How to Win the IDSA Fauci Courage in Leadership Award

What does it take to win the Rochelle Walensky Award? It takes a LOT. A lot of what? As Vinay Prasad explains, a lot of things like this:

When she was in Brookline, she advocated for school reopening, but when appointed by President Biden, who campaigned on the idea that schools were dangerous, she reversed that stance.

She met privately and discussed CDC guidance with the teachers unions.

She was dishonest about myocarditis. There is no way this was true by the end of April 2021.

The Israelis reported a rate of 1 in 3000 by February, and the EMA would soon confirm the safety signal.

Once she accepted myocarditis exists, she made no effort to lower it. No trials of spaced doses, lower or omitted doses.

She lied constantly about the evidence for masking. She lied to congress stating there was not equipoise for a trial testing if masking worked in children. This was clearly false given that the European CDC and CDC had divergent recommendations— and member states had a range of policies (e.g. Sweden never masked <12, US masked 2+). A divergence of practice is the definition of equipoise.

Walensky supported vaccine mandates, which were unethical, as COVID vaccines had never established a third party benefit.

Walensky pushed vaccines in people who had COVID— a strategy that may even be harmful.

Walensky pushed boosters in low risk populations, a decision that led to the resignation of Gruber/ Krause at FDA.

Walensky’s communication on TV was a constant mess of flip flopping and insecurity; she was a notoriously bad communicator. She even hired an outside consulting firm to help her communications, using taxpayer money.

As Prasad further explains, Anthony Fauci, for whom the award is named, got almost everything wrong, including this list (and there is a lot more that could have been on this list, including this and this and this and this.

Fauci was of course initially told the truth that multiple RCTs of community masking showed it didn’t help, then he lied about it. He never opposed masking 2 year olds.

He exaggerated the risk to kids. He opposed DeSantis in spring 2020 when DeSantis wanted to reopen schools.

Fauci was wrong about giving 2 doses to fewer people over 1 dose to more people.

Fauci was wrong to not meet with and discuss different ideas with the authors of Great Barrington Declaration.

Fauci was wrong about double masking.

Fauci was wrong about vaccine mandates and ignoring natural immunity.

Fauci was wrong about boosters for young people, vaccines for people who already had COVID.

Most notably, Fauci appears to have used Gmail to evade federal FOIA laws to conceal NIAID’s role in funding the laboratory in Wuhan to conduct gain of function research in sars-coronaviruses.

Continue ReadingHow to Win the IDSA Fauci Courage in Leadership Award

Walter Kirn Ponders this Moment

Walter is an excellent writer and my respect for him has soared based on his weekly conversations with Matt Taibbi. His recent Tweet:

I've done all I could this year, and perhaps more than I should have, to clarify the issues before us and characterize the nature of our moment. I didn't do it for the money, and there hasn't been any. In fact, I lost some. Happily. My personal American dream involved becoming a writer and an artist, see, and expressing myself as well as I knew how and as freely as I dared. This year, for the first time in my life, I saw that the opportunity to chase this dream was gravely, gravely threatened, not just for me but for the kids and young people who are much like I was once, an odd little kid who was trying to find his voice. To keep this great road of possibility open seemed to me the highest mission I could assign myself. I did. It's been an adventure. And such a pleasure.

But now it's time for words to turn to action. It's time for us to protect what we hold dear. For me it is our right to speak, think, and create freely, without fear, or at least without fear from the authorities and the moneyed interests and powers that lie behind them.

I hope I've made a difference in this cause. I hope I've convinced some others to join me in it. And to act accordingly, democratically, as is our right and duty.

Continue ReadingWalter Kirn Ponders this Moment

Why Martin Gurri is Voting for Trump

Martin Gurri's thoughtful analysis of the considerable flaws of both candidates. The Founders of this Country must be weeping in their graves.

"Kamala Harris or Donald Trump—the empty pantsuit of elitism or the eternal master of disaster? We must pick one or the other on November 5."

Here is Gurri's overview of the Democrats:

There are only two vital forces in American politics today: those who wish to control everything, and those who wish not to be controlled. The antagonists are roughly equal in number but vastly disproportionate in strength. True to its nature, one side controls virtually all the institutions that hedge the life of the voters. Also true to its nature, the other side spends most of the time fighting with itself.

The forces of control own the White House, the Senate, the media, the universities, the mainstream churches, the federal and state bureaucracies, most corporations, most digital platforms, and the entirety of American culture. Homegrown control freaks can also rely on assistance from Control International, the cabal of like-minded elites that runs the United Nations, the European Union, and any number of nation-states from Britain to Brazil.

Why the itch to control? Nietzsche would explain it as pure will to power, and that’s a perfectly adequate account.

The Democratic Party is the party of control.

Excerpt re Harris:

So here is the most compelling reason I will be voting against Harris and the Democrats in November. I was born in Cuba. I recognize the stench of hypocrisy emanating from those who conceal lust for power behind a buzz of salvationist jargon.

If the control accumulated by the administration had been used for good—if the world were calm and at peace, say, or the American public brought to unity as was promised—we might have been convinced it has some merit. But there’s a reason Biden is no longer on the ballot. There’s a reason Harris is running away from her administration’s policies. At home and abroad, the last four years have been a rolling disaster—and the voters know it. This crowd understands institutional control and nothing else. Out in the world, failure has been habitual, horrendous, epic in its dimensions.

Where to begin? For motives I am hard put to explain, the Biden-Harris people encouraged millions of illegal aliens to swarm into our urban centers. They mismanaged the response to the Covid-19 pandemic, relying (naturally) on harmful school closures, lockdowns, and mandates, all based on contrived falsehoods, and they utterly botched the persuasion campaign for the vaccines. They inflated, indebted, and overregulated the economy. They spent trillions but were unable to build or achieve much beyond a handful of charging stations: We can guess where the money went. They promoted grotesque stereotypes based on race and sexual preference, a policy that sowed division and reaped distrust...

China is aggressively expanding its military, particularly its navy, even as our own military has atrophied because of antique equipment and low enlistment rates. We can’t even deploy all our warships because we lack the personnel to do so.

There are too many leaks in the dike and not enough fingers—not to mention an absolute dearth of strategic thinking to identify where our priorities lie in a dangerous world.

This, then, is my secondary reason for voting against Harris. I’m not sure we can survive four more years of such toxic levels of incompetence.

Harris is not helped by her recent interviews. Brett Baier tells her the numbers: 79% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track and you and Joe Biden have been in charge for the past 3 1/2 years. Harris: It's Trump's Fault.

Continue ReadingWhy Martin Gurri is Voting for Trump

Huxley’s Prediction

Huxley clearly saw it coming:

"Under the relentless thrust of accelerating over-population and increasing over-organization, and by means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature . . . the quaint old forms... elections, parliaments, supreme courts and all the rest... will remain.

The underlying substance will be a new kind of Totalitarianism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans will remain exactly like they were in the good old days. Democracy & freedom will be the theme of every broadcast & editorial, Meanwhile, the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained elite will quietly run the show as they see fit."

—Aldous Huxley, 1962

Continue ReadingHuxley’s Prediction

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Where are the Studies?

Aaron Siri's Testimony before the New Hampshire House Committee.

The University of Jackson department of epidemiology did a study small based on surveys, retrospective...it showed that vaccinated kids at 30 times the rate of rhinitis is unvaccinated, 3.9 times the rate of allergy, ADHD four times, autism, asthma, learning disability, neurodevelopmental disorder.

So this is actually one of the only few Vax versus un-Vax studies I'm aware of, and the findings on it are startling. And if the health department can certainly take shots, I mean, you can take shots at any epidemiological, so you can say, well, you know, it's based on parental recall, it's based on surveys, is your health, you know, how random is your sampling? Sure, you could do that, but you could take shots at it, but a lot of credit goes to these scientists who stick their neck out to do this study without NIH funding and knowing they're going to get creamed for doing it. That's incredible they actually did it, frankly. More incredible it exists in any public literature. Long story short, there's no studies that rebut this. In terms of the scope of the harm.

So we've looked at what harms might be caused by vaccines, schools of pharma companies. We've looked at the fact that they failed to study them. And we've looked at what some of the evidence that might show what the health outcomes, what the impact might be of this increasing vaccine schedule. How many people are harmed potentially? What's, you know, to get an indication of that, a signal, we could look at theirs and I'm going to 2019 pre-pandemic.

And this is the number of reports of to VAERS of serious issues, death, permanent disability, hospitalizations, emergency office visits. And I will point out that back then, there was a federal government study conducted by Harvard, it found that fewer than 1% of adverse events were reported to VAERS. I think it's probably increased since COVID because people are more aware of VAERS now. But if you, you know, this is terrible science, by the way, what I just did. Terrible science. I just say that right now. But if it's 1%, okay, so let's multiply that by 100. I'm not saying these numbers are right. I'm making clear. This is terrible science. But this is kind of the best approximation I have. Somebody's got a better study, I'll take it. I'm happy to look at that data.

Continue ReadingVaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Where are the Studies?