Category: COVID

Categories
Biden Pandemic COVID Reprints from others. Science

*YOU* can PROVE that COVID vaccines are killing people and should be immediately stopped

BY Steve Kirsch Founder, Vaccine Safety Research Foundation (vacsafety.org) Updated 1/31/23

If the CDC was honest, this is what their new ads should look like!

If the CDC was honest, this is what their new ads should look like!

Using a novel analysis technique, anyone can now prove that there is no longer any doubt that the vaccines are SHORTENING the lifespans of EVERYONE who takes them. They should be immediately stopped.

Update at 12pm PST 1/31/23

This critique is convincing, but wrong. If everyone was last vaccinated just 10 days before the end of 2022, it would still be a .5 ratio if the vaccines were perfectly safe because the death rate in the final 10 days would be spread evenly over time.

I realized I made an error in some of the formulas so I’m re-doing the numbers.

Also, because the unvaxxed transition to the vaccinated, there are fewer unvaccinated to die in later months so there will be fewer unvaccinated deaths which will skew the ratio for the vaccinated to be lower than .5.

I’m currently using the date of last vaccination as the starting point and I believe it may be more correct to use the date of first vaccination. Still mulling that over.

Executive summary

This is the most important article I have ever written in my life.

It shows a novel method that anyone can use to prove that the COVID vaccines are leading to premature death in anyone who takes them, no matter what age. So you don’t have to believe me. You can collect the data yourself and do the same analysis I did. It’s very easy. It took me about an hour to collect the data and analyze it.

The methodology is both technically sound and objective. Anyone can collect their own data including any state in the US and many foreign governments. I predict no one will look. That tells you everything you need to know.

I asked UK Professor Norman Fenton to critique the method I used here. More about him in the text below. Bottom line: he loved the method I used (which he hadn’t seen before), he validated the calculations in the figure below, and he wasn’t aware of any way the conclusion could be legitimately challenged. There are always all sorts of hand-waving arguments such as “your study wasn’t IRB approved” or “your study is unethical because you are looking at deaths from the COVID vaccine” but they are just that: hand-waving.

To further prove my article cannot be challenged, I am pioneering a unique approach to that as well that is fair, thorough, and transparent. I’m publicly offering 10X your wager to anyone who believes that the data actually shows the opposite of what I claimed. See details of the offer in the text below. If you think I got it wrong, you can turn $25K into $250K in days!

This article describes how a simple objective analysis of objective death data (age, date died, date of last COVID vaccination) can be used to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the COVID vaccines are shortening lifespans and should be immediately halted.

This explains why all the world’s health authorities are keeping their data secret; their data would reveal that all world governments have been killing millions of people worldwide. No government wants that disclosed. They won’t debate me on this. They will try to censor this article because they can’t hide from the truth. Or they will try to create FUD by arguing the survey is biased without describing the bias.

I predict that this article will be ignored by the mainstream press and the medical community. The longer they ignore me, the worse it will look for them. The first rule of holes is that when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Unless there is a serious error in my methodology or someone can explain precisely how surveying “my followers” creates a biased sample that shifts the numbers for the vaccinated or shows us a more comprehensive, trustable data set, the game is now over.

If the vaccines are safe, the CDC should have produced this analysis using statewide data long ago. It is trivial to do. Why didn’t they? The answer is simple: because they know it would blow the narrative and prove to the world that they are incompetent fools.

If you want to prove me wrong, let’s get the statewide data from all states and make it public. All we need is Age, date of death, date of last COVID vaccine. That does not violate HIPAA or a dead person’s privacy because there is no PII.

But states will refuse to release that data because they know if they did, they are finished.

So in the meantime, they will say, “Your survey is biased.” But nobody can explain the “bias” that explains the result because my readers DO NOT CONTROL THE DATE THAT THEIR FRIENDS WERE VACCINATED, their age, or the DATE they died.

My readers may be more affluent than the average American so that’s a bias. But if the vaccine is killing affluent people, we have a problem. My readers might be more intelligent than the average American, so that’s a bias. They may have more intelligent friends. So this survey, it could be argued, just shows that intelligent people are being killed by the vaccine. That SHOULD be a stopping condition.

Or you could argue that my readers are less intelligent than the average person. And once again, unless you are trying to cull a society, that should be a stopping condition as unethical.

ANYONE CAN REPLICATE MY SURVEY if you think it is “biased.” The New York Times could replicate my survey and prove I’m wrong.
But they won’t.
And that tells you everything you need to know, doesn’t it?

If they want to argue with this article, THEY need to show us THEIR data and not engage in hand-waving arguments to create FUD that have no evidentiary basis.

The game is over. We have won. You cannot hide from the truth any longer.

We’ll see if anyone wants to challenge this article and get paid 10X their wager if they are right. Bring it on!

Introduction

This article is a follow up on my article entitled, “The death records show the COVID vaccines are shortening lifespan worldwide.” That article gives John Beaudoin credit for being the first to realize that linking the death and vaccination records (a table join) is key to ending the false narrative.

In this article, I show a clever new method for analyzing the death/vax records that is simple and objective; it relies on just a simple division of two time measurements.

The survey

A month ago, on December 25, 2022, I announced the survey below.

The survey asked people if they knew anyone who died in 2020, 2021, or 2022.

If they did know someone, simply report objective facts about the death: age, date died, and if vaccinated, the date most recently vaccinated.

If people knew >1 person who died in the period, just report the person whose details you are most familiar with (e.g., family member vs. friend).

As of January 29, 2023, I received 1,634 responses. The analysis here looks at the responses.

We only consider OBJECTIVE data and our analysis is OBJECTIVE. It’s all math.

If the vaccines are causing death, the analysis will pick it up.

Methodology

The analysis is done by looking at “days in category before death” divided by “days possible in category if you had lived to the end of the observation period.”

We do this for both vaxxed and unvaxxed people… across all ages, and also in various age ranges which I arbitrarily chose. You can choose your own if you don’t like the age categories I chose. It won’t change the result.

Here’s how the method works (credit to Clare Craig who suggested this wording):

Imagine a timeline for 2021 and 2022. For the unvaccinated we would expect an even distribution of deaths over time except for seasonal differences. For each person, we can compare how long they did live in that period with how long they could have lived. A few who died early would have lived for only a tiny fraction of their potential and a few that died late for a large fraction. However, most will be in between and the mean will be 0.5.

For the vaccinated, we start the clock on their date of their last vaccine. The timeline will therefore vary for each person but with a harmless vaccine we would still expect exactly the same distribution – a few early, a few late and most in the middle with a mean of 0.5.

If the vaccine killed people we would end up with more deaths early on. The mean ratio of life lived compared with life that could have been lived will fall below .5.

Given ratio=((time in category)/(time possible in category)) and knowing that the person died sometime in Jan 2021-Dec 2022, we have:

  1. If the intervention (i.e., the vax) does nothing, ratio = .5
  2. If the invention shortens life, ratio <.5
  3. If the intervention increases lifespan, ratio > .5

It’s that simple. The important thing is that the ratio tells us if the intervention is helpful, neutral, or harmful.

The analysis is independent of the rates people die. The fact that older people die faster than younger people is immaterial. Pre-existing conditions, etc. do not matter.

There is an argument to be made that people who got vaccinated first were more vulnerable and were more likely to die, and thus the rate in a category changes over time, but that effect isn’t very large. I’ve run the numbers for those who died and were last vaccinated in 2022 and the numbers are all less than .5. You are welcome to prove me wrong, but you’ll need to do it with evidence, i.e., actual queries and not hand-waving arguments. Numbers talk.

To date, everyone who thinks they can debunk this has produced only handwaving arguments and no analysis.

Sorry, but that’s not very convincing.

Limitations

My survey includes reporters from all over the world, but all the readers speak English and 70% are in the US. The data can be analyzed just for the US and for specific vaccines as well, but below I include all the records to show that I’m not cherry picking and also to get more stability in the numbers (fewer data points creates more noise).

The people who answered are my followers and are most unvaccinated themselves. They are reporting deaths of the person they know the best, whether vaxxed or unvaxxed. I invite fact checkers to validate that people were true to the direction they were given. There are more vaccinated deaths reported simply because 75% of the US population is vaccinated.

The percentage of unvaccinated to total deaths was 29% (222/(222+542)).

So you might think “Ah ha! That proves that the unvaxxed are dying at a higher rate than the vaxxed because it should be only 25% of the deaths that should be vaccinated so this PROVES the vaccines are saving lives!”

No, it just proves that unvaccinated people hang around other unvaxxed people and are slightly more likely to report their deaths.

This is very helpful for our survey for two big reasons:

  1. It gives us enough data in both the vaxxed and unvaxxed buckets so we can do meaningful comparisons between the two buckets
  2. I can’t be accused of bias, e.g., you anti-vaxxers are just reporting vaccinated deaths to make the vax look bad. Clearly this isn’t the case… they are reporting disproportionately more unvaccinated deaths. So it looks very credible because it’s consistent with what you expect to see.

Note that the mix of vaxxed/unvaxxed deaths is immaterial to this analysis. Each cohort is examined independently. If I had 50% vaxxed and 50% unvaxxed deaths, the results would be exactly the same.

It’s important to note that my followers cannot determine the date of death of unvaccinated or vaccinated individuals (unless they have God-like powers). And I have contact info for all the records so they can be “spot checked” to validate that people followed my instructions to report the person they are most familiar with.

There is a recall bias in that people are more likely to report deaths that happened more recently. This shifts the average death time to the right. This is why unvaxxed are > .5 (more about that later).

For vaccinated people, there is also a healthy patient bias. If you are going to die in days due to a fatal cancer, most people would not get vaccinated.

There is some amount of seasonality in deaths that might skew things somewhat. It’s minimal for those <60, and small for the elderly. But we’re looking at a 2 year period so it shouldn’t be much different between vaxxed and unvaxxed.

Gaming

It wasn’t possible to game the survey because nobody, including myself, knew how I was going to analyze the data until after the data was collected.

There was one person who put in a bogus entry (record #260) but that was easily spotted and removed.

The analysis cut off time was before this article was written so anyone trying to pollute the data will be unsuccessful since any new records aren’t included in the analysis.

Transparency

The database has been in public view the entire time that the data has been gathered. When a record is submitted, it appears in the public view.

Verifications

No submissions were deleted (other than record 260 which was clearly gamed) or modified which can be verified by the changelog of the data. The database is hosted by a third party firm.

There is an “integrity check” field indicating which records passed simply sanity check such as date vaccinated < date died. Only those records were processed.

I have the contact information for each reporter. I am looking forward to being contacted by any mainstream “fact check” organization who is willing to be recorded on video as we discuss the article. I’m happy to supply contact info for any line(s) in the survey so the fact checker can verify every record is legitimate.

Expectations

People who die within 2021 to 2022 should be expected to die evenly throughout the period (there is some seasonality so it isn’t flat over the calendar months). Therefore, with no biases, we’d expect that the average days of life is 1 year in any 2 year observation period. So a ratio of .5. The seasonality cancels out.

But due to recall bias (since we are asking people to recall deaths rather than using government records), we’d expect the number to be skewed to dying more recently so maybe we’d see a ratio of .55 for the unvaccinated.

The vaccinated benefit from both recall bias and the healthy patient bias, so it might be .58 or more.

If the vaccines are safe and effective, the ratio of the vaccinated > ratio of the unvaccinated due to the healthy patient bias.

If the vaccines are killing people, the ratio of the vaccinated <= ratio of the unvaccinated (since the healthy patient bias would give the vaccinated an advantage).

If the vaccines are killing people, the ratio will be <0.5.

If the vaccines are safe, the ratio will be >0.5.

Guess what we found? 🙂

The results

The data couldn’t be more clear: the shots are killing people.

The ratio for the vaccinated is .31 or less for every age range with > 5 records.

For the unvaccinated, the ratios are .52 or better for every age range with >5 records

The data is remarkably consistent when there are enough records for the range (generally 10 or more records per the uV# or V # columns).

The values in red are unreliable due to a lack of sufficient data points.

Values in red have too few records to compute an accurate ratio. Ratios >.5 are expected for a safe intervention. Ratios <.5 mean something is killing these people prematurely.

For the unvaccinated, my Airtable filter looked like this and I used the unVaxxed days alive/days possible columns:

For the vaccinated, my Airtable filter looked like this and I used the Vaxxed days died/days available columns.

NOTE: The “Integrity check” is NOT complete. But when coupled with the restrictions of the two filtering conditions, invalid records are all filtered out of the final result.

inal result.

Is my analysis wrong?

This is an Occam’s razor analysis. You could get fancier but it wouldn’t change the result. The signal is very very strong that the vaccines should be immediately stopped.

If I have made a mistake, I’d be grateful to see the correct analysis of the data using the same methodology. So if you object, show us the proper analysis.

The data is remarkably consistent for each age range. But there is a huge difference between the vaxxed (.3) and the unvaxxed (.58). This is exactly what I expected to see; no surprises. But it’s IMPOSSIBLE for the blue-pilled medical community to explain how this could possibly happen if the vaccine is so safe since it was supposed to be the other way around.

A simple look at the Notes field confirms the role of the vaccine in these deaths. That’s subjective proof. It shows that the vaccines are not as safe as claimed.

As far as confidence intervals, the numbers are remarkably consistent so the confidence intervals appear to be small. I’ve asked Professor Fenton for the correct way to ascertain these. He’s thinking about it. I’ll update this when I hear back.

But there’s more confirmation…

Failure anecdotes » success anecdotes

Is this analysis consistent with reliable evidence? Yes.

It turns out for the COVID vaccines, the best evidence we have is anecdotal evidence where everything is tracked since government data can be badly wrong as we learned in the UK where mistakes led them into thinking the vaccines were safe (see UK ONS admits their data is flawed; the vaccines may not be beneficial after all. Sorry about that).

As it turns out, it’s easy to find failure anecdotes for the COVID vaccines. The anecdotes we generally find show STRONG failures.

By contrast, it is nearly impossible to find a “success anecdote,” even a weak success. I always ask doctors who will talk to me and they’ve never mentioned a single success story. I do this constantly on Twitter Spaces in full public view and NONE of the DOCTORS will EVER be able to cite an example. In fact, I have not found any medical doctor who has ever been able to cite a single geriatric practice or nursing home where deaths dropped after the vaccines rolled out.

If the vaccines were saving lives, there should be THOUSANDS of “poster elderly” success stories, yet there are none. All the anecdotes are strongly negative. That’s simply impossible if the vaccines are saving “tens of millions of lives” as Neil deGrasse Tyson said on YouTube. When I called Neil to ask him for a success anecdote, he hung up the phone on me.

So we have a pretty good sense just from the failure to find a success that the vaccines are an utter disaster. We didn’t even need to do any numerical calculations!

Lots of things confirm our hypothesis:

  1. Lack of success anecdotes, but failure anecdotes easy to find
  2. People switch from pro- to anti- but not the reverse.
  3. Nobody can explain the 15,000 excess deaths in VAERS for the COVID vaccines. It’s not there for other vaccines, the deaths are all consistent with vaccine deaths. What killed all these people if it wasn’t the vaccine?
  4. Ed Dowd’s book “Cause Unknown” contains tons of data. Where is the document debunking everything in that book and showing the cause of all these deaths, especially the increase in child deaths happening right after the vaccines rolled out for kids.
  5. What about the 770 safety signals in VAERS. Why didn’t the CDC tell anyone about any of those signals? They notified the public about the VSD signal for stroke and didn’t even mention that it also triggered in VAERS.
  6. MIT Professor Retsef Levi calls for a halt to the COVID mRNA vaccines based on his study and others.
  7. The vaccine isn’t as effective as the NEJM led you to believe. A key paper is deeply flawed. In fact, it shows very troubling data as people will soon see: that the vaccine makes .
  8. Large Cleveland Clinic study shows the more you vaccinate yourself, the greater the risk of getting COVID. Whoops!
  9. A New Zealand funeral director noticed 95% of his cases died within 14 days of the shot. I spoke directly with Brenton. He lives in the middle of a retirement community. This is the very age that is supposed to be protected by the shots. Average age is 70+. His records can be verified. Any takers?
  10. Embalmer Anna Foster found that 93% of her cases had telltale rubbery clots. How can anyone explain that? She is hardly alone… 80% of embalmers surveyed report seeing these new style blood clots; they have never been seen before the COVID vaccines rolled out.
  11. Southwest airlines: Pilot deaths have increased 5X after the vaccines rolled out and disability shot up by 10X normal. Pilots are among the healthiest people on the planet.
  12. Geriatric practice: I finally found a large geriatric practice of 1,000 patients, 75% are over 65. Their normal death rate is 11 per year (the mean). In 2022, they had 39 deaths for the entire year. They attribute the 28 excess deaths to the vaccine. If it wasn’t the vaccine, someone needs to explain to us what is killing these people because whatever it is, it needs to be IMMEDIATELY stopped. They can’t go public for fear of retribution.
  13. Savo Island Cooperative (Berkeley, CA): Roughly 150 people. No deaths for 5 years before COVID; 0 in 2020; 1 in 2021; 3 in 2022 and they were all vaccinated and boosted (plus 3 strokes and 4 heart attacks). Reported to me by Jane Stillwater last night at an event I spoke at. Nobody at the event could recall any success anecdotes.
  14. Ed Dowd mentioned the vaccines have killed 800K Americans and disabled 4X as many as killed, 3.2M since the vaccine program began.
  15. The peer-reviewed scientific literature published a paper by Mark Skidmore showing over 217,000 deaths in 2021 alone due to the COVID vaccine. But they are looking at retracting the paper because Mark didn’t include a full bio on one of the funders of the study. Also, he asked a question about deaths from the COVID vaccine and that’s unethical (COVID virus questions are OK and ethical).

Josh Stirling looked at how cities in the US did in 2022 vs. 2021. So it’s a longitudinal study where you compare the city with itself one year ago. This is the best way to see what is going on… did your mortality increase or decrease. Check this out: cities with higher vaccination had larger all-cause mortality increases than cities with lower vaccination rates. In other words, the line goes the “wrong way.” This is devastating for the narrative, but of course consistent with what the death reports are saying. The R2 doesn’t need to be .9 for this to be convincing. They are correlated and it’s the slope of the line that is significant. The slope is the wrong way. That’s the point.

US cities; all ages; compare 2022 vs. 2021 in the same city The line slopes up. In other words, the experts were completely wrong: the vaccines are deadly. This is very compelling proof of harm that is impossible for anyone to explain away with a straight face. When combined with this analysis, it’s not credible to keep claiming the vaccines are safe and effective.

See full article HERE

NOTE: The summary and challenge to prove Steve Kirsh’s analysis wrong is at least as long as what is above. As of the 1/31 update, an error had been discovered and he is re-working against the same data. But he is still challenging Big Pharma and their deep state partners to prove his conclusions wrong and show how they got THEIR numbers.

Categories
Biden Pandemic COVID Drugs Medicine Science

So who’s pulling the strings? Vimeo Cancels The Wellness Company’s Account After Episode On Ivermectin

The Wellness Company

Although the pandemic is behind us, Big Tech is still censoring health information from the public.

The video hosting company Vimeo recently deleted the channel of The Wellness Company.

The Wellness Company is a startup with a “Freedom From Pharma” program that provides access to doctors and pharmacies that aren’t afraid to provide treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (plus, Gateway Pundit benefits when you subscribe through this link or the links below).

In fact, it was a video on ivermectin that caused the deletion, according to The Wellness Company.

Chris Alexander of The Wellness Company said:

“Vimeo banned our account on the basis of an interview with Jen VanDeWater, a licensed pharmacist who runs our Freedom from Pharma program, about the safety and utility of Ivermectin.

“Vimeo has allowed pro-vaccination voices to post video after video that have been riddled with misinformation, disinformation and outright lies. Vimeo isn’t holding any of these people accountable and none of these accounts are being suspended or permanently banned.

“The actions of Vimeo are a reminder of why it is so important for conservatives and freedom loving Americans to build parallel systems. We can no longer rely on the compromised systems of the establishment – and that is exactly why we founded The Wellness Company.

“Nothing is more critical than healthcare and no system has been more exposed over the last three years than our healthcare system. Every American who cares about the truth and who cares about their health should join us!”

Here’s the video link (via Rumble): https://rumble.com/v23rv2a-twc-med-talks-episode-5.html

The Wellness Company was recently created as a “brand new model” for our healthcare system.

It is a network of doctors (including Dr. Peter McCullough) and pharmacies to get pro-freedom doctors and patients what they need.

Anyone can join their “Freedom From Pharma” Plan and get:

— a personal doctor of pharmacy

— a “de-prescribing” plan

— coaching and access to a team of pro-freedom specialists

They’ve lost control of Twitter, and possibly Facebook as well. So who is paying off Vimeo to censor the truth?

 

Categories
Corruption COVID How sick is this? Reprints from others.

Fauci remains on US payroll and has taxpayer-funded security despite ‘retiring’ at end of 2022

Dr. Anthony Fauci, pictured May 17 during a Senate subcommittee hearing, became a hated figure on the right in part because of what he represented—the arrogant, corrupt, and often incompetent bureaucratic managerial class that believes it has a right to make decisions for our society. (Photo: Shawn Thew-Pool/Getty Images)

Warning: Uninitialized string offset 0 in /srv/disk2/3394135/www/mastercreator.atwebpages.com/wp-content/plugins/fv-wordpress-flowplayer/models/flowplayer.php on line 2387
Fauci will be the 2023 commencement speaker at Yale’s School of medicine

By Jordan Schachtel

We’ve been bamboozled.

Despite claiming to have retired at the end of last year, Dr. Anthony Fauci remains on staff in the Government Health bureaucracy at the NIH and maintains his status as the highest-paid bureaucrat in the federal government. Additionally, Fauci has secured an indefinite taxpayer-funded security detail, The Dossier has confirmed.

Fauci remains on staff at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) so that he maintains eligibility for a taxpayer-funded U.S. Marshals detail, which involves more than half a dozen agents on a full-time detail.

In August of 2022, Fauci wrote that he would be “stepping down” from his position in December in order to “pursue the next chapter of my career.” It remains unclear what Fauci’s new role is at the NIH. All we know is that he no longer leads the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). That position is now held by Hugh Auchincloss, Fauci’s longtime deputy. Auchincloss is a walking conflict of interest. His daughter is a Big Pharma executive, and his son is a U.S. congressman.

In a recent “exit interview” with the corporate press, Fauci claimed to have received endless “death threats,” thereby justifying his around-the-clock taxpayer-funded security detail. However, this privilege is unique to Fauci, as it is not even afforded to most cabinet secretaries.

Fauci’s newfound status was first reported by Dr Marty Makary at Johns Hopkins University.

Makary writes, citing sources at the NIH:

Once source close to the matter told me that the White House made the decision to keep Dr. Fauci employed by the government in order to keep his security detail of U.S. Marshals. The former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has received death threats, including one that was believed to be an intercepted plot to harm him.

He continues:

Some staff at NIH are simply frustrated by the idea that the 82-year-old former NIAID director is part of an inside network of legacy government players that are ‘taken care of’ by each other. If Dr. Fauci is still “on the books” it would be in line with a pattern of older NIH scientists being shuffled around government at the end of their career.

When reached by The Dossier, both the U.S. Marshals and the NIH refused to confirm or deny the fact that Fauci remains on the government payroll. However, The Dossier has independently confirmed that Fauci receives a security detail at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer, which confirms that he remains on the NIH roster. Though his duties are unclear, Fauci remains classified as an “employee” in the NIH directory.

A full time protective detail is billed at over $1 million per month, according to previous reporting on U.S. Marshals security costs. A large team of U.S. Marshals special agents have been detailed to Fauci for almost three years, meaning that he has incurred tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded security costs.

It’s not as if Dr Fauci can’t afford private security from time to time. He has become a very wealthy man over the course of his time in government.

The government bureaucrat’s net worth soared especially during the Covid hysteria era. Via Open The Books, he disclosed a net worth increase from $7.6 million on January 1, 2019, to over $12.6 million on December 31, 2021.

In his post, Dr Makary explains that Fauci’s situation is not an aberration, but the norm, as the NIH acts as a good ol’ boys network for recently “retired” officials, setting up longtime officials with no-show jobs:

NIAID’s most recent chief of viral diseases, 85-year-old Dr. Bernard Moss, who just stepped down from his leadership role, still works at the agency. And Dr. John E. Bennett, who will turn 90 this year, also still works at NIAID as an infectious disease scientist.

Last year, Dr. Francis Collins (age 72) stepped down from his role as NIH director and soon after was named co-head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Dr. Collins is also still working in a lab at the NIH after serving as director of the agency for 12 years.

To quote Arte Johnson:

play-sharp-fill

Categories
COVID Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

The White House Covid Censorship Machine – WSJ

Surgeon General Vivek Murthy at a White House press briefing
The White House Covid Censorship Machine – WSJ

From one of the other writers/Journalists at Substack.

 

Here’s the piece, originally published in the Wall Street Journal online yesterday and in the print edition today.

Newly released documents show that the White House has played a major role in censoring Americans on social media. Email exchanges between Rob Flaherty, the White House’s director of digital media, and social-media executives prove the companies put Covid censorship policies in place in response to relentless, coercive pressure from the White House—not voluntarily. The emails emerged Jan. 6 in the discovery phase of Missouri v. Biden, a free-speech case brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana and four private plaintiffs represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance.

On March 14, 2021, Mr. Flaherty emailed a Facebook executive (whose name we’ve redacted as a courtesy) with the subject line “You are hiding the ball” and a link to a Washington Post article about Facebook’s own research into “the spread of ideas that contribute to vaccine hesitancy,” as the paper put it. “I think there is a misunderstanding,” the executive wrote back. “I don’t think this is a misunderstanding,” Mr. Flaherty replied. “We are gravely concerned that your service is one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy—period. . . . We want to know that you’re trying, we want to know how we can help, and we want to know that you’re not playing a shell game. . . . This would all be a lot easier if you would just be straight with us.”

On March 21, after failing to placate Mr. Flaherty, the Facebook executive sent an email detailing the company’s planned policy changes. They included “removing vaccine misinformation” and “reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation.” Facebook characterized this material as “often-true content” that “can be framed as sensation, alarmist, or shocking.” Facebook pledged to “remove these Groups, Pages, and Accounts when they are disproportionately promoting this sensationalized content.”

In that exchange, Mr. Flaherty demanded to know what Facebook was doing to “limit the spread of viral content” on WhatsApp, a private message app, especially “given its reach in immigrant communities and communities of color.” The company responded three weeks later with a lengthy list of promises.

On April 9, Mr. Flaherty asked “what actions and changes you’re making to ensure . . . you’re not making our country’s vaccine hesitancy problem worse.” He faulted the company for insufficient zeal in earlier efforts to control political speech: “In the electoral context, you tested and deployed an algorithmic shift that promoted quality news and information about the election. . . . You only did this, however, after an election that you helped increase skepticism in, and an insurrection which was plotted, in large part, by your platform. And then you turned it back off. I want some assurances, based in data, that you are not doing the same thing again here.” The executive’s response: “Understood.”

On April 14, Mr. Flaherty pressed the executive about why “the top post about vaccines today” is Tucker Carlson “saying they don’t work”: “I want to know what ‘Reduction’ actually looks like,” he said. The exec responded: “Running this down now.”

On April 23, Mr. Flaherty sent the executive an internal memo that he claimed had been circulating in the White House. It asserts that “Facebook plays a major role in the spread of COVID vaccine misinformation” and accuses the company of, among other things, “failure to monitor events hosting anti-vaccine and COVID disinformation” and “directing attention to COVID-skeptics/anti-vaccine ‘trusted’ messengers.”

On May 10, the executive sent Mr. Flaherty a list of steps Facebook had taken “to increase vaccine acceptance.” Mr. Flaherty scoffed, “Hard to take any of this seriously when you’re actively promoting anti-vaccine pages in search,” and linked to an NBC reporter’s tweet. The executive wrote back: “Thanks Rob—both of the accounts featured in this tweet have been removed from Instagram entirely for breaking our policies.”

President Biden, press secretary Jen Psaki and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy later publicly vowed to hold the platforms accountable if they didn’t heighten censorship. On July 16, 2021, a reporter asked Mr. Biden his “message to platforms like Facebook.” He replied, “They’re killing people.” Mr. Biden later claimed he meant users, not platforms, were killing people. But the record shows Facebook itself was the target of the White House’s pressure campaign.

Mr. Flaherty also strong-armed Google in April 2021, accusing YouTube (which it owns) of “funneling” people into vaccine hesitancy. He said this concern was “shared at the highest (and I mean the highest) levels of the WH,” and required “more work to be done.” Mr. Flaherty demanded to know what further measures Google would take to remove disfavored content. An executive responded that the company was working to “address your concerns related to Covid-19 misinformation.”

These emails establish a clear pattern: Mr. Flaherty, representing the White House, expresses anger at the companies’ failure to censor Covid-related content to his satisfaction. The companies change their policies to address his demands. As a result, thousands of Americans were silenced for questioning government-approved Covid narratives. Two of the Missouri plaintiffs, Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, are epidemiologists whom multiple social-media platforms censored at the government’s behest for expressing views that were scientifically well-founded but diverged from the government line—for instance, that children and adults with natural immunity from prior infection don’t need Covid vaccines.

Emails made public through earlier lawsuits, Freedom of Information Act requests and Elon Musk’s release of the Twitter Files had already exposed a sprawling censorship regime involving the White House as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies. The government directed tech companies to remove certain types of material and even to censor specific posts and accounts. Again, these included truthful messages casting doubt on the efficacy of masks and challenging Covid-19 vaccine mandates.

The First Amendment bars government from engaging in viewpoint-based censorship. The state-action doctrine bars government from circumventing constitutional strictures by suborning private companies to accomplish forbidden ends indirectly.

Defenders of the government have fallen back on the claim that cooperation by the tech companies was voluntary, from which they conclude that the First Amendment isn’t implicated. The reasoning is dubious, but even if it were valid, the premise has now been proved false.

The Flaherty emails demonstrate that the federal government unlawfully coerced the companies in an effort to ensure that Americans would be exposed only to state-approved information about Covid-19. As a result of that unconstitutional state action, Americans were given the false impression of a scientific “consensus” on critically important issues around Covid-19. A reckoning for the government’s unlawful, deceptive and dangerous conduct is under way in court.

Ms. Younes, litigation counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, represents the private plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden. Dr. Kheriaty is a senior scholar at the Brownstone Institute, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and one of the plaintiffs.

Categories
COVID Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

But, but, their boosters had boosters. Was the Golden Globes a Vaccine Booster C Spreader event?

Jamie Lee Curtis Tests Positive for COVID After Golden Globes, And Fans Are Concerned Awards Show Was Super-Spreader Event © Provided by MovieWeb

So we have this shin dig called the Golden Globes and guess what? It may be the new thing with the booster vaccinated crowd. Get boosted and spread COVID. We have this from Movie Web.

Just days after presenting at Tuesday’s Golden Globes ceremony, Everything Everywhere All at Once star Jamie Lee Curtis shared that she tested positive for COVID-19.

Curtis took to social media to announce the results, posting a picture of three positive rapid antigen tests and sharing that she would be sitting out of some other upcoming award season events.

“F–k COVID! Sadly, this head cheerleader is not going to be at all the weekend festivities cheering on her friends and colleagues. Life on life’s terms,” the actress wrote in the accompanying caption.

View this post on Instagram

“I’m glad that there are all these home tests available so that I didn’t go to the @americanfilminstitute lunch and spread my germs. I was SO looking forward to going to the @bafta tea and the @criticschoice awards as a nominee and member of a motley crew. I’m so proud of these people, and I look forward to cheering them on through my TV set. Stay safe out there people,” she added.

With hardly anyone in attendance wearing a mask and over 11,000 reported cases in Beverly Hills (where the ceremony took place), the Golden Globes had all the makings of a “super-spreader” event, and some say it’s only a matter of time before more stars fall ill—especially as stars return to the social award circuit.

“Hoping for the best for Jamie Lee Curtis after testing positive for COVID,” one user wrote. “I think it’s clear the Golden Globes will have been a super-spreader event, and I wonder how many people are going to travel to Sundance knowingly or unknowingly with it?”

Others called for a return to widespread masking and virtual or limited award events.

“Jamie Lee Curtis was at the very maskless #GoldenGlobes and I’m just BEGGING people to 1.) wear a f–king mask (correctly! and preferably a high quality one),” another user wrote. “And 2.) stop going to these big a– gatherings. Find/advocate for another way!”

The Beverly Hilton has a capacity of 600 guests.

Categories
Corruption COVID Drugs Leftist Virtue(!) Politics

Pfizer Board Member Pressured Twitter to Censor Posts on Natural Immunity, Low COVID Risk to Children

Not giving the rest of the story. Getty Pictures
By Zachary Stieber for Epoch Times January 9, 2023 Updated: January 10, 2023

A Pfizer board member who used to head the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lobbied Twitter to take action against a post accurately pointing out that natural immunity is superior to COVID-19 vaccination, according to an email released on Jan. 9.

Dr. Scott Gottlieb wrote on Aug. 27, 2021, to Twitter executive Todd O’Boyle to request Twitter take action against a post from Dr. Brett Giroir, another former FDA commissioner.

“This is the kind of stuff that’s corrosive. Here he draws a sweeping conclusion off a single retrospective study in Israel that hasn’t been peer reviewed. But this tweet will end up going viral and driving news coverage,” Gottlieb wrote.

Giroir had written that it was clear natural immunity, or post-infection immunity, “is superior to vaccine immunity, by ALOT.” He said there was no scientific justification to require proof of COVID-19 vaccination if a person had natural immunity. “If no previous infection? Get vaccinated!” he also wrote.

Giroir pointed to what was at the time a preprint study from Israeli researchers that found, after analyzing health records, that natural immunity provided better protection than vaccination. The study was later published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases following peer review.

Researchers said the data “demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.” BNT162b2 is the trade name for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, which is the main shot used in Israel.

Gottlieb’s email triggered messages on Jira, Twitter’s internal messaging system, according to journalist Alex Berenson, who was granted access to Twitter’s internal files by CEO Elon Musk.

“Please see this report from the former FDA commissioner,” O’Boyle wrote.

A Twitter analyst who reviewed the post determined it did not violate any misinformation rules but Twitter still put a tag on it, claiming to all users who viewed it that it was “misleading” and directing them to a link that would show “why health officials recommend a vaccine for most people.” The tag prevented people from replying to, sharing, or liking Giroir’s post.

Gottlieb later defended his actions, saying he targeted posts that he thought included “false and inflammatory” information. Giroir said “my tweet was accurate then, and it remains so now” and that Twitter never responded to him.

Another Message

Gottlieb later messaged O’Boyle again, flagging a post from Justin Hart, a critic of lockdowns and a skeptic of COVID-19 vaccines, Berenson reported.

Gottlieb took issue with Hart writing that “sticks and stones may break my bones but a viral pathogen with a child mortality rate of <>0% has cost our children nearly three years of schooling.”

COVID-19 poses little mortality risk to young, healthy people, studies and data show.

Gottlieb did not detail why he wanted to censor Hart, but the objection came shortly before the U.S. government authorized and recommended Pfizer’s vaccine for children aged 5 to 11.

O’Boyle sent the request to Twitter analysts, failing for a second time to disclose Gottlieb’s ties to Pfizer. The complaint did not trigger any action.

“Our team of ragtag analysts, activists, moms and dads have been going after Scott since April 2020 when he repeatedly advocated for school closures and lockdowns. He doesn’t like people pushing back on the narrative,” Hart told The Epoch Times in a Twitter message.

Twitter did not respond to requests for comment.

Tried to Get Journalist Banned

Gottlieb also tried to get Berenson, a former New York Times reporter who now authors a Substack, banned from Twitter, a message released in 2022 showed.

The message showed that Gottlieb forwarded a blog post from Berenson to a Twitter worker, writing that Berenson calling Dr. Anthony Fauci arrogant was an example of why Fauci, at the time the head of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, needed a security detail.

Four days later, and a day after Gottlieb met with Twitter workers, Twitter banned Berenson for allegedly violating its rules on COVID-19 misinformation.

Gottlieb defended his actions.

“I’ve raised concerns around social media broadly,” Gottlieb said during an appearance on CNBC. “And I’ve done it around the threats that are being made on these platforms, and the inability of these platforms to police direct threats, physical threats about people, that’s my concerns around social media, and what’s going on in that ecosystem.”

“I am very concerned with physical threats being made against people’s safety and the people who gin up those threats against individuals,” he also said.

Berenson responded that he’d never threatened Fauci or Gottlieb and referred to Gottlieb’s comments.

In the post that triggered Gottlieb’s email, Berenson criticized Fauci for saying that “attacks on me are attacks on science” and how he handled the U.S. pandemic response.

Berenson was reinstated to Twitter in 2022 as part of a settlement of a lawsuit he brought against the company. Berenson obtained Gottlieb’s email about Fauci’s post during discovery. Before the settlement agreement, a judge had concluded that Berenson plausibly alleged Twitter failed to abide by a policy of five strikes before banning the journalist.

Reaction on ET:

Jack−

Thousands of people LOST THEIR JOBS or were coerced into getting the jab after they’d recovered from CV19 because of people like Gottlieb trying to keep the truth about natural immunity from reaching mainstream news.
Some of those people who were coerced into getting it subsequently had debilitating effects from the job, in some cases lifelong or even life-ending, again because of people like Gottlieb.
I have had people bar me from their homes and literally shrink away from me when they heard that I, a completely healthy person who was far safer to be around than those who had been vaccinated, hadn’t received the shot. Again, because of Gottlieb. People like him literally are creating hell on earth by their ambitions.
And there are still a lot of people out there to this day, particularly some of the elderly or people that only get their news from one source, that remain shrouded in ignorance, that don’t realize their fear of the unvaccinated is based on lies. But they still fear and shun those with natural immunity.

Categories
COVID Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. Uncategorized

So this is where the loons get their junk science. The Case for Wearing Masks Forever

Illustration by Ben Wiseman

So this is where the loons get their junk science. The Case for Wearing Masks Forever.

Now we know why extremists that follow the fauch ,were always attacking scientists from the Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins, AMA, and other main stream medical sources. They are following A ragtag coalition of public-health activists who believe that America’s pandemic restrictions are too lax—and they say they have the science to prove it.

Mindy Thompson Fullilove, a professor of urban policy and health at the New School who is Black, has spent her career studying epidemics: first aids, then crack, then multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. She has seen how disease can ravage cities, especially in Black and working-class communities. From the beginning, Fullilove was skeptical of how the federal government handled the coronavirus pandemic. But these new recommendations from the C.D.C., she said, were “flying in the face of the science.” Not long after the announcement, she sent an e-mail to a Listserv called The Spirit of 1848, for progressive public-health practitioners. “Can we have a people’s CDC and give people good advice?” she asked. A flurry of responses came back. And what did the CDC recommend?

Last December, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that it was shortening the recommended isolation period for those with covid-19 to five days. Getting exposed to the virus no longer meant that people needed to quarantine, either, as long as they were fully vaccinated and wore a mask.

What emerged was the People’s C.D.C.: a ragtag coalition of academics, doctors, activists, and artists who believe that the government has left them to fend for themselves against covid-19. As governments, schools, and businesses have scaled back their covid precautions, the members of the People’s C.D.C. have made it their mission to distribute information about the pandemic—what they see as real information, as opposed to what’s circulated by the actual C.D.C.

They believe the C.D.C.’s data and guidelines have been distorted by powerful forces with vested interests in keeping people at work and keeping anxieties about the pandemic down. “The public has a right to a sound reading of the data that’s not influenced by politics and big business,” Fullilove said.

Below is the last paragraph I’ll post This group’s leader is a race baiter.. You can find the whole article here.

And then there are masks. The People’s C.D.C. strongly supports mask mandates, and they have called on federal, state, and local governments to put them back in place, arguing that “the vaccine-only strategy promoted by the CDC is insufficient.” The group has noted that resistance to masks is most common among white people: Lucky Tran, who organizes the coalition’s media team, recently tweeted a YouGov survey supporting this, and wrote that “a lot of anti-mask sentiment is deeply embedded in white supremacy.”

 

 

Categories
COVID Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Just putting this out there. The Six Major Fails of (Tony the Fauch) Anthony Fauci.

I'm not a medical expert, and neither is the fauch.

I know this is an old article and odds are we’re way past six. But this is a nice start. The Six Major Fails of (Tony the Fauch) Anthony Fauci.

By ,   November 6, 2021   ,

When the pandemic hit, America needed someone to turn to for advice. The media and public naturally looked to Dr. Anthony Fauci—the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, an esteemed laboratory immunologist and one of President Donald Trump‘s chosen COVID advisers. Unfortunately, Dr. Fauci got major epidemiology and public health questions wrong. Reality and scientific studies have now caught up with him.

Here are six key issues:

1. Natural immunity

By pushing vaccine mandates, Dr. Fauci ignores naturally acquired immunity among the COVID-recovered, of which there are more than 45 million in the United States. Mounting evidence indicates that natural immunity is stronger and longer lasting than vaccine-induced immunity. In a study from Israel, the vaccinated were 27 times more likely to get symptomatic COVID than the unvaccinated who had recovered from a prior infection.

We have known about natural immunity from disease at least since the Athenian Plague in 430 BC. Pilots, truckers and longshoremen know about it, and nurses know it better than anyone. Under Fauci’s mandates, hospitals are firing heroic nurses who recovered from COVID they contracted while caring for patients. With their superior immunity, they can safely care for the oldest and frailest patients with even lower transmission risk than the vaccinated.

2. Protecting the elderly

While anyone can get infected, there is more than a thousand-fold difference in mortality risk between the old and the young. After more than 700,000 reported COVID deaths in America, we now know that lockdowns failed to protect high-risk older people. When confronted with the idea of focused protection of the vulnerable, Dr. Fauci admitted he had no idea how to accomplish it, arguing that it would be impossible. That may be understandable for a lab scientist, but public health scientists have presented many concrete suggestions that would have helped, had Fauci and other officials not ignored them.

What can we do now to minimize COVID mortality? Current vaccination efforts should focus on reaching people over 60 who are neither COVID-recovered nor vaccinated, including hard-to-reach, less-affluent people in rural areas and inner cities. Instead, Dr. Fauci has pushed vaccine mandates for children, students and working-age adults who are already immune—all low-risk populations—causing tremendous disruption to labor markets and hampering the operation of many hospitals.

3. School closures

Schools are major transmission points for influenza, but not for COVID. While children do get infected, their risk for COVID death is minuscule, lower than their already low risk of dying from the flu. Throughout the 2020 spring wave, Sweden kept daycare and schools open for all its 1.8 million children ages 1 to 15, with no masks, testing or social distancing. The result? Zero COVID deaths among children and a COVID risk to teachers lower than the average of other professions. In fall 2020, most European countries followed suit, with similar results. Considering the devastating effects of school closures on children, Dr. Fauci’s advocacy for school closures may be the single biggest mistake of his career.

4. Masks

The gold standard of medical research is randomized trials, and there have now been two on COVID masks for adults. For children, there is no solid scientific evidence that masks work. A Danish study found no statistically significant difference between masking and not masking when it came to coronavirus infection. In a study in Bangladesh, the 95 percent confidence interval showed that masks reduced transmission between 0 percent and 18 percent. Hence, masks are either of zero or limited benefit. There are many more critical pandemic measures that Dr. Fauci could have emphasized, such as better ventilation in schools and hiring nursing home staff with natural immunity.

5. Contact tracing

For some infectious diseases, such as Ebola and syphilis, contact tracing is critically important. For a commonly circulating viral infection such as COVID, it was a hopeless waste of valuable public health resources that did not stop the disease.

6. Collateral public health damage

A fundamental public health principle is that health is multidimensional; the control of a single infectious disease is not synonymous with health. As an immunologist, Dr. Fauci failed to properly consider and weigh the disastrous effects lockdowns would have on cancer detection and treatment, cardiovascular disease outcomes, diabetes care, childhood vaccination rates, mental health and opioid overdoses, to name a few. Americans will live with—and die from—this collateral damage for many years to come.

In private conversations, most of our scientific colleagues agree with us on these points. While a few have spoken up, why are not more doing so? Well, some tried but failed. Others kept silent when they saw colleagues slandered and smeared in the media or censored by Big Tech.

Some are government employees who are barred from contradicting official policy. Many are afraid of losing positions or research grants, aware that Dr. Fauci sits on top of the largest pile of infectious disease research money in the world. Most scientists are not experts on infectious disease outbreaks. Were we, say, oncologists, physicists or botanists, we would probably also have trusted Dr. Fauci.

The evidence is in. Governors, journalists, scientists, university presidents, hospital administrators and business leaders can continue to follow Dr. Anthony Fauci or open their eyes. After 700,000-plus COVID deaths and the devastating effects of lockdowns, it is time to return to basic principles of public health.

A version of this article originally appeared in Newsweek

Authors

  • Martin Kulldorff

    Martin Kulldorff, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is an epidemiologist and biostatistician. He is Professor of Medicine at Harvard University (on leave) and a Fellow at the Academy of Science and Freedom. His research focuses on infectious disease outbreaks and the monitoring of vaccine and drug safety, for which he has developed the free SaTScan, TreeScan, and RSequential software. Co-Author of the Great Barrington Declaration.

    READ MORE

  • Jayanta Bhattacharya

    Jay Bhattacharya, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a physician, epidemiologist and health economist. He is Professor at Stanford Medical School, a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research, a Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, a Faculty Member at the Stanford Freeman Spogli Institute, and a Fellow at the Academy of Science and Freedom. His research focuses on the economics of health care around the world with a particular emphasis on the health and well-being of vulnerable populations. Co-Author of the Great Barrington Declaration.

Categories
COVID Links from other news sources.

A Bitch slapping moment. MSNBC contributor Katty Kay was ‘appalled’ her kids refused COVID boosters before holidays

Mom put in her place. Giphy.

An MSNBC contributor was taught a valuable lesson. Her two children said enough with the boosters, we refuse anymore jabs.

Katty Kay.

“But I had a strange conversation with my 22-year-old and my 16-year-old last night, and I said, ‘Okay, I booked you in for COVID updates, you’re both back for holidays, you’re going to get your boosters,’ and both of them said, ‘No, we don’t want to. We’ve had enough vaccines, and we don’t think we need them,’” Kay said. “I was sort of shocked and appalled.”

Sad when the children have to educate the adults.

Categories
COVID Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Putting it out there. Washington Post Report Showing Exercise Reduces COVID-19 Risk was Criticized Online for “Confirming the Obvious”

Exercise helps. WP Photo.
Washington Post Report Showing Exercise Reduces COVID-19 Risk was Criticized Online for “Confirming the Obvious”

How can that be? A part time water department employee tells us only the multiple jabs prevent COVID risks.

A Washington Post report showing exercise reduces COVID-19 risk was criticized online Wednesday for “confirming the obvious” and vindicating critics who opposed gym closures during the pandemic, Fox News reported.

Gretchen Reynolds, a health columnist for the Washington Post, mentioned in what she called an “eye-opening study” in an article titled “Regular exercise protects against fatal COVID, a new study shows” that confirmed any amount of activity significantly lowered the risk of acquiring a severe coronavirus infection.

“Men and women who worked out at least 30 minutes most days were about four times more likely to survive covid-19 than inactive people, according to an eye-opening study of exercise and coronavirus outcomes among almost 200,000 adults in Southern California,” according to the article.

“The study found that exercise, in almost any amount, reduced people’s risks for a severe coronavirus infection. Even people who worked out for as little as 11 minutes a week — yes, a week — experienced lower risks of hospitalization or death from covid than those who moved about less,” it added.

“The findings add to mounting evidence that any amount of exercise helps lower the ferocity of coronavirus infections, a message with particular relevance now, as holiday travel and gatherings ramp up and covid cases continue to rise.”

“It turns out exercise is even more powerful than we thought” at protecting people from severe covid, said Robert Sallis, a clinical professor at Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine in Los Angeles and senior author of the new study.

Many people online blasted the far-left Washington Post for reporting a study of what most people already knew since the beginning of the pandemic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

While the rest of the world is busy mandating the experimental COVID-19 vaccines, El Salvador launched a new ad campaign to help prevent COVID-19 deaths and hospitalizations.

El Salvador President Nayib Bukele launched a new ad campaign that promotes people to live a healthy lifestyle, early this year.

The campaign video, tweeted by President Bukele, tells Salvadorans that a healthy lifestyle also helps reduce any complications caused by COVID-19. It is the safest and easiest way to combat COVID-19.

The video gives recommendations that people need to follow to help reduce complications from COVID-19 and prevent deaths and hospitalizations.

The El Salvadoran government told people what the “experts” should have been saying from the beginning. American health officials, Dr. Anthony Fauci,  Joe Biden, and state governors should spend time talking about these things and not about pushing experimental vaccines to kids and adults.

Here’s the translation:

“Maintaining a healthy lifestyle also helps reduce complications from COVID-19. The groups most at risk of mortality are older adults and people with obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and chronic diseases. Therefore, put these recommendations into practice. Eat a healthy balanced diet to get closer to your ideal weight. Do outdoor activities so you can breathe fresh air and get some sun. What your body needs to make vitamin D. Drink at least two liters of water a day to keep your kidneys healthy. Reduce stress by spending time with yourself such as doing yoga or reading a book. Try to sleep no less than 6 hours a day. Include citrus fruits in your diet, such as lemons, oranges, or tangerines. Avoid consuming alcoholic beverages, foods high in sugar or saturated fat. Today more than ever we must take care of each other. Stay healthy. Government of El Salvador.”