What did Anthony Fauci Get Wrong About COVID?

Justin Hart offers this list of the things that Anthony Fauci got wrong about COVID:

Here's everything he got wrong:

• Origin of the disease—wrong

• Transmission—wrong

• Asymptomatic spread—wrong

• PCR testing—wrong

• Fatality rate—wrong

• Lockdowns—wrong

• Community triggers—wrong

• Business closures—wrong

• School closures—wrong

• Quarantining the healthy—wrong

• Impact on youth—wrong

• Hospital overload—wrong

• Plexiglass barriers—wrong

• Social distancing—wrong

• Outdoor spread—wrong

• Masks—wrong

• Variant impact—wrong

• Natural immunity—wrong

• Vaccine efficacy—wrong

• Vaccine injury—wrong

Continue ReadingWhat did Anthony Fauci Get Wrong About COVID?

We Can’t Get the Corporate Media to Even Mention this COVID Vax Data

Nicolas Hulscher offers this disturbing data (some of it from Ed Dowd), but US Corporate media apparently hasn't been given permission to dig into this data:

None of the following "news" outlets have even mentioned Ed Dowd's work ever: NYT, WaPo, NPR, MSNBC and CNN.

Continue ReadingWe Can’t Get the Corporate Media to Even Mention this COVID Vax Data

Coleman Hughes Contemplates the End of Life

Coleman Hughes has written a personal account of the excruciating death of his mother. What follows is an excerpt from "My Mom—and the Case for Assisted Death: My dying mother chose to end terrible suffering. I want others to have that choice, too."

Instead of a slippery slope, what has emerged over the past three decades are two distinct policies: one restricted to people on their deathbed and exemplified by Oregon, Australia, and New Zealand; and the other open to anyone who is “suffering” and exemplified by the Benelux nations and Canada, without any slippage between the two. It is not a coincidence that all the horror stories come from the latter. The lesson for the rest of the world is not to throw out assisted dying altogether, but to copy the policy that works, and avoid the policy that doesn’t.

Aside from the major objections, critics have leveled many practical objections: Do doctors always know when someone has six months to live? Are fatal drugs always painless? What if relatives pressure someone to commit suicide? I may go through these one by one some other time, but here I will simply say this: Once you understand how much suffering is on the other side of this moral equation—that is, once you understand just how bad “bad deaths” are—then you must view these practical objections as problems to be addressed, rather than as reasons to jettison the whole policy.

It is commonly said that a huge percentage of our healthcare spending comes in the last year of life. But the far more important corollary is rarely said: In many cases, a huge portion—perhaps a majority—of our lifetime suffering comes not just in the last year, but in the last few months. Assisted dying therefore represents an opportunity to prevent an immense amount of needless suffering in the world. If my mother’s story can help even one person come around to this view, then I can say that she did not suffer completely in vain.

I think of these issues every so often. And I often think back to my college days when I volunteered as a counselor and trainer for Suicide Prevention in St. Louis. After doing my best for several years I left. I had had several cases where I did my best to encourage people to live another day, but where I privately wondered whether that was the kind of advice I would want were I in a situation that was truly (not merely apparently) hopeless. I'm referring to people who were terminally ill, jobless, in constant pain, who had no longer had family or friends to look out for them. People who had worked hard for months to find reasons to keep on living but no longer could. People for whom the things that once brought them great joy were no longer interesting to them.

I hope that humane people will step up to help me in my moment of need, people who have the courage to show mercy rather than to obsess about the "rules."

Continue ReadingColeman Hughes Contemplates the End of Life

What Public Health Did that was not Forgivable

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, who was fired by Harvard for telling the truth (and who has still not been rehired):

More on Kulldorff's firing by Harvard. Excerpt:

On March 10, 2020, before any government prompting, Harvard declared that it would “suspend in-person classes and shift to online learning.” Across the country, universities, schools, and state governments followed Harvard’s lead.

Yet it was clear, from early 2020, that the virus would eventually spread across the globe, and that it would be futile to try to suppress it with lockdowns. It was also clear that lockdowns would inflict enormous collateral damage, not only on education but also on public health, including treatment for cancer, cardiovascular disease, and mental health. We will be dealing with the harm done for decades. Our children, the elderly, the middle class, the working class, and the poor around the world—all will suffer.

Schools closed in many other countries, too, but under heavy international criticism, Sweden kept its schools and daycares open for its 1.8 million children, ages one to 15. Why? While anyone can get infected, we have known since early 2020 that more than a thousandfold difference in Covid mortality risk holds between the young and the old. Children faced minuscule risk from Covid, and interrupting their education would disadvantage them for life, especially those whose families could not afford private schools, pod schools, or tutors, or to homeschool . . .

Every honest person knows that new drugs and vaccines come with potential risks that are unknown when approved. This was a risk worth taking for older people at high risk of Covid mortality—but not for children, who have a minuscule risk for Covid mortality, nor for those who already had infection-acquired immunity. To a question about this on Twitter in 2021, I responded:

Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should. COVID vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their care-takers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children.

If Harvard and its hospitals want to be credible scientific institutions, they should rehire those of us they fired ...

Most Harvard faculty diligently pursue truth in a wide variety of fields, but Veritas has not been the guiding principle of Harvard leaders. Nor have academic freedom, intellectual curiosity, independence from external forces, or concern for ordinary people guided their decisions.

Harvard and the wider scientific community have much work to do to deserve and regain public trust.

Continue ReadingWhat Public Health Did that was not Forgivable