Saturday, January 22, 2022
The CDC Has Destroyed Public Trust By Pushing Obvious Falsehoods
Tens of millions of Americans who have relied on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s advice on dealing with Covid-19 are now adrift. Maggie Koerth, a senior science writer for FiveThirtyEight, charges that the agency “mired in political influence” has “failed to address many of the most relevant questions for day-to-day decision-making.”
This lack of leadership has consequences, Koerth observes. Having lost faith in the CDC’s ever-changing advice, many who previously heeded its counsel are now seeking wisdom “in the dark alleys of the internet, hoping the information we’re getting is the real deal and not just another cheap Rolex.”
Koerth is among those who have followed — or tried to follow — CDC’s shifting and often poorly evidenced guidance. They wore gloves when CDC told them to wear gloves, ditched the gloves and donned cloth masks when told they warded off viruses, cleansed their food with Clorox wipes and their hands with Purell, locked themselves and their families in their homes, got “fully vaccinated” with two jabs, and then a third when told that two weren’t enough, strapped masks on their two-year-olds, and got their kids vaxxed, double-vaxxed, and triple-vaxxed.
Then came Omicron.
Communities with shuttered schools, mask mandates, and vaccine passports had an explosion of cases. In New York and Los Angeles, Paris and Rome, mask wearers, the boosted, and those who foreswore handshakes and hugs got infected. The spike in cases dwarfed previous highs, and fears of overcrowded hospitals recurred.
Dr. Anthony Fauci announced that the variant “will ultimately find just about everybody.” President Biden conceded that “both vaccinated and unvaccinated people are testing positive.”
Undeterred by those sobering facts, the president once again called it a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” The unvaccinated “are crowding our hospitals, leaving little room for anyone else who might have a heart attack or an injury in an automobile accident or any injury at all,” he alleged.
Biden’s Claims Are Not Supported by Data
As with the president’s previous pandemic pronouncements, this one is unsupported by the data.
First, hospitals routinely test everyone they admit for Covid-19. According to Health and Human Services, just over 22 percent of inpatient beds were “in use for COVID-19” on January 19. That doesn’t mean that 22 percent of inpatients occupied those beds because they tested positive for Covid. Many were receiving treatment for...
‘All he wanted to do was play hockey’: Grieving dad says Pfizer shot killed his 17-year old son
Deaths are ‘happening, more than anyone knows, and it’s just being denied and silenced.’
TORONTO (LifeSiteNews) – Toronto resident Dan Hartman testified to the Toronto City Council on Tuesday that he believes that the Pfizer jab killed his 17-year-old son, Sean.
Hartman explained that his son experienced a bad reaction to his first shot, and just over a month later was dead.
The grieving father said that an autopsy for his son showed a “slightly enlarged heart,” but that the cause of death was “unascertained.” Hartman says that a doctor who has viewed the autopsy told him that he believes the COVID shot killed his son.
“I know in my heart and soul, I believe the second pathologist that the vaccine killed my son,” he said. “It’s not rare as everyone thinks it is. It’s happening; it’s on Twitter every day, people dying from this. I’m not an anti-vaxxer at all, I’m really not, but I think there is something wrong with this one.”
The Board of Health of the Toronto City Council gathered for a virtual meeting to discuss the city’s response to COVID-19 on Tuesday. The meeting was open to the public and included scheduled speakers from the public who gave their opinion on the municipal government’s handling of the declared pandemic.
“My son played hockey… since he was eight years old,” Hartman told those present at the meeting.
“He took a year off for COVID and he got extremely bored sitting in his bedroom. He decided to go back to hockey this year, and to do that he had to have a vaccination to play hockey,” Hartman continued.
“He got his first shot of Pfizer on August 25,” he continued. “Went to the hospital on August 29 with a bad reaction, he got sent home with only a prescription for Advil, he had a rash all over his neck and face and brown circles around his eyes.”
Mr. Hartman then described his son’s death following his reaction to the Pfizer shot: “On the morning of September 27 his mother found him dead on the floor beside his bed.”
“All he wanted to do was...
The Pathetic and Political Sedition Case Against the Oath Keepers
Why did the Justice Department wait over a year to arrest Stewart Rhodes when nearly two dozen other Oath Keepers already have been charged with a conspiracy he orchestrated?
Facing intensifying criticism from Democratic lawmakers, journalists, and even some federal judges for not seeking harsher punishment against January 6 protesters, Attorney General Merrick Garland finally produced charges to appease his detractors. Last week, more than a year after the so-called insurrection, Garland charged 11 members of the Oath Keepers with seditious conspiracy.
The star of the new indictment, handed down by a grand jury on January 12, is Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the alleged militia group. (His co-defendants were charged with several other offenses months ago.)
Rhodes, described only as “person one” for nearly a year in numerous criminal indictments related to his organization, has been a free man since January 6, 2021, raising plausible suspicions that he may have been a government informant at the time. After all, the FBI has a longstanding pattern of infiltrating fringe groups such as the Oath Keepers and moving them to commit indictable crimes.
Under the definition of “seditious conspiracy,” prosecutors allege Rhodes and his co-defendants conspired to halt the “lawful transfer of presidential power by force” including not just the Electoral College certification but the inauguration, which was 14 days away.
The flagrantly political move will give the Justice Department a temporary reprieve from its loud chorus of critics on the Left. January 6 propagandists boast that the new charges finally offer some support to the heretofore baseless claim that the events of that day amounted to an “insurrection.” Beryl Howell, the chief judge of the D.C. court handling every January 6 case, recently expressed her dismay at the “petty offenses” sought by prosecutors; she undoubtedly will be thrilled with the news.
Corporate media also commend this apparently sweeping indictment. “It’s hard to underemphasize (sic) how significant this is,” former FBI official and MSNBC contributor Frank Figliuzzi told Nicolle Wallace after the indictment was announced. CNN legal analyst Asha Rangappa concluded that “even if Trump wasn’t directly involved in their ‘plan,’ his [exhortation] to his lunatic mob to head to the Capitol definitely helped them execute their operation.”
But the real question is whether the government can make the charges stick. As my book, January 6: How Democrats Used the Capitol Protest to Launch a War on Terror Against the Political Right, details, the case against the Oath Keepers is weak. Out of the 20 people tied to the Oath Keepers (three have accepted plea deals), only one is accused of assaulting or impeding a police officer. No Oath Keeper is charged with carrying or using a weapon; the only property charge is “aiding and abetting” the destruction of government property. None are charged with...
The star of the new indictment, handed down by a grand jury on January 12, is Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the alleged militia group. (His co-defendants were charged with several other offenses months ago.)
Rhodes, described only as “person one” for nearly a year in numerous criminal indictments related to his organization, has been a free man since January 6, 2021, raising plausible suspicions that he may have been a government informant at the time. After all, the FBI has a longstanding pattern of infiltrating fringe groups such as the Oath Keepers and moving them to commit indictable crimes.
Under the definition of “seditious conspiracy,” prosecutors allege Rhodes and his co-defendants conspired to halt the “lawful transfer of presidential power by force” including not just the Electoral College certification but the inauguration, which was 14 days away.
The flagrantly political move will give the Justice Department a temporary reprieve from its loud chorus of critics on the Left. January 6 propagandists boast that the new charges finally offer some support to the heretofore baseless claim that the events of that day amounted to an “insurrection.” Beryl Howell, the chief judge of the D.C. court handling every January 6 case, recently expressed her dismay at the “petty offenses” sought by prosecutors; she undoubtedly will be thrilled with the news.
Corporate media also commend this apparently sweeping indictment. “It’s hard to underemphasize (sic) how significant this is,” former FBI official and MSNBC contributor Frank Figliuzzi told Nicolle Wallace after the indictment was announced. CNN legal analyst Asha Rangappa concluded that “even if Trump wasn’t directly involved in their ‘plan,’ his [exhortation] to his lunatic mob to head to the Capitol definitely helped them execute their operation.”
But the real question is whether the government can make the charges stick. As my book, January 6: How Democrats Used the Capitol Protest to Launch a War on Terror Against the Political Right, details, the case against the Oath Keepers is weak. Out of the 20 people tied to the Oath Keepers (three have accepted plea deals), only one is accused of assaulting or impeding a police officer. No Oath Keeper is charged with carrying or using a weapon; the only property charge is “aiding and abetting” the destruction of government property. None are charged with...
Elementary School To Hold BLM Event Teaching Kindergarten, First Graders To ‘Disrupt’ The Nuclear Family, Recognize ‘Trans-Antagonistic Violence’
A school district in Denver, Colorado plans to host a Black Lives Matter “Week of Action,” according to a report from Parents Defending Education.
- Centennial Elementary School (CES) in Denver Public Schools (DPS) announced its plans to participate in the “Black Lives Matter (BLM) at School Week of Action” from Jan. 31 – Feb. 4, according to a report from Parents Defending Education (PDE). The school said it will instruct kindergarteners and first graders to be “transgender affirming” by “recognizing trans-antagonistic violence” and “queer affirming” so “heteronormative thinking no longer exists.”
- One of the 13 “Black Lives Matter Guiding Principles” the elementary school will teach is globalism, which is defined as “our ability to see how we are impacted or privileged within the Black global family.”
- Another BLM principle outlined by the school is “Black Villages” or “the disruption of Western nuclear family dynamics and a return to the ‘collective village’ that takes care of each other.”
- A school district in Denver, Colorado plans to host a Black Lives Matter “Week of Action,” according to a report from Parents Defending Education.
- Centennial Elementary School (CES) in Denver Public Schools (DPS) announced its plans to participate in the “Black Lives Matter (BLM) at School Week of Action” from Jan. 31 – Feb. 4, according to a report from Parents Defending Education (PDE). The school said it will instruct kindergarteners and first graders to be “transgender affirming” by “recognizing trans-antagonistic violence” and “queer affirming” so “heteronormative thinking no longer exists.”
- Most kindergartners and first graders are five, six and seven years old.
- One of the 13 “Black Lives Matter Guiding Principles” the elementary school will teach is globalism, which is defined as “our ability to see how we are impacted or privileged within the Black global family.”
- Another BLM principle outlined by the school is “Black Villages” or “the disruption of Western nuclear family dynamics and a return to the ‘collective village’ that takes care of each other.”
“Black Women” are defined as the “building of women-centered spaces free from sexism, misogyny, and male centeredness.”
The school also provides a link to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), such as “Isn’t teaching BLM teaching politics?” “Are all of these topics age-appropriate?” and “I don’t support the BLM organization or all of the of the...
The 90 Miles Mystery Video: Nyctophilia Edition #906
Before You Click On The "Read More" Link,
Please Only Do So If You Are Over 21 Years Old.
If You are Easily Upset, Triggered Or Offended, This Is Not The Place For You.
Please Leave Silently Into The Night......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)