Month: September 2021

The Problem With “Science”

You hear it all the time today, more than ever before: “TRUST THE SCIENCE!” “SCIENCE-DENIER!” “I’m getting the vaccine because I trust the scientists!” “If only we’d trusted The Science, then we wouldn’t be in this mess!”

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Chief Medical Advisor to the President and the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the NIH, has been elevated to a position of importance and authority rivaling the President. Tens of millions of Americans have absolute and unflinching trust in him, hanging on his every word and believing that he and he alone is the Only One Who Can Save Us from Covid-19. It’s all rooted in the fact that he’s a “Scientist,” and therefore above the pettiness and bias of the political sphere. Fauci’s status as a scientist means lots of people view him as inherently trustworthy and unbiased, even though, as I went over the other day, he is quite literally one of the least-trustworthy people on the planet.

The Democrats, despite believing there are 112 genders, and that you can change your gender with a medical procedure, have positioned themselves as “The Party of Science.” “Science” was a huge part of Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign. He was constantly complaining about how Trump didn’t “believe in science,” and promised that if he was President, he would “trust the science” and presumably take care of Covid-19 in short order.

It’s really a simple as that: if the government simply does what “science” says to do, then all will be well. Science has the answer to all of our problems–all we have to do is simply listen to the scientists and do as they say.

There are two main underlying assumptions behind all of this:

  1. That “science” is a homogenous entity, a hivemind. All scientists are in agreement on everything, and speak with one voice on all matters.
  2. Scientists are completely apolitical, unbiased, and uncorrupted, and have zero ulterior motives. They are unanimously pure and noble, and seek only to solve mankind’s problems, learn more about our world and lead mankind forward into the future with advancements and innovations. Thus, they are never to be questioned our doubted.

To be sure, it would be great if these things were actually true. It would be awesome if we all could agree on and accept the truth, and if the the truth-seeking process was entirely uncorrupted, but this is little more than naive idealism.

The first problem is that it’s not as easy to find “the truth” as people believe. It’s not simply a matter of there being “the truth” and then those who stubbornly and ignorantly reject it due to either stupidity or malice. On the overwhelming majority of scientific issues, there is good-faith debate over what the truth actually is. Just because you aren’t part of the supposed “scientific consensus” on a particular issue doesn’t mean you’re a SCIENCE-DENYING MURDERER.

Take masks, for instance: we’re told that the Science Says We Should Wear Masks, because they keep us safe from Covid. It’s SCIENCE. It’s SETTLED. So shut up and put on your mask. Anyone who doesn’t wear a mask is anti-Science. The CDC says to wear a mask, and that’s the end of the discussion. Do as your told. Never question the government.

But in November of last year, the New York Times reported on a Danish study that found that there really wasn’t much benefit for healthy people from wearing a mask. “Masks prevent people from transmitting the coronavirus to others, scientists now agree. But a new trial failed to document protection from the virus among the wearers.”

To conduct the study, which ran from early April to early June, scientists at the University of Copenhagen recruited more than 6,000 participants who had tested negative for COVID-19 immediately prior to the experiment.

Half the participants were given surgical masks and instructed to wear them outside the home; the other half were instructed to not wear a mask outside the home.

Roughly 4,860 participants finished the experiment, the Times reports. The results were not encouraging.

“The researchers had hoped that masks would cut the infection rate by half among wearers. Instead, 42 people in the mask group, or 1.8 percent, got infected, compared with 53 in the unmasked group, or 2.1 percent. The difference was not statistically significant,” the Times reports.

Is this Danish study not “science”? Does it not count? If that’s the case, then why?

LifeSite News was able to find a total of 47 studies that found that masks were ineffective at preventing Covid, and a further 32 studies that found negative health effects from wearing masks.

The bottom line is, one person can say “Masks work,” and point to scientific studies to back up their claim. But then someone else can say, “Mask don’t work,” and point to other scientific studies to back up their claim.

And take Ivermectin as another example. All the “authorities” in this country, from the CDC to Dawktuh Fauci to the mainstream media and even the World Health Organization are in agreement: Ivermectin does NOT work against Covid, and under no circumstances should you even consider using it as either a treatment against Covid or as a preventative.

But just because they all vehemently oppose Ivermectin does not mean all scientists do. The FLCCC compiled a summary of all the evidence supporting Ivermectin’s use against Covid (hopefully the link works, if not just go to FLCCC’s home page and you should be able to find the study. It’s called “It’s the Totality of Evidence That Counts!”). There are 31 observational controlled trials, 27 randomized controlled trials, and tons more studies based off of clinical observations and experience, attesting to Ivermectin’s effectiveness against Covid. These studies come from all over the world: the Dominican Republic, Argentina, Peru, India, Mexico, America, America and more.

Do they all not “count” as science?

This whole idea that “all scientists agree that x is true,” and that the scientific community is in lockstep and speaks with one unanimous voice on all things–it’s ridiculous.

In order to believe that, you’d have to ignore and dismiss all scientific studies that don’t support your personal position. But wouldn’t that then make you a Science-Denier?

The great 20th century science-fiction writer Philip K. Dick once said that, “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”

Just because you, or the media, or a big pharmaceutical company, or even the government, refuse to acknowledge the results of some scientific study does not mean that study never happened, or isn’t accurate.

The Peer Review Problem & The Replication Crisis

The biggest problem with science is that the general public has been seriously misled on how science actually works.

For example, when people hear that a scientific study has been “peer-reviewed,” they believe that it automatically means the study is “correct” and legitimate. Someone put out a study, other scientists reviewed it and gave it the seal of approval. Peer-reviewed studies are legit, non-peer reviewed studies are illegitimate.

But when you really dig in to the peer review process, you’ll find that it doesn’t really work that way. And people who actually work in the field of science have known this for years. Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), wrote a paper in 2006 detailing the myriad problems with the peer review process:

Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. Yet it is hard to define. It has until recently been unstudied. And its defects are easier to identify than its attributes. Yet it shows no sign of going away. Famously, it is compared with democracy: a system full of problems but the least worst we have.

Probably the systems of every journal and every grant giving body are different in at least some detail; and some systems are very different. There may even be some journals using the following classic system. The editor looks at the title of the paper and sends it to two friends whom the editor thinks know something about the subject. If both advise publication the editor sends it to the printers. If both advise against publication the editor rejects the paper. If the reviewers disagree the editor sends it to a third reviewer and does whatever he or she advises. This pastiche—which is not far from systems I have seen used—is little better than tossing a coin, because the level of agreement between reviewers on whether a paper should be published is little better than you’d expect by chance.1

That is why Robbie Fox, the great 20th century editor of the Lancet, who was no admirer of peer review, wondered whether anybody would notice if he were to swap the piles marked `publish’ and `reject’. He also joked that the Lancet had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom. When I was editor of the BMJ I was challenged by two of the cleverest researchers in Britain to publish an issue of the journal comprised only of papers that had failed peer review and see if anybody noticed. I wrote back `How do you know I haven’t already done it?

This type of talk from a respected scientist is quite jarring to the average person. We’re all under the impression that the scientific field as a whole is austere, rigorous and holds itself to the highest of standards. It’s a little unsettling to learn that scientists are just like the rest of us: basically making it up as we go and constantly bitching about the fact that their entire profession seems broken, messy and jury-rigged.

From the outside looking in, just about every prestigious profession out there seems like it’s populated by people who are a cut above the average person–robots, almost, who know exactly what they’re doing, never make mistakes, and are perfectly efficient, ethical and effective at their jobs.

But you’d be shocked to learn some of the stuff that goes on in, say, the airline industry, according to people who work in it. During a flight, pilots are constantly on their phones and letting autopilot do it’s thing. Sometimes they even sleep.

And take the Secret Service, for example: we look at them as the most elite bodyguards and law enforcement agents on the planet. Their perfect suits, earpieces and dark sunglasses make them look almost robotic, like the Agents from the Matrix. These are the guys who protect the leader of the free world–they should be the best of the best, with applicants to rigorously screened and weeded out so that only the most elite are tasked with protecting the President.

Then, in 2012, news broke that on the eve of a presidential trip to Cartagena, Columbia, at least 13 Secret Service agents were busted with prostitutes after a wild night of partying. The problem was that one agent got into a dispute over paying one of the prostitutes he’d been with, it caused a disturbance in the Hotel, and the cat was out of the bag. One of the prostitutes even said she easily could’ve gone through the Secret Service agent’s things while he was asleep, which of course represents the risk for a massive security breach.

At any rate, the incident caused the Secret Service’s public reputation to take a hit. We realized, “Wow, they’re just normal people like us.” They roll into town with the President, head to the bar and pick up chicks by dropping the line, “What do I do for a living? Oh, I’m with the President. Yeah. Secret Service.”

The point of this little detour is to illustrate that so many of these prestigious industries and professions are in reality just as flawed and prone to human-error as any other field. Science is no exception. After all, scientists are human beings, too.

More from Smith’s paper on peer review:

But does peer review `work’ at all? A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that `the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts’.2 But the answer to the question on whether peer review works depends on the question `What is peer review for?’.

One answer is that it is a method to select the best grant applications for funding and the best papers to publish in a journal. It is hard to test this aim because there is no agreed definition of what constitutes a good paper or a good research proposal. Plus what is peer review to be tested against? Chance? Or a much simpler process? Stephen Lock when editor of the BMJ conducted a study in which he alone decided which of a consecutive series of papers submitted to the journal he would publish. He then let the papers go through the usual process. There was little difference between the papers he chose and those selected after the full process of peer review.1 This small study suggests that perhaps you do not need an elaborate process. Maybe a lone editor, thoroughly familiar with what the journal wants and knowledgeable about research methods, would be enough. But it would be a bold journal that stepped aside from the sacred path of peer review.

Peer review might also be useful for detecting errors or fraud. At the BMJ we did several studies where we inserted major errors into papers that we then sent to many reviewers.3,4 Nobody ever spotted all of the errors. Some reviewers did not spot any, and most reviewers spotted only about a quarter. Peer review sometimes picks up fraud by chance, but generally it is not a reliable method for detecting fraud because it works on trust.

He goes on to list all the problems with peer review: it’s slow and expensive, it’s inconsistent, there’s bias (whether personal or ideological), it’s easily abused and has a high potential for fraud (i.e. you send a paper to another scientist for peer review, and he just plagiarizes your ideas and publishes them under his own name). Plus, scientists can be a catty bunch: it’s not uncommon for peer reviewers to, as Smith puts it, “produce an unjustly harsh review to block or at least slow down the publication of the ideas of a competitor.” He then lists a few proposed solutions to make the process of peer review more reliable, but then notes that a lot of them have already been tried with little success.

Smith concludes thusly:

So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief.

Odd indeed.

It turns out that science isn’t always based on an objective analysis of the facts. In fact, there’s a ton of subjectivity and faith-based decision making in the field of science. The best scientists and the best papers don’t always get the recognition they deserve.

Yet the general public has an abiding faith in the peer review process. If a study has been peer-reviewed, then we assume it must be a flawless study. If it hasn’t been peer-reviewed, or it has been peer-reviewed but was rejected for publication, we assume the study is junk. In reality, it’s far more complicated than that.

In addition to the many problems with peer review, there’s also a “replication crisis” across all scientific fields right now, which is an even greater problem than the peer review problem:

A 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists conducted by Nature reported that 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist’s experiment (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental scientists, and 62% of all others), while 50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments, and less than 20% had ever been contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work. Only a minority had ever attempted to publish a replication, and while 24% had been able to publish a successful replication, only 13% had published a failed replication, and several respondents that had published failed replications noted that editors and reviewers demanded that they play down comparisons with the original studies. In 2009, 2% of scientists admitted to falsifying studies at least once and 14% admitted to personally knowing someone who did. Such misconduct was, according to one study, reported more frequently by medical researchers than by others.

If 2% of scientists admitted to falsifying their studies, yet 14% said they personally knew a scientist that falsified his or her studies, then that means the 2% number is a lot higher. That 14% figure is probably under-estimating the problem.

Even still: 14% of studies being falsified is a massive problem on its own.

The fact that 70% of scientific studies can’t be replicated, however, means we’re basically taking these scientists at their word when they publish a study. It’s like scientists are basically saying, “I made this really cool discovery during an experiment, but for some reason I can’t make it happen again. But trust me, it was awesome.”

That doesn’t sound very scientific, does it? If you can’t replicate a study someone else conducted and arrive at the same conclusion, that casts some serious doubts on the result of the original study.

But when 70% of studies can’t be replicated, that casts doubt on the entire scientific field as a whole.

And this is to say nothing of the involvement of money. Oftentimes, there are millions, even billions of dollars, at stake when new studies are published.

Funding and financial incentives

Pfizer and BioNTech released a study in July that said booster shots to the Covid vaccine were needed 6-12 months after getting your second shot in order to get the best protection from Covid. But Pfizer is the company making the shots: they have a financial incentive to promote the booster shots. Would you really expect Pfizer’s own study to conclude anything else?

Pfizer wants people to get booster shots. Joe Biden wants people to get booster shots. But then, not too long ago, a government panel of scientists and doctors overwhelmingly voted to reject booster shots for the general adult population, citing a lack of data and research on their effects. They approved the booster shots only for those over the age of 65.

However, today, in what the New York Times described as “a highly unusual decision,” Rochelle Walinsky, the director of the CDC, overruled the FDA panel on booster shots issued an official recommendation for booster shots for all adults:

I thought we were “trusting the science”? I guess not always.

One can only wonder why the CDC made this move, which is exactly what Biden wanted. Does Walensky know more about the science than the advisory board? Does Joe Biden have a better understanding of the science behind booster shots than the advisory board?

Or did Big Pharma simply win out over the pencil-necks?

Whatever the reason, the government’s official position is now Booster Shots For Everyone. It is quite obviously not a policy based on “trusting the science,” and in fact it goes directly against “the science,” as represented by the panel that initially rejected Biden’s booster shot policy.

But something tells me the Biden administration doesn’t really care. Which then begs the question, have they ever really cared about “the science,” as they claim they do?

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Big Pharma, not “science,” is calling the shots here.

“But!” you might respond, “Big Pharma might be following the science!”

Sure, you can believe that. But should you?

The entire pharmaceutical industry is a giant conflict of interest: pharmaceutical companies exist to make money off of people buying their drugs. They’re in the treatment business, not the cure business. They want people to keep buying their drugs. They don’t want you cured.

The two most profitable pharmaceutical drugs? Cancer and diabetes. Vaccines are 4th on the list, by the way. The pharmaceutical industry as a whole makes $124 billion a year on cancer drugs, and by 2024 that’s projected to be almost $240 billion. It’s not much of a stretch to conclude they don’t want to find a cure for cancer. Same with diabetes. They make almost $50 billion a year from diabetes medication. They don’t want a cure for diabetes; they want people buying insulin for life.

Big Pharma makes its money off of sick people, not healthy people. It’s not entirely accurate to say Big Pharma doesn’t want to cure diseases–more likely, they only want to cure diseases if there’s money to be made in doing so. If there’s no money to be made in the cure, then no cure.

So it’s not hard to see why Pfizer wants booster shots every 6-12 months: money. They already made enough money off the initial two shots of the vaccine as it is. But you know what’s even more lucrative? Indefinite periodic booster shots for everyone. Just like the diabetes model.

Another massive example of corporate money corrupting science is Big Tobacco. In 2005, Lisa A. Bero published a paper in the Public Health Chronicles entitled “Tobacco Industry Manipulation of Research,” and it was all about how Big Tobacco spent decades suppressing any studies that showed smoking was harmful, and even commissioned studies of their own to show that smoking wasn’t harmful:

The tobacco industry has devoted enormous resources to attacking and refuting individual scientific studies. In addition, the industry has attempted to manipulate scientific methods and regulatory procedures to its benefit. The tobacco industry has played a role in influencing the debate around “sound science,” standards for risk assessment, and international standards for tobacco and tobacco products. In the early 1990s, the tobacco industry launched a public relations campaign about “junk science” and “good epidemiological practices” and used this rhetoric to criticize government reports, particularly risk assessments of environmental tobacco smoke. The industry also developed a campaign to criticize the technique of risk assessment of low doses of a variety of toxins, working with the chemical, petroleum, plastics, and chlorine industries.

The tobacco industry has explicitly stated its goal of generating controversy about the health risks of tobacco. In 1969, Brown and Williamson executives prepared a document for their employees to aid them in responding to new research about the adverse effects of tobacco, which stated: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy. . . . If we are successful in establishing a controversy at the public health level, then there is an opportunity to put across the real facts about smoking and health.” Eleven years later, the tobacco industry expressed the same goal regarding evidence on the risks of secondhand smoke. A report prepared by the Roper Organization for the Tobacco Institute in 1978 noted that the industry’s best strategy for countering public concern about passive smoking was to fund and disseminate scientific research that countered research produced by other sources: “The strategic and long-run antidote to the passive smoking issue is, as we see it, developing and widely publicizing clear-cut, credible, medical evidence that passive smoking is not harmful to the non-smoker’s health.”


The internal tobacco industry documents include descriptions of research that was funded directly by law firms. For example, the law firms of Covington and Burling, and Jacob and Medinger, both of which represent a number of tobacco company clients, funded research on tobacco in the late 1970’s through the early 1990’s. Lawyers selected which projects would be funded; including reviews of the scientific literature on topics ranging from addiction to lung retention of particulate matter. These law firms also funded research on potential confounding factors for the adverse health effects associated with smoking. For example, projects were funded that examined genetic factors associated with lung disease or the influence of stress and low-protein diets on health. These deflected attention from tobacco as a health hazard and protecting tobacco companies from litigation.


In 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a risk assessment of environmental tobacco smoke, which concluded that passive smoking is associated with lung cancer in adults and respiratory disease in children. The development of the risk assessment was considerably delayed by the tobacco industry’s criticisms of the draft report. Sixty-four percent (69/107) of submissions received by the EPA during the public commentary period claimed that the conclusions of the draft were invalid; of these, 71% (49/69) were submitted by tobacco industry–affiliated individuals.

It’s a fascinating article that goes in-depth on the lengths Big Tobacco went to promote cigarette smoking. In 1988, Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds and Lorillard Corp founded this ostensibly independent research organization called “The Center for Indoor Air Research,” in other words, second-hand smoke. What CIAR was actually founded to do was research other potential contaminants of indoor air and shift the conversation away from second-hand smoke. For example, “why are we worrying about second-hand smoke when asbestos is a far greater danger?” or something like that.

Bero in the article clearly defines Big Tobacco’s “playbook” when it comes to muddying the waters:

You think this strategy hasn’t been used by anyone else? A 2003 study by Bero and Joel Lexchin found that pharmaceutical industry-funded research was similarly backwards:

Clinical research sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry affects how doctors practise medicine. An increasing number of clinical trials at all stages in a product’s life cycle are funded by the pharmaceutical industry, probably reflecting the fact that the pharmaceutical industry now spends more on medical research than do the National Institutes of Health in the United States. Most pharmacoeconomic studies are either done in-house by the drug companies or externally by consultants who are paid for by the company.

Results that are unfavourable to the sponsor—that is, trials that find a drug is less clinically effective or cost effective or less safe than other drugs used to treat the same condition—can pose considerable financial risks to companies. Pressure to show that the drug causes a favourable outcome may result in biases in design, outcome, and reporting of industry sponsored research.

A recent systematic review of the impact of financial conflicts on biomedical research found that studies financed by industry, although as rigorous as other studies, always found outcomes favourable to the sponsoring company.

By now it should be abundantly clear that it is not as simple as whether or not someone “trusts science” or not. At this point, it’s hard to even tell what “science” means anymore. This is why on this blog I distinguish between Science™ (fake science; politicized science; corrupted science; corporate science; made-for-TV science, etc.) and science (real science).

There’s actual science, and then there’s a whole industry of antiscience, which may even be bigger than actual science.

How can we even trust scientific studies anymore when we know there are so many financial incentives for big corporations to corrupt the scientific field?

Settled science?

Everyone remembers learning about Galileo in school. The ancient debates over whether the earth was flat or a globe, the debates between geocentrism and heliocentrism–these were thought to be matters of “settled science,” until someone came along and challenged the prevailing wisdom.

From antiquity until the late 19th century, the most common medical practice performed by surgeons was bloodletting, where patients would be deliberately bled-out based on the belief that illness was caused by an imbalance among the four basic “humors” of human health: blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile. Physicians would prescribe bloodletting as a way to bring to body’s four “humors” back into balance with one another.

Have you ever gone to the doctor and been recommended 16 ounces of bloodletting? Of course not. The practice was discredited and abandoned long ago. But for thousands of years, it was standard operating procedure in the medical world. It was thought to be “settled science.”

Only once scientists began challenging the accepted conventional wisdom did we learn that bloodletting was not only quackery, but dangerous and likely to cause more harm than good to patients.

Going back to the Big Tobacco example, they used to literally use doctors to sell cigarettes. I’m sure you’ve seen these old ads:

“Say, doc: what’s the healthiest cigarette brand?”

Imagine being alive back then and being skeptical of cigarettes, and then someone calls you a Science-Denier because doctors recommend Lucky Strike cigarettes. “How dare you question the EXPERTS?”

Of course, Big Tobacco later had to update its marketing strategy once the public started getting wise to the health risks of smoking, which is why they got into the business of scientific studies starting around the 1960s, as discussed above.

Ultimately, by the mid-late 1990s, it got to the point where Big Tobacco could no longer suppress all the evidence that its products were both dangerous and addictive. The tide of public opinion had turned against smoking for good. But it took a long freaking time for the truth to win out.

And it all started with some real scientists saying, “Wait a minute. I’ve got a hunch these cigarettes aren’t actually healthy.”

This is how science is supposed to work. You come up with a hypothesis, you test it via an experiment, and you publish your results. It often starts with questioning or challenging the status quo, or the conventional wisdom. “What if we’re all wrong about this?” “What if we tried this?” etc. This is how major breakthroughs often happen.

But the moment you as a scientist decide to go against the “conventional wisdom,” you often find yourself on the opposite side of some very powerful and well-funded special interests.

In January 1961, after 8 years in the White House, President Eisenhower delivered his “Farewell Address.” More so than perhaps any other presidential farewell address, Eisenhower’s words have stuck with us over the decades. Today his speech is mostly remembered for his prophetic warning about the “military-industrial complex,” and justifiably so, but immediately after that part of the speech, he issued an equally important warning that we would do well to remember today. It was about what he called the “scientific-technological elite”:

In this revolution [the rise of the military-industrial complex], research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

He was talking about the potential for the corruption of “science” by government money.

Money flips the whole scientific method on its head. Instead of conducting experiments in search of truth, scientists are under pressure to “arrive” at predetermined conclusions. The “scientific” stamp of approval is a mere tool for both corporations and the government to garner public support for whatever product they’re selling, or for a policy they want enacted into law.

I remember when I was fresh out of college, I was an intern and then a low-level staffer on Capitol Hill in Washington. One of the first things I learned on “the Hill” was that all the voting that goes on in Congress is basically a sham. There is no uncertainty at all involved in that voting. One of the more seasoned staffers in our office told me that the Speaker of the House doesn’t bring a bill to a vote unless he/she knows it’s going to pass. All the actual “voting” is done well before the bill is actually presented to the House chamber.

If a bill is ever rejected on the House floor, that’s by design, too: they either want to force the other side’s hand by making them go on record as being for or opposed to something (for example, Planned Parenthood funding, gun control, etc.), or they want to embarrass the other side. The vast majority of bills are never even brought to a vote on the floor, much less actually become a law.

This idea of predetermined conclusions applies to the scientific field, too. Would Big Pharma ever fund a study that’s going to undermine credibility for their drugs? Of course not. Big Pharma spends millions of dollars to develop these drugs; they’re not going to them be derailed by a contradictory study. Most of the time, the studies they commission have predetermined conclusions. A lot of these scientists are merely arriving at the conclusion they were paid to arrive at.

In other words, Big Pharma doesn’t put out studies that go against Big Pharma. It’s a sham.

And the left actually fully understands this concept of the corporate perversion of science, at least when it comes to Big Oil. For years the left would decry Big Oil-funded “studies” that either tried to absolve the petroleum industry of its contributions to global warming, or cast doubt on the idea of global warming altogether. There’s a famous book that came out in 2010, written by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, called “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.” It was even made into a movie in 2014.

Basically, it wasn’t just Big Tobacco trying to manipulate and corrupt the scientific field in order to protect its financial interests. It’s tons of other industries, from Big Oil, to Big Ag to even the meat and dairy industry. Vox recently published an article talking about how “Big Meat” (lol) companies spend millions to “crush” good climate policy:

You probably already know that the fossil fuel industry has spent many millions of dollars trying to sow doubt about climate change and the industry’s role in it.

But did you know that big meat and dairy companies do the same thing?

According to a new study out of NYU, these companies have spent millions of dollars lobbying against climate policies and funding dubious research that tries to blur the links between animal agriculture and our climate emergency. The biggest link is that about 14 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions come from meat and dairy.

This is yet another example of honest scientists going up against extremely powerful corporations and industries that have way more money and political clout than you do. Plus, a lot more at stake financially.

However, in recent years, it seems like we don’t see this classic David and Goliath battle between science and corporate America as much.

Nowadays, it feels like corporate America has taken over much of the scientific field, as well as the government regulatory bodies that are supposed to be conducting oversight.

Instead of science driving and informing government policy, it now feels like the combined forces of Big Business and Big Government are strong-arming the scientific field. Everything nowadays is justified by “It’s what Science says to do.” Vaccines, masks, lockdowns–virtually everything Covid-related. And then of course you have “climate change” and environmental policy, which is entirely justified with “Because SCIENCE says so.”

For most of human history, science and government have been basically in opposition to one another. Now all the sudden they’re in agreement on everything. The government now even claims to basically be subservient to “science.” That should raise some red flags.

When the government starts basically fetishizing “science,” that should tell you that something has gone horribly wrong in the scientific field.

Just like the military-industrial complex, the “scientific-technological elite” that Eisenhower warned of all those years ago is here, and in control.

It’s not about whether or not you “trust the science.” It’s about whether or not you trust the government officials and corporate interests that have taken over the scientific field.

What is Happening in Mongolia?

Mongolia is a fairly large country geographically:

But it is a very small country in terms of population–only about 3.5 million.

It is located in a harsh part of the world climate-wise–on an unforgiving steppe sandwiched between the Gobi Desert to the south and Siberia to the north.

Despite bordering China, Mongolia experienced almost no cases of Covid following the virus’ outbreak in late 2019.

I don’t know this for certain, but I’d imagine there really isn’t a ton of international travel in and out of Mongolia. It’s not exactly a tourism hot-spot This is probably why the country didn’t really “participate” in the global pandemic like the rest of us.

However, this March, cases in Mongolia started rising:

For the first full year of Covid, Mongolia only had 5 total deaths from the virus.


But that started to change in March of 2021:

Relatively speaking, deaths from Covid went through the roof. The country now has 1,159 Covid deaths after having just 5 total from October 2019 to March 2021.

What the hell is going on in Mongolia?



But for some reason, despite being almost completely unaffected by Covid for over a year, Mongolia started mass-vaccinating its population in late February 2021:

And then, a few short weeks later, right around March 9-12, Covid cases started taking off.

How did this happen? You might say that Mongolia started vaccinating in response to suddenly-rising cases of Covid, but the vaccination drive began a bit before the Covid cases started taking off, which leads one to a conclusion that one is not supposed to arrive at.

It’s all there on Google. Check for yourself at this link if you don’t believe me.

It almost appears that Mongolia only started having problems with Covid once the vaccine was introduced. It’s now 65.8% fully vaccinated and yet cases have never been higher.

I am no expert on Mongolian Covid policy. Maybe they locked the nation down entirely to the outside world and only started opening it up once they rolled out the vaccines. At that point, in came the virus to a population with little to no herd immunity. Of course, I doubt there would be any sort of mass flood of visitors into Mongolia, but it’s possible–that along with people in Mongolia stopping whatever anti-Covid precautions they were taking (masks, social distancing) once they got their vaccine shots.

I mean, you could say the variants are causing the spike in cases, but then you’d have to ask why there was basically no Covid in Mongolia prior to the vaccine. And then you’d have to ask if maybe the vaccines are causing the variants.

If you look at the charts above, you can see that the more people got vaccinated, the more people got Covid.

This is chilling, disturbing stuff when you start thinking about why Mongolia is only undergoing a spike in Covid after it began rolling out the vaccines. The mind tends to wander towards some pretty sinister explanations.

The media noted the outbreak in Mongolia back in June and blamed it on their use of Chinese vaccines. The article is entitled “They Relied on Chinese Vaccines. Now They’re Battling Outbreaks.”

Guess that’s what they get for shunning Big US Pharma 💁‍♀️💁‍♀️💁‍♀️


Let’s start in 2012, when Anthony Fauci, the Lord and Savior of the double-masked, triple-vaxxed, News-Watchers and the highest-paid employee in the entire Federal Government, said that gain-of-function research was worth the risk of a lab accident that sparks a pandemic:

America’s top virologist, Anthony Fauci, argued in 2012 that the risks of a lab accident sparking a pandemic are outweighed by the potential benefits of manipulating viruses via gain-of-function research, according to previously unsurfaced remarks reported by Sharri Markson via The Australian.

“In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?” Fauci wrote in the American Society for Microbiology in 2012, adding “Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario – however remote – should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision?”

“Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks,” Fauci continued. “It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky.

The key term we’re focusing on here is “gain-of-function” research, or GOFR as we’ll abbreviate it for convenience. I’m sure you’ve seen the term thrown around a lot lately, and it is because in the intense debate over whether Covid-19 originated organically, e.g. via “bat soup” sold at a Chinese Wet Market, or artificially, i.e. by way of an accidental lab leak, or the unthinkable: deliberate release.

Gain of function research is basically taking a virus that occurs in nature and altering its DNA, thus creating a whole new virus, potentially one that can even infect humans. Now while most will justifiably focus on the potential for biological warfare, or at the very least disastrous accidents, when they hear about something like GOFR, there are good reasons for conducting it. For one, it can help scientists better understand a virus. It can also lead to breakthroughs in the development of vaccines. There are risks and rewards with GOFR, and that’s what Fauci was pondering back in that 2012 paper: do the potential benefits of GOFR outweigh the risk of a lab accident, which in turn starts a global pandemic? Fauci thought yes.

And it’s not hard to see why he thought that way: this was nearly a decade before the global outbreak of Covid. At that time, in Fauci’s nearly 30 years at the NIH, the world hadn’t really gone through any serious pandemics: sure, there was SARS in 2003, and Swine Flu in 2009, but none of those were anywhere close to as bad as Covid-19.

Fauci probably figured it was highly unlikely there would be any sort of “lab leak” that triggered a global pandemic, so why the hell not go ahead with GOFR?

And that’s what his view on the matter was for a long time, until Covid happened.

The question everyone’s asking, and which all the world’s Experts and Scientists and Top Officials have yet to get to the bottom of, is this: How did a bat coronavirus make the jump to humans and subsequently go on to spread around the world, infecting probably at this point over a billion people and killing an estimated 4 million of them?

As of March 2021, the WHO says the “most-likely source” of Covid-19 are wildlife farms in southern China:

A member of the World Health Organization investigative team says wildlife farms in southern China are the most likely source of the COVID-19 pandemic.

China shut down those wildlife farms in February 2020, says Peter Daszak, a disease ecologist with EcoHealth Alliance and a member of the WHO delegation that traveled to China this year. During that trip, Daszak says, the WHO team found new evidence that these wildlife farms were supplying vendors at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan with animals.

Daszak told NPR that the government response was a strong signal that the Chinese government thought those farms were the most probable pathway for a coronavirus in bats in southern China to reach humans in Wuhan.

Those wildlife farms, including ones in the Yunnan region, are part of a unique project that the Chinese government has been promoting for 20 years now.

“They take exotic animals, like civets, porcupines, pangolins, raccoon dogs and bamboo rats, and they breed them in captivity,” says Daszak.

Peter Daszak: remember that name. We’ll come back to him later.

So apparently these wildlife farms supply the wet market in Wuhan, China (the virus’ point of origin), and somehow Covid made the jump from a bat to a pangolin (basically a scaly anteater/armadillo looking thing) at one of these farms, and then, once the infected animals were sold at Wuhan wet market, boom: global pandemic.

That’s the Official Theory on how Covid began.

However, since the very beginning of the pandemic, when we first learned that the virus originated in Wuhan China, online theorists & researchers, as well as politicians skeptical of the official story, quickly noted the coincidence of the virus originating in Wuhan and the presence of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the world’s leading research lab for bat coronaviruses. It wasn’t hard to put 2 and 2 together.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology’s Wikipedia page freely admits that WIV has been studying bat coronaviruses since at least 2005, and that in 2015, it even succeeded in engineering a “hybrid” bat coronavirus that could infect humans (hmmm):

In 2005, a group including researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology published research into the origin of the SARS coronavirus, finding that China’s horseshoe bats are natural reservoirs of SARS-like coronaviruses.[14] Continuing this work over a period of years, researchers from the institute sampled thousands of horseshoe bats in locations across China, isolating over 300 bat coronavirus sequences.[15]

In 2015, an international team including two scientists from the institute published successful research on whether a bat coronavirus could be made to infect a human cell line (HeLa). The team engineered a hybrid virus, combining a bat coronavirus with a SARS virus that had been adapted to grow in mice and mimic human disease. The hybrid virus was able to infect human cells.[13][16]

None of this is “conspiracy theory.” None of it is disputed. It’s on Wikipedia. And so in late 2019, when a virus said to have originated in bats starts spreading in Wuhan, well it wasn’t hard to piece things together.

If you’re a narrative-questioning individual who happens to distrust the government and global INSTITOOSHUNS like the WHO, this lab-leak theory has much more appeal than the Official Theory.

One of my favorite bloggers for all things Covid is Handwaving Freakoutery, who publishes his work on Substack. All the way back in April 2020, he used simple math to illustrate how “ridiculously improbable” it was for Covid to have naturally jumped from bats to humans:

The “official channels” have maintained for four months that this virus originated in a wet market in Wuhan, not at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is the world’s Mecca of studying emergent SARS coronaviruses that originate in bats. A lot of speculation by the media has gone into supporting this case, as well as the solid support of the Chinese government, but the case is obviously garbage. I grant that wet markets for exotic harvested wild meats are a great vector for something like this, but set that aside for a moment.

There are between a hundred and a thousand wet markets in China. There are well over a thousand wet markets in Vietnam. There are well over a thousand wet markets in Thailand. There are hundreds or thousands of wet markets in Laos, hundreds or thousands more in Cambodia, hundreds or thousands more in Burma and Myanmar and Malaysia. Nobody knows for sure, but it’s completely reasonable to estimate the total number of wet markets in East Asia being at least ten thousand.

But only one of these ten thousand or more wet markets is two blocks from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The chance that a brand new never before seen SARS coronavirus variant would emerge at the only wet market two blocks from a laboratory whose primary function is to study never before seen SARS coronavirus variants, specifically from bats, is simply too astronomical to believe. If a brand-new world epidemic virus were to emerge every day from a wet market in east Asia, it would be three years or more on average before one emerged from Wuhan. No honest scientist would believe that coincidence given what we know.

It would be one hell of a coincidence if Covid-19 came from a wet market in Wuhan, wouldn’t it?

Which is why on May 11 of this year, Fauci was called before a Senate committee to answer some questions, specifically those from Senator Rand Paul, on whether or not American taxpayer dollars contributed to the Covid-19 outbreak:

Earlier this month [May 2021]Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) went to town on Dr. Anthony Fauci Tuesday during a hearing in front of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee. Paul alleged that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had used a middle-man to funnel money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology via EcoHealth Alliance – which worked with the lab on bat coronavirus projects.

Paul specifically referenced “gain-of-function” research which in this case has been focused on how to make animal viruses more transmissible to humans – specifically bat coronaviruses. “Government scientists like yourself who favor gain of function research,” Paul began…

…only to have Fauci interject: “I don’t favor gain of function research in China,” adding “You are saying things that are not correct.”

Paul pushed back – continuing: “[Those who favor gain of function research] say that COVID-19 mutations were random and not designed by man.”

“I do not have any accounting of what the Chinese may have done,” Fauci shot back, adding that he’s in favor of further investigation, but that the NIH had nothing to do with the origins of COVID-19.

“We have not funded gain of function research on this virus in the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” he added. “No matter how many times you say it, it didn’t happen.”

Fauci has been very cagey in how he discusses GOFR funded by the NIH. He said, “I do not favor gain of function research in China.” But he favors it elsewhere, presumably? He said as much in 2012.

I’d like to know his reasons for favoring GOFR in some countries but not others.

Well, even with the carefully-worded ansawhs, Senatuh Pawl kept digging into Dawktah Fauci’s NIH research grant money and called him back before Congress in July, leading to this infamous exchange:

Rand Paul: “Dr. Fauci, knowing that it is a crime to lie to Congress, do you wish to retract your statement from May 11 where you claimed that the NIH never funded gain of function research in Wuhan?”

Fauci: “Sennatuh Pawl, I have nevuh lloyd befaw the Cawngress, and I do not retract that statement. This papuh that you are referring to was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being gain of function–

Paul: “You take an animal virus and you increase its transmissibility to humans, you’re saying that isn’t gain of function?”

Fauci: “That is correct. And, and Sennatuh Pawl, you do not know what you are talking about. I want to say that officially: you do not know what you are talking about..”

Paul: “Let me read from the NIH’s definition of gain of function. This is your definition that you guys wrote. It says that, ‘Scientific research that increases the transimssiblity among animals is gain of function.’ They took animal viruses that only occur in animals, and they increased their transmissibility to humans. How can you say that is not gain of function–“

Fauci: “It is not.”

Paul: “It’s a dance, and you’re dancing around this, because you’re trying to obscure responsibility for 4 million people dying around the world from the pandemic.”

Fauci: “If the point that you are making is that the grant that was funded as a sub-uhhwad from EcoHealth to Wuhan created SARS-COV-2–that’s where you’re getting.”

Paul: “We don’t know. We don’t know if it did come from the lab. But all the evidence is pointing to that it came from the lab, and there will be responsibility for those who funded the lab, including yourself.”

Fauci: “I totally resent the lie you are now propagating, Sennatuh. If you look at the viruses that were used in the experiments, that were given in the annual reports, that were published in the literachuh, it is molecularly impossible for those viruses to create SARS-COV-2.”

It goes back and forth like that for a while, but that’s the gist of the whole exchange. Rand Paul basically tells Fauci straight to his face, “You killed 4 million people.”

All Fauci can really say is, well it’s molecularly impossible for the viruses they were working on in that lab to have turned into Covid. It sounded like a coached, rehearsed answer because he kept repeating it.

Of course the media obviously reported on the exchange from Fauci’s perspective, trying to make it seem like he OWNEDDDDDD Rand Paul instead of the fact that he just got caught red-handed:

You go, Dr. Fauci! You’re our hero! Show that mean SCIENCE-DENIER who’s boss!

Fast-forward to earlier this month, when the Intercept was able to obtain 900 pages of documents via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that confirmed that Dawktuh Fauci’s NIH funneled money to Wuhan through a middle-party called the EcoHealth Alliance, an organization headed up by none other than Peter Daszak, the guy who also works for the WHO and was trying to promote the idea that Covid-19 originated in a wildlife farm in Southern China:

NEWLY RELEASED DOCUMENTS provide details of U.S.-funded research on several types of coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. The Intercept has obtained more than 900 pages of documents detailing the work of EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based health organization that used federal money to fund bat coronavirus research at the Chinese laboratory. The trove of documents includes two previously unpublished grant proposals that were funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [that’s the department Fauci is in charge of at the NIH], as well as project updates relating to EcoHealth Alliance’s research, which has been scrutinized amid increased interest in the origins of the pandemic.

The documents were released in connection with ongoing Freedom of Information Act litigation by The Intercept against the National Institutes of Health. The Intercept is making the full documents available to the public.

“This is a road map to the high-risk research that could have led to the current pandemic,” said Gary Ruskin, executive director of U.S. Right To Know, a group that has been investigating the origins of Covid-19.

One of the grants, titled “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence,” outlines an ambitious effort led by EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak to screen thousands of bat samples for novel coronaviruses. The research also involved screening people who work with live animals. The documents contain several critical details about the research in Wuhan, including the fact that key experimental work with humanized mice was conducted at a biosafety level 3 lab at Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment — and not at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as was previously assumed. The documents raise additional questions about the theory that the pandemic may have begun in a lab accident, an idea that Daszak has aggressively dismissed.

Gee, wonder why.

The bat coronavirus grant provided EcoHealth Alliance with a total of $3.1 million, including $599,000 that the Wuhan Institute of Virology used in part to identify and alter bat coronaviruses likely to infect humans. Even before the pandemic, many scientists were concerned about the potential dangers associated with such experiments. The grant proposal acknowledges some of those dangers: “Fieldwork involves the highest risk of exposure to SARS or other CoVs, while working in caves with high bat density overhead and the potential for fecal dust to be inhaled.”

Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute, said the documents show that EcoHealth Alliance has reason to take the lab-leak theory seriously. “In this proposal, they actually point out that they know how risky this work is. They keep talking about people potentially getting bitten — and they kept records of everyone who got bitten,” Chan said. “Does EcoHealth have those records? And if not, how can they possibly rule out a research-related accident?

According to Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, the documents contain critical information about the research done in Wuhan, including about the creation of novel viruses. “The viruses they constructed were tested for their ability to infect mice that were engineered to display human type receptors on their cell,” Ebright wrote to The Intercept after reviewing the documents. Ebright also said the documents make it clear that two different types of novel coronaviruses were able to infect humanized mice. “While they were working on SARS-related coronavirus, they were carrying out a parallel project at the same time on MERS-related coronavirus,” Ebright said, referring to the virus that causes Middle East Respiratory Syndrome.

The overriding question I have while reading all this stuff is simply, “Why?”

Why is any of this necessary? Why are we conducting all this research on animal viruses?

How does this research benefit mankind in any way?

Because animal viruses might make the jump to humans!

Yeah, if you add spike proteins to an animal virus so it can infect humans, it certainly might.

What’s more likely: a person somehow catches a coronavirus from a bat, or a lab alters a bat coronavirus into one that can infect humans, and then that altered virus subsequently escapes from the lab and goes pandemic among humans?

What is the benefit here? There were no bat coronaviruses transmissible to humans before these lab-workers in Wuhan altered one and made it transmissible to humans. Now, as if there weren’t enough ways to get sick and die already, we have yet another virus floating around in the world–and that virus now has a bunch of different variants.

This is arguably the biggest ethical dilemma facing scientists in the 21st century: where do we draw the line between experiments you both can and should do, and experiments you can do, but shouldn’t?

Just because we have the ability to manipulate animal viruses to make them transmissible to humans doesn’t mean we should be doing that.

Where does the oversight come from? It’s not the government. Our government funded it!

More on the matter from Dr. Richard Ebright, the Rutgers University molecular biologist quoted above:

The materials show that the 2014 and 2019 NIH grants to EcoHealth with subcontracts to WIV funded gain-of-function research as defined in federal policies in effect in 2014-2017 and potential pandemic pathogen enhancement as defined in federal policies in effect in 2017-present. (This had been evident previously from published research papers that credited the 2014 grant and from the publicly available summary of the 2019 grant.  But this now can be stated definitively from progress reports of the 2014 grant and the full proposal of the 2017 grant.) The materials confirm the grants supported the construction–in Wuhan–of novel chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses that combined a spike gene from one coronavirus with genetic information from another coronavirus, and confirmed the resulting viruses could infect human cells.

The materials reveal that the resulting novel, laboratory-generated SARS-related coronaviruses also could infect mice engineered to display human receptors on cells (“humanized mice”). The materials further reveal for the first time that one of the resulting novel, laboratory-generated SARS-related coronaviruses–one not previously disclosed publicly–was more pathogenic to humanized mice than the starting virus from which it was constructed, and thus not only was reasonably anticipated to exhibit enhanced pathogenicity, but, indeed, was *demonstrated* to exhibit enhanced pathogenicity. The materials further reveal that the the grants also supported the construction–in Wuhan–of novel chimeric MERS-related coronaviruses that combined spike genes from one MERS-related coronavirus with genetic information from another MERS-related coronavirus.

The documents make it clear that assertions by the NIH Director, Francis Collins, and the NIAID Director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement at WIV are untruthful.

Fauci lied to Congress.

More importantly: Yes, middle-aged liberal white women, your heartthrob, TV Science Man, lied to you.

You believe he’s the only thing standing between you and certain death from Covid. In reality, he’s the reason Covid exists in the first place.

Fauci funded the creation of Covid.

Rand Paul was right.

Ebright thinks so, too:

If we just look at the facts, it is indisputable that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was conducting research on bat coronaviruses dating back to 2005. The US government in the form of Fauci’s NIH division, was funding that research since at least 2014.

Then, in October 2019, a new coronavirus that allegedly came from bats gets out in Wuhan China and subsequently goes global.

Let’s for a minute just take them at their word: the virus came from a wet market, not a lab. They–and by they I mean Fauci and the Chinese, as well as the French who built the Wuhan Institute of Virology–knew about the potential for something like this for at least 5 years, maybe longer, given that they were funding research on it dating back to 2014. And the point of all that money and research was so that if a bat coronavirus ever did make the jump to humans, we’d be ready for it and be able to handle it.

Why couldn’t we handle it when it actually did happen, then?

What was all that research for? What was actually accomplished at the Wuhan Institute of Virology with those US taxpayer dollars?

This is why the Official Story just doesn’t add up: they were concerned about the potential of a bat coronavirus to make the jump to humans, so they figured they’d better get to work studying the matter and conducting research and experiments on bat coronaviruses in case one ever becomes transmissible to humans.

Then one did become transmissible to humans, and all these brilliant Scientists led by Anthony Fauci, the only response they had was: “Wear a mask and stay inside.”

What, exactly, was the point of all that research from 2014-2019?

Was it worth it?

You might say, “Well if they hadn’t conducted all that research we might never have gotten the vaccine as quickly as we did!”

But if they hadn’t altered a bat coronavirus to make it transmissible to humans, then Covid-19 wouldn’t even exist in the first place.

It’s a real mystery why so many people don’t trust the government, isn’t it?

Covid is, first and foremost, a Chinese problem. China did this to the world. They conducted the GOFR research that made a bat virus transmissible to humans, they fucked up and let the virus leak, they started the global pandemic.

But Fauci bankrolled it. With your money.

Fauci made Covid.

Covid-19 is a symptom of the problem of Gargantuan Government in America: our government is so big it has its tentacles in everything. It does everything. There is a government department for just about anything you can think of.

And it’s all a product of this mentality that there’s no problem a Government Program can’t fix. Problem? Throw government money at it! Create a “task force.” Create a “subcommittee.” Create a new department, or a new agency, or a new bureau, or a new division, or a new whatever–government is the answer to everything.

Now if you read this blog regularly, you know I despise megacorporations. I think we should take every company in the Fortune 500 and dismantle them all into 50 pieces each. I believe capitalism inevitably degenerates toward monopoly, stagnancy and the eradication of competition, and thus capitalism has a “shelf life” of about 100 years or so before you need the government to intervene and break up all the monopolies. It happened at the start of the 20th century with Teddy Roosevelt and the “trust-busting” and Standard Oil and all that, and it needs to happen again. Corporations have gotten entirely too big and powerful and corrupt, not to mention corrupting, as in of the government which supposedly regulates and oversees the corporations.

But after we do that, we need to do the same thing to the government as well. We should have an amendment in the Constitution that says every 25 years, we cut the federal government’s budget by 50%. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

The federal budget is a gigantic feeding trough for special interests, contractors and foreign countries. Not to mention a bunch of overpaid “public servants” like Anthony Fauci who make more money than the President.

Why the fuck is Anthony Fauci giving out grant money so Chinese scientists in Wuhan can infect “humanized mice” with bat coronaviruses? If that’s such Important Scientific Work, then why don’t we just do it here in the US?

Why are we even giving any money at all to China?

The real problem here is that an unelected bureaucrat like Anthony Fauci somehow had the power to give millions of dollars in grant money to a lab in China to fund their efforts to make bat viruses transmissible to humans.

This slimy, Noo Yawk greasebawll, Dawktuh Fauci is the gawdfawtha of Covid-19. He should be Public Enemy #1 right now.

Instead, catladies are singing love songs about their Government Daddy. It’s nauseating:

And remember this?

I know the kid has autism, so I do feel bad for him, but this is just disturbing.

The propaganda surrounding this guy is something else. They got teen popstar Olivia Rodrigo to “interview” Fauci in an effort to convince kids to get vaccinated:

As you can see, however, the video has 17k dislikes compared to 5.5k likes. Maybe there is yet hope.

National Geographic is even making a fucking movie about him, no doubt painting him as the Hero of Our Time:

This is North Korean-level propaganda.

People: Fauci made Covid.

Scientists in Wuhan were like, “Hey, Dr. Fauci: we’re trying to mutate bat coronaviruses so they can infect humans, can we have some US taxpayer money please?”

And Fauci was like “Sure! Here’s 3 million dawllahs!”

Rand Paul on September 9 said Fauci should get a 5-year prison sentence for lying to Congress.

Um, how about the thing he lied to Congress about: funding the creation of Covid-19?

What should his punishment be for that?

The Media Fear Porn Machine is At It Again


What the blaring headline left out was that, according to the Census Bureau, the US population back in 1918 was barely 100 million people. Today it’s 330 million.

So get the fuck out of here, CNBC.

If not for the media and the mask mandates and all the bullshit Covid restrictions from the government, would you even know there was viral pandemic going on? How many people do you know that have died from Covid? How many people do you know that have been hospitalized due to Covid?

Right now, the official global death toll for Covid is 4.7 million. Now there are reasons to doubt the accuracy of that number, but let’s just go with it.

According to Wikipedia, the most commonly accepted estimates in terms of the death toll of the Spanish Flu pandemic are between 25-50 million people, with some estimates as high as 100 million.

Not only that, but the Spanish Flu originated in post-WW1 Europe and was brought back to the US by soldiers returning from the war. The US was also way less urbanized and had a far lower population density than it does today, meaning that it was inherently harder for the virus to spread here.

And given the fact that there was no such thing as trans-oceanic flight back then, and in order to get from Europe to the US you had to get on a boat for weeks, meaning it was way more difficult for the virus to spread around the world.

And still it killed 25-50 million people.

Covid does not even come close.

And in case you were wondering, they had masks back in 1918, too:

They didn’t work back then, but I’m sure they’ll work now.

Any day now.

The Media Has Massively Misled Americans on How Dangerous Covid Truly Is

The other day, Jordan Peterson tweeted out this:

So if you’re wondering why there are people out there who are desperate to get triple-vaxxed, screaming at people who allow their masks to slip while out in public, and generally behaving irrationally when it comes to Covid, the reason is because they have fully bought into the media’s fear porn when it comes to Covid.

You don’t have to take Jordan Peterson’s “source” at his word to believe Americans–and Democrats more so than anyone else–have a wildly inaccurate perception of the virus. There have been studies conducted to figure out just how disconnected from reality people actually are, and the New York Times highlighted one conducted by Franklin Templeton and Gallup earlier this year.

The article is entitled “Covid’s Partisan Errors,” and the results are illuminating:

28% of Democrats believe your chances of being hospitalized due to Covid are between 20-49%, and a whopping 41% of Democrats believe you have a greater than 50% chance of being hospitalized for Covid.

That means 69% of Democrats believe the hospitalization rate for Covid is greater than 20%.

The real number is between 1-5%, and that obviously depends a lot on your age and other health factors.

Democrats massively overestimate the true danger of Covid-19. We all know this intuitively from lived experience and interacting with them over the past year-and-a-half, but this study gives us numbers to back up our intuition.

It’s not just Democrats who have been duped, though. A majority of Republicans, 51%, believe the Covid hospitalization rate is over 20%. 28% of Republicans think Covid has a 50%+ hospitalization rate.

55% of independents believe Covid has a 20%+ hospitalization rate, including 35% who think it’s 50%+.

This means well over a majority of Americans believe the Covid hospitalization rate is 5-10x higher than it truly is.

I always say that I’d rather somebody be uninformed than misinformed, because uninformed people can actually learn the truth, while misinformed people falsely believe they already know the truth. It’s a lot easier to deal with uninformed people who simply don’t know the truth one way or another than it is to deal with misinformed people, who in order to actually learn the truth, first have to come to grips with the fact that they’ve been duped.

I want to go back to the matter of hospitalizations, though. Because while the NYT might be technically correct that the hospitalization rate for Covid is between 1-5%, even that number is a bit misleading. As I said above, the hospitalization rate varies significantly by age. According to the CDC, people 85 years old and up are 15x more likely to be hospitalized for Covid than people aged 18-29. 75-84 year olds are 9x more likely:

But it goes even further than that, because not all hospitalizations are the same. It’s not as if everyone hospitalized for Covid is in dire straits and on the verge of dying. The Atlantic looked into this matter and highlighted a study that found that about half of all Covid hospitalizations were for mild cases, or not even for Covid at all despite being listed as Covid hospitalizations:

From the start, COVID hospitalizations have served as a vital metric for tracking the risks posed by the disease. Last winter, this magazine described it as “the most reliable pandemic number,” while Vox quoted the cardiologist Eric Topol as saying that it’s “the best indicator of where we are.” On the one hand, death counts offer finality, but they’re a lagging signal and don’t account for people who suffered from significant illness but survived. Case counts, on the other hand, depend on which and how many people happen to get tested. Presumably, hospitalization numbers provide a more stable and reliable gauge of the pandemic’s true toll, in terms of severe disease. But a new, nationwide study of hospitalization records, released as a preprint today (and not yet formally peer reviewed), suggests that the meaning of this gauge can easily be misinterpreted—and that it has been shifting over time.

If you want to make sense of the number of COVID hospitalizations at any given time, you need to know how sick each patient actually is. Until now, that’s been almost impossible to suss out. The federal government requires hospitals to report every patient who tests positive for COVID, yet the overall tallies of COVID hospitalizations, made available on various state and federal dashboards and widely reported on by the media, do not differentiate based on severity of illness. Some patients need extensive medical intervention, such as getting intubated. Others require supplemental oxygen or administration of the steroid dexamethasone. But there are many COVID patients in the hospital with fairly mild symptoms, too, who have been admitted for further observation on account of their comorbidities, or because they reported feeling short of breath. Another portion of the patients in this tally are in the hospital for something unrelated to COVID, and discovered that they were infected only because they were tested upon admission. How many patients fall into each category has been a topic of much speculation. In August, researchers from Harvard Medical School, Tufts Medical Center, and the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System decided to find out.

Researchers have tried to get at similar questions before. For two separate studies published in May, doctors in California read through several hundred charts of pediatric patients, one by one, to figure out why, exactly, each COVID-positive child had been admitted to the hospital. Did they need treatment for COVID, or was there some other reason for admission, like cancer treatment or a psychiatric episode, and the COVID diagnosis was merely incidental? According to the researchers, 40 to 45 percent of the hospitalizations that they examined were for patients in the latter group.

The authors of the paper out this week took a different tack to answer a similar question, this time for adults. Instead of meticulously looking at why a few hundred patients were admitted to a pair of hospitals, they analyzed the electronic records for nearly 50,000 COVID hospital admissions at the more than 100 VA hospitals across the country. Then they checked to see whether each patient required supplemental oxygen or had a blood oxygen level below 94 percent. (The latter criterion is based on the National Institutes of Health definition of “severe COVID.”) If either of these conditions was met, the authors classified that patient as having moderate to severe disease; otherwise, the case was considered mild or asymptomatic.

The study found that from March 2020 through early January 2021—before vaccination was widespread, and before the Delta variant had arrived—the proportion of patients with mild or asymptomatic disease was 36 percent. From mid-January through the end of June 2021, however, that number rose to 48 percent. In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease.

So this means the hospitalization rate has basically been overstated by double.

Whatever the published hospitalization rate is, you can cut that number in half and that’ll give you a much better idea of how many truly serious cases of Covid there are.

People need to know the truth. The media, however, is determined to make sure Americans are cowering in fear and clamoring for totalitarian dictatorship to “protect them” from this virus.

Canadian Study: Myopericarditis rate From mRNA Vaccines 1 in 1000

This is from a preprint study from the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, and it has concluded that the prevalence of myopericarditis as a side effect of the Covid vaccine is 10 in 10,000, or 1 in 1,000. It is way more prevalent in males:

Given that well over 90% of the patients in this study were male, it’s safe to say the risk of developing myocarditis, pericarditis or myopericarditis (a combination of the two) is significantly higher than 1 in 1,000 for males.

Also: a median age of 33!

As I keep saying: whether or not to get the vaccine is a matter of weighing the risks and the rewards. What are your odds of dying from Covid? What are your odds of developing heart problems after getting the vaccine? Are you healthy? Do your preexisting conditions (i.e. obesity, diabetes, etc.) elevate your risk of dying of Covid? People need to take all of this into consideration.

We’re all under immense pressure to just get this vaccine and stop thinking for ourselves, but really it’s a matter of risk vs. reward. There are risks that come with taking the vaccine, no matter what anyone says. Do those risks outweigh the rewards? That’s the question people have to ask themselves. It’s different for everyone.

Myocarditis does not have a good 5-year survival rate, either:

44% survival rate after 5 years. Yikes.

Just yesterday, the FDA Panel that rejected the White House’s booster shot plan discussed the risks of developing myocarditis as a result of the vaccine:

“The older you get, the higher the risk for complications from Covid, uh, that then offset the risk of myocarditis. So when you look at the balance of risks vs benefits, you really start to see a risk of myocarditis being higher in males under the age of 40.”

Essentially what the FDA is saying here is that if you’re a male under the age of 40, you’ve got a greater chance of developing myocarditis due to the vaccine than you do of dying from Covid.

Natural Immunity is Still The Key

In July, a study from Israel was published showing that natural immunity was far superior to vaccine immunity:

Coronavirus patients who recovered from the virus were far less likely to become infected during the latest wave of the pandemic than people who were vaccinated against COVID, according to numbers presented to the Israeli Health Ministry.

According to a report by Israel’s Channel 13, Health Ministry data on the wave of COVID outbreaks which began this May show that Israelis with immunity from natural infection were far less likely to become infected again in comparison to Israelis who only had immunity via vaccination.

More than 7,700 new cases of the virus have been detected during the most recent wave starting in May, but just 72 of the confirmed cases were reported in people who were known to have been infected previously – that is, less than 1% of the new cases. Roughly 40% of new cases – or more than 3,000 patients – involved people who had been infected despite being vaccinated.

With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID.

By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave.

If you go to the CDC’s website on the Chickenpox page, the CDC only recommends getting the Chickenpox vaccine if you haven’t already had it:

In other words, the CDC fully understands and respects natural immunity to Chickenpox. We have all known how Chickenpox’s natural immunity works for decades. This is why parents would deliberately get their kids infected with Chickenpox when another kid in class got it: because natural immunity is for life.

Did you know that in 2008, researchers from the University of Minnesota discovered that people who had survived the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic and were still alive in 2008 still had natural immunity to the Spanish Flu?

It’s an extraordinary study that shows just how incredible our bodies are at fighting off infections and viruses:

90 years their immunity lasted!

Natural immunity is an incredible thing.

Right now, we obviously don’t have enough data on how long natural immunity to Covid-19 lasts, mostly because not enough time has passed since the outbreak of the virus.

However, the Israeli study showed a reinfection rate of just 0.0086%, which indicates natural immunity is very strong and way stronger than vaccine immunity, although it gives us no indication of how long-lasting natural immunity is.

And this is why the CDC still recommends those who have already had Covid to still get vaccinated: because maybe natural immunity doesn’t last that long. I remember when I got Covid last September, the conventional wisdom was that natural immunity following recovery only lasted a few months.

But then, in November 2020, a study came out showing that those who had recovered from Covid would likely be producing antibodies for years to come. This is via the New York Times:

How long might immunity to the coronavirus last? Years, maybe even decades, according to a new study — the most hopeful answer yet to a question that has shadowed plans for widespread vaccination.

Eight months after infection, most people who have recovered still have enough immune cells to fend off the virus and prevent illness, the new data show. A slow rate of decline in the short term suggests, happily, that these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time to come.

The research, published online, has not been peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific journal. But it is the most comprehensive and long-ranging study of immune memory to the coronavirus to date.

That amount of memory would likely prevent the vast majority of people from getting hospitalized disease, severe disease, for many years,” said Shane Crotty, a virologist at the La Jolla Institute of Immunology who co-led the new study.

The findings are likely to come as a relief to experts worried that immunity to the virus might be short-lived, and that vaccines might have to be administered repeatedly to keep the pandemic under control.

And the research squares with another recent finding: that survivors of SARS, caused by another coronavirus, still carry certain important immune cells 17 years after recovering.

So immunity to the Spanish Flu lasted a lifetime, and immunity to the original SARS (SARS-Covid-1) lasts 17 years and counting.

The findings are consistent with encouraging evidence emerging from other labs. Researchers at the University of Washington, led by the immunologist Marion Pepper, had earlier shown that certain “memory” cells that were produced following infection with the coronavirus persist for at least three months in the body.

A study published last week also found that people who have recovered from Covid-19 have powerful and protective killer immune cells even when antibodies are not detectable. 

These studies “are all by and large painting the same picture, which is that once you get past those first few critical weeks, the rest of the response looks pretty conventional,” said Deepta Bhattacharya, an immunologist at the University of Arizona.

So we’ve known for almost a year now that natural immunity to Covid is very strong. This study that appeared in Nature in May bears the headline, “Had COVID? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime.”

We know based on the history of past coronaviruses like the Spanish Flu and SARS that natural immunity lasts a very long time,

The issue is that the government can’t exactly recommend people just go out and catch Covid so that they gain natural immunity. It’s not like the Chickenpox scenario when you were 8 years old.

We already know the vaccine isn’t going to get the job done. The FDA has just today shot down the White House’s plan for rolling out booster shots to the masses, probably because they know that more people taking a failing vaccine isn’t going to make it magically work. It still doesn’t change the underlying fact that the vaccine doesn’t work.

You take the vaccine, it stops working after a few months. You take a booster shot, it also stops working after a few months. In that situation, you’re basically locked into a cycle of never-ending booster shots, all because you refuse to admit the vaccine simply doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do.

(The remarkable thing about the FDA rejecting the booster shot plan is that the booster shot plan was basically the embodiment of the government’s “solutions” to literally every problem it has ever faced: just doing more of the same thing over and over again even in the face of repeated failures. The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, etc. Just keep throwing money at the problem even if it’s clearly not working.)

We know masks and social distancing and shelter in place measures did nothing to stem the proliferation of the virus. The virus is gonna virus no matter what we try to do about it.

It will only be done once we hit the natural herd immunity threshold, wherever that may be.

FDA Panel Votes 16-2 Against Biden’s Pfizer Booster Shot Plan

At first Biden was like, “We need to do booster shots!” And all the libs on social media were like, “Yeah! Booster shots for everyone! SCIENCE!”

But then the FDA was like, “Actually we shouldn’t do that because we haven’t done enough SCIENCE on the matter.”

Why would Joe Biden, who is so Scientific™ it’ll make your head spin, push a booster shot program not backed by SCIENCE™?

I wonder if this has anything to do with those two FDA officials who resigned a few weeks ago over the Biden Administration’s decision to recklessly roll forward with the booster shots.

Two senior officials have resigned from their positions within the US Food and Drug Administration over frustrations with the Biden administration’s plans to move forward with recommending COVID-19 booster shots without their prior approval, according to a report.

Marion Gruber, director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research & Review, and deputy director Phil Krause are set to leave the agency this fall, with sources telling Politico that the two officials were at odds with the FDA’s top vaccine official, Peter Marks, and were discontented over the roles of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in decisions that they believed should be handled by the FDA.

According to trade publication Endpoints, the officials felt they were sidelined on major decisions, that the administration’s plan for boosters was jumping the gun, and that Marks should have pushed for the FDA to have more autonomy on the matter. 

I for one am amazed the FDA actually went against Big Pharma’s wishes on this:

Pfizer was like, “Yeah we’ve conducted a study and unfortunately our study has concluded that y’all need to buy more of our vaccines.” But surprisingly the FDA went against Pfizer’s wishes/demands.

I’m really wondering what the true reason is behind this vote. The whole “we need more data” excuse would be believable if they didn’t just roll out a brand new vaccine to tens of millions of people literally within 12 months of the origin of the very virus the vaccine was created to stop.

I’m sure the media is going to frame this as proof the vaccines are super awesome and effective, but Israel kind of ruined that for them.

Just for kicks, I went down into an extremely liberal and brainwashed corner of social media to see what they were saying. It was the replies section to a Brooklyn Dad tweet, and I honestly can’t believe these people are real:

Which is why Israel is already prepping for a 4th round of booster shots, but whatever.

A lot of these people really do worship Fauci. It’s bizarre, it’s nauseating, it’s a bit depressing, and it’s gotta stop. I know I’m a broken record with this but it really goes to show you the extent of the media brainwashing. These people don’t know Fauci at all. They see him on their televisions and phone screens, and that’s enough to convince them that Fauci is their lord and savior.

Just look at the way these people think. It’s like a whole different world:

“I want my third shot.” “I was looking forward to getting a booster in December.” “I’m going to be traveling, so I feel that I need it.”

These people are, for all intents and purposes, aliens to me.

“I don’t give a damn about the so called FDA. Come 8 months from my second dose, I’m getting a booster.”

“Don’t care. Taking it anyway. Inject that shot into my veins.”


But I thought they loved science?

Why aren’t they listening to the EXPERTS?

Is this really about SCIENCE, or is it about virtue signaling?

Is it that the more times you’ve been jabbed, the better a person you are? Is that it?

Or is it about succumbing to fear?

“There is hope that I can leave my house.”


I can’t believe these people are real.

Indian State of Uttar Pradesh Announces It is Largely Covid-Free

Uttar Pradesh is a large state in the north of India:

It has a population of about 230 million, the largest of any of India’s 28 states, meaning that although it’s just one of many states in the nation of India, its population is so large that if it were its own country, it would be the 5th-most populous country in the world.

It is also one of the most densely-population places on earth, with a population per square mile of over 2100. That would rank about 12th worldwide when compared to other countries, and most of the countries at the top of the population density list are tiny city-states like Macau, Singapore, Monaco, Gibraltar, Bahrain, etc. It has nearly twice the population density of South Korea.

Uttar Pradesh is now essentially Covid-free, according to its state government. Via the Hindustan Times, in an article that was published on September 10:

There are no active cases of the coronavirus disease (Covid-19) in 33 districts of Uttar Pradesh, the state government informed on Friday. About 67 districts have not reported a single new case of the viral infection in the last 24 hours, the government said, noting the steady improvement of the Covid-19 situation in the state.

Overall, the state has a total of 199 active cases, while the positivity rate came down to less than 0.01 per cent. The recovery rate, meanwhile, has improved to 98.7 per cent. As per the state’s health bulletin, Uttar Pradesh reported only 11 new Covid-19 cases and zero deaths in the last 24 hours. 

Uttar Pradesh has a total of 75 districts, and in 33 of them, there are no active cases of Covid. None. As of last Friday, 67 of the 75 reported no new Covid cases over a 24 hour period.

There were only 199 total Covid cases in the state out of a population of 234 million. This is pretty incredible.

While much of the world is dealing with rising Covid cases due to the Delta Variant, India as a whole appears to have its Covid situation largely under control:

Now there could be many reasons for this. India, after all, is where the Delta variant originated, meaning its cases were always going to rise, peak and fall earlier than in places like America, the UK and elsewhere. At the time Delta was peaking in India, new daily cases of Covid in the US were as low as they’d been since May 2020.

But the interesting thing about Uttar Pradesh is the way the state has dealt with Covid-19. According to the Times of India, as of early August, only 5.8% of the state’s population was fully vaccinated, while 31% had received one dose.

Now those numbers have gone up over the past month, as according to the Times of India, the state has been administering Covid vaccines at an average rate of 11.7 lakh per day (1 lakh = 100,000, meaning over 1.1 million vaccine shots per day.) However, the total percentage of vaccinated persons in the state is still relatively low: 47% have one shot, and just 9.5% in Uttar Pradesh are fully vaccinated.

Compare that to the US, where 64% of the population has had at least one dose and 52% are fully vaccinated.

So why has Uttar Pradesh largely succeeded in eradicating Covid despite its low rate of vaccination?

Well, this is where it gets “controversial,” at least in the US where free thought and free speech are actively and aggressively discouraged.

Because this article in The Indian Express from May 12 quoting Uttar Pradesh government officials credited Ivermectin for the state’s success against Covid:

A year after the country’s first Covid-19 cluster, with 5 cases, was reported in Agra district, the Uttar Pradesh government has claimed that it was the first state to have introduced a large-scale “prophylactic and therapeutic” use of Ivermectin and added that the drug helped the state to maintain a lower fatality and positivity rate as compared to other states.

Prophylactic means preventative.

Citing the results from Agra in the month of May and June last year, following which the use of Ivermectin, a medicine to treat parasitic ailments, along with Doxycycline was introduced as a protocol across the state for both prophylactic as well as treatment purposes, the state Health Department said it would conduct a controlled study once the second wave of the pandemic subsides.

The state Health Department introduced Ivermectin as prophylaxis for close contacts of Covid patients, health workers as well as for the treatment of the patients themselves through a government order on August 6, 2020, after a committee headed by the Director General, Medical and Health Services, gave it the go ahead.

“Uttar Pradesh was the first state in the country to introduce large-scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of Ivermectin. In May-June 2020, a team at Agra, led by Dr Anshul Pareek, administered Ivermectin to all RRT team members in the district on an experimental basis. It was observed that none of them developed Covid-19 despite being in daily contact with patients who had tested positive for the virus,” Uttar Pradesh State Surveillance Officer Vikssendu Agrawal said.

He added that based on the findings from Agra, the state government sanctioned the use of Ivermectin as a prophylactic for all the contacts of Covid patients and later cleared the administration of therapeutic doses for the treatment of such patients.

Claiming that timely introduction of Ivermectin since the first wave has helped the state maintain a relatively low positivity rate despite its high population density, he said, “Despite being the state with the largest population base and a high population density, we have maintained a relatively low positivity rate and cases per million of population”.

Agra District Magistrate Prabhu N Singh also attributed the state’s relative success in keeping the Covid numbers down to the timely nod to the use of Ivermectin as a prophylactic. He added that government doctor Anshul Pareek had approached him last year citing use of the medicine abroad.

In late April of 2021, as the Delta wave was peaking in India, only 9% of new Covid cases in the country were from Uttar Pradesh despite it being the most populous state.

Here is the overall Covid case chart for Uttar Pradesh since the start of the Pandemic:

It’s a stark difference to the Covid situation in Kerala, an state located at the bottom tip of India:

In contrast to Uttar Pradesh, which as the Indian Express article noted recommended Ivermectin for not only Covid patients but all close contacts of Covid patients, Kerala as of April 2021 only recommended Ivermectin for Covid patients with high-risk factors:

Kerala recommended Remdesivir for severe Covid, and, more importantly, did not recommended Ivermectin for close contacts of Covid patients. It also did not recommend Ivermectin as an early treatment, something Uttar Pradesh did.

And, as of August 5, Kerala ceased recommending Ivermectin for Covid patients. You can see from the chart above, cases in Kerala remain elevated, while cases in Uttar Pradesh are basically nonexistent.

Now it’s not a confirmed fact that Ivermectin is the reason Uttar Pradesh beat Covid, but you can see the difference here between Uttar Pradesh and Kerala.

Whatever the true reason behind Uttar Pradesh’s apparent eradication of Covid, we should be happy about the news. Clearly they’re doing something right there, whether it’s Ivermectin or something else. At the very least, their success against Covid is most certainly not because of the vaccine, because they have a lower vaccination rate than we do here in the US–plus a significantly lower vaccination rate than Israel, the most vaccinated nation on the planet.

In a sane and uncorrupted world, we would be studying the actions taken in Uttar Pradesh and applying them not only here in the US but all around the world.

As you can see from the Kerala Covid treatment guidelines above, they cite the NIH as a source for claiming Ivermectin is not proven to be effective in fighting Covid. A lot of other countries look to the US for leadership and guidance with regard for Covid, but unfortunately that may be to their detriment. Kerala should be following in the footsteps of Uttar Pradesh. As should the US.

But unfortunately in the US, and all the other countries that follow our lead, the main concern is getting people vaccinated, not beating Covid.

Glenn Greenwald: The Masking of the Servant Class

Well put:

COVID rules are now so convoluted that liberals are able to defend their leaders’ actions while not even pretending to make sense from a scientific or rational perspective. Many defended Newsom and Obama’s maskless partying on the ground that it was all “outdoors,” even though both were actually inside tents and people had been shamed for months for taking their kids to deserted beaches rather than keeping them locked away at home.

Liberals argue that it is fine for elites at Obama’s party and the Met Gala to remain maskless since they are vaccinated, even as they defend the CDC’s new mask directives for vaccinated people based on the view that vaccinated people still dangerously transmit the Delta variant to both vaccinated and unvaccinated people alike. They will claim that it is fine for rich Democratic donors at Pelosi’s party to sit on top of one other maskless because they are eating even though the video shows they have no food in front of them (they are waiting for the masked servants of color to bring their food) and even though shoveling food into one’s open mouth does not actually create a wall of immunity against transmission of the virus from one’s open-mouthed table neighbors. The Met Gala’s red carpet is said to be “outdoors” even though it is surrounded by tent walls and other structures, and still leaving the question of why workers need to be masked in the same area.

It’s starting to feel like liberals are now chiefly concerned with lying to themselves in order to avoid coming to the conclusion that the increasingly-tyrannical ruling class doesn’t give a shit about us and is basically letting us rot. Why else would they even attempt to defend Newsom and Obama and Pelosi blatantly flaunting The Rules™ and, more importantly The SCIENCE™? Why else would they defend Big Tech censorship? It can’t be that Silicon Valley and the news media are simply suppressing all political dissent–no, they’re doing it to keep us all safe!

But all of this stopped being about The Science(TM) long ago — ever since months of relentless messaging that it is our moral duty to Stay At Home unless we want to sociopathically kill Grandma was replaced overnight by dictates that we had a moral duty to leave our homes to attend densely packed street protests since the racism being protested was a more severe threat to the public health than the global COVID pandemic. One can locate in all of this jumbled and always-shifting rationale various forms of control, shaming, stigma and hierarchy, while The Science(TM) is nowhere to be found.

Even with all of this deceit and manipulation, there is something uniquely disturbing — creepy even — about becoming accustomed to seeing political and cultural elites wallowing in luxury without masks, while those paid small wages to serve them in various ways are forced to keep cloth over their faces. It is a powerful symbol of the growing rot at the core of America’s cultural and social balkanization: a maskless elite attended to by a permanently faceless servant class. The country’s workers have long been faceless in a figurative sense, and now, thanks to extremely selective application of decisively unscientific COVID restrictions, that condition has become literal.

This is the type of thing we’re growing accustomed to these days:

You’ve got Ocasio-Cortez, Democratic Socialist and champion of the downtrodden, having her “TAX THE RICH” dress carried by a masked servant so it doesn’t touch the ground.

“bUt sHe’S vAcCiNaTeD!!”

And the Dress-Carrier isn’t? Like they’d let anyone who hasn’t gotten the vaccine anywhere near the Met Gala. In New York City, it’s basically illegal to be unvaccinated anyway.

There’s a very weird veneration of Elected Officials™ and fetish for Following Those Officials’ Rules going on on the left. I’m not old, but I’m at least old enough to remember when the left were the ones who hated and distrusted both the Military Industrial Complex and the Intelligence Community for lying us into war in the Middle East. They wanted Bush and Cheney locked up for war crimes. They detested the CIA and its use of torture and “black sites.”

Now they’re basically begging for full-blown tyranny and forced vaccinations at gunpoint.

This is why I keep saying my main goal nowadays is not to try to convince Democrats to become Republicans, but simply to convince libs that the Democratic Party is their enemy. It’s not about Red vs. Blue anymore. It’s about the ruling class vs. the regular people.

The libs need to see their beloved Elites for what they are. The libs need to get it through their heads that the elites don’t give a fuck about any of us.

The problem is that the ruling class has tens of millions of libs convinced we’re the problem.

And that’s deliberate. The libs are the only thing propping up this whole diseased, corrupt temple.