The Washington Post reported Friday it deleted and corrected portions of two articles about the Steele Dossier after the paper decided it “could no longer stand by the accuracy of those elements of the story.”
The outlet “took the unusual step of correcting and removing large portions of two articles” that were published in both March of 2017 and February of 2019“that had identified a Belarusan American businessman as a key source of the ‘Steele dossier’.”
The Post said they changed the headline and several sections identifying businessman Sergei Millian as the source of the Steele dossier were removed. An editor’s note attached to the 2017 article clarified that while The Post originally believed Millian was the source of the dossier, “that account has been contradicted by allegations contained in a federal indictment filed in November 2021 and undermined by further reporting by The Washington Post.”
The Post said the original story was published because two individuals who spoke on the condition of anonymity but one of the sources “now says the new information ‘puts in grave doubt that Millian’ was a source for parts of the dossier.”
The 2019 article referenced the 2019 report and those references have since been removed, per the editor’s note.
Danchenko, the primary researcher for the dossier, was charged with five counts of making false statements to the FBI and is responsible for compiling a trove of information about former President Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia.
The FBI had previously concluded in 2017 that the “reliability of the dossier was completely destroyed,” after Danchenko made several contradictory statements about the dossier, according to Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham.
ALEXANDRIA, VA – NOVEMBER 10: Russian analyst Igor Danchenko is pursued by journalists as he departs the Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse after being arraigned on November 10, 2021 in Alexandria, Virginia.(Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Danchenko was identified as the primary source for the dossier in 2020.
In their explanation, The Post said following Danchenko’s arrest, “new reporting by the newspaper has ‘created doubts’ about Millian’s alleged involvement.”
“The Post’s decision to edit and re-post the Millian stories is highly unusual in the news industry,” The Post said, noting other outlets might add corrections to stories rather than entirely scrapping sections. “It’s rare for a publication to make wholesale changes after publication and to republish the edited story, especially more than four years afterward.”
A “non-binary” associate professor at Old Dominion University has called for the “stigma” of pedophilia to be ‘delegitimized’.
Yes, really.
The Prostasia Foundation, a registered 503c which has called for child-like sex dolls to be legalized, posted an interview with Allyn Walker, a female-to-male transgender, who outlined her views on “minor attraction.”
Walker, an assistant professor of sociology and criminal justice at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, is the author of a book called ‘A Long, Dark Shadow: Minor Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity’.
In the interview, Walker insists that the term “minor attracted people” should be used in preference to ‘pedophile’ because pedophiles’ feelings might be hurt otherwise.
"I think we believe societally, that stigma against MAPs serves to protect children because we don’t fully understand the differences between MAPs and sex offenders. Again, we have this confusion between the attraction and a criminal behavior." https://t.co/62YZGg9tbYpic.twitter.com/pPwEOjJUCo
She also highlights how, “MAP advocacy groups like B4U-Act have advocated for use of the term, and they’ve advocated for it primarily because it’s less stigmatizing than other terms like pedophile.”
“4W has previously covered the group B4U-Act, which was founded by convicted multi-child rapist Michael Melsheimer for the explicit purposes of normalizing pedophilia and distracting from prevention efforts,” writes Anna Slatz. “In Melsheimer’s own words, he wanted to ensure B4U-Act was never associated with the “prevention of offending.”
During the interview, Walker suggested that pedophilia is merely another form of sexual attraction and should be tolerated.
“Sexuality can be fluid, and there are many MAPs who have a range of attractions to both children and adults,” she said.
Walker also suggested that stigma against pedophiles is a “huge problem” and that she “empathizes” with how pedos are treated.
“Although I’m not a MAP, myself, I am queer, and so I too, have been through experiences and realized that I have attractions many people wouldn’t understand, and that some people find to be immoral. And those experiences have really shaped who I’ve become. And so I sort of empathize with those experiences, and I wanted to learn more,” said Walker.
“Fifteen days to flatten the curve,” the first of many COVID lies, has become nineteen months to flatten the country.
Indeed, the collateral damage from the lockdowns and other devastations visited upon us by the regime have far exceeded the costs of the COVID virus itself. But in a largely secular nation, many of our countrymen have found a new religion, the religion of COVID. Like all religions, it has its sacraments. The COVID sacraments include the vaccine and the mask, and the docile worship of Anthony Fauci, the grand Mufti of the Public Health establishment.
Masking in general is an abomination, but masking schoolchildren is particularly egregious. Given the ideologic challenges at the federal and, often, state level, it is at the local level where we may be most successful at exerting influence regarding COVID policies. It is through such grassroots activism that we may preserve our rapidly deteriorating nation or, at least, create safe zones or “sanctuaries.” In the wake of the turmoil surrounding the Loudoun County (Virginia) school board and elsewhere, I, thus, share my experience with my local school board on the matter of masks.
I presented my case against masking school children before an Indiana school board on three occasions, in May, July, and September of 2021. In May, the governor of the state of Indiana (Eric Holcomb) had lifted the statewide mask mandate but not for schools. I called each of the members of the board and the superintendent in advance of the May meeting, urging them to lift the mask mandate for the school as well. At the meeting, I explained that school age children were virtually invulnerable to COVID yet were the ones most traumatized and adversely affected by masks. By rights (and the “science”), if we were to lift the mask mandate in stages (I preferred lifting it completely), it should have been children first. The board though was unwilling to challenge the state, and the children remained masked until the end of the school year.
In July, the pandemic seemed to be ebbing. I spoke again before the board and urged them to prepare for the inevitable surges in COVID cases that would come later in the year. I asked them to resist the temptation to institute further mask mandates. I explained that we had never enacted such policies before COVID despite the many instances of infectious diseases far more deadly to children that have come and gone through the years. We should, I advised, reject masking children as a “new normal.” Rather, we should return to the “old normal” and never mask again. The next surge, as it happened, would arrive not in months but weeks in the form of the “Delta variant.” Predictably, with the start of classes, they issued a mask mandate.
In September, I sent a letter (below) to each of the school board members in advance and spoke again at the meeting. The written statement was important, because dozens of local doctors and nurse practitioners had sent a letter urging the school to – amazingly – mask the children. It was, therefore, vital to have a physician (myself) counter their arguments formally, in writing and with references.
Herewith, then, as an example of such efforts, my letter to a local school board against mandatory masking and in support of a voluntary mask policy.
Dear Board Members and Superintendent:
We have all experienced the calamity of the COVID pandemic over the last 18 months. Far more devastating, however, has been our reaction to it.1,2,3 The lockdowns, shutdowns, shelter-in-place, school closures, social distancing, quarantining, testing, contact tracing, and masking have had little effect on the trajectory of the virus but have exacted an enormous price on all of us while conferring no advantage. Variants have now arrived, and they, too, will continue to mutate and spread, no different than influenza. There will be no returning to zero-COVID. We must accept this and take science-based, targeted4,5 precautions without harming our economy, society, schools – and children. Indeed, the collateral damage, not of the virus but our reaction to it, has been far worse than the virus itself, a great self-inflicted wound.6,7
But of all the examples of unintended ruin that have occurred, perhaps the most egregious has been from the masking of children. We have known from the beginning of the pandemic that the at-risk populations are the elderly and the sick, specifically those with significant co-morbidities.8If you are under 70 and healthy, you are relatively immune to COVID, with a recovery rate of 99.95%, greater than the flu for which we never undertook such excessive measures. For the 18 and under cohort, the risks are vanishingly small. A review of total deaths in children (under 18) in England following SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first pandemic year found a death rate in healthy children of 1 per 2 million cases. This cohort included 12 million children and showed an overall survival rate of 99.995%.9 While the Delta variant has been more contagious in all age groups, including under age 18, the severity in children remains unchanged.
Children are also not spreaders, particularly when asymptomatic. They are blessed with robust immune systems and are able to fight off the virus promptly. Teachers face no increased risk of COVID from students. Schools have not increased the spread of COVID.10
The mask, further, confers no benefits. Neither for children nor adults. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) director Dr. Anthony Fauci himself said as much in February of 2020 before reversing himself when it became politically expedient to do so.11 Other high-level members of the medical establishment pre-politicization of COVID have also criticized the use of masks: “‘Seriously people—STOP BUYING MASKS!’ So tweeted then–surgeon general Jerome Adams on February 29, 2020, adding, ‘They are NOT effective in preventing the general public from catching #Coronavirus.’ World Health Organization (WHO) Health Emergencies Program executive director Mike Ryan, on March 30, 2020, said that ‘there is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks… has any particular benefit.’”12
Masks, including N95 respirators, do not prevent the spread of infection including bacteria and far smaller viral particles. The N95 label states clearly that the mask will not “eliminate the risk of contracting infection, illness or disease.”13,14 Surgical masks and commonly used cloth masks, often worn for weeks, are utterly ineffective and can themselves be sources of cutaneous and respiratory infection, as they are frequently contaminated not just by viruses but bacteria, fungi, and parasites.15 Some contaminants are known pathogens including organisms causing pneumonia, TB, Lyme disease, food poisoning, meningitis, Staph infections, and others.21
Large randomized controlled studies conducted before the age of COVID, and before masking became politicized, showed no benefit of N95s over surgical masks in protecting against the flu. “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks… resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory confirmed influenza.”16 Medical masks are widely recognized as being ineffective in preventing the spread of viruses and so apparently are N95s.
In a review of fourteen randomly controlled studies12 that examined the effectiveness of masks in preventing the transmission of respiratory viruses, eleven suggested that masks are either useless or counterproductive. One randomized control study found that cloth masks allowed 97% of particles through, and may actually increase the infection risk.18
India had 81% mask compliance in February 2021 and cases soared 2966%. Cases peaked 2 weeks later and then went down. Two months into Israel’s reinstated mask mandate, cases are up 7970%.17,19,20 Masks had no effect on the transmission of the virus.
Masking children causes a host of other health problems. These include claustrophobia, increased heart rate, dizziness, headaches, nausea, stress, skin infections, sinusitis, reduced immune resilience, lack of empathy, and increased emotional stress. There have been increases in self-harm, substance abuse, depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and tics.10,22,23,24,25
In summary, masks do nothing to prevent the spread of the virus in children or adults. They also have adverse effects and can themselves become contaminated and transmit deadly pathogens. Children remove, touch, and even trade masks. There is no reason to mask children – or anyone.
A voluntary mask policy may be appropriate given the level of misinformation and panic created by the media, medical establishment, and government, but never a forced mask mandate. Individual students may wear masks if they or their families choose. Other students should be able to attend school without masks. Based on the science and other valid reasons, I request that you end the mask mandate immediately. Please, stop masking our children!
Respectfully,
Richard Moss, MD
I included twenty-six citations in support of the points made in the letter, aka “the science.” The local school board, to their credit, and amidst opposition, agreed to implement a voluntary mask policy thus sparing our children, age five and above, the indignity and harm of forced masking eight hours a day, five days a week, ad infinitum. The pressure for a mask mandate however endures. We must remain vigilant.
In August, 4.3 million people — a record number — quit their jobs for a variety of reasons. It was believed that once the labor market began to settle down after the disruptions caused by the pandemic those numbers would ease and the demand for work would catch up with the supply of jobs.
That may be the case, but not in September. A record 4.4 million workers decided to leave their jobs, raising the specter that the disconnect between the number of jobs and people looking for work would continue to dampen economic growth.
The specific industries being affected by people leaving their jobs reveal one aspect of the crisis: In a flush labor market, many workers have the luxury of changing careers for better pay, benefits, or both.
In September, the number of quits increased in arts, entertainment, and recreation (+56,000); a category labeled “other services” (+47,000); and state and local government education (+30,000). In general, industries with the highest percentages of workers quitting include trade, transportation, and utilities, particularly retail, professional and business services, and leisure and hospitality industries like arts and entertainment, and hotels and restaurants. A whopping 6.6 percent of workers in accommodation and food services quit their job in the month.
The South, the West and Midwest have the highest numbers of workers quitting their jobs, at 3.3, 3.1 and 3.0 percent, while only 2.2 percent of workers in the Northeast are quitting jobs.
The number of people leaving their jobs is a staggering three percent of the entire workforce. When 6.6 percent of the hotel and restaurant employees leave their jobs in one month — and that’s with large incentives not present before the pandemic — you have to think there’s a fundamental shift in the labor force at work.
But what is it these people want?
Economists surmise that phenomena is a result of a complicated mix of trends. Child and family care, and schooling unpredictability continue to fuel the reluctance of some parents to get back into the labor force. Public health concerns remain an issue for in-person work, with the virus caseloads remaining stubborn despite declining significantly from their mid-September peak.
Many workers have made the calculation that their old jobs — low paying work in industries like restaurants, which have really struggled to fill holes — are no longer desirable, even as companies dangle raises and bonuses to lure workers back to the workplace. Some older workers have taken early retirements, part of a portrait of a labor force that has shrunk, by percentage of the U.S. population during the pandemic.
And some economists’ question whether there are other factors that have reshaped the traditional dynamics of the labor force after 750,000 people have died.
Speaking from experience, there are few jobs with higher stress levels and lower rewards than restaurant and bar work. So it’s not surprising that the turnover in those jobs would be so high.
According to the jobs site ZipRecruiter, 55 percent of people looking for work on their site desire some kind of home employment.
Of those who were seeking the ability to work from home, 85 percent said either workplace safety concerns (50 percent) or child care/family care needs (35 percent) were driving their decisions — data that indicates how many people are attempting to switch industries in the hopes of being able to work from home.
The pandemic has started a revolution in employment that we are only able to dimly discern the outlines of at present. It’s unsettling to industries, to workers, and their families — as all revolutions are.
Not everyone is “learning to code.” But a far greater number of people will probably end up happier and more satisfied with their jobs when it’s all said and done.
The Google-owned giant is going to hide “dislikes” to shield the Biden regime from criticism.
YouTube has removed its famous “dislike” button and counter following unprecedented levels of downvotes on President Biden’s White House channel videos. The removal of the feature was mooted in March. This week, it was announced that YouTube will be removing it.
When the Google-owned video streaming giant first announced the testing of new features surrounding the counter, an organization called 81m.org extrapolated data to determine the approval ratings of Biden’s channel. The site further noted that YouTube was manipulating dislikes to shield the early Biden administration from criticism.
When originally investigated by The National Pulse, it was found that within 6-12 hours of posting a video, YouTube began deleting dislikes from Biden’s videos. The firm continued to delete likes at regular intervals from that time onwards.
Twitter users were quick to note that the number of dislikes were removed. YouTube claimed, without evidence, that these dislikes were classified as “spam”.
Analysis by Zoe Phin found that the dislike counts were organic in nature, but the number of dislikes would reduce between the 6-12 hour mark after posting.
Analysis of other popular and mid-sized YouTubers revealed no manipulation in dislike counts.
Even with the dislike manipulation, The National Pulse found that all of Biden’s videos dislike count far outranked the likes. In one video “President Biden Reviews the Readiness of Military Troops in a Pass in Review” had twelve thousand (12,000) dislikes at the time of writing. The same video had only eighteen hundred (1,800) likes.
Almost a year later, the video only has forty-two hundred likes (4,200) and twenty thousand (20,000) dislikes. The inauguration video had only fifty-three thousand (5,300) likes to twenty-three thousand dislikes (23,000). The same video now has seventeen thousand likes (17,000) and one hundred and ten thousand dislikes (110,000).
A statement posted to YouTube’s Official Blog reads: “the dislike count will be private across YouTube, but the dislike button will remain.”
The platform stated the reasons for the removal were focused on “promoting respectful interactions between viewers and creators.” The statement went on to say that YouTube wants to reduce “dislike attacks – where people work to drive up the number of dislikes on a creator’s videos.” YouTube concludes by noting that this is just one of the steps being taken to reduce harassment on the platform.
Creators will still be able to view the dislike count in their YouTube Studio. The change started being rolled out on November 10th.
A prominent New Brunswick cardiologist has died, leaving behind a large gap in the system and the community, colleagues say.
Dr. Sohrab Lutchmedial dedicated more than 20 years to the New Brunswick Heart Centre and the care of patients suffering from heart disease, said a statement from the staff of the New Brunswick Heart Centre.
“It is with profound sadness that we report the sudden and unexpected death of a colleague, friend, father, partner and inspiring spirit,” the statement says.
Lutchmedial died Monday in his sleep at his Saint John home, said Jean-François Légaré, the head of cardiac surgery at the New Brunswick Heart Centre. He was 52.
Real America’s Voice correspondent Drew Hernandez corroborated Kyle Rittenhouse’s testimony that he acted in self-defense when he shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum last summer.
The 18-year-old has been charged in the shooting deaths of Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber and the wounding of Gaige Grosskreutz during a riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin, following a police shooting.
“The first time I saw Kyle, he actually de-escalated the situation,” Hernandez, who was at the scene to record the violent demonstration, testified Thursday during Rittenhouse’s murder trial in Kenosha.
The reporter recounted that on the night of Aug. 25, 2020, “Antifa and the rioters were going head-to-head with the police in front of the courthouse, and as they were doing so, the police then responded. I think they, I believe they called it an unlawful assembly of some sort.”
Hernandez said the rioters were throwing rocks at police officers and launching fireworks and other explosive devices.
“As they were being pushed down the street [by the police], they passed Car Source 2. And the rioters identified individuals with longarm rifles on top of the building, and they immediately attempted to agitate them, to try to start some conflict with them saying, ‘You ain’t the police. You ain’t the police,’” he said.
“At that point Kyle Rittenhouse came out of Car Source 2 and he attempted to de-escalate the situation.”
Witness says Kyle Rittenhouse tried to deescalate the situation. Meanwhile, rioters picked fights with people protecting a business: pic.twitter.com/1YIArIh41p
Hernandez then recreated how Rittenhouse was motioning with his hands trying to get people to settle down.
“He clearly attempts to de-escalate the situation. And he actually is successful because then the rioters then disperse,” the reporter said.
Hernandez went on to describe the fatal shooting of Rosenbaum, who he felt had become “triggered and aggravated” in the moments leading up to it. He testified that Rosenbaum had “led the charge into the gas station” and “was getting physically aggressive.”
“Rosenbaum was charging Kyle Rittenhouse from behind,” Hernandez said.
“Kyle is right at the corner … and turns around and Rosenbaum is lunging towards him very clearly, and Kyle fires,” he said, pointing to a video display in court.
The defense attorney then asked whether Hernandez had seen Rittenhouse acting in an aggressive manner earlier that evening.
“In no way shape or form,” he answered, saying he had not seen the defendant point his firearm or threaten anyone.
Rittenhouse stood by his actions when he took the witness stand Wednesday.
“I didn’t do anything wrong. I defended myself,” he said.
Rittenhouse: “People were saying, ‘Cranium him, kill him’ … and I was just trying to get to the police.”
The 18-year-old testified that people around him were saying, “Cranium him, kill him,” and he was “just trying to get to the police” where he felt he would be safe.
Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger asked Rittenhouse during cross-examination, “What was the risk to you of death or great bodily harm at the moment you killed Joseph Rosenbaum?”
Prosecutor: “What was the risk to you of death or great bodily harm at the moment you killed Joseph Rosenbaum?”
Rittenhouse: “If I would have let Mr. Rosenbaum take my firearm from me, he would’ve used it and killed me with it and probably killed more people.” pic.twitter.com/HfAswVqUED
(Fox26) Numerous schools in a Michigan township closed on Monday after numerous staff members fell ill suffering “negative reactions” from COVID-19 booster shots.
As employees get fired or resign from their jobs for refusing to comply with the vaccine mandate, schools in the Saginaw school district and around the country are substantially understaffed.
After numerous staff members of Saginaw County Community Schools received an experimental COVID booster shot over the weekend, they had negative reactions and were too sick to return to work, forcing the township’s elementary, middle and high schools to close in the district on Monday.
“A large number of our staff had a negative reaction to the COVID booster shot given at a voluntary clinic over the weekend,” Saginaw Township Community Schools announced on the homepage of its website and Facebook page on Monday. “There is a substitute teacher/staff shortage throughout the state, further complicating the availability to cover those absences.”
Government medicine is on a power trip, so wedded to its vaccine mandates that it can only argue against the superior power of natural immunity, as in an astounding recent CDC report.
CDC head Rochelle Walensky recently said that “education” is needed to better inform unvaccinated Americans of their ignorance. That would include the unvaccinated who already have immunity, and who certainly aren’t ignorant of it. They are painfully aware of it, having suffered to get it, and regularly consult with their doctors and read information regarding their immunity and best healthcare choices. For most of us in that category, we choose not to get vaccinated because we have antibodies, typically in higher levels and longer lasting than the vaccinated. Many of our physicians strongly advise against vaccination because it could be hazardous in light of our previous infection, not to mention wholly unnecessary anyway.
In a recent column, I questioned what such “education” by Walensky’s CDC would look like, especially given the federal government’s nationalization of COVID healthcare policy with a shockingly myopic one-size-fits-all response of 100% vaccination, including for those with natural/herd immunity.
Well, now we see another disturbing manifestation of what this CDC “education” looks like.
The CDC recently released a study contending that COVID artificial immunity is superior to natural immunity, which on its face obviously goes against common sense and science. Given that COVID has become politicized, the liberal media that walks in lockstep with the governing Democrats immediately touted the study and turned it against conservatives. An egregious piece by Yahoo News did just that, weaponizing the study against Ron DeSantis, Dennis Prager, and conservative talk-radio in particular. It was a crass display of partisan political reporting rather than neutral science reporting. But given the politicization of vaxxing and masking, it was no surprise. This one study will become holy writ to anti-science vaxxers in the liberal media. In fact, given the study’s conclusion, liberals can now finally start talking about natural immunity — but only to argue against it.
The study was first flagged for me by a reader (Jeff) with a subject head, “Do you believe this study? I don’t.” The study’s astonishing claim of five times greater immunity among artificial recipients immediately strikes one as unbelievable. One might imagine a number, say, 1.2 times greater (if that). But five times? Impossible. In fact, on its face, the study’s conclusion is obviously unsupportable in light of current realities, given that Pfizer and Moderna and Dr. Fauci and the CDC itself are all recommending boosters for the vaccinated, given that the efficacy of the vaccines wanes terribly after merely six months.
Nonetheless, I certainly wouldn’t ignore the study. Yes, it’s the first I’ve seen that argues that artificial immunity is better, and a total outlier. Still, we must take these things seriously.
I immediately started framing up a piece for The American Spectator, but the more I stared at the study’s data, digging in and double checking, it not only didn’t make sense, but was downright confusing if not angering. The data seem to show the exact opposite of what the study concludes. At best, the data are indecipherable and the whole mess of a study probably not repeatable. I began running the study by colleagues for their assessment. I couldn’t believe that it could be this seemingly wrong.
After telling my editors I’d have a piece ready that weekend, I emailed with apologies that I needed to wait. I was sure others were having the same reaction. They were indeed.
The rebukes were swift. Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) immediately called on CDC head Rochelle Walensky to resign. A number of scientists and researchers quickly spoke up.
“As I read the CDC’s latest study on natural immunity,” responded Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, “I felt I was no longer reading a scientific paper but a chapter out of Alice in Wonderland. The CDC just squandered its last shred of credibility.”
Dr. Andrew Bostom called it “scam research” that “(undoubtedly) pruned data that ignore vaccine waning, as authors concede.” He keenly underscored that the host website for the study is a “non-peer reviewed house organ of CDC which exists, openly, to promote CDC policy.”
Another source called it “an embarrassing” display “of “innumeracy or intentional obfuscation.”
As for colleagues I consulted, one (who I’ll leave nameless) observed: “The study does admit to at least 7 limitations. These numbers could have easily been reported as, ‘There were 4 times more hospitalized patients with COVID-19 re-infections amongst previously vaccinated patients compared to unvaccinated.’
”That was likewise the conclusion of COVID-watcher Alex Berenson, who stated: “The CDC used some magic statistical analysis to turn inside raw data that actually showed almost four times as many fully vaccinated people being hospitalized with Covid as those with natural immunity — and FIFTEEN TIMES as many over the summer. I kid you not.”
Martin Kulldorff, senior scientific director of the Brownstone Institute, who’s an epidemiologist and biostatistician specializing in infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety, and a former professor at Harvard Medical School, has published a comparative analysis of the CDC study versus the well-known Israeli study that showed the superiority of natural immunity. Kulldorff observed:
I have worked on vaccine epidemiology since I joined the Harvard faculty almost two decades ago as a biostatistician. I have never before seen such a large discrepancy between studies that are supposed to answer the same question. In this article, I carefully dissect both studies, describe how the analyses differ, and explain why the Israeli study is more reliable.
Kulldorff’s analysis is very technical, but his conclusion is easy to understand:
Based on the solid evidence from the Israeli study, the Covid recovered have stronger and longer-lasting immunity against Covid disease than the vaccinated. Hence, there is no reason to prevent them from activities that are permitted to the vaccinated. In fact, it is discriminatory.
Many of the Covid recovered were exposed to the virus as essential workers during the height of the pandemic before vaccines were available. They kept the rest of society afloat, processing food, delivering goods, unloading ships, picking up garbage, policing the streets, maintaining the electricity network, putting out fires, and caring for the old and sick, to name a few.
They are now being fired and excluded despite having stronger immunity than the vaccinated work-from-home administrators that are firing them.
That is precisely what is happening. It’s unjust, an outrage — a thankless outrage from those displaying an ignorant ingratitude.Okay, so what does the CDC study maintain? Here is the report summary, which is done in a question-answer format:
What is already known about this topic?
Previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 vaccination can provide immunity and protection against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness.
What is added by this report?
Among COVID-19–like illness hospitalizations among adults aged ≥18 years whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90–179 days earlier, the adjusted odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among unvaccinated adults with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were 5.49-fold higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine who had no previous documented infection (95% confidence interval = 2.75–10.99).
What are the implications for public health practice?
All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.
To repeat what I said at the outset, on its face, and given current CDC policy prescriptions, this conclusion is obvious nonsense. Consider, after all, that the very same CDC (and Anthony Fauci) are pushing for boosters for people who have already been vaccinated. Why? Because the vaccines lose their effectiveness within six months at best.
The Pfizer efficacy dwindles down to 40% (if not lower) after six months among fully vaccinated individuals. Some studies claim that Pfizer’s effectiveness after six months drops to 39%, and still others claim it has plummeted to as low 22%. And Pfizer is far from alone. An important study by Mayo Clinic back in August had Pfizer’s efficacy already down to 42% and Moderna’s down to 76%, and that was over three months ago. More recently, a research team based in Oakland, California now lists all three major vaccines under 50%, with Johnson & Johnson collapsing to a horrific 13% efficacy. Overall, the three vaccines’ effectiveness fell from 88% in March to 48% in September (and now, in November, is surely lower still).
As everyone knows, the efficacy levels among vaccines continues to fall. The two dominant “vaccines” (they are technically experimental gene therapies that use mRNA, and not traditional vaccines), Pfizer and Moderna, began with initial self-reported efficacy rates of 95%, but a half-year later, that efficacy wanes terribly.
By contrast, no one, including the researchers involved in the current CDC study, claims that COVID survivors have an immune resistance that low.
What data does the study show? It is a mess, almost indecipherable and even seemingly contradictory. Here’s the heart of the data set:
During January 1–September 2, 2021, a total of 201,269 hospitalizations for COVID-19–like illness were identified; 139,655 (69.4%) patients were hospitalized after COVID-19 vaccines were generally available to persons in their age group within their geographic region. Molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2 was performed for 94,264 (67.5%) patients with COVID-19–like illness hospitalizations. Among these patients, 7,348 (7.8%) had at least one other SARS-CoV-2 test result ≥14 days before hospitalization and met criteria for either of the two exposure categories: 1,020 hospitalizations were among previously infected and unvaccinated persons, and 6,328 were among fully vaccinated and previously uninfected patients (Table 1).
Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was identified among 324 (5.1%) of 6,328 fully vaccinated persons and among 89 of 1,020 (8.7%) unvaccinated, previously infected persons.
From this, the study concludes that “unvaccinated people with a previous infection were 5x more likely to have a positive COVID test compared to vaccinated people.
”I don’t see that in the data, which may be a result of my own inabilities. For the record, I am confident in asserting that the study’s sample size of those with previous COVID infection seems very low. I doubt it’s a statistically significant sample size, though I’ll leave that judgment to statisticians.
But again, the most fatal flaw is this burning question that begs to be asked of the CDC study: How in the world can vaccines whose efficacy wanes to under 50% within six months be considered better than natural immunity? One might try to argue that the vaccines had better efficacy in the initial days after they were administered, but they obviously don’t after six months.
The flaw is obvious from the study’s timeframe. The CDC study was conducted on patients during the period of January 1–September 2, 2021, which is prior to the crucial recent period when the vaccine makers themselves have publicly acknowledged that their efficacy rate does not hold anywhere near the 90%-plus range after a half year.
In other words, this study absolutely does not have an adequate or accurate timeframe to fully assess the efficacy of vaccine-induced artificial immunity. This itself undermines the entire study.
Moreover, the study is also suspect precisely because it is done by the CDC, which has an extreme bias in favor of mass vaccination. In fact, look again at how this study ends with a statement of outright advocacy in the final line:
All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Everyone knows that this was the CDC’s bias before the study, and now the CDC has released a study that confirms it. We call this confirmation bias. The report is an advocacy piece. That is not to assume that the conclusions would be hence inaccurate, but the host source went into it with blatant prejudices. Given the CDC’s clear bias in favor of artificial immunity, this study should be given no more credibility than if had been done by Pfizer.
And it is done with your money. Behold, your tax dollars at work.
I warned in my column two weeks ago about the dangers of Big Government nationalizing healthcare policy, as its advocates are doing with COVID in an unprecedented and dangerous way. Now, Big Government has funded a study that affirms its own policy bias.
Big Government seizes a health issue. Big Government makes its position national policy. Big Government tries to force those who disagree to comply. Big Government then funds and releases a study to support its mandate.
Big Government wants literally everyone vaccinated, period. The mandaters now have a tool at their disposal, funded by your tax dollars, to continue their aggressive push for 100% mass vaccination without exception.
This study will be a weapon in the hands of the Biden administration. As the Biden vax-mandate deadline in January approaches, this study will be its hammer against those pleading for exemptions (with their doctors) based on legitimate medical reasoning — i.e., they had COVID and have antibodies (natural ones).
In fact, just this past week, the federal government, predictably, seized upon its study as support for pushing for vaccination for everyone by the time of the OSHA deadline.
Vax extremists have themselves a study, and you can be sure they will accept its conclusions as sacrosanct gospel-truth to hereafter reject every study to the contrary. This will be the New York Times’ and mainstream media’s study of record, etched in stone, the study of all studies, the Mother of Studies, the Eternal Study, coexistent with God from the dawn of time. Every left-wing “fact check” site now has its study of record. All other studies will pale in comparison.
The feds conveniently funded themselves a takedown of natural immunity. Beware not only of its conclusions but especially its implications.
Johnson & Johnson has announced plans to split into two companies, spinning off its consumer health division—which sells products like Band-Aids, Baby Powder, and Listerine—into a separate publicly traded company.
The consumer health business has been provisionally dubbed the New Consumer Health Company, according to a Nov. 12 statement, while the new Johnson & Johnson company will focus on the medical devices and pharmaceuticals business, which sells its COVID-19 vaccine and other drugs.
“The planned separation would create two global leaders that are better positioned to deliver improved health outcomes for patients and consumers through innovation, pursue more targeted business strategies and accelerate growth,” the company said.
The New Consumer Health Company will have in its portfolio four $1 billion megabrands and 20 brands worth over $150 million, including such household names as Neutrogena, Aveeno, Tylenol, Listerine, and Band-Aid, the company said.
For the full year 2021, Johnson & Johnson’s consumer health arm is expected to generate around $15 billion in sales, while the pharmaceutical and medical devices division is projected to bring in some $77 billion in revenues.
While details remain sparse, Johnson & Johnson expects the split to take place at some point in the next two years.
Alex Gorsky, Chairman and CEO of Johnson & Johnson, said that spinning off the consumer health business “is the best way to accelerate our efforts to serve patients, consumers, and healthcare professionals, create opportunities for our talented global team, drive profitable growth, and—most importantly—improve healthcare outcomes for people around the world.”
Gorsky will transition into the role of Executive Chairman of the new Johnson & Johnson company following the separation, with Joaquin Duato, currently Vic Chairman of the company’s Executive Committee, will take the helm as CEO, effective Jan. 3, 2022.
“We believe that the new Johnson & Johnson and the New Consumer Health Company would each be able to more effectively allocate resources to deliver for patients and consumers, drive growth and unlock significant value,” Duato said in a statement.
The new consumer health company’s board of directors and executive leadership would be announced at a later time, Johnson & Johnson said.
Shares of Johnson & Johnson rose nearly 4 percent in premarket trading Friday following the announcement.
The move by Johnson & Johnson, which is the world’s biggest health-products company, comes in the wake of similar announcements this week by industrial conglomerates Toshiba and General Electric and underscores how big, diversified corporations are under pressure to simplify their operations.
General Electric recently announced it is splitting into three public companies that will concentrate on aviation, healthcare, and energy.
