnant women, those younger than 2, and people with a medical condition that place them at higher risk for complications from the flu"
The complications referred to in the lewrockwell article occurred in the very populations guidelines warned it was not suitable for:
the vaccine went on to wreak havoc in multiple countries, increasing miscarriage risks in pregnant women in the U.S., provoking a spike in adolescent narcolepsy in Scandinavia and causing febrile convulsions in one in every 110 vaccinated children in Australia—prompting the latter to suspend its influenza vaccination program in under-fives.”
One in every 110 is again less than 1%, nevertheless it was not recommended for very young children presumably because the risk of 1% experiencing serious side effects was too high. This begs the question of what Austalia and Scandinavia were doing, but neither of those countries is under the jurisdiction of Fauci or the CDC. The guidelines explicitly state the vaccine was not suitable for pregnant women. Edit: I actually do not know what “increasing risk of miscarriage” indicates here, the increase of risk when it was contraindicated to begin with does not mean there was a rash of miscarriages. Based on the tone of the article I believe if there had been a rash of miscarriages they would have made that claim. It does not seem to me the risks were hidden from the public.
The last claim that H1N1 did not exist, and that CDC tests were not finding flu at all strains credulity. It is plausible the strain was not H1N1, but if there were no US cases of flu in the midst of flu season it would be the most astonishing claim presented. The disappearance of flu if it occurred only within the US as claimed would tend to reflect well on the CDC I think, the only way we have succeeded in eliminating a disease from a population to date is with vaccines. However H1N1 was not limited to the US or Mexico and it was confirmed in lab tests other than the CDC’s, and in multiple countries outside US jurisdiction.
Confirmed cases of H1N1 infection also occurred in Germany, Austria, the United Kingdom, Israel, and New Zealand. Several provinces in Canada, including Nova Scotia, Alberta, Ontario, and British Columbia also were affected. Although most persons who fell ill recovered, there were H1N1-related deaths in Mexico and the United States. In addition, many more cases of the disease were suspected in other countries, including Australia, Chile, Colombia, and France.
I still consider Fauci credible, but I do think this highlights a systemic problem, just not with Fauci. Fauci did not say the end was nigh, he estimated the upper bound of H1N1 at 1/3 of the population, noted symptoms were mild, and the mortality rate was low. How that got turned into terror inducing headlines is the real issue. In much the same way the 60 minutes interview turned a very low risk vaccine into a scandalous debacle. The media presented a series of worst case scenarios and magnified miniscule risks.
I think that 60 MInutes piece was a good one–from back in the days when journalists did real investigative reporting. I can’t imagine anyone in the MSM doing a piece like that today. Whether the risks of these vaccines are acceptable or not, the point is that these vaccine efforts were unnecessary, based on bad research, very lucrative for the drug companies, and supported by a government and a media that is too complicit with their greed. I am not anti-vax. I do, however, think we should be very careful about rushed vaccine efforts and attempts to sell us on them.
I agree whole heartedly @sbrummitt . There are real dangers to rushing the vaccine and the complications that have arisen in testing so far are well beyond the bounds of acceptable risk.
@sbrummitt Do you have an opinion about moving to public healthcare? I am concerned about the profit motive in the medical industry as a whole, the rush to surgeries that don’t outperform placebo (they make an incision but don’t actually repair the damage to test the placebo surgically) and the design of the system favors expensive intervention rather then prevention. Similarly there is a lot of emphasis on treating symptoms rather than addressing causes. I am not certain how to change the incentives to favor outcomes over profit as long as the sytem is run as a private for-profit enterprise. As far as markets go healthcare is distinctive in that it is nearly impossible to ascertain prices and compare services, they vary wildly between different institutions which i think indicates that they are not based on underlying cost or fair market value.
I do favor public healthcare because there are too many people without healthcare, and healthcare is too expensive under the Obamacare model for many people to afford. I would favor private healthcare, but it has failed massively. It is a big problem that the only way to get good healthcare at an affordable cost is through one’s employer; with so many unemployed, that doesn’t work. The insurance companies have not come up with a way to offer healthcare to everyone at a reasonable cost, and the government has not regulated or incentivized them. That leaves public healthcare, IMO. I have Medicare, and I love it; I would not have been able to retire without it. What is often overlooked is that IT IS NOT FREE. Everyone pays a monthly amount directly to Medicare. On top of that, my supplemental insurance is expensive, but not as expensive as a private policy would be without Medicare. There are many, many self-employed or unemployed seniors who are hanging on my their fingernails until they reach the safety of Medicare. I regret not to being able to answer you point for point, but I’m in the middle of a lot of time-consuming things just now.