Jay Bhattacharya to Head NIH

Anybody who is not beholden to corporate media knows that Jay Bhattacharya is an excellent pick for NIH. He rigorously followed the evidence throughout COVID, yet was unfairly disparaged as a "fringe epidemiologist" by Fauci's team, who were Big Pharma toadies who were wrong about almost everything they proclaimed, causing great damage to millions of Americans in the process. We need a fresh start like never before. No better place to root out industry corruption than Jay Bhattacharya as head of NIH.

From a May 2023 interview:

JB: I don't know the specific number, but the magnitude of the protective effect of the lockdowns, if it's not zero, it's very, very close to zero. And for a very simple reason, you can see why it's right. The lockdowns, if they were to benefit anybody, it benefited members of the laptop class who actually had the wherewithal to stay home, stay safe while the rest of the population served them. Our societies are deeply unequal. It's a very small fraction of the world population that actually could stay home and stay safe. And so, when the lockdowns happened, a very large number of people essentially were left on the outside. They had to work to feed their families, to take care of their elderly parents or whatnot, and that meant that the lockdowns had no chance of actually working. The people that conceived the lockdowns have an extent of naivety about how societies work that it just boggles the mind. And then, you asked me, again, about the harms from the lockdowns." ...

They're tremendous, and we're still just beginning to count them, right? So domestically, for instance, I think there's now a broad consensus that the lockdowns harmed our children. In many places, including California, children did not see the inside of a physical classroom for nearly a full year and a half. The consequences of that play themselves out with deep learning losses. By the way, it's concentrated on minorities and poor populations who didn't have the wherewithal to replace the lost in-classroom learning, but it plays itself out over a long period of time. The social science literature from before the pandemic documented in detail about how valuable investments in education are for the health of children. If you deprive children of education for even short periods of time, it turns out it leads to a lifetime of lower income, worse health, even shorter lifespans. One estimate from early in the pandemic, published by the editor of "JAMA Pediatrics," found that just the spring lockdowns in the United States alone cost our children 5 1/2 million life years in expectation. That's yet to come, but it's coming. The toll on skipped cancer screenings, again, starting to see it, but the full extent of it is yet to come. In the poorer parts of the world, the consequences have been absolutely devastating, something like 100 million people thrown into dire poverty, $2 or less of income. ...

The estimates from the World Food Program is that 100 million people were put into dire food insecurity, near starvation. We haven't yet begun to count the deaths from that yet, but it's gonna be in the millions. And the children in poor countries... I'll just take Uganda as a good example of this. They don't have Zoom schools. They just had no school for two years, unless, again, if they were in the laptop class, a relatively small number. 4 1/2 million Ugandan kids never came back to school after two years out of school, and it turns out many of them, especially the little girls, were sold into sexual slavery or are married off as child brides. Many little boys were put into child labor. Their families were so poor that they faced this terrible choice between starving their kids or prostituting them. We're in a situation where the harms of the lockdowns have become and are becoming clearer and clearer every day, and the benefits, in terms of protecting people from COVID, it's becoming clearer that they did none of that.

Continue ReadingJay Bhattacharya to Head NIH

Desperate Doctors

Doctors in the U.S. are demoralized. They are trapped by corrupt institutions in every direction. Calley Means explains:

Doctors have the highest suicide rate and the highest burnout rate of any profession in America. It's not because they're working hard. We all work hard. And we know all missionaries who are working hard. It's that they got trapped in this system with a lot of debt. They came in for the right reasons, and they realized nobody's getting better.

So doctors want to be unleashed. The problem is the standard of care. The problem with that corrupt. medical research that says heart diseases, statin deficiency, and obesity, and Ozempic deficiency, that goes into the CMS, the Medicare-Medicaid guidance.

Now, we spend more on Medicare-Medicaid than the defense budget and the intelligence budget by far, and it's much faster growing. And what we have in America is that doctors are stuck in basically a top-down mandate. They basically are, they're not able to talk to a pre-diabetic child about food. There's no incentive for food. There's a bill right now saying that Medicare needs to cover Ozempic, $1,600 per person. Nothing in that bill for food.

So doctors, what's that? Per month. Per month, $1,600 per month. That's gonna be a trillion dollars. That's why Novo Nordics, this Denmark company, is the ninth most valuable company in the world. 90% of their profits are expected in the United States. Ozempic costs $80 a month in Germany and Scandinavia. It's totally rigged.

So the key point in the first year of getting the research right is that research funds and informs the standard of care guidelines for Medicare and Medicaid that then impact private insurance. It's so simple. But if we have an obesity and diabetes crisis among six-year-olds, maybe it's not working to drug them. Maybe doctors should be recommending dietary interventions.

Maybe we should be incentivizing exercise. You can do that from the medical system if you get the standards of care right. And frankly, a lot of this is bureaucratic. It's not even statutory. You don't even need Congress. We have outsourced billing codes in Medicare and Medicaid to the AMA, which is a lobbying group for pharma. And they outsource to medical groups like the American Diabetes Association and American Academy of Pediatrics that are literally pharma front groups.

Continue ReadingDesperate Doctors

The Shrieks of a Dying “News” Industry that Knows That it is Dying

The CEO of Axios is not ranting out of concern for us. He is ranting because it wants the unearned power of being a permanent gatekeeper. He wants legacy media to have power to control our thoughts and actions, whether or not the legacy media is doing excellent work. The ultimate power of the news should reside with all of us at the grassroots level. The responsibility and power for all things that affect us should be with each of us. That is the core idea of a democracy and the great gift offered to us by the Enlightenment.

Continue ReadingThe Shrieks of a Dying “News” Industry that Knows That it is Dying

Ed Dowd Testified Before Congress Regarding Excessive U.S. Deaths Since Introduction of COVID Vax

Ed Dowd, former analyst with BlackRock, testifies before Congress about his findings of excess deaths and disabilities since the introduction of the COVID vax. In addition to vaccine safety, he raises urgent questions about U.S. nonchalance in light or this data:

The solution had never undergone human trials prior to 2020, and it was approved under an EUA in late 2020 within record time for a vaccine and a noticeably short trial period. The government deemed these products safe and effective and told the nation they would prevent you from getting and transmitting COVID-19. These statements have since been proven false. It has become clear that the U.S. government, along with the health regulators, do not desire an honest accounting of these policies that were imposed mostly under federal mandates. I will predominantly focus on the human and economic costs since the beginning of 2021, which if they were favorable to the current regime, you would be hearing them scream these results from the rooftops.

When analyzing the excess death human costs, it's interesting to note that in 2020, there were approximately 458,000 excess deaths, of which 73% were age 65 and older, and 15 to 64 comprising just 27%. Note, we were told in 2020 that the COVID-19 risk of death was primarily in the older populations. However, in 2021, with the rollout of the, quote unquote, safe and effective vaccine, there were approximately another 500,000 excess deaths but a mixed shift had occurred from older to younger. In 2021, the 65 plus age category was 57%. Remember it was 73% in 2020 of the total, while the 15 to 64 cohort increased to 43%. The absolute excess death increased from 20 to 21 for the productive working age 15 to 64 was 73%. So in 2020, 124,000 people perished excessively. and then in 2021 it rose to 215,000, 73%. For a virus that kills old people, this makeshift is an epic failure for the so-called vaccine solution. The total excess deaths since the rollout of the vaccine in the US, including 21, 22, and 23, is approximately 1.1 million. ...

The blame of the vaccine could be put to rest if studies were conducted of vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals. Independently of whether it's the vaccine or not, as a nation we should all collectively want to know what is actually causing these tragic health results. However, the silence by the health authorities and the U.S. government strongly suggest they know the answer to that question.

See this additional article regarding Dowd's findings regarding worldwide excess deaths.

Continue ReadingEd Dowd Testified Before Congress Regarding Excessive U.S. Deaths Since Introduction of COVID Vax

Corporate Media Outlets Ignore New Study Questioning Effectiveness of DEI

Study concluding that DEI is ineffective, and perhaps counterproductive, ignored by "news" media because it runs against the prevailing narrative. This excerpt is from Colin Wright's article: "Why Was This Groundbreaking Study on DEI Silenced? Two leading media organizations abruptly shelved coverage of a groundbreaking study that went against their narrative":

In a stunning series of events, two leading media organizations—The New York Times and Bloomberg—abruptly shelved coverage of a groundbreaking study that raises serious concerns about the psychological impacts of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) pedagogy. The study, conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) in collaboration with Rutgers University, found that certain DEI practices could induce hostility, increase authoritarian tendencies, and foster agreement with extreme rhetoric. With billions of dollars invested annually in these initiatives, the public has a right to know if such programs—heralded as effective moral solutions to bigotry and hate—might instead be fueling the very problems they claim to solve. The decision to withhold coverage raises serious questions about transparency, editorial independence, and the growing influence of ideological biases in the media.

The NCRI study investigated the psychological effects of DEI pedagogy, specifically training programs that draw heavily from texts like Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist and Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility. The findings were unsettling, though perhaps not surprising to longstanding opponents of such programs. Through carefully controlled experiments, the researchers demonstrated that exposure to anti-oppressive (i.e., anti-racist) rhetoric—common in many DEI initiatives—consistently amplified perceptions of bias where none existed. Participants were more likely to see prejudice in neutral scenarios and to support punitive actions against imagined offenders. These effects were not marginal; hostility and punitive tendencies increased by double-digit percentages across multiple measures. Perhaps most troubling, the study revealed a chilling convergence with authoritarian attitudes, suggesting that such training is fostering not empathy, but coercion and control.

The implications of these findings cannot be downplayed. DEI programs have become a fixture in workplaces, schools, and universities across the United States, with a 2023 Pew Research Center report indicating that more than half of U.S. workers have attended some form of DEI training. Institutions collectively spend approximately $8 billion annually on these initiatives, yet the NCRI study underscores how little scrutiny they receive. While proponents of DEI argue that these programs are essential to achieving equity and dismantling systemic oppression, the NCRI’s data suggests that such efforts may actually be deepening divisions and cultivating hostility.

Wrighty's article includes details of the study, showing strongly that exposure to DEI causes people to be more divisive. In short, DIE does the opposite of what it pretends to do. Yet, major news outlets that have often reported on work by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) refuse to report on this particular study, despite the widespread implementation of DEI and the potential widespread harm caused gy these programs.

Continue ReadingCorporate Media Outlets Ignore New Study Questioning Effectiveness of DEI