When The Money Is More Important Than The Science

The Covid pandemic taught us a lot of things. One of the things I learned was to do my own research as much as possible. I also became more cynical about the relationship between pharmaceutical companies and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (currently headed by Dr. Fauci). As you may remember, early in the Covid pandemic, Dr. Fauci played down the effectiveness of Ivermectin in treating the virus and limited the availability of monoclonal antibodies in some states. Dr. Fauci’s preferred treatment of Covid was a drug called Paxlovid, developed by Pfizer.

On Wednesday, PJ Media reported that Dr. Fauci had tested positive for Covid and taken Paxlovid.

The article reports:

On June 15, Dr. Anthony Fauci announced that he had tested positive for COVID-19. It was a long time coming since nearly everyone around him in the White House has tested positive at least once. In fact, the number of high-profile people with repeated infections is rising — former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and Prince Charles, to name a few. Of course, what they all had in common was every single COVID jab available to them.

Fauci was no exception. When he provided an update on his condition during a conference call on June 23, he said, “I had one day of symptomatology. I started on Wednesday on Paxlovid. And I was on Paxlovid for five days. And I have now finished Paxlovid, and I am still feeling really quite fine.”

Then he gave the obligatory nod to the treatments he has advocated and even supported mandating for others. “I think I am an example, given my age, of what we’re all talking about today. I am vaccinated. I am doubly boosted. And I believe if that were not the case, I very likely would not be talking to you looking as well as I look, I think.” In reality, he has no way of knowing that, and there is no science to back it up. Still, seven days after a positive test, he appeared symptom-free and participated in a meeting.

Unfortunately Dr. Fauci suffered a rebound of Covid:

On June 28, in another interview, Fauci disclosed that he had a positive antigen test four days after finishing the course of Paxlovid. For the three days prior, his tests were negative. “So it was sort of what people are referring to as a Paxlovid rebound. Then over the next day or so, I started to feel really poorly. Much worse than in the first go around,” Fauci admitted. Then he shared he was back on Paxlovid since it worked so well the first time.

If Pavlovid had really worked all that well, he wouldn’t be sick and need it again.

The article notes:

Remember when President Trump took Regeneron MAs, walked off a helicopter, and returned to work two days later? Were there any news stories out of Florida about rebound infections, where infusion clinics dispensed MAs at high rates for weeks? At some point, there needs to be an inquiry about what happened to the MA program. It was the only FDA-EUA treatment that prevented severe illness in between 70% and 90% of high-risk patients through the delta wave. MAs were also effective at preventing COVID in people exposed to the virus. Paxlovid is not.

While no one should wish anything terrible on Dr. Fauci, it is important to remember how he loomed large in destroying the reputations and careers of doctors who advocated using existing drugs to treat viral replication, inflammation, and clotting. Some researchers and clinicians feel that restricting these treatments is a crime against humanity that caused thousands of unnecessary deaths.

Fauci also did not advocate for infusion centers and broad distribution of the effective MA treatment that was available last summer. Instead, we waited for a pill that doesn’t always work on the first pass, may be of no value to vaccinated Americans, and appears to be declining in efficacy because of how it works.

I am glad Dr. Fauci seems to be getting better, but what about the lies told to Americans during the pandemic? How safe is the vaccine? Does the vaccine actually work? Is the vaccine being given in America approved for other than emergency use? Why was Ivermectin trashed although it seemed to work? Why was the distribution of monoclonal antibodies limited when it was known to be an effective treatment? We will probably never know the answers to these questions because of the money behind the related decisions, but I hope the American people are now awake and realize that it is up to every individual to protect their own health–the government isn’t going to do it.

When The Numbers Just Don’t Add Up

On Saturday, Sharyl Attkisson posted an article about the number of Covid-19 cases among military veterans who have been vaccinated.

The article reports:

Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) is demanding that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prioritize Veteran care after learning of first-hand accounts from VA employees, who say Biden’s coercive vaccine mandates are causing VA workforce shortages, ultimately limiting care for veterans.

In response to these accounts, Johnson submitted a letter to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Denis McDonough stating the following:

On May 27, 2022, I met with a group of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employees regarding their concerns with the quality of care received by veterans. These health care professionals described the significant workforce shortages at the VA facilities in Wisconsin and Michigan and that the vaccine mandate is only exacerbating these shortages. The VA owes the public and our veterans answers about the steps the Department is taking to address the workforce issues and to provide the highest quality care to the finest among us.” 

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin)

…Senator Johnson also presented whistleblower data he recently obtained demonstrating the ineffectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines’ ability to prevent infection. 

“Based on whistleblower data from the Milwaukee VAMC facility dashboard census count between October 22, 2021 and March 8, 2022, for 31 of the 54 days I received daily reports, at least 80 percent of VA employees who tested positive for Covid-19 were vaccinated. For 8 of those 54 days, 100 percent of VA employees who tested positive for Covid-19 were vaccinated. 

The continuation of care for our veterans should be our top priority, not politically motivated policies like vaccine mandates.” 

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin)

A letter written to Denis R. McDonough, Secretary U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, by Senator Johnson included the following statement:

In addition to these testimonials, enclosed data from the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee (Milwaukee VAMC) reveals the failure of the vaccine mandate to protect VA employees and veterans from COVID-19.  Based on whistleblower data from the Milwaukee VAMC facility dashboard census count between October 22, 2021 and March 8, 2022, for 31 of the 54 days I received daily reports, at least 80 percent of VA employees who tested positive for COVID-19 were vaccinated.[4]  For 8 of those 54 days, 100 percent of VA employees who tested positive for COVID-19 were vaccinated.[5]

I think it’s time to reevaluate the effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccine.

Somehow The Mainstream Media Missed This Story

On Friday, The Epoch Times reported the following:

Pfizer hired 600 employees in the months after its COVID-19 vaccine was authorized in the United States due to the “large increase” of reports of side effects linked to the vaccine, according to a document prepared by the company.

Pfizer has “taken a multiple actions to help alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports,” according to the document. “This includes significant technology enhancements, and process and workflow solutions, as well as increasing the number of data entry and case processing colleagues.”

At the time when the document—from the first quarter of 2021—was sent to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Pfizer had onboarded about 600 extra full-time workers to deal with the jump.

“More are joining each month with an expected total of more than 1,800 additional resources by the end of June 2021,” Pfizer said.

The document was titled a “cumulative analysis of post-authorization adverse event reports” of Pfizer’s vaccine received through Feb. 28, 2021. It was approved by the FDA on April 30, 2021.

The document was not made public until the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency sued the FDA after the agency claimed it needed decades to produce all the documents relating to the emergency use authorization granted to the company for the vaccine.

Under an agreement reached in February, the FDA must produce a certain number of pages each month.

The article concludes:

Pfizer did not respond to emailed questions, including how many workers it has onboarded to deal with adverse events.

The companies that manufacture the other two COVID-19 vaccines that U.S. regulators have cleared, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, did not respond when asked if they have seen an increase in adverse events and if they have hired more employees to deal with reports.

The number of post-vaccination adverse event reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, jointly run by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has spiked since the vaccines were first cleared.

Problems linked to the vaccines include heart inflammation, blood clotting, and severe allergic shock.

Federal officials say the vaccines’ benefits outweigh the risks, but some experts are increasingly questioning that assertion, particularly for certain populations.

People should have been made aware of this as the vaccine was being pushed by the government. A vaccine that doesn’t prevent the illness and has serious side effects does not seem to be the answer to the pandemic. Please follow the link above to read the entire article. If you are not yet vaxxed, you might not want to rush out to receive the vaccination.

Do The Fact-Checkers Actually Check The Facts?

On Sunday, Forbes posted an article about fact checkers. The article specifically focuses on the fact-checkers who ‘check facts’ in the areas of Covid-19 and climate change, two of the more controversial topics of the day.

On the subject of Covid-19, the article notes:

Over two years into the pandemic, some of the most basic questions remain contentious, and even questions of data integrity remain mired in controversy. Are covid deaths over-reported since many may have died with covid rather than of covid? Did lockdowns and masks make any discernible difference to public health? Are there viable early treatments for the disease available or are vaccines approved under Emergency Use Authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the only way to go? Are covid vaccines safe and effective? To each of these questions, the overwhelming majority of the fact checking sites (or fact checking departments of the legacy media) support the reigning narrative articulated by big pharmaceutical companies, government agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the FDA, and key government officials such as Dr. Anthony Fauci. The Biden administration welcomes this, and goes further in calling social media companies such as Facebook to partner with the White House to “fight misinformation” about covid-19.

When three distinguished medical people released the Great Barrington Declaration which contradicted the administration’s policies, their ideas were immediately squelched without debate. That’s not how science is supposed to work.

The article also discusses the climate-change fact-checkers:

Like the media coverage of covid-19, climate change headlines in the mainstream media for the past three decades have been overwhelmingly one-sided. The basic premise is that the “science is settled” as in a tweet by then U.S. President Barack Obama in 2013: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous” with the obvious subtext: “Who are you to challenge this?” And, as in the covid-19 context, the marginalization of climate sceptics has a long track record.

Two examples suffice how fact checks and editorializing serve to ensure that sceptics need not apply for access to the wider public. The first relates to the London-based BBC, fondly known as “beebs”, for its authoritative news broadcasts around the world as it emerged from the ashes of World War II. The British media giant was known and praised not only for its balanced news features but also for its nature documentaries. And in this space, two celebrities with the same first name – David Bellamy and David Attenborough – emerged in the 1970s, directing fascinating TV programs on nature and the environment from every corner of the globe into tens of millions of homes. As British commentator James Dellingpole wrote in his eulogy to Bellamy who died in 2019, “both were superstars…both were well on their way to becoming national treasures.”

Yet, while one, Attenborough, basks in the glow of international fame and is invited to many of the climate conferences as star speaker and delegate, the other claimed he had become a pariah as soon as he rejected group-think on global warming – describing climate change as “poppycock”. Though his climate scepticism killed his media career he remained utterly unrepentant. The BBC itself has made it clear to its staff that it will not invite climate sceptics to its interviews and panel discussions to balance debates because the “science is settled”

The article concludes:

Without getting into details about the claims of the so-called factchecker, the key point here is to note the perversions of truth in representing the arguments critiqued in such “fact checks”. Perhaps this is best revealed by the fact that Facebook argued in its legal defence that its cited fact check was “just opinion” when faced by a lawsuit brought by celebrated journalist John Stossel who had posted two climate change videos.

Readers and viewers beware of this peculiar twist to the caveat emptor clause: the “fact checks” used by the mainstream news outlets and social media to police what you read and watch are just opinions.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. We are being played.

The Elites Love To Hold On To Their Power

On Sunday, Breitbart posted an article about a recent comment by Dr. Fauci. It seems that Dr. Fauci is beginning to worm his way back into the spotlight (yes, I used that word on purpose).

The article reports:

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Dr. Anthony Fauci said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that new variants of COVID could cause America to reinstitute some restrictions.

Discussing the new BA.2 variant of COVID, Fauci said, “It has a degree of transmission advantage over the original Omicron. Not a multi-fold advantage. It’s about 50 to 60% or so more transmissible. It means over time. It might take over as the dominant variant. Throughout the world, it’s about 80 plus percent, 85% of the isolate. In the United States, it’s still around 30%.”

When asked about reinstating restrictions, Fauci replied:

Fauci said, “I don’t think so, George, not right now. I don’t see us going back into any very strict kind of restrictions. You have to have the flexibility. Remember when the CDC came out with the modification of their metrics which led to the guidelines of what regions or counties in the country should have masking indoor, they made it clear as you pull back on restrictions if we do see a significant surge, particularly one that might result in increased hospitalizations, we have to be prepared to pivot and perhaps reinstitute some of those restrictions.”

Notice that there is a discussion of the transmission rate of the new variant, but not of the death rate. Early on in the pandemic, many scientists speculated that Covid would continue to mutate until it reached the equivalent of the annual flu. Covid after mutating would be more contagious and less deadly. Evidently we are never going to be covid-free. However, we can be panic-free and treat this disease as the simple variant of the flu that it has become.

Politics Or Medicine?

On Friday, The Epoch Times reported that New York City Mayor Eric Adams has announced that the vaccine passport system and school mask mandates will expire on March 7th. That is good news for New Yorkers. However, don’t get too comfortable–once a system of passports to enter restaurants and entertainment venues is set up for any reason, it can be resurrected for any other reason.

The article reports:

The mayor’s decision comes as a number of other Democrat-led cities, municipalities, and states have dropped COVID-19-related rules in recent weeks. They have cited a drop in the number of COVID-19 cases nationwide.

“This is about giving people the flexibility that is needed to continue allow not only safety, but we have to get our economy back on track,” Adams told reporters during an announcement at Times Square. “It’s time to open our city and get the economy back up and operating.”

New York City, under the de Blasio administration, became one of the first places in the United States last year to impose a vaccine passport system, impacting restaurants, gyms, sports venues, concerts, and similar businesses.

Critics say that the mandate created a two-tier society of vaccinated and unvaccinated people and also led to the unfair demonization of people who haven’t received the shot. A number of protests erupted across the city with thousands of demonstrators walking across the Brooklyn Bridge and other bridges in protest of the rules.

Starting in late 2021, New York City also has laid off thousands of workers, including police officers and firemen, who did not comply with the city’s vaccine mandate.

The mandates were probably illegal in the first place, and some have been struck down by the Supreme Court. However, I suspect the larger issue here is the approaching mid-term election. The Democrat party is associated with the mandates. States like Florida and North Dakota, run by Republicans, have abandoned mask and shutdown requirements very early in the epidemic and have fared as well or better than the states with strict lockdowns and mandates. States with Republican governors have recovered economically more quickly because they have loosed many of their Covid restrictions that were put in place nationally early in the pandemic. The elections are approaching, and even Democrat-run states are trying to recover their economies before November (even though President Biden’s economic and energy policies are going to make that very difficult).

Just remember, the freedom Americans gave up during the Coronavirus has not yet been won back. Mandates and shutdowns are still possible. What we need is a Supreme Court case that will make it clear that mandated masks and shutdowns are a violation of individual liberty and are thus unconstitutional.

The Emails Tell The Story

On Monday The Federalist posted an article about the politicization of the coronavirus. The article included quotes from emails between National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci and National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins. The purpose of the emails was to create an implement the strategy to discredit information about COVID-19 that contradicted their pro-lockdown approach to curbing the virus.

The article reports:

In early October, experts in biostatics, immunology, public health policy, and more signed and released the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) urging health officials to reconsider the dangerous COVID-19 lockdown policies that “will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.” Shortly after its publication, Collins emailed Fauci to orchestrate a “quick and devastating published take down” of the GBD and the doctors promoting it.

The article includes screenshots of messages between Dr. Fauci and Francis Collins discussing how to take down the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD). A smear campaign against those involved in the GBD followed. Wait! I thought science was taking opposite opinions and finding the truth.

The article concludes:

Fauci also has a damning list of COVID-19 sins that he has yet to address or apologize for. In addition to moving the goalposts to suit whatever agenda keeps him on TV and in the good graces of the corporate media, reports released this year indicate that Fauci lied to members of Congress about funding for gain-of-function research, colluded with Big Tech to shut up conservatives who questioned his motives and statements, and even authorized the torture of beagles in the name of “science.” Emails obtained by corrupt members of the media who were unwilling to criticize Fauci also detailed the bureaucrat’s tendency to hide key COVID-19 information such as mask efficacy from the public to protect himself.

Collins’ and Fauci’s demands for compliance continue as the Biden administration struggles to justify its COVID-19 response amid a climbing number of virus-related deaths in the United States. As of Monday, more than 805,000 people in the U.S. had died from COVID-19.

I think it’s time for Dr. Fauci to find another job. Fear mongering to the American people is not going to work at some point.

A Professional Stating The Obvious

Despite being part of the Trump administration, Dr. Ben Carson is not a political animal. He tends to speak his mind regardless of the political winds. On Thursday, The Epoch Times posted an article about his views on the coronavirus pandemic.

The article notes:

“We’ve been having tunnel vision” dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Ben Carson told EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” program.

“Let’s throw the politics out. We could solve this problem pretty quickly,” he stated in an interview that will premiere on Dec. 18 at 7 p.m. New York time.

…“Let’s look around the world at things that work. Let’s look at the fact that on the western coast of Africa, there’s almost no COVID. And let’s ask ourselves, why is that? And then you see, it’s because they take antimalarials, particularly hydroxychloroquine. Let’s study that. Let’s see what’s going on there.

“Let’s listen to these physician groups who’ve had incredible success with ivermectin. Let’s look at the results with monoclonal antibodies. Let’s look at all of these things. Let’s put them all in our armamentarium so that we don’t have a one-size-fits-all system.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at one time had authorized hydroxychloroquine for treating certain COVID-19 patients but quickly revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) in June 2020, claiming no data showed its effectiveness.

The FDA hasn’t approved or issued an EUA for ivermectin to treat COVID-19, citing the same reasons.

Using hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients has been highly controversial. Some studies show, and some doctors claim, that hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin can effectively treat COVID-19 patients. A vaccine confidence insight report (pdf) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) labeled such claims as misinformation or disinformation.

“COVID is a virus. Viruses mutate. That’s what they do. And they will continue to mutate,” Carson said.

Carson pointed out that fortunately, most of the time, viruses become a little weaker with each mutation.

The article concludes:

“We have a situation where you have the government advocating that children be vaccinated, even though the risk for death for a child with COVID is 0.025 percent, essentially the same as it is for seasonal flu. You don’t see us doing all this every year for seasonal flu,” Carson stated.

“The risk of mortality for a healthy child is approaching zero, and yet we’re saying do this without knowing what the long-term risks are?” he said. “And why would you subject an innocent child to a lifetime of unknown risk? It just makes absolutely no sense.

“We need to have faith in our government. We need to have faith in our health care systems. And by injecting politics into it, I think we have put ourselves behind the eight ball. It’s going to take a while to reestablish that trust,” he said.

“Why not learn how to look at what’s logical and what makes sense? And why not encourage discussion of those things, rather than everybody getting their respective corners and shooting hand grenades at each other?”

The way out is real leadership, he said.

“The only path is strong leadership. We don’t have that.”

As I have previously stated, “How many of our CDC officials and government officials own stock in pharmaceutical companies?”

Unwarranted Fear

On Friday, The Epoch Times posted an article about the Omicron variant of the coronavirus (just for the record, moronic is an anagram of Omicron).

The article reports:

The World Health Organization (WHO) has informed The Epoch Times that it has not documented any deaths from the Omicron variant of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, which causes COVID-19.

According to the WHO, “for Omicron, we have not had any deaths reported, but it is still early in the clinical course of disease and this may change.”

When reached for comment by The Epoch Times, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sent its report on the Omicron variant in the United States from Dec. 1 through 8. It shows that there were no documented deaths from Omicron during that period.

The WHO’s latest weekly epidemiological update for Dec. 7 showed that all 212 Omicron cases documented across eighteen European Union (EU) countries were either mild or asymptomatic.

“While South Africa saw an 82 percent increase in hospital admissions due to COVID-19 (from 502 to 912) during the week 28 November–4 December 2021, it is not yet known the proportion of these with the Omicron variant,” the report noted.

Omicron has also been detected in the United States, first in California and later in Colorado, New York, Maryland, Utah, and many other states.

The first American patient with the variant was identified in San Francisco, testing positive for COVID-19 on Nov. 29 after returning from a trip to South Africa on Nov. 22.

The article concludes:

“No one here in South Africa is known to have been [hospitalized] with the Omicron variant, nor is anyone here believed to have fallen seriously ill with it.”

More recently, Dr. Coetzee told ThePrint that Omicron symptoms have been mild in both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.

“In the beginning of any wave, children and younger people are the first to be affected,” she told ThePrint. “As the wave progresses, more elderly, people with comorbidities, start getting affected. When that happens, we will know exactly how many severe cases there are.”

Viruses are serious. People who are vulnerable need to be protected and cared for. However, we do not need to go into a panic every time a new variant shows up. Every year we deal with new variants of the flu. It is not the end of the world. It’s time to end the endless panic and fear mongering.

This Infuriates Me

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article revealing that between 100 to 200 congressional reps and/or staff and families who contracted COVID-19 were treated with the Front Line Ivermectin protocol.

The article includes the following screenshot:

The article reports:

This successful treatment is happening at the same time many congressional representatives are playing politics in favor of the vaccine; downplaying the effective anti-viral treatment and therapeutic approach with Ivermectin; and taking action to block regular American citizens from seeking similar treatment with Ivermectin.

Congress can seek treatment with a medication they simultaneously deny to others?  This is well beyond a “scandal”, and needs to be investigated quickly.

Additionally, as Merck has announced a new and similar anti-viral drug called Molnupiravir, two trial studies in India have requested to exit the trials.  Apparently the issue surrounds the new drug providing no benefit once a patient is moderately ill and hospitalized (READ MORE, Reuters Link).

The article includes the following video of Dr. John Campbell highlighting a comparison between Ivermectin and Molnupiravir :

It infuriates me that ordinary Americans were denied a life-saving treatment that was used successfully by the political elite. It may be time to un-elect everyone in our government and elect ordinary citizens to replace them.

As William F. Buckley once said:

I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.

I think the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory might have higher ethical standards than those we have currently entrusted with our government.

 

The Vise Tightens

The New York Post posted an article today about a recent policy instituted by a Louisiana health system.

The article reports:

An unvaccinated spouse is about to make things a whole lot more expensive for employees of one medical system in Louisiana.

Starting in 2022, workers at Ochsner Health will have to pay an extra $100 per paycheck if their spouse or domestic partner is unvaccinated, according to nola.com.

Last year, the company spent more than $9 million on caring for COVID patients it insured, Ochsner CEO Warner Thomas told the outlet.

“The reality is the cost of treating COVID-19, particularly for patients requiring intensive inpatient care, is expensive,” he wrote.

This is intrusive. I can understand (although I don’t agree with) the idea of demanding employees be vaccinated, but any inquiry into health issues of a spouse or domestic partner seems like a total overreach. What about single employees who hang out in bars or other places where they socialize (possibly with people who are not vaccinated)? This needs to be responded to with a major lawsuit.

Playing Politics With Medicine

Yesterday The Epoch Times reported that because of the Biden administration’s recent decision to ration monoclonal antibody treatments, the State of Alabama may run out of those treatments shortly.

The article reports:

The federal government’s sudden rationing of monoclonal antibody treatments, which keep Americans who get COVID-19 out of hospitals, is hitting Alabama hard, with some sites already running out of or projected to run out of supply soon.

The antibodies are highly successful at stemming the effects of COVID-19 when given to patients soon after they contract the disease, which is caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus. But a huge jump in demand in recent weeks has left what some officials have described as a national shortage, triggering the federal government to intervene and start doling out what’s left.

Stringfellow and Regional Medical Center in Anniston didn’t have any of the antibodies left on Wednesday, according to Dr. Almena Free, vice president of medical affairs and chief medical officer. Other facilities in Jefferson and Huntsville counties are struggling to source enough of the treatment, Dr. David Thrasher, a pulmonary critical care physician in Montgomery, said a day later.

“Some entities are very low on product and some project running out of product over the weekend,” Dr. Karen Landers, a health officer with the Alabama Department of Public Health, told The Epoch Times in an email on Friday.

The shortage is hitting at a critical time. Intensive care unit capacity is “beyond full,” Dr. Scott Harris, Alabama’s health officer, told reporters in a Sept. 16 virtual briefing. That means there are more people in the state that require critical care than there are beds to take care of them.

COVID-19 isn’t entirely to blame, as many patients don’t have the disease. But the monoclonal antibody (mAb) shortage will likely contribute to the issue. Some 70 percent of patients who get the treatment soon after their diagnosis don’t need hospital care, according to clinical studies and experts like Thrasher.

There was no reason for the federal government to insert itself into something that was working.

The article concludes:

Some suggested getting antibodies from GSK would prove too expensive.

“At this time we have not had any requests for it and it is quite costly,” a spokeswoman for the Michigan Department of Health told The Epoch Times via email.

One course of treatment costs $2,100, a GSK spokesperson told The Epoch Times. That’s the same price per dose in Regeneron’s latest two contracts with the federal government. Eli Lilly’s is about the same.

The federal government has locked up hundreds of thousands of doses of the Regeneron and Eli Lilly medicines, and GSK’s is the only other monoclonal antibody treatment authorized for use at this time in the United States. U.S. drug regulators rejected an application for emergency use authorization for a fourth drug earlier this month.

Michigan and Alabama officials told The Epoch Times that hospitals and other providers can order directly from GSK if they wish. In the meantime, the states, like many others, are scrambling to try to redistribute supply to make sure there’s enough at each facility.

I am reminded of the following quote:

“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.” – Milton Friedman

Does Lying To Congress Matter?

Issues & Insights posted an article today that asks a very valid question, “Report Shows Fauci Lied To Congress — So Why Does He Still Have A Job?” That is a good question.

The article reports:

COVID-19 czar Anthony Fauci has steadfastly denied that he helped fund gain-of-function research at China’s now-notorious Wuhan Institute of Virology. In recent testimony before Congress, he repeatedly denied ever doing so. But a new 900-page trove of information acquired through a Freedom of Information Act request shows that’s not true.

It’s a huge story. Unfortunately, the mainstream media have essentially ignored it. New York Times? The Washington “Democracy Dies In Darkness” Post? CNN? Sorry, couldn’t be bothered, even though a 2015 study clearly referred to such research taking place.

It took an aggressive, left-leaning online investigative reporting site, The Intercept, to do the Big Media’s work for it by digging up the FOIA material. The mountain of papers are damning, showing clearly that a nonprofit company, EcoHealth Group, channeled federal grants from the National Institute of Health and Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease to the Chinese government-run Wuhan Institute of Virology.

“The (U.S.) 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,” the Intercept reported.

“Alter bat coronaviruses” is the key phrase here, since it indicates gain-of-function experimentation, which even the Obama administration had tightly restricted.

Scientists with expertise in both viral research and government grant mechanisms call the latest evidence a smoking gun. A thread of tweets by Rutgers University molecular biologist Richard E. Enbright provides further scientific insight into what was going on.

“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,” Enbright wrote.

Broad Institute molecular biologist Alina Chan told The Intercept that the documents also make the lab-leak theory of the COVID-19 virus even more likely.

So why is the mainstream media ignoring this story? Because their darling Dr. Fauci might be partly responsible for a virus that has seriously damaged the economy of America and may have made a stolen election possible. It’s somewhat like a mother finding out that her son has robbed a bank. Obviously there must be some mistake.

Following The Science

There are still a lot of things we don’t know about Covid-19 or the Covid-19 vaccine. However, as time goes on, the medical community is collecting statistics that will at least give us a partial picture of the disease and immunity to it.

On August 6th, Sharyl Attkisson posted an article on her website summarizing some of the research on natural immunity and vaccine immunity to Covid-19. Please follow the link to read the entire article. It is detailed and complex, but I will post a few highlights.

The article notes:

Updated Aug. 6 with CDC analysis of Kentucky (unvaccinated Kentuckians had “2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with fully vaccinated) and national analysis in Israel (vaccinated Israelis were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection). More below.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) became one of the latest high-profile figures to get sick with Covid-19, even though he’s fully vaccinated. In a statement Monday, Graham said it feels like he has “the flu,” but is “certain” he would be worse if he hadn’t been vaccinated.

While it’s impossible to know whether that’s the case, public health officials are grappling with the reality of an increasing number of fully-vaccinated Americans coming down with Covid-19 infections, getting hospitalized, and even dying of Covid. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) insists vaccination is still the best course for every eligible American. But many are asking if they have better immunity after they’re infected with the virus and recover, than if they’re vaccinated.

Increasingly, the answer within the data appears to be ”yes.”

The article included the following:

The article notes:

Unfortunately, virologists say no commonly-used test can detect with certainty whether a person is immune. A common misconception is that antibody tests can make that determination. But experts say immunity after infection or exposure often comes without a person producing or maintaining measurable antibodies.

Because of that reality, people who have had asymptomatic infections — infections where they suffered no symptoms — have no easy way to know that they’re immune. However, a growing body of evidence indicates that the millions who know they got Covid can be assured they’re unlikely to suffer reinfection, for at least as long of a time period that scientists have been able to measure. Possibly far beyond.

This is an experimental vaccine. Remember that when you make your decision as to whether or not you are going to receive the vaccine. Meanwhile, there is nothing wrong with washing your hands frequently.

 

The Correct Response

There is a new outbreak of the coronavirus. It involves the ‘delta’ variant, and possibly will eventually involve the ‘lambda’ variant. Governor DeSantis of Florida has reacted quickly to the new threat and should serve as an example to other governors.

On Thursday The Epoch Times posted an article about Governor DeSantis’ response to the new outbreak of the coronavirus.

The article reports:

Gov. Ron DeSantis announced on Aug. 12 that he is launching a Rapid Response Team to dispense monoclonal antibodies to tackle Florida’s rising number of COVID-19 cases and reduce serious symptoms, preventing the potential for hospital overcrowding.

“This is probably the best thing that we can do to reduce the number of people that require hospitalization,” DeSantis said at a news conference in Jacksonville, adding that vaccines were strongly encouraged and were effective at preventing hospitalizations and deaths by at least 70 percent.

“Clear benefits to this early treatment is keeping people out of the hospital and reducing mortality,” he said.

DeSantis noted the experimental monoclonal antibodies developed by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals were used by President Donald Trump after he contracted the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, which causes COVID-19, in October 2020. Trump recovered in a matter of days.

A study released in April showed Regeneron’s antibody cocktail helped people recover faster after falling ill, and when given in the early stages, could prevent people from becoming sick with the virus.

Monoclonal antibody treatment is not well known, according to the governor, because it received federal emergency use authorization around the same time as the vaccines were being approved, and that the “focus rightfully was on vaccines at the time.” He said he felt that it was important to utilize this treatment alongside vaccines, and it was, in his opinion, “the most effective yet for people who are already infected.”

The monoclonal antibody treatment has the same federal emergency use authorization that the vaccine has. The Governor’s quick reaction to the recent spread of the coronavirus will probably save lives.

More Questions Than Answers

There are two things that puzzle me about the insistence that all Americans be vaccinated against Covid-19. The first is the lack of emphasis on the methods of treatment that have proven to be successful–Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin, Ivermectin, Resveratrol, etc. Various combinations of these substances have been proven effective in treating even severe Covid-19 cases. The second thing that puzzles me is the total ignoring of the concept of immunity due to having recovered from the disease.

Yesterday The Epoch Times posted an article about a new study of Covid-19 cases and those who have recovered from the disease.

The article reports:

People who have recovered from COVID-19 retain broad and effective longer-term immunity to the disease, according to a new study.

Findings of the study, which is the most comprehensive of its kind so far, have implications for expanding understanding about human immune memory as well as future vaccine development for coronaviruses.

For the longitudinal study in Cell Reports Medicine, researchers looked at 254 patients with mostly mild to moderate symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection over a period of more than eight months (250 days) and found that their immune response to the virus remained durable and strong.

The findings are reassuring, especially given early reports during the pandemic that protective neutralizing antibodies didn’t last in COVID-19 patients, said Rafi Ahmed, director of the Emory University Vaccine Center and a lead author of the paper.

“The study serves as a framework to define and predict long-lived immunity to SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection. We also saw indications in this phase that natural immunity could continue to persist,” Ahmed said.

The research team will continue to evaluate this cohort over the next few years.

The article notes:

In following the patients for months, researchers got a more nuanced view of how the immune system responds to COVID-19 infection. The picture that emerges indicates that the body’s defense shield not only produces an array of neutralizing antibodies but activates certain T and B cells to establish immune memory, offering more sustained defenses against reinfection.

…Ahmed said investigators were surprised to see that convalescent participants also displayed increased immunity against common human coronaviruses as well as SARS-CoV-1, a close relative of the current coronavirus. The study suggests that patients who survived COVID-19 are likely to also possess protective immunity even against some SARS-CoV-2 variants.

“Vaccines that target other parts of the virus rather than just the spike protein may be more helpful in containing infection as SARS-CoV-2 variants overtake the prevailing strains,” Ahmed said. “This could pave the way for us to design vaccines that address multiple coronaviruses.”

The researchers said the study more comprehensively identifies the adaptive immune components leading to recovery, and that it will serve as a benchmark for immune memory induced by SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

This is good news.

Lying With Statistics

On Wednesday The Locker Room (a website of the John Locke Foundation) posted an article with the following headline, “CDC hints at scope of Covid-19 hospitalizations and deaths “not related to Covid-19”.” Wait! What?

The article reports:

On June 26, WLOS News 13 was told by DHHS spokesperson Kelly Haight that “The number of people hospitalized [for Covid-19] includes those who have tested positive for COVID and those admitted for other reasons, but placed on infection prevention precautions.”

Wait, what?

As part of our “Fog of Covid-19 Data” series last year, I wrote about the great uncertainty surrounding actual hospitalizations and deaths from Covid-19. A snippet:

In regular conversation, a hospitalized COVID-19 patient would mean someone whose COVID infection is so bad it’s put him in the hospital. To Gov. Roy Cooper’s Department of Health and Human Services, however, it means someone who is in the hospital for any reason and who has tested positive for COVID-19. That’s a key distinction. I’ll explain.

DHHS admits no distinction between a hospitalization for COVID and hospitalization with COVID. Hospitalizations for COVID are the dangerous infections people rightly worry about. Hospitalizations with COVID are when people are in the hospital for other reasons — a chest ailment, a car accident, a medical procedure, etc. — and as part of the routine clinical assessment, they test positive for COVID.

How many people are in one group and not the next? It’s hard to tell from this vantage point. Counting the two groups together, however, only inflates the number and gives the impression that dangerous infections are higher than they are. How much higher, who can tell?

Sounds a bit disingenuous to me.

The article also includes the following:

The article concludes:

So roughly one-fourth of “breakthrough” Covid-19 hospitalizations (26%) and deaths (24%) were “asymptomatic or not related to Covid-19.”

Note: Just as it’s in the political interests of the CDC, DHHS, et al. to inflate the overall cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, it’s in the political interests of the CDC to downplay concerns about the vaccines by removing the inflation from “breakthrough” Covid-19 hospitalizations and deaths.

Questions going forward

This revelation leaves several questions, however. Do “breakthrough” hospitalizations and deaths behave differently from other Covid-19 infections? Would that mean more inflation in “breakthrough” cases — or less?

How many of North Carolina’s Covid-19 hospitalizations and deaths were “not related to Covid-19”? Is it more or less than one-fourth? We still don’t know.

All we know is, again, the official numbers are inflated. By how much, they still won’t say.

Covid is real. The question is how dangerous is it to the average American who is healthy with no medical issues.

 

When Tyrants Gain Power

Just for the record, Dr. Anthony Fauci is not an elected official. He does not have the power to make laws. Americans need to remember this when he speaks. However, Americans also need to remember that there are those in Washington with the power to make laws who believe everything Dr. Fauci says.

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about a recent statement by Dr. Fauci.

The article reports:

I’m more worried about what is happening behind the scenes in the non-COVID universe while everyone is distracted by the purposeful weaponization of the healthcare institutions.  It’s the other thing, the unseen activity, that is most troublesome when the leftists are this entrenched on a singular narrative.

In this clip from Anthony Fauci on ABC This Week Sunday [Rumble Link], the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, claims that individual rights no longer exist during the era of COVID-19.  When you consider the mindset of the far-left, his opinion on communal rights -vs- individual rights is right in line with the collectivist perspective.  These people are dangerous.

This is what Dr. Fauci said:

The fact is, if you get infected, even if you are without symptoms, you very well may infect another person who may be vulnerable … So in essence, you are encroaching on their individual rights.”

The article notes:

It appears from the visible evidence, the Delta variant of COVID-19 may well be more transmissible; perhaps even more transmissible due to increased shedding from people who are vaccinated carriers of the virus. However, the death rate is lower than the traditional flu.

Unfortunately a lot of the reactions to the coronavirus have turned our Constitutional freedoms upside down. There is nothing in the U. S. Constitution that allows the government to shut down a private business or control the mask-wearing of the patrons who enter that business. These matters cannot even be decided by local governments unless there is a visible public nuisance. The rights of American citizens and business owners are theoretically protected by the U.S. Constitution. Unless we begin to elect representatives at all levels of government who understand that principle, we are in danger of losing those rights.

Don’t Look For This Information In The Mainstream Media

The Epoch Times posted an article today with the following headline, “Most Recovered COVID-19 Patients Have Broad, Robust Immunity That Likely Provides Some Protection Against Variants: Study.” Then why are people who have recovered from the virus being encouraged to get the vaccine?

The article reports:

Most people who have recovered from COVID-19, even with mild illness, retain a broad and durable immunity to the disease, including some degree of protection against its variants, according to an Emory University study published in the journal, Cell Reports Medicine.

The longitudinal study, the most comprehensive of its kind to date, involved 254 COVID-19 patients, between the ages of 18 to 82 years, who provided blood samples at various points for a period of over eight months beginning in April 2020. About 71 percent of the patients had mild disease, 24 percent experienced moderate illness, and five percent had severe disease.

The researchers found that most of the patients who recovered mounted a strong and wide-ranging immune response to the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus for up to 250 days.

“We saw that antibody responses, especially IgG antibodies, were not only durable in the vast majority of patients but decayed at a slower rate than previously estimated, which suggests that patients are generating longer-lived plasma cells that can neutralize the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein,” Rafi Ahmed, director at Emory Vaccine Center and lead author told Emory News Center on July 22.

The article concludes:

The authors also found that COVID-19 recovered patients displayed stable antibody responses to the other human coronaviruses that cause the common cold, the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, or the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV).

“These data are most consistent with the generation of long-lived plasma cells and refute the current notion that these antibody responses to human coronaviruses are short lived,” the researchers said. “Moreover, the COVID-19 patients mounted increased IgG antibody responses to SARS-CoV-1, a related pathogen that none likely had experienced previous exposure to.”

The researchers will continue to follow the cohort for several years, with the last sample collection of the participants set for February 2023. Doing so allows the researchers to gather more data to “define the progression to long-lived immunity” to the CCP virus after natural infection.

The findings add to the growing body of research that indicates that recovered COVID-19 patients develop long-lasting immunity.

A limitation of the study is that it didn’t include more severe COVID-19 patients and those who are asymptomatic. However, the authors noted that “mild-moderate illness accounts for [more than] 80 percent of COVID-19 cases, highlighting the relevance of our findings over time.”

The authors said that the study’s findings will “also serve as a benchmark for immune memory induced in humans by SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.”

If my having had COVID-19 means that I will be less likely to get a cold this winter, then it was worth it! Seriously, COVID-19 is serious and not to be taken lightly, but anyone who has not yet taken the vaccine needs to weigh very carefully the risk/benefit ratio. Getting COVID-19 was not a pleasant experience, and I am grateful that my case did not include serious complications, but one problem with this virus is that no one can predict how it will impact a particular person. I am in a high-risk group, yet I did not experience severe symptoms. I strongly encourage anyone who has not yet taken the vaccine to do their own research to determine what is best for them as an individual.

Coercion At Its Best

Yesterday (updated today) The Epoch Times reported that Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines has put in place a policy that requires passengers to either show proof of vaccination or get Covid testing at their own expense.

The article reports:

The Royal Caribbean cruise line says unvaccinated passengers will have to pay testing fees and be subject to various restrictions for sailings departing from Miami, even as Florida Gov. Ron De Santis has banned companies from requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccinations through an executive order.

The company said in a statement that passengers will be asked for their vaccination documentation at check-in, and anyone age 2 and above who is unvaccinated will be required to go through “multiple COVID-19 tests,” which would be priced at $136 per person. Testing for guests between the ages of 2 and 15 will be complimentary.

The article notes that there will be discrimination against unvaccinated passengers:

“Since the majority of our guests will be vaccinated on Freedom of the Seas, there will be venues and events restricted to vaccinated guests only. We’ll do our best to create opportunities for all guests to enjoy their time with us. Please note, your SeaPass card will be required to access lounges, shows, and dining venues, so keep it handy at all times during your cruise,” the company said.

Some venues will only grant access to vaccinated passengers, where people who have taken the shot won’t be required to wear a mask.

Masks won’t be required for children under the age of 2.

DeSantis’s office didn’t immediately respond to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.

We have treatments for Covid-19 that are effective. A number of studies show that those who have had the disease are as protected (if not more) than those who have had the vaccine. Why isn’t an antibody test as good as a vaccine? What in the world is this about?

Were Lives Lost Because Of Politics And Greed?

I think it’s time to ask if the political games the media played during the Trump administration and the conflict of interest in some members of the National Institute of Health resulted in the deaths of Americans. Hot Air posted an article today about s recent study on the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to treat Covid patients.

The article reports:

For most of us, the whole controversy over the use of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 patients seemed mostly political in nature and less so about the drug’s effectiveness. Once Donald Trump came out in support of it, the gloves came off. At least half of the country decided that HCQ was not a scientific treatment for the coronavirus because the bad Orange Man was an anti-science president. Never mind that it was Trump who expedited the vaccine process to historic speed with Operation Warp Speed. He put together a White House coronavirus task force before many people (especially on the left) were willing to acknowledge the pandemic that originated in China. When Trump announced that he was taking HCQ himself, he was roundly mocked. Nevertheless, others in the medical community studied the use of the drug during the pandemic and found some positive results.

The article notes that hydroxychloroquine costs under $10 for the course of a COVID-19 treatment and the drug being promoted by the National Institute of Health (NIH) during the Trump administration, remdesivir, costs about $3,500 per treatment. Hydroxychloroquine has been used for years with known side effects. The side effects of remdesivir are unknown.

The article suggests we follow the money and continues with the following excerpt from The Washington Times:

Although, many doctors around the world were finding success with HCQ, in February 2020 NIH started enrolling patients for a remdesivir COVID-19 trial, with Dr. Fauci overseeing its progress. He had the final say on all the press releases, and presumably was working closely with Gilead. On April 16 something funny happened with the trial — the endpoints of it were quietly changed and updated on the clinicaltrials.gov website. Instead of evaluating remdesivir’s ability to prevent death from COVID-19, the study was redesigned to evaluate how fast a patient recovered from remdesivir.

…On May 1, the NIH’s COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines panel members granted emergency use of remdesivir and stated HCQ could only be used in hospitals or in studies. Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson found 11 members of that panel had financial ties to Gilead. Two were on Gilead’s advisory board, others were paid consultants or received research support and honoraria. None of the members, however, had ties to HCQ, which is made by numerous generic manufacturers, and “is so cheap, analysts say even a spike in sales would not be a financial driver for the companies,” Ms. Attkisson reported.

Ms. Attkisson also found one of the authors of a small Veterans Administration trial that claimed HCQ caused increased deaths received a $247,000 grant from Gilead in 2018.

The article at Hot Air concludes:

You may remember that when Trump was hospitalized with COVID-19, he was treated with remdesivir and did, indeed, experience a speedy recovery. By the way, Gilead spent $2.45 million in the first quarter of 2020 lobbying the federal government.

The results of the latest study showing success with HCQ in patient recovery time for those on a ventilator is very encouraging. Perhaps the Follow the Science people should practice what they preach. How many lives were lost because of tunnel vision?

This is disgusting. All of the members of the NIH who had ties to Gilead should be fired. Lives were lost because they were greedy.

Following The Science?

On Tuesday, the John Locke website posted an article about North Carolina’s response to the coronavirus.

The article includes the following information:

Here is the NC Threat-Free Index for the week ending May 17:

    • As of May 17, there were 963,539 North Carolinians presumed to be recovered from COVID-19
    • Active cases comprised just 1.6% of NC’s total case count (note: a case of COVID isn’t a permanent infection, and only someone with an active case of the virus can conceivably transmit it to you)
    • Active cases represented over 0.1% (one-tenth of one percent) of NC’s population (note: active cases are lab-confirmed cases of COVID-19 minus recoveries and deaths)
    • Now 34 out of every 35 (97.1%) of NC’s total cases were recovered, meaning they are no longer infectious
    • Only just over 0.1% of people in NC had died with COVID-19 (regardless of the actual cause of death)
    • About 90.6% people in NC had never had a lab-confirmed case of COVID-19, despite the PCR test cycle threshold set so high as to produce a large amount of false positives (note: this proportion will always decline, but we have been living with this virus since February 2020, as far as testing is concerned)
    • All things considered, nearly 99.9% of people in NC posed no threat of passing along COVID-19 to anyone — a virus most had never had and the rest had recovered from (note: this proportion will fluctuate based on relative growth in lab-confirmed cases vs. recoveries, and it is likely understand because it does not account for vaccinations)

The title of the article asks the question, “The NC Threat-Free Index for the Week Ending May 17 — and Why Are We Still Under a “State of Emergency”?”  That is a very good question.

Texas Gets It Right

Hot Air reported the following today:

Two months after dropping mask mandate, Texas reports zero COVID deaths in a day.

The article includes the following Tweet:

Does anyone remember how Texas was treated in the media when they ended their mask mandate?

The article also notes the decrease in Covid cases nationally:

With just 17,834 cases nationally, the U.S. just had the lightest day for COVID that it’s had since the first weeks of the pandemic last March. Again, that surprisingly low number is probably the product in part of a “weekend effect” in which states are doing less reporting. But we’ve had 60 weekends or so since the virus arrived last spring and have never hit a total as low as we did yesterday. Slowly but surely, we’re vaccinating our way out of a crisis.

The Covid epidemic is slowing down. There are still some pessimistic reports that it will pick up when people go inside during the summer, but right now it is slowing down. Part of that may be due to the vaccine, and part of it may be due to the fact that the virus may have run its course (as SARS did). I am  hopeful of the latter.

Speaking Up For A Tradition

On May 1st, I posted an article about the pentagon cancelling the permit for the rallying point for Rolling Thunder. The excuse used was the risk of Covid-19. Since we know that outdoor transmission of the virus is almost non-existent, that seemed like a rather lame excuse.

Yesterday Fox News reported that California Representative Darrell Issa has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to allow Rolling Thunder to have their annual event.

The article reports:

Issa joined Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., and other House Republicans to request President Biden override the Pentagon’s decision on Rolling to Remember, formally known as “Rolling Thunder,” in a letter sent Tuesday morning. Pentagon Special Events confirmed veterans group AMVETS’ permit for the Rolling to Remember motorcycle rally on March 11 but later reversed its decision. The Pentagon said it looks forward to working with AMVETS in the future “if COVID-19 conditions permit.”

“If I thought there was any credence or fairness to their refusal, I would have asked differently,” Issa told Fox News. “It’s very clear that someone with a unique political bent said no, and we’re going to get to the bottom of who that is.”

Issa’s bill, the “Let Veterans Honor the Fallen Act,” would codify the Rolling to Remember Memorial Day motorcycle rally’s ability to stage each year in the Pentagon parking lot as long as its host organization submits a notification of use to the Secretary of Defense by Jan. 31 of the year the event will take place.

“It’s narrow but it’s efficient. It simply authorizes what has been a 30-year tradition,” Issa said. “This is the equivalent of the president saying he wouldn’t throw out a baseball at a home opener.”

Issa cast doubt on the Pentagon’s reasoning for rescinding the permit and pointed to reports that the risk of outdoor coronavirus transmission has been greatly exaggerated.

“This is a boldfaced lie,” he said. “Ten thousand people are going to descend … in Washington, D.C. That they do so safely and they do so on vehicles that separate the family units by design, and they’re going to say that’s not acceptable. Unfortunately, this is an administration that if they called it a peaceful protest, even if they destroyed the city, would be allowed to do it.”

Representative Issa noted that the bill may not be passed in time to make it to President Biden’s desk to be signed into law, but Representative Issa is hopeful that the passage of the bill will cause the decision to be reversed.

An Interesting Perspective

John Hinderaker has a very interesting perspective on the Covid-19 epidemic. He posted an article at Power Line Blog that explains his theory that Covid is now saving lives.

The article reports:

More precisely, fewer Americans are now dying than would be the case if the Wuhan virus did not exist. Total mortality in the U.S., per this CDC chart, is sinking like a stone and is now below demographic projections:

This is the chart:

So what in the world is happening?

The article explains:

The last two weeks of data are incomplete, but the point is obvious. A large majority of “covid deaths” were people who were both elderly and already very sick. My own review of data from thousands of death certificates in Minnesota confirms that in most cases, given the number of severe conditions itemized as contributors to a “covid death”–i.e, one in which the word “covid” appears on the death certificate–it seems remarkable that the person was still alive at all.

I think the mortality statistics over the next couple of years will confirm that in most cases, people who died with “covid” on their death certificates would have died, in any event, in a matter of months or perhaps a year or two. This is why we are now seeing mortality dip below demographic norms: people who otherwise would have died in April 2021 died in, say, October 2020 instead. If this is the case, it will expose the irrationality of devastating the lives of younger and healthy people through shutdowns, school closings and mask mandates, while those who were at meaningful risk were almost exclusively those who, as one doctor put it, had one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.

The truth will eventually come out.