The War with Medical Fascism

[Body-by-Guinness]

And all the (heavy handed) responses were failures. The aggregate cost by one measure? Enough to wipe out the national debt:

New Report Details Horrifying Cost of Fauci’s Failures
BY Ian MillerIAN MILLER   APRIL 2, 2024   ECONOMICS, MASKS   6 MINUTE READ

SHARE | PRINT | EMAIL
In the post-pandemic period of Covid, there’s now a concerted effort to comprehend and explain the damage that was caused by our capitulating to the hysterical overreaction and overreach of the ‘experts.’ There’s a long list of policy failures to examine; mask mandates were a disaster that accomplished absolute nothing of value, but instead led to tremendous harms, many of which continue today.

Children were forced into masks for years on end, millions of people still wear masks when traveling or inside stores and restaurants, permanently convinced of the deliberate falsehood that masks are effective prevention tools. Perhaps most disturbing is that healthcare workers in blue cities are often still required to mask. Some hospitals have required masking continuously since 2020, while others are now enforcing rolling mandates based on the delusions of administrators and expert authorities.

Research into the economic cost of many of our Covid policies and mandates is still ongoing, but a new, extremely detailed report on school closures has created a horrifying context for just how damaging Anthony Fauci’s advocacy was during the pandemic.

All of Our Covid Policies Failed

The research begins with an obvious acknowledgment of the failures which occurred due to Covid mandates. Despite wildly different policies, there was virtually no difference in outcomes between countries.

“From the available evidence, it is difficult to identify the specific responses to the pandemic that led to better outcomes,” they write. “Countries clearly responded to the challenges in very different ways, from essentially no school closures (Sweden) to multiple years of closures (Uganda and Indonesia). Yet, simple statistics such as the length of school closures or overall health policies cannot explain much of the variance in outcomes.”

Lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine passports…none of it mattered, nor does it explain the variance in outcomes between countries. Why? The obvious answer is that none of these policies had the slightest chance of preventing transmission of a highly infectious respiratory virus.

Instead, the likely explanation for variance in outcomes comes down to differences in accounting for Covid cases and deaths, underlying health and age demographics, or pre-existing immunity from exposure to similar coronaviruses, which was almost certainly the reason why countries in Asia performed much better than Western countries during the early part of the pandemic, but was conveniently ignored in favor of “experts” maintaining the wishful thinking that “mask culture” was responsible.

Regardless of the explanation, the fact that there is no consistent factor to attribute better outcomes to is in itself an indictment of our Covid policies and mandates. If it’s impossible to define why a country did better or worse than another country, there should be no justification for continued restrictions. If only someone had told Fauci or his allies in the public health establishment in 2020-2021, but instead they forcefully criticized any opposition who understood the reality, such as Florida governor Ron DeSantis.

School Closures Caused Unimaginable Harms

The researchers spent most of their time attempting to assess the many harms caused by one of the pandemic’s most inexcusable policies: school closures. And the results of their estimates are jaw-dropping.

“Based on the available research on lifetime earnings associated with more skills, the average student in school during the pandemic will lose 5 to 6 percent of lifetime earnings,” they found. “Because a lower-skilled workforce leads to lower economic growth, the nation will lose some $31 trillion (in present value terms) during the twenty-first century. This aggregate economic loss is higher than the US GDP for one year and dwarfs the total economic losses from either the slowdown of the economy during the pandemic or from the 2008 recession.”

That’s not a misprint: $31 trillion.

Teachers unions, Fauci, the CDC, and politicians have all ensured that the American economy will be decimated in the next century because they refused to admit they were wrong about all of it. As cost of living skyrockets thanks to rampant inflation, also caused by our incompetence and malicious, purposeful ignorance, children forced to learn under school closures will be irreparably set back, which will cost them hundreds of thousands if not millions of earned income throughout their lives.

It’s easy to suggest that maybe these harms may be erased or mitigated over time. The researchers addressed that too, yet they failed to provide much hope for the future.

“Finally, we provide a few observations about recovery from the learning losses. History suggests that these losses are likely to be permanent unless the schools become better than they were before the pandemic,” they conclude.

With wholly incompetent political activists like Randi Weingarten controlling schools, disgraceful DEI policies infiltrating every aspect of public education, the lack of acknowledgment from Fauci and other organizations that Covid mandates were a failure, and the complete ideological capture of the education system, it’s impossible to reasonably expect that schools will ever “become better than they were.”

The damage they caused is locked in – forever.

Once Again, Florida Provides the Alternative

Importantly, the results of school closures varied per region. In far-left states such as California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois, school closures persisted well into 2021.

But Florida was one of the few states, and perhaps the only large one, to make reopening schools a priority, despite the objections of teachers unions and media outlets that attempted to label the governor as “DeathSantis.”

And it’s going to pay off, relatively speaking. A figure presented in the research shows that Florida’s economic state loss in GDP is nearly equal to Pennsylvania, despite a population that’s nearly 75% bigger than Pennsylvania. And California’s estimated losses, roughly $1.3 trillion, are more than 116% higher than Florida, much larger than the population difference. Similarly, New York’s economic losses far exceed Florida’s, despite a smaller population.

DeSantis followed the actual science, listened to competent outside expert advisors, and as a result, when compared to other major states, Florida is set to massively benefit in the future. It is yet again another clear indictment of the blue states that chose to follow the Fauci blueprint into economic disaster.

And make no mistake, this is a disaster.

No Accountability for Failure

The researchers compared the learning loss train wreck to the 2008 recession, showing that the Covid response is responsible for substantially more damage than even that economic cycle.

“The lopsided attention to the business-cycle losses from the 2008 recession and from the pandemic is startling once we see the comparable pandemic learning loss figures,” they wrote. “The economic losses from the loss of human capital are fully six times the total losses from the 2008 recession, which was labeled the largest recession since the Great Depression.”

This is staggering. Six times the total losses from the 2008 recession, already considered one of the worst in modern economic history. All because Fauci and his band of “experts” seized an opportunity to enforce their agenda of control onto a compliant society. And also because they refused to admit failure when many were desperately trying to expose them.

It’s an inexcusable, historic set of decisions with lasting consequences both in soft cultural terms and harder economic ones. A $31 trillion loss is the loss of GDP exclusively from school closures. That doesn’t even account for the loss of business income, the years-long setback in terms of new business, or the loss of GDP from adults who gave up on career plans or other pursuits out of despair or lack of opportunity.

The damage the “experts” caused is incalculable. But the attempts to calculate it has resulted in absolutely horrifying estimates.

And not one of those responsible is willing to acknowledge it.

Republished from the author’s Substack

https://brownstone.org/articles/new-report-details-horrifying-cost-of-faucis-failures/?fbclid=IwAR0R8xrWJUYv9QcCZ6lYpzRatdjuxFG5dJJaNyaocYIyY00UTTErL2Rum1Y

[Crafty_Dog]

Per the piece, the entire complexion of the US Covid response was based on one behind the scenes appointee that, having worked on the HIV response in Africa overlayed that resulting model atop the American response to Covid:

Coordinating Chaos

Rob Montz joins John Tierney to discuss his documentary It Wasn’t Fauci: How the Deep State Really Played Trump.

Audio Transcript

John Tierney: Welcome back to the 10 Blocks podcast. This is John Tierney, a contributing editor to City Journal. Joining me on the show today is Rob Montz, who has just released an important and riveting documentary on YouTube. It’s about the Covid fiasco and is titled, “It Wasn’t Fauci: How the Deep State Really Played Trump.” Now, Rob was a journalist, and he’s the CEO and co-founder of Good Kid Productions. Two years ago, before the rest of the country discovered that deficiencies of Harvard president Claudine Gay, Rob wrote about it in Quillette and also released a documentary exposing how she and other Harvard officials unfairly punished and suspended Roland Fryer, a brilliant economist at Harvard, whose research on policing and schooling contradicted progressive dogma on racism. Now, Rob has taken on a much bigger scandal: the useless and devastatingly harmful Covid lockdown, school closures, and other mandates that were imposed on America and copied in the rest of the world.

I’ve written a lot about these issues at City Journal, how these terrible measures were imposed against the longstanding advice of the best experts on dealing with pandemics and against the best scientific evidence about these measures. Now, this was, I think, the costliest and worst mistake ever made in the history of public health. Probably the worst public policy blunder ever made during peacetime in America. And like a lot of people, I’ve wondered, how could we be so stupid? Well, Rob answers that question in his new documentary, and the answer will be news to the many people who put all the blame on Anthony Fauci.

Now, there’s no question that Fauci bears a lot of responsibility. He was the public face of Covid. He was the darling of the gullible reporters in the mainstream media who bought his version of “the science.” And because his agency controlled so much of the research funding into infectious diseases, scientists depended on that funding, were afraid to contradict them, and therefore there was a silence from people who knew better. But as Rob shows in his documentary, it was another veteran federal bureaucrat who actually orchestrated these terrible measures and conned Donald Trump and the White House into going along with it. Her name is Deborah Birx. Could you tell us about her, Rob?

Rob Montz: Yeah, and for most people at best, they have a vague recollection of that name because Fauci was held up as the great counterbalance to Trumpism. He’s the guy who gets all the glowing New Yorker profiles. He’s the dude who gets the Time 100 nominations. And Birx was there, and people maybe vaguely remember her scarves, and maybe they remember that she was on the receiving end of that hyper viral Trump news conference in the early stages of the pandemic in which he suggested using ultraviolet light and bleach to fight Covid. Other than that, she’s basically been lost to history, which is just so funny about the nature narrative making in politics. You really get to see how warped and artificial historical storytelling is once you actually dig into the power of things. Yeah, you’re right. I get the sense that a lot of Americans want to move on. In part they really, really, really don’t want to hear the answer to was all that sacrifice of the lockdowns worth it?

They don’t really want to be told that it actually wasn’t worth it at all. There was no nobility to it. The cousin of yours that died of a drug overdose didn’t die for a good reason. The fact that your nine-year-old still can’t read. It’s not for any particularly good reason. The fact that you had to shutter your family business, there was no good reason. So people just want to move on, even though, as I’m sure your audience knows, there’s been a lot of pretty rigorous investigations into the efficacy of the lockdowns, and they’ve essentially proven that they had no impact whatsoever on cases or death rates.

John Tierney: Just tell us a little bit about Birx’s background and what led her to adopt these policies against the advice of the best epidemiologist in the world before this. It was against the plan of the CDC and other national health agencies before the pandemic. She did all this, despite all this. So tell us a little bit about her background.

Rob Montz: And it’s so funny because the ways that lockdowns became the default policy prescription in America, it’s so pedestrian. It’s like Alex Jones-style conspiracy theorizing has all these grand forces and complicated machinery and all these complex variables, but then you dig into how Birx got power and it’s the most mundane thing imaginable, and the mistakes she made is the most mundane thing in imaginable, and that became the default policy prescription for nearly 400 million Americans. So she immediately, in the wake of Covid hitting American shores in 2019, early 2020, the White House forms a special Covid task force. Importantly, Trump gives Pence complete control of the task force. He essentially outsources the whole Covid task force portfolio to Pence. And as they’re assembling this group, they’re frantically looking around for a public health expert that can bring some level of scientific rigor to their policy prescriptions for the rest of the country. And through a complicated set of connections, someone within the Trump administration recommends Deborah Birx. Her background importantly is in fighting AIDS in Africa.

John Tierney: She was also an old crony. I mean, she’d worked very closely with Fauci and with Robert Redfield, right?

Rob Montz: Oh, yeah. They all know each other. They’ve been working together for decades. They’re all part of the same swamp stew. So her background is in HIV-AIDS. And again, the important things are, there actually was an internal inspector’s general report that came out about her management style of PEPFAR, like literally just a matter of weeks.

John Tierney: And PEPFAR was this international AIDS program to combat AIDS.

Rob Montz: And it comes out, and this thing, which is mostly based upon surveys with municipal and public health officials in African countries that have been working with Deborah Birx, is a barnburner of an indictment on her management and leadership. It’s insane. I mean, anybody can read it. It’s not difficult to find. It’s just nobody did read it because nobody’s curious about it.

John Tierney: Right. This is the first I’ve seen of it, and it really is a barn burner showing what a horrible administrator she was.

Rob Montz: Everyone’s like she’s a dictator. She doesn’t listen to feedback. She very quickly becomes myopically committed to a particular paradigm and doesn’t change it based upon the facts on the ground. She’s dictatorial.

John Tierney: Draws the wrong conclusions, you say?

Rob Montz: Yeah. She draws conclusions that lead down the wrong path. And this is the person who then gets brought up to be part of this elite group of, it’s only like 10 people that are principals on the Covid task force, and she’s the chief scientist on the task force. That’s the woman. Somehow the mechanics of history are such that she’s the person that gets to write the guidelines. And what she does, and again, I don’t want to give away everything in the documentary, I want people to have a reason to go watch it, is she essentially makes this 75 IQ instinctual parallel between Covid and AIDS. She makes a certain set of assumptions that the Covid virus and HIV/AIDS virus are the same. And from those parallel assumptions come a certain set of policy prescriptions, including getting to zero cases at any cost, treating Covid as an equal opportunity killer, focusing on children and shutting down schools. This is all based on an HIV/AIDS paradigm.

John Tierney: Right, where every case is potentially fatal.

Rob Montz: Exactly. I don’t know. This is not a hot contrarian take to be like, “Yo Covid’s not like HIV/AIDS.” Not at all. It’s extremely different. They’re radically different diseases. We get into a bunch of the particulars, not least of which, and again, it’s still shocking how few Americans seem to appreciate this. It’s mostly because of the thematic misinformation fed to them by the corporate establishment media, that there’s this really, really sharp age gradient for Covid death where it’s a serious disease if you’re 74, and it’s not a serious disease at all if you’re 20. And that reality needs to be reflected in your policy interventions. And it wasn’t. Then the central mystery also that we try to solve, Trump initially had okayed the lockdown and very famously cut off air transportation from China. He greenlit a couple weeks to slow the spread, and then a couple more weeks.

And then he pretty famously turns against lockdowns right around like June or July of 2020 and starts criticizing them. He very famously gets Covid and then afterwards tells the American public not to be afraid, doesn’t wear a mask. He berates governors for excessively, overly aggressively closing down schools. But even after the president himself turns against lockdowns, the official policy prescription from his White House all the way through the election is still pro-lockdown. And you’re like, that’s interesting. How did that happen? I don’t think the schoolhouse rock conception of American government is an efficient explanation for how it is that a president could be saying one thing and the actual policy coming from his White House could be the exact opposite. There must be some complexity or nuances here that I didn’t learn in my ninth grade U.S. government class. Deborah Birx is the linchpin for how it is that that dissidence could have occurred.

John Tierney: Right. Scott Atlas, who’s featured in your documentary, who was one of the early heroes of the pandemic speaking out, and he was invited finally, someone in the White House, Scott, he was appearing on television and saying the lockdowns are going to kill more people than the virus. The school closures are devastating. And so he got in there and he tried to do something on the task force, but he was completely stymied by Birx and Robert Redfield, head of the CDC, and Fauci on the task force were these veteran bureaucrats who’d all worked together. Fauci had worked on the failed attempt to do an AIDS vaccine, but they made a secret pact because the New York Times later revealed that if any one of them was fired, they’d all quit. So they basically knew how to play the bureaucratic game. And there was also, you point out in the documentary that Jared Kushner, he was terrified of the political implications of standing up to Fauci.

Rob Montz: But my reporting mostly indicates that she was able, Birx in particular, was able to systematically stymie and marginalized Atlas, not because of her close alliance with Fauci and Redfield, but because of her close alliance with Mike Pence. Remarkable, right?

John Tierney: And he really emerges as another villain. He was supposedly in charge of the task force, but he just bowed to her at every turn. He was afraid to stand up to her. Right?

Rob Montz: Well, it’s not exactly, I don’t really know his motivations. From a distance, before I’d gotten into this, he’d always struck me as the paradigmatic hollow man elected politician. He just seems like he was grown in a lab and is a soulless political automaton, and he just regurgitates on command GOP Christianist talking points. Are you even a person? Do you have a subjective experience of reality, or are you just a non-player character? So I don’t really know what his motivations were. I don’t really know.

John Tierney: I think Scott Atlas said that Pence just deferred to her and everything, and she basically ran the—I mean, he was the head of it, but she really, I think, set the agenda. And then, as you say in the documentary, she’s the one who was writing all the official White House guidance.

Rob Montz: Right. She was writing it almost alone. This is again, something that I think the broader American public needs to appreciate that it was a single woman with a couple of junior staffers that was writing. Again, they were recommendations, so they weren’t mandates, so governors didn’t have to follow them. But certainly in the early stages of the pandemic, governors that defied federal guidelines were risking insane legal liability, and it was just her, it was not a group project at all. And so Scott Atlas is brought in right around the time that Trump changes his mind. It turns out he was right about everything. Really everything about just the complete, the catastrophic human consequences of lockdowns and other parts of life. There’s this age gradient that needs to be taken into consideration, how shutting down schools who basically everybody now agrees it was a catastrophic event.

John Tierney: Everybody knew that early on too. I mean, it was very clear early on.

Rob Montz: He’s right about everything. But what’s funny, and this, I don’t want to give it away too much though. It’s also funny to see that Birx again is able to enact, in part enabled by Trump’s epic executive incompetence. And again, he doesn’t get off lightly in this at all. She’s able to enact this kind of casual coup of him, and it didn’t require a shot fired, and it was mostly done with an email inbox and an edit function. It’s the most pedestrian office space tactics imaginable. And it ends up having these unbelievably catastrophic consequences for hundreds of millions of people. And it’s the most casual, bland office drone stuff you can imagine in terms of what she actually has to do to circumvent a president. And again, I do want to emphasize this is a deeply anti-Trump piece as well, because stuff happened on his watch because of his incompetence and chaos. For large portions of his presidency, even before Covid, he was acting like somebody else’s president, and he was just the guy that tweeted things out.

John Tierney: Right. Scott Atlas tried, and I want to talk about what he tried to do with bringing another scientist, but a really striking story in Scott Atlas’s book about this, A Plague Upon Our House, is when he first meets Deborah Birx, he goes in and she’s pushing the mask mandate, of course. And they were even pushing the absurdity of masks outside even, and they kept that forever. But he says that he asked her, “Where do you think the evidence is for a mask mandate? Because the best remote, randomized controlled trials before it, people said, don’t have mass mandates. There’s no evidence that they work.” And she says, well, and she cites this what she called a study in one hair salon in Mississippi that was a joke. And then he realizes that she just has no conception of the science and no interest in it. He used to bring in all the studies to the meeting.

She and Fauci never looked at it, never discussed it, refused to do it. And then you show the documentary how Atlas finally tries to go around her and brings in some real scientists who actually know how to deal with pandemics. Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford, Martin Kulldorff from Harvard, and Joe Ladapo, who was at UCLA. He brings them, he arranges a White House meeting for these scientists who’d done the great Barrington Declaration saying we should protect older people, we should not be locking down, we should not be closing schools. We should focus protection. So he brings them in for a meeting, and he invites Birx with Trump, invites her there. So what happens then?

Rob Montz: Yeah, so he brings in people. This is like pre-Great Barrington Declaration, but again, a group of genuine, highly credentialed, mostly Ivy League professors of epidemiology. Again, Deborah Birx is not a researcher. She’s not even an epidemiologist. She’s a bureaucrat. She was overseeing the dispersal of AIDS medicine. She wasn’t doing foundational research into the nature of the HIV/AIDS virus or whatever. So again, real hardcore Harvard, Stanford gold-plated credentials people that are basically trying to come in to provide an intellectual architecture for Trump’s guerrilla instincts that the lockdowns are bad and are counterproductive and come with a huge human toll. Atlas puts together this meeting in the White House. It’s him and a couple of these other heavy hitters. And it’s specifically scheduled so that Deborah Birx can attend. They make a point to schedule it so that she can be there and she can make her case in front of the president. And she at the last minute says, “I’m not going to be there because it would look bad for me.” She refuses to deign to give them her attention or her time, which is the most horribly unscientific way—

John Tierney: And also because she can’t possibly argue with them because they know so much more than she does.

Rob Montz: But it’s amazing that she has since publicly admitted she doesn’t even pretend to engage with the substance of their critiques. I know this from having suffered from my sins and watched everything that she’s ever said about the time in the White House.

John Tierney: My condolences.

Rob Montz: She doesn’t even attempt to engage with it analytically. She just calls it a heresy, and then openly admits to using her bureaucratic intrigue powers to censor and silence her critics. We talk about it in the doc that she, shortly after that meeting with the president, between the president and these professors, goes to the media team at the White House and tells them, “You can’t put Scott Atlas on national news anymore.” And they say, “Yeah.” The most grotesque censorship imaginable. And she’s openly admitting to it because she isn’t thinking anything’s wrong with it.

John Tierney: She’s proud of it. One of my favorite lines, and you got some great sound clips from her talking, I think at the Aspen Institute maybe, of talks where she was speaking to a friendly audience and really opened up and admitted what happened. And one of her things, and she talked about that meeting and said, “Now you’re sort of outgunned,” she says, “if you’re against these professors from Harvard and Stanford.” But she says, “Now, but I’m not outvoiced. You just don’t allow yourself to be outvoiced.” It’s a real high point in the documentary, and that’s a bureaucrat. They may be right on the science, but I’m going to outvoice them. I’m going to do the bureaucratic channels to manipulate things.

Rob Montz: And again, Deborah Birx has been raised and thrived in and mastered like the dark arts of federal administration. I mean, she’s been doing it for decades upon decades. Her expertise is not in epidemiology or any hard scientific fields. Her expertise is in navigating bureaucracy and in kind of petty power politics in federal government. So when she’s losing clearly the scientific debate, she resorts to the tactics and the tools that she knows, which is the back end, dark arts, bureaucratic power. So she knows which levers to press and who to go to and how to talk to them to silence her critics. And that’s exactly what she does. And what that does is it enables her to continue to impose her completely garbage, broken, unscientific lockdown policies on the country well through the end of 2020 in open defiance of President Trump.

John Tierney: Exactly.

Rob Montz: But again, this is very instructive about him in that he gets labeled as a fascist. And again, I’m not going to defend Trump, but it is interesting that when he actually had power, he so willingly gave it away, and it was so easy to snatch it from him. It’s like, this is not some Mussolini dude. It’s like, you got to be kidding me. It was so goddamn easy to steal enormous amounts of power from him. And that’s not a fascist. Again, that tends to substantiate the story of Trump as more of a theater experience like a clown, like someone who can pretend to be the alpha man of action.

John Tierney: And there’s another really nice moment in the documentary where Pence is talking. You show Pence saying, “We drain the swamp, we’re going to do it.” And then you show right before that, you show how Birx, after the White House has said, “Our official policy is we’re against lockdowns,” she, the veteran bureaucrat, discovers that they don’t really read what she writes. As long as she doesn’t put it at the beginning, they just skim it. And so she basically just keeps saying, “Close bars, outdoor masks, close schools, close churches.” She just keeps putting that out as a guidance. She travels the country telling governors to do this, and nobody at the White House is stopping her. And she even goes to Pence and says, and I think you say that. She says to Pence, “You know that I’m doing exactly the opposite of what the president is saying?” And Pence just says to her, “Do what you need to do.”

Rob Montz: Ice cold, man. Ice cold, I know bro. And it’s so simple. And it’s not without a shot fired, not really some sophisticated game. If this was an episode of Game of Thrones, it wouldn’t even fill an episode, like a single episode, because there’s so few narrative storytelling points in it. It didn’t take much at all to topple a president. It was remarkably simple. And so the reason we did the documentary, and again, this is kind of the reason that our whole company exists, is to tell these stories that just get missed by corporate cathedral media. It’s remarkable that this was the biggest story in the last 50 years in America. And this one particular story about how it is that we got this particular policy response, it’s just never been told.

John Tierney: Well, it was good for you doing. I mean, it really is so telling, and it needs to be told, because the big fear, of course, is that nobody wants to admit how wrong they were. So the next time a virus comes along, it’ll be, whoa, that’s our policy. We work. And there’ll be another Deborah Birx in there who knows how to manipulate the system. So I hope the documentary gets a lot of views, that people really find out about what Birx did and how disastrous this all was. And I hope that our listeners will check this out. Again, the documentary, It Wasn’t Fauci: How The Deep State Really Played Trump. It’s available on YouTube. You can also check out my articles about Scott Atlas and about other issues that Rob covers in the documentary. You can find us at city-journal.org, also on X @CityJournal, and on Instagram @CityJournal_MI. And as always, if you like what you’ve heard on the podcast, give us five-star rating on iTunes. Thanks again, Rob, for joining us and for producing a great documentary.

Rob Montz: John, thanks so much for having me. And again, people can watch the documentary in full, at least for now, on our YouTube page at Good Kid Productions.

John Tierney: Excellent.

https://www.city-journal.org/multimedia/chaos-coordinators

[Body-by-Guinness]

Hospitals are using demographic diktats to determine, in part, which vendor wins a solicitation for goods or services. In the ed biz the term used is SWaM, for Small business, Women and Minority ownership of a supplier. Generally when evaluating a vendor’s bid SWaM accounts for up to 5% of a potential score. In the instances noted below, it appears a similar metric is good for up to 20% of a solicited bid.

Perhaps I’m old fashioned, but when it comes to healthcare I more traditional criteria such as quality, scalability, supply levels, delivery resources, and such ought to trump demographic desires. Indeed, in my experience just about every respondent know checking the SWaM box is good for an automatic 5% and so find a way to juke that requirement.

Anyhoo, next time you are laying on a table surrounding by folks wearing surgical masks and asking you to count backwards from ten, rest assured you are being treated with supplies furnished by vendors that are apt when it comes to identity politics:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/04/hospitals-embracing-identity-politics-in-selection-of-outside-vendors/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=hospitals-embracing-identity-politics-in-selection-of-outside-vendors

[Body-by-Guinness]

I’d say I was beating a dead horse, at least if all those that berated and belittled anyone positing a lab origin cause of covid would cop to their abject error, but as those embracing anti-science methods to shame other viewpoints out of the discussion have since moved on, perhaps casting backwards glances at the “climate change” diktats they are every bit as sure of, or perhaps embracing current vogue antisemitic/pro-terror causes, I figure the least those of us keeping score at home can do is beat these nitwits over the head with their unerring ability to embrace the wrong side of an issue and ballyhoo it until Captain Obvious inspires them to move on to their next embrace of the erroneous.

The Smoking Gun in Wuhan: The German-Chinese Lab and the HIV Inserts
BY ROBERT KOGON  24 APRIL 2024 11:26 AM

Theories of a lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 have largely focused on the presence in the genome of the famous furin cleavage site. Less attention has been paid to other anomalies and, in particular, the presence of the so-called HIV inserts first flagged by the Indian research team Pradhan et al. in late January 2020 and quickly dismissed as untenable conspiracy mongering. Thus, when an Anglosphere group of scientists around Kristian Andersen came to Anthony Fauci at almost exactly the same time with their concerns that the virus had been engineered, their focus was on the furin cleavage site and they took great pains to distance themselves from Pradhan et al. and the HIV inserts.

But is that because they did not view them as anomalous or rather because they were worried that the implications of the anomaly were too shocking to be pursued? The content of their FOIA’d e-mails and Slack messages makes clear that it is the latter. They too saw the anomaly, but they did not want to talk about it, since, as Edward Holmes put it, in both a February 4th 2020 e-mail to Jeremy Farrar and a Slack group message on the same day, “this will make us look like loons”.  (More fully, Holmes wrote to his colleagues, referring to the first sketch of what would become their infamous ‘Proximal Origins’ paper, “Good idea not to mention all the other anomalies as this will make us look like loons”.)

As the Slack messages likewise make abundantly and sometimes embarrassingly clear, questions of expediency and even career considerations were never far from the minds of Andersen and his colleagues.

But someone who was too old to care about such matters was the late French virologist Luc Montagnier: none other than the man who is credited with having discovered HIV or the AIDS virus. Montagnier took the findings of Pradhan et al. very seriously, reproduced them independently with the help of the bio-mathematician Jean-Claude Perez and concluded that SAR-CoV-2 must have been created in a lab. He would indeed be widely treated as a “loon” for his troubles – and this despite the fact that the supposed “loon” had been awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine barely 10 years earlier for his discovery of HIV.

In an April 16th 2020 interview with the French health news site Pourquoi Docteur? (Why Doctor?), Montagnier dismissed the idea that SARS-CoV-2 had emerged from a wet market as “a nice story” and insisted that, in light of the HIV inserts, the more likely scenario was that it had been engineered in an effort to create an HIV vaccine using a coronavirus as vector. (Although the accompanying article is still online, the audio of Luc Montagnier’s interview with Pourquoi Docteur? is no longer available on the website or the podcast platform. Fortunately, a recording of it has been preserved on Facebook here.)

It is well-known, after all, that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) had been conducting experiments with bat-borne coronaviruses. This is precisely why Kristian Andersen was convinced that a lab escape of the virus was far more probable than a natural origin. “I think the main thing still in my mind,” he wrote in a Slack message, “is that the lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario.”


Andersen wrote this to his colleagues just before getting on the famous February 1st 2020 conference call during which the German coronavirus specialist Christian Drosten and the Dutch gain-of-function researcher Ron Fouchier are known to have harshly upbraided them for entertaining the ‘lab leak’ hypothesis.

But surely no one in Wuhan was trying to create an HIV vaccine, and that is presumably why Andersen and his colleagues thought Montagnier’s theory was ‘friggin’’ unlikely and felt comfortable making lame attempts to diss the Nobel Prize laureate (“Nobel Prize Disease is a known thing”) in their conversations.

But the fact of the matter is that someone was trying to create an HIV vaccine in Wuhan.

For this was precisely the aim of the longstanding German-Chinese cooperative virology project about which I have written here, here and here and which gave rise to a full-fledged joint German-Chinese virology lab right in Wuhan. Indeed, as I have shown, the joint German-Chinese lab, located at Union Hospital on the left bank of the Yangtze River, is not just in Wuhan, but is also – unlike the Wuhan Institute of Virology – right in the area of the initial outbreak of COVID-19 cases in the city.

Furthermore, the Wuhan Institute of Virology is itself an official partner in the German-Chinese virology network – and, as will be seen momentarily, key members of the network who were conducting experiments meant to facilitate the development of an HIV vaccine are based at none other than the WIV.

When he first stumbled upon the HIV inserts, Luc Montagnier could not have known all this. All he had to go on was the molecular data. But it is true.

The very title of the publicly-funded “transregional” collaborative research centre (TRR60) which gave rise to the joint German-Chinese lab is “Mutual interaction of chronic viruses with cells of the immune system: from fundamental research to immunotherapy and vaccination”.


The chronic viruses for which a vaccine was being sought were hepatitis-C and HIV. A mission statement is available in English here. The centrality of developing a “safe and effective” HIV vaccine is clear. Yes, the now infamous “safe and effective” formula is in the mission statement (as can be seen below).


As can be seen in the description below, sub-project B6 of TRR60, under the direction of Professors Rongge Yang and Binlian Sun of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was dedicated to studying “genetically engineered HIV gp120 V1/V2 glycosylation variants” for the purpose of facilitating “HIV vaccine development”.


Well, this is very interesting, since three of the four inserts identified by Pradhan et al. correspond precisely to “to short segments of amino acid residues in HIV-1 gp120”: i.e., the HIV envelope protein “glycoprotein 120”. More specifically, the residues “were a part of the V4, V5 and V1 domains respectively” (emphasis added).

As “Seven of Nine MD” noted when this passage in Pradhan et al. was brought to her attention on X, “This does not look good for Rongge Yang and Ulf Dittmer”. (As touched upon here, the pseudonymous “Seven of Nine MD” X-account has taken up many of the topics of the German physician and virologist Johanna Deinert: a long-time proponent of the “lab leak” hypothesis who was exiled from Twitter under the old regime and whose @DeinertDoc account has never been restored under the new.)

Professor Ulf Dittmer of University Hospital Essen was the coordinator of the “transregional” research centre, and he is the Co-Director of the German-Chinese lab at Union Hospital in Wuhan. (I have discussed his links to Christian Drosten here.)

Dittmer is in fact himself the co-author with no fewer than five members of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, including Rongge Yang and Binlian Sun, of a 2016 paper on none other than the V1 region of the HIV envelope protein gp120.


The paper identifies the region as being “indispensable for… virus infection”, and the authors argue that their joint research “may facilitate the development of novel HIV vaccines”.

Dittmer can be seen with Rongge Yang below in a photo taken at University Hospital Essen in 2015. Another of the distinguished guests from China (scroll down) is none other than George F. Gao, who would soon become the director of the Chinese CDC.


a) Ulf Dittmer b) George F. Gao c) Rongge Yang
There has, of course, been much excitement about an alleged ‘smoking gun’ in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, which is supposed to prove the lab origins of SARS-CoV-2. Never mind that Chapel Hill is some 7,000 miles or so from Wuhan. But this ‘smoking gun’ – one with German, not American, fingerprints on it – is right in Wuhan. There is no need for the virus to have somehow got to the city in China prior to escape. The HIV work was being done right at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, with its famous repository of coronaviruses.

Robert Kogon is the pen name of a widely-published journalist covering European affairs. Subscribe to his Substack.

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/04/24/the-smoking-gun-in-wuhan-the-german-chinese-lab-and-the-hiv-inserts/

[Crafty_Dog]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1788149762908422298

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/pfizer-says-they-re-deeply-sorry-for-violating-5-regulatory-codes-and-illegally-promoting-their-vaccine/ar-BB1mkm0p?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=EDGEXST&cvid=0dd71790014b4253930b4b250a99ba99&ei=22https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/pfizer-says-they-re-deeply-sorry-for-violating-5-regulatory-codes-and-illegally-promoting-their-vaccine/ar-BB1mkm0p?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=EDGEXST&cvid=0dd71790014b4253930b4b250a99ba99&ei=22

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/testimony-of-top-public-health-official-during-covid-is-made-public-undermining-everything-fauci-said/ar-BB1mIZto?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=e25aa94ef62f4d6ca23698de575ca0fd&ei=10

[Crafty_Dog]

https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/5659992/military-complicity

[Body-by-Guinness]

Clearly a card carrying member of the Uniparty, so nothing to see here, move along:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/05/rand-paul-demands-doj-investigate-top-fauci-aide-for-allegedly-destroying-covid-origin-emails/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rand-paul-demands-doj-investigate-top-fauci-aide-for-allegedly-destroying-covid-origin-emails

[Body-by-Guinness]

What a horror show: UCLA medical school diversity officer cajoles admission committee members to accept unqualified students admitted as unabashed diversity/quota admits. Since this diversity officer began her efforts test scores among other metrics have cratered. But hey, who are we to complain about future dead patients when there are critical social justice idols to worship?

https://freebeacon.com/campus/a-failed-medical-school-how-racial-preferences-supposedly-outlawed-in-california-have-persisted-at-ucla/

[Crafty_Dog]

What Was Anthony Fauci’s Top Aide Hiding?
‘I learned from our foia lady here how to make emails disappear,’ David Morens wrote in one email.
Allysia Finley
May 26, 2024 6:09 pm ET


Peter Daszak is sworn in during a House Select Subcommittee hearing in Washington, May 1. PHOTO: ANDREW HARNIK/GETTY IMAGES
The Covid pandemic wasn’t government’s finest hour, not least because of a persistent lack of transparency. Emails released last week by the U.S. House reveal how Anthony Fauci’s former top adviser worked to keep the public in the dark and thwart investigations into Covid’s origins.

The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic has been investigating the National Institutes of Health’s funding of the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, some of which flowed to scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology doing risky experiments with coronaviruses. The committee earlier found that the NIH and EcoHealth failed to monitor properly the Wuhan experiments.

Subpoenaed private emails from Dr. Fauci’s senior adviser, David Morens, now show how NIH officials and EcoHealth President Peter Daszak sought to conceal their lapses. After the Trump administration in April 2020 suspended funding for EcoHealth, Dr. Morens rallied to Mr. Daszak’s defense.

“There are things I can’t say except Tony [Fauci] is aware and I have learned there are ongoing efforts within NIH to steer through this with minimal damage to you, Peter, and colleagues, and to nih and niaid,” Dr. Morens wrote to Mr. Daszak on April 26, 2020. “I have reason to believe that there are already efforts going on to protect you.” (NIAID is the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which Dr. Fauci directed from 1984 through 2022.)

Dr. Morens led the Daszak protection program. His subpoenaed emails show that he helped edit EcoHealth’s press releases and worked to get its funding restored. He also sought to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests by outside groups regarding the EcoHealth grant.

On Feb. 24, 2021, Dr. Morens wrote to Boston University scientist Gerald Keusch: “I learned from our foia lady here how to make emails disappear after i am fioa’d [sic] but before the search starts, so i think we are all safe. Plus i deleted most of those earlier emails after sending them to gmail.”

Safe from what? Public scrutiny?

Note that Dr. Morens and Dr. Keusch collaborated on a September 2020 article that claimed “theories about a hypothetical man-made origin of SARS-CoV-2 have been thoroughly discredited by multiple coronavirus experts.” Their article advocated more funding for groups like EcoHealth “to prevent this tragic history from repeating itself.”

Dr. Morens noted in another email to Dr. Keusch: “I learned the tricks last year from an old friend, Marg Moore, who heads our FOIA office and also hates FOIAs.” FOIA productions are burdensome, but government officials are required by law to preserve their emails and to conduct government business on government accounts.

Dr. Morens didn’t, and his emails suggest Dr. Fauci might also have used private addresses in this manner. Dr. Morens wrote to Mr. Daszak on April 21, 2021: “PS, i forgot to say there is no worry about FOIAs. I can either send stuff to Tony on his private gmail, or hand it to him at work or at his house. He is too smart to let colleagues send him stuff that could cause trouble.”

The next day, Dr. Morens wrote to Dr. Keusch: “If i had to bet, i would guess that beneath Tony’s macho I-am-not-worried reaction he really is concerned. And whatever the case he should be very concerned about what happened to Peter, to our research portfolio in an extremely important area, and to scientific independence.”

In other words, NIH officials worried about losing public support if their EcoHealth records were made public. Was this why the Health and Human Services Department in May 2021 blocked FOIA document releases related to EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology?

Mr. Daszak thought so. “On a cynical note, I suspect HHS is doing this because they feel that Tony Fauci & Francis Collins [then head of NIH] are under pressure, and they don’t want more mud to be slung around,” he wrote to Dr. Morens. The halt on FOIA releases may also have given NIH officials more time to clean out their emails.

Dr. Morens wrote to another outside collaborator, Baylor College of Medicine’s Peter Hotez, on June 28, 2021, that he had deleted all his emails related to the Covid origin “when the s— started hitting the fan.” “I feel pretty sure Tony’s was too. The best way to avoid FOIA hassles is to delete all emails when you learn a subject is getting sensitive.” In other words, Dr. Morens believed that Dr. Fauci’s emails with Mr. Daszak were also deleted to avoid public disclosure.

Amid increasing scrutiny from House Republicans of the EcoHealth grant, Dr. Morens wrote to Mr. Daszak on Oct. 25, 2021: “Peter from Tony’s numerous recent comments to me, and from what Francis [Collins] has been vocal about over the past 5 days, they are trying to protect you, which also protects their own reputations.”

Dr. Morens’s emails showcase how government officials circled the wagons to protect themselves. Dr. Morens, who is currently on administrative leave owing to the committee’s revelations of his potential federal records law violation, told lawmakers last week that his FOIA avoidance was “wrong” but denied knowledge that his emails constituted federal records under the law. Regardless, he was clearly trying to conceal the Daszak grant background.

In related news, HHS moved last week to bar Mr. Daszak from federal programs, citing EcoHeath’s “improper conduct.” Dr. Keusch in a statement called Mr. Daszak’s punishment “really dangerous to science, for scientists, and for national security.” The real danger to science is lack of candor by health officials.

The House investigation is another illustration of why Americans have lost trust in public-health institutions. Members of Congress might consider cutting funding for the NIH as punishment for employees’ obfuscations.

[DougMacG]

‘I learned from our foia lady here how to make emails disappear,’ David Morens wrote in one email.
--------------------------------------------------------
  - Can you now learn to live in a federal prison cell?
Federal employees may be subject to criminal penalties for the willful and unlawful destruction, removal, or private use of federal records, 18 U.S.C. § 2071.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

Did Dr. Fauci lie to Congress or not?

18 U.S.C. § 1001, it is a crime to “knowingly and willfully” make a “materially false” statement to any of the three branches of the federal government, including Congress. This law applies to both sworn and unsworn statements, the penalty for violating it is up to five years in prison and a fine.

[Body-by-Guinness]

Gawd, the thought of this trafficker in serial falsehoods impacting the lives of hundreds of millions or more addressing future MDs is galling in the extreme:

Anthony Fauci Tells Columbia Medical Students to Lie Just Like Him
They would do better to follow the rule of “first do no harm.”
May 28, 2024
By K. LLOYD BILLINGSLEY
NIAID / Flickr
Also published in The American Spectator Fri. May 24, 2024
Speeches by Joe Biden and Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker gained widespread media coverage. On the other hand, the speech given last week by Dr. Anthony Fauci at Columbia University failed to get the attention it deserved.

Fauci spoke of “egregious distortions of reality” and told the students: “Sadly, elements of our society are driven by a cacophony of falsehoods, lies, and conspiracy theories that get repeated often enough that after a while, they stand largely unchallenged, ominously leading to an insidious acceptance of what I call ‘the normalization of untruth.’ ... And we as much or more than anyone else need to push back on these distortions of truth and reality.” Critics were quick to push back.

“Everything he just accused all of us of is the stuff that he and his cadre of lunatics have been doing,” said Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report. Fauci, longtime head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), maintained that he had not funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) to perform dangerous gain-of-function research. On May 16, the day after Fauci’s speech, Lawrence Tabak, former acting director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), testified that NIAID did indeed fund gain-of-function research at the WIV through the EcoHealth Alliance.

Sen. Rand Paul, a medical doctor and author of Deception: The Great Covid Cover-up, accused Fauci of lying to Congress about that funding. That didn’t come up in Fauci’s speech, and neither did the 6-foot social distancing rule, which Fauci now acknowledges “just sort of appeared,” without any scientific basis. Also missing was Fauci’s claim to represent science, and the former NIAID boss left out details that would have been of particular interest to his audience, the students of Columbia’s Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Born in 1940, Anthony Fauci graduated from the College of the Holy Cross in 1962. In 1966, Fauci earned a medical degree from Cornell University, but he didn’t practice medicine for long. The government was then drafting physicians to treat wounded American soldiers in Vietnam, but the Cornell MD opted for a different path.

In 1968, Dr. Fauci took a cushy “yellow beret” job with the NIH and decided to stay. In 1984, the NIH made Fauci head of NIAID, and, for some medical scientists, that was a problem. Fauci had obtained no advanced degrees in molecular biology or biochemistry. Kary Mullis, who had a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley, and won a Nobel Prize for “his invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method,” considered Fauci unqualified for the NIAID job.

“This man thinks you can take a blood sample and stick it in an electron microscope and if it’s got a virus in there, you will know it,” Mullis said. “He doesn’t understand electron microscopy and he doesn’t understand medicine. He should not be in a position like he’s in.” But he was—and with serious consequences for AIDS patients.

Fauci’s preferred cure was AZT, also known as azidothymidine and Zidovudine. The highly toxic drug failed to prevent or cure AIDS, but Fauci inflicted the drug on foster children in New York City, with disastrous results. He also branded critics “AIDS deniers,” a tactic he would repeat during the pandemic.

Instead of debating critics such as the scientists of the Great Barrington Declaration—most if not all of whom are more qualified than himself—Fauci branded them conspiracy theorists, fringe epidemiologists, and so forth. As with AZT, the COVID vaccines failed to prevent infection or transmission, but Fauci recommended them even for children, the least vulnerable group.

This is what happens when a medical doctor opts for a career as a government bureaucrat and remains in power for decades with no accountability. The Columbia students would do better to ignore Fauci, become practicing physicians and surgeons, and follow the rule of “first do no harm.” More doctors and fewer government bureaucrats should be the rule moving forward.

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14940

[Body-by-Guinness]

2nd post. Remember the good old days when you’d be banned from social medial for suggesting Covid caused clots and such? Guess those days are past:

https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-decode-deadly-blood-clot-disorder-triggered-by-covid-vaccines/

[Body-by-Guinness]

An apt post with numerous links tracking many of the hyperbolic media claims made re Covid that turned out to be false. Nothing resembling accountability has occurred in the wake of these falsehood, and indeed these false news pieces arguably succeeded in their goal of propping up alarmist edicts, with hurricane Katrina being used as an example where false claims bore electoral fruit and indeed served as a roadmap used as future false, alarmist news stories were floated.

Perhaps we need to draft a comprehensive piece tracking all these false efforts that can be added as an asterisk to future deconstructions of the next instance of Big Like employment, making it clear Goebbels’ antecedents are in shameless play:
 
https://instapundit.com/649889/

[Crafty_Dog]

Health

Whoa, those COVID vaccines might be killing folks? Among the more than seven million worldwide deaths that have been attributed to the Wuhan coronavirus, one casualty stands out among all others: Liberty. Whether the penalty was getting kicked out of college or kicked out of the military, the Left's anti-scientific insistence that even healthy young people get the stick was, at the time, infuriating to those who believe in individual liberty. And now, that violation seems even more monstrous. As the New York Post reports, a new study from the Netherlands' Vrije Universiteit suggests that the vax could be partly to blame for an "unprecedented" increase in deaths in both the U.S. and other Western countries in the years since the pandemic hit. "Analyzing mortality data from 47 Western countries, scientists ... found that excess mortality has 'remained high' since 2020 — despite the widespread rollout of COVID vaccines and various containment measures."

How many excess deaths are we talking about? In the U.S., Europe, and Australia since 2020, that number is north of three million. Clearly, a reckoning is due.

Will the pro-vax forces in government and the media stop staring at their shoes?

[ccp]

I don't buy the excess deaths due to vaccines.
it certainly did save many lives.

Easy to say now all this criticism after we now know more.
What were we supposed to do while facing hundreds of thousands of deaths in an emergency?

Yes, many were very angry about the mandating of shots, the closing of everything down, social distancing, etc

Yes, much of that caused more harm than the infection itself.  I get that part.

Easy to say now.

There certainly was evidence from the 1918 to 1919 flu epidemic that quarantine worked at that time.
I have posted with this one , once the cat was out of the Chinese bag it was already too late with travel etc the way it is today.

As for Fauci he should be held accountable for lying about the source and for promoting experimenting with making viruses even more dangerous.

Him and those who did this are to blame.
The Chinese we can't do anything about.
OTOH if we cut off all contact with them we will have NO idea what they are doing in this realm at all so I don't know which is worse.

We know Xi is hell bent on breaking us the same way Dems are hell bent on destroying the Repub party.

[ccp]

suppose we did nothing during the pandemic.
knowing what we know now that may not have been worse, though hospitals were overflowing with patients early on.

then we would have looked back and complained nothing was done.
you do the best one can with what you have at the time.

just like in war.

[Crafty_Dog]

IMHO this argument does not apply to mandating vaxxing for the young, for children, for those with natural antibodies, cancelling and destroying the careers of those with other POVs.

[Body-by-Guinness]

This piece does a thorough job of noting not only all Fauci got wrong, but how, despite controlling a $5 billion budget he spent precisely zero dollars on even rudimentary research. Too much formatting as well as graphs & other illustrations.

https://www.sensible-med.com/p/anthony-fauci-failed-during-the-coronavirus

[ccp]

20 yr ago I would have thought his behavior outrageous.

Now I call incessant LEFT wing lying to us all day and night outrageous and this is minor compared to the LYING crap they tell us everyday:


https://www.newsweek.com/brandon-fellows-jan-6-rioter-anthony-fauci-covid-hearing-sparks-fury-1907826

Fauci is obnoxious lying person who cannot admit to anything despite the evidence.
And no, I am not as he claims attacking science.  I am attacking his character.

[Body-by-Guinness]

Something I intend to do frequently as the election nears is point out to the True Believers on the Dem side how often they were wrong about things last election cycle. Don’t expect it to make a dent, but I do figure it’ll buy some clenched jaws at least.

Here a former CDC director kinda cops to things his agency got wrong:

https://brownstone.org/articles/former-cdc-director-admits-the-truth/

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/the-endgame

June 17, 2024
The Endgame
By
Geert Vanden Bossche
Geert Vanden Bossche

The Outcome of Vaccine-Associated Viral Phenotype Selection Will Overrule the Effect of Vaccine-Associated Human Genome Editing.
I regularly read the contributions of Julian Gillespie, who, along with his colleagues, tirelessly battles the Australian judicial system, regulatory authorities, and especially Moderna and Pfizer. They legitimately argue that these companies circumvented applicable laws by not seeking approval for their mRNA-based Covid-19 (C-19) vaccines under the GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) statutes. This particularly applies to the mRNA vaccines, as they are heavily contaminated with bacterial DNA from the manufacturing process  (Australian DNA CONTAMINATION Confirmed .. in Australian vials of Pfizer and Moderna .. NOT safe for Humans (substack.com).

Those who make the effort to examine the remarkable evidence presented by Julian and his team regarding the safety concerns of the mRNA C-19 vaccines and the widespread fraud by the despicable lobby of governmental agencies and Big Pharma primarily ask one major question:

To what extent could the integration of bacterial DNA, heavily contaminating Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, cause changes or damage to the genome of C-19 vaccinated individuals? Could such integration into germ cells potentially even lead to these changes being passed on to future generations?
There is growing evidence that this kind of insertional mutagenesis could, for example, lead to the activation of oncogenes or the inhibition of tumor suppressor genes, effects that primarily manifest in the medium to long term. How will highly C-19 vaccinated countries fare if it turns out that the mRNA-based C-19 vaccines have caused genetic impairments in millions? Will such societies remain viable and still be capable of producing healthy offspring?

The reckless and insane genetic manipulation of large segments of the human population threatens to cause a protracted, complex health catastrophe in highly C-19 vaccinated countries. Amidst these legitimate concerns and increasing outcries, many overlook that mass C-19 vaccination and subsequent vaccine-breakthrough infections have simultaneously but differently induced unintended yet targeted genetic selection of Sars-CoV-2 (SC-2) variants by causing highly C-19 vaccinated populations to exert immune pressure on the virus without preventing its spread. This has led to significant viral immune escape. This means that among the many spontaneous viral mutants, phenotypes have been selected that enjoy a competitive advantage in this hostile immune context, thereby dominating the original virus and less adapted variants.

It's important to note that depending on the strength of the collective immune pressure exerted by highly C-19 vaccinated populations, viral genotypes/variants with quite remarkable changes in their phenotypic characteristics may be selected (e.g., Omicron, BA.2.86/JN.1). As the replication cycle of SC-2 takes only about 10 hours, such new phenotypes can also increase their prevalence very rapidly. The combination of both factors therefore leads to drastic and acute changes in the viral population, contrasting with the mid to long-term changes in genetically manipulated (i.e., mRNA-vaccinated) individuals.

I believe it is evident that the global impact of the large-scale C-19 vaccination program on the virus's virulence will manifest much sooner than the detrimental impact of the DNA-contaminated mRNA vaccines on the population’s health status (including reproductive health).

I've repeatedly emphasized that mRNA vaccines not only promote viral immune escape but also cause immune refocusing (https://tinyurl.com/vssiiep). This phenomenon involves the immune response increasingly targeting conserved spike-associated epitopes of the virus, often containing self-mimicking motifs.

Immune refocusing can slow the spread of the virus by delaying viral immune escape, benefiting the training of innate cell-mediated immunity in the unvaccinated. However, immune refocusing comes at the expense of the vaccinated population's health, leading to autoimmune diseases, cancers, and eventually more cases of long COVID. The combination of long COVID and the harmful genetic effects of the widespread, reckless use of mRNA-based C-19 vaccines that are heavily contaminated with bacterial DNA contributes to the excess deaths and diminishes the productivity and survival chances of highly C-19 vaccinated populations.

However, as the effects of immune derailment and genetic editing are likely to primarily result in premature death in the medium to long term, the current population-level immune pressure on viral transmissibility is currently only slightly reduced, allowing SC-2 to continue its catastrophic immune escape. This will eventually cause the virus to evolve into a form so adapted to the ongoing suboptimal immune pressure that it can spread unchecked within the host itself. Given the rapid selection of mutated viral genotypes/variants and the virus's quick replication, such evolution could happen overnight. For highly C-19 vaccinated populations, it has now merely become  a matter of exerting sufficient collective immune pressure on viral intra-host transmissibility to enable the selection and dominant propagation of a new coronavirus that can spread unchecked within the fully vaccinated host (i.e., HI-VI-CRON1).

There is no doubt that SC-2's ability to spread from host to host is now close to reaching its maximum capacity in highly C-19 vaccinated populations. Consequently, it is clear that Nature is highly unlikely to deal with countless long-term health damages caused by the C-19 mass vaccination program, especially if conducted with mRNA-based vaccines. Nature will put a stop to this by intervening in a way to ensure that only the portion of the population whose health and immune protective capacity have not been compromised by the C-19 vaccines or severe C-19 disease following natural infection survives and reproduces. This implies that the part of the population that exclusively relies on obsolete antibodies from previous C-19 vaccination or SC-2 infection cannot contribute to restoring a healthy human population. This deficiency relates to a large group of C-19 vaccinated individuals and therefore also involves numerous individuals whose genomes may have been genetically modified due to mRNA vaccination.

Conclusion:
Because of all of the above, it must be stressed that the final outcome and health impact of this large-scale gain-of-function experiment on the very human species will be determined by the evolutionary dynamics of the virus, which is currently struggling to survive due to large-scale immune pressure on its transmissibility, rather than by vaccine-associated genetic or immune-mediated diseases.

‍

1 HI-VI-CRON refers to a new coronavirus that supplants the Omicron family and is highly virulent in C-19 vaccinees

[Crafty_Dog]

Not vetted by me, and though I will read ZH, in my opinion sometimes it is irresponsible:

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/study-finds-alarming-surge-deaths-neurological-disease-among-young-adults

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/study-finds-alarming-surge-deaths-neurological-disease-among-young-adults

https://www.dailywire.com/news/fda-officials-warn-of-brain-swelling-vision-loss-in-minors-using-puberty-blockers

[Body-by-Guinness]

Hopefully awards like this will inspire more judicious terminations the next time the epidemiological sky falls:

@robbystarbuck

Incredible. A Federal Jury has determined that Blue Cross BlueShield of Tennessee must pay $700,000 to an employee that was fired for refusing the COVID vaccine.
Tanja Benton was a bio statistical research scientist at BCBS for 17+ yrs before they fired her for refusing the vax. She’s my hero today.

[Body-by-Guinness]

Well this ought to bode a lawsuit or two (hundred million).

https://amgreatness.com/2024/07/05/peer-reviewed-study-shows-all-cause-death-risks-higher-for-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated/

[Crafty_Dog]

https://amgreatness.com/2024/07/12/former-cdc-director-says-fda-underreported-adverse-side-effects-of-covid-injections-to-prevent-vaccine-hesitancy/

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS3Q9eDvOJU&t=37s

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.prageru.com/video/dr-scott-atlas-on-why-we-were-forced-to-jab-and-mask

[Body-by-Guinness]

Project Veritas strikes again! Having trouble finding a date for this piece. Tryng to figure out if it is pre-O'Keefe departure and hence a year old, or post, which would mean they are actully doing solid work after O'Keefe's departure:

https://x.com/tracybeanz/status/1828526130434871521

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.malone.news/p/be-more-afraid-of-governments-response?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=583200&post_id=148685495&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=z2120&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

[Crafty_Dog]

https://x.com/newstart_2024/status/1837947594062156237

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DGVN1TMD?ref=cm_sw_r_fa_ud_dp_WGPY3NDDAEQF6ZPBB53T&ref_=cm_sw_r_fa_ud_dp_WGPY3NDDAEQF6ZPBB53T&social_share=cm_sw_r_fa_ud_dp_WGPY3NDDAEQF6ZPBB53T&skipTwisterOG=1&fbclid=IwY2xjawGApANleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHQfQga-FYJGPsfmYDdVckhg_VET4xC5EGPhjSsQJ2iC8e1rqdZhDpeJnRw_aem_NT6QVrmC2F9WTf3DATziDw

[Body-by-Guinness]

I know my share of veterans, all of whom speak as fondly of visits to VA hospitals as one would of a proctologist that favors sharpened speculums. Well here we learn that VA employees that were fired for providing poor service to veterans were rehired, with back pay, by the Biden/Harris administration. What do you think, does an administration that rehires these folks terminated for cause view those they serve as customers or … subjects?

Biden-Harris Administration Reinstates FIRED VA Employees 
OCTOBER 22, 2024
Employees Accused of Mistreating Veterans Receive $134 Million in Back Pay.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) released the results of its investigation into the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reinstating employees fired by the Trump Administration for mistreating American veterans. Of the 4,000 disgraced former VA employees terminated, the Biden-Harris Administration has already offered reinstatement and paid over $134 million in back pay to more than 1,700 individuals. AFPI has learned through a series of Freedom of Information Act requests that the Biden-Harris Administration has reinstated over 100 terminated employees to date. If all 4,000 fired employees receive back pay and reinstatement, taxpayers’ bill for the full settlements could exceed $300 million.

“The Biden-Harris Administration has let down American veterans and taxpayers. Those fired for mistreating American veterans should not even be allowed near the VA, much less reinstated,” said Former Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs and Distinguished Fellow of AFPI’s Center for American Security Robert Wilkie. “Instead of litigating these baseless grievances or working with Congress to strengthen the Accountability Act, the Biden-Harris Administration surrendered to the government employee union. Taxpayers and veterans who receive care from poor performers will pay the price.”

President Donald J. Trump signed the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 after a series of scandals during the Obama Administration. The law gave the VA new authority to dismiss employees for poor performance or misconduct quickly. The principal federal union representing VA employees filed multiple grievances over the VA’s use of the new accountability procedures. Instead of defending the use of this authority, the Biden-Harris Administration settled those grievances with the American Federation of Government Employees and announced it would stop using the Trump-era Accountability Act procedures.1 The VA estimates that more than 4,000 employees will be offered reinstatement and/or back pay, but the administration has not publicly reported how much these settlements will cost or how many employees have been reinstated.

Of the 106 employees who have accepted VA’s reinstatement offers and are currently working at VA once more, they were originally removed for reasons that include poor performance, sleeping on duty, unauthorized access to an employee’s medical records, failure to follow procedures, and failure to maintain a regular work schedule.

President Trump and Secretary Wilkie implemented reforms and accountability measures to the VA that put veterans first, firing close to 9,000 staff members who had long records of negligence that resulted in improper treatment and harm to veterans. During this administration, VA approval ratings soared to 90%. In removing these measures, the Biden-Harris Administration has eliminated quality care and respect for those who served our Nation.

https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/biden-harris-administration-reinstates-fired-va-employees

[Crafty_Dog]

 

[Body-by-Guinness]

And, oh, the study does not support the benefits of “gender affirming care.” A coincidence, no doubt:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/10/doctor-says-u-s-study-on-puberty-blockers-on-youth-was-not-published-due-to-politics/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=doctor-says-u-s-study-on-puberty-blockers-on-youth-was-not-published-due-to-politics

[Crafty_Dog]

"Follow the science" they said , , ,

[Body-by-Guinness]

Damning testimony relating how covid research and effective treatments were impacted by the covid cult’s “narrative:”

Intro:

Brilliant presentation by dr. Sabine Hazan: "The microbiome, our microbes in our guts, is our immunity and tells the story, and will tell the story of COVID-19. And this is why as a gastroenterologist, I stepped into the pandemic. Through my experience, I will show you how difficult it was to conduct research and publish when the research goes against the national public health narrative:

Interference and delay in research happened and affects all of us. In early 2020, my research genetic sequencing laboratory was the first lab to document the entire sequence of the virus in the stools, as opposed to the PCR, which is just a little piece of the virus. We discovered that the virus lingered in the stools for up to 45 days.

It took six months to publish this publication at a time where everybody needed to know that it was in your stools. My lab also showed that COVID-19 in the stools was killed by hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. But unfortunately, azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine killed the microbiome.

So therefore, vitamin C, D, and zinc was added. Three protocols were submitted to the FDA from our findings. Three studies were also put into clinicaltrialsdotgov in full transparencies to help doctors more effectively treat COVID because I knew data that nobody knew. April 2nd, 2020, FDA gave us an exempt letter for doing a clinical trial.

In other words, we did not need to do a clinical trial on hydroxychloroquine, Z-Pak, vitamin C, D, and zinc as treatment or hydroxychloroquine vitamin C, D, and zinc as prophylaxis. April 4th, somebody must have called the FDA and said, I got another letter saying, I'm sorry, Dr. Hazen, exemption is denied. You must do a full-on clinical trial. Here's the letter.

System pressures delayed us, and we got a green light to start recruiting by May 2020. By then, the media created fear around hydroxychloroquine. It was impossible to recruit. This drug was safely given for years for arthritis and lupus with no problems. My clinical trials companies were also banned and censored from advertising on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.

Remember, I do clinical trials for a living, and never as a clinical trial doctor have I not been able to advertise to recruit for a trial on social media? I kept collecting stools of patients and noticed that patients with severe COVID had a certain bacteria that was missing compared to people that were highly exposed to COVID but never got COVID. That bacteria is called Bifidobacteria.

Bifidobacteria is an important factor important and key microbe for immunity. It represents your trillion dollar industry of probiotics. In fact, when you turn the bottle and you see the ingredient, it says Bifidobacteria. It is present in newborns. This is why your newborns did not get a problem from COVID at the beginning. And it is absent in old people. The process of aging is loss of Bifidobacteria.

We published this paper, The Lost Microbes of COVID-19, it took eight months to publish. If you follow the Bifidobacteria like I did, you will notice, and we did notice anyways, that vitamin C actually increases Bifidobacteria. This is why vitamin C is important when you take care of viruses.

And you've all experienced taking vitamin C for a cold. Well, we published this data where we showed vitamin C. If we give it to patients before and after, it increased the Bifidobacteria. Ivermectin was also an interesting drug, because Ivermectin, we noticed, also increased the Bifidobacteria within 24 hours of taking it. Why Ivermectin?

If you look at what Ivermectin is, it is a fermented product of a bacteria that is similar to Bifidobacteria. In fact, they're in the same continent of microbes. They live. They're like sisters, brothers in the microbiome. So I published. I knew that Ivermectin increased Bifidobacteria. But I said, no, I can't go out there and start publishing that. That's going to be too controversial.

So I published a hypothesis that maybe what I was observing on the front line treating patients with COVID noticing that their oxygen saturation was increasing from ivermectin, was basically maybe ivermectin increased by phytobacteria. The hypothesis on ivermectin was the most read hypothesis in the pandemic and was retracted after eight months of being on.

When we cannot make a hypothesis, this is not science. December 2020. At the same time that I was treating patients with COVID, I began collecting stools of my colleagues that were at home and started going into the hospital. And I said, can I get your stools before and after you get vaccinated? Because to me, this new technology of vaccines, I wanted to see what it was doing on the microbiome.

I discovered that messenger RNA vaccines killed the Bifidobacteria. I knew I would never be able to publish this because it goes against the narrative. So I submitted it to my college, the American College of Gastroenterology, and presented it in October 2022. This abstract won a research award at the American College of Gastro, beating 6,000 abstracts.

That's from academic centers like Harvard and Mayo Clinic, and MD Anderson. This abstract got the attention of 18,000 GI doctors who all of a sudden started realizing, maybe killing Bifidobacteria is why I got COVID after my vaccine to begin with. Worse than that, and another abstract we presented, was the persistent damage of Bifidobacteria from the vaccine.

What is going on here that the vaccine continues to kill the Bifidobacteria? At the same time, we presented a link between loss of Bifidobacteria and Crohn's disease, loss of Bifidobacteria in Lyme disease, and loss of Bifidobacteria in invasive cancer. It is nearly impossible to publish data that goes against the national public health narrative. If doctors cannot publish the data, they cannot find solution to fix the problems.

So in conclusion, I will finish with showing this. This represents clinical trials that I've done for pharmaceutical companies prior to COVID, amongst them are vaccine studies. Yes, I brought vaccines to the market. Proton pump inhibitors, cardiac drugs, biologics for all sorts of conditions. First postpartum depression drugs that never made it to the market because they killed people.

Clinical trials doctors follow guidelines that allows the industry to provide safe drugs. These guidelines were not followed during the pandemic. And because of that, everyone is affected. COVID should have been a time where humanity joined forces together and doctors needed to come together. It's a shame that it didn't happen. Interference with research affects all of us. This should not be political.

Science is a story that evolves. It's a multitude of experiments that allow us to see medicine, to give hopes to patients. Skepticism, challenging the current state of knowledge, having an open mind must be allowed if we have any hope of moving science forward. What I saw this pandemic was not science. Thank you."

https://x.com/newstart_2024/status/1850234502863626606?s=61

[Body-by-Guinness]

Quoting a House report, Brownstone demonstrates that a billion dollar campaign by the Biden/Harris admin was false and purveyed medical info that did the public harm, amongst other pathologies:

https://brownstone.org/articles/the-most-devastating-report-so-far/?utm_medium=onesignal&utm_source=push

[Body-by-Guinness]

In no uncertain terms:

https://x.com/jamesmelville/status/1850807528461914325?s=61

[Crafty_Dog]

I spotted Makary early in the Wuhan Virus-- it was a piece on the Editorial Page of the WSJ.

A real mensch in the face of threats to crush his career.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1851217810908754043

[Crafty_Dog]

https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1851768169041399933

[Body-by-Guinness]

But remember, kids, Trump is literally Hitler and the Deep State is your friend:

BROWNSTONE » BROWNSTONE JOURNAL » GOVERNMENT » THE CDC PLANNED QUARANTINE CAMPS NATIONWIDE
The CDC Planned Quarantine Camps Nationwide

BY Jeffrey A TuckerJEFFREY A. TUCKER   NOVEMBER 7, 2024   GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC HEALTH, VACCINES   7 MINUTE READ

No matter how bad you think Covid policies were, they were intended to be worse.

Consider the vaccine passports alone. Six cities were locked down to include only the vaccinated in public indoor places. They were New York City, Boston, Chicago, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., and Seattle. The plan was to enforce this with a vaccine passport. It broke. Once the news leaked that the shot didn’t stop infection or transmission, the planners lost public support and the scheme collapsed.


It was undoubtedly planned to be permanent and nationwide if not worldwide. Instead, the scheme had to be dialed back.

Features of the CDC’s edicts did incredible damage. It imposed the rent moratorium. It decreed the ridiculous “six feet of distance” and mask mandates. It forced Plexiglas as the interface for commercial transactions. It implied that mail-in balloting must be the norm, which probably flipped the election. It delayed the reopening as long as possible. It was sadistic.

Even with all that, worse was planned. On July 26, 2020, with the George Floyd riots having finally settled down, the CDC issued a plan for establishing nationwide quarantine camps. People were to be isolated, given only food and some cleaning supplies. They would be banned from participating in any religious services. The plan included contingencies for preventing suicide. There were no provisions made for any legal appeals or even the right to legal counsel.

The plan’s authors were unnamed but included 26 footnotes. It was completely official. The document was only removed on about March 26, 2023. During the entire intervening time, the plan survived on the CDC’s public site with little to no public notice or controversy.

It was called “Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings.”


“This document presents considerations from the perspective of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for implementing the shielding approach in humanitarian settings as outlined in guidance documents focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings. This approach has never been documented and has raised questions and concerns among humanitarian partners who support response activities in these settings. The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC’s perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data. Considerations are based on current evidence known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may need to be revised as more information becomes available.”

By absence of empirical data, the meaning is: nothing like this has ever been tried. The point of the document was to map out how it could be possible and alert authorities to possible pitfalls to be avoided.

The meaning of “shielding” is “to reduce the number of severe Covid-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (‘high-risk’) and the general population (‘low-risk’). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or ‘green zones’ established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector, or community level depending on the context and setting. They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.”

In other words, this is what used to be concentration camps.

Who are these people who would be rounded up? They are “older adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions.” Who determines this? Public health authorities. The purpose? The CDC explains: “physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population” allows authorities “to prioritize the use of the limited available resources.”

This sounds a lot like condemning people to death in the name of protecting them.

The model establishes three levels. First is the household level. Here high-risk people are“physically isolated from other household members.” That alone is objectionable. Elders need people to take care of them. They need love and to be surrounded by family. The CDC should never imagine that it would intervene in households to force old people into separate places.

The model jumps from households to the “neighborhood level.” Here we have the same approach: forced separation of those deemed vulnerable.

From there, the model jumps again to the “camp/sector level.” Here it is different. “A group of shelters such as schools, community buildings within a camp/sector (max 50 high-risk individuals per single green zone) where high-risk individuals are physically isolated together. One entry point is used for exchange of food, supplies, etc. A meeting area is used for residents and visitors to interact while practicing physical distancing (2 meters). No movement into or outside the green zone.”

Yes, you read that correctly. The CDC is here proposing concentration camps for the sick or anyone they deem to be in danger of medically significant consequences of infection.

Further: “to minimize external contact, each green zone should include able-bodied high-risk individuals capable of caring for residents who have disabilities or are less mobile. Otherwise, designate low-risk individuals for these tasks, preferably who have recovered from confirmed COVID-19 and are assumed to be immune.”

The plan says in passing, contradicting thousands of years of experience, “Currently, we do not know if prior infection confers immunity.” Therefore the only solution is to minimize all exposure throughout the whole population. Getting sick is criminalized.

These camps require a “dedicated staff” to “monitor each green zone. Monitoring includes both adherence to protocols and potential adverse effects or outcomes due to isolation and stigma. It may be necessary to assign someone within the green zone, if feasible, to minimize movement in/out of green zones.”

The people housed in these camps need to have good explanations of why they are denied even basic religious freedom. The report explains:

“Proactive planning ahead of time, including strong community engagement and risk communication is needed to better understand the issues and concerns of restricting individuals from participating in communal practices because they are being shielded. Failure to do so could lead to both interpersonal and communal violence.”

Further, there must be some mechanisms to prohibit suicide:

Additional stress and worry are common during any epidemic and may be more pronounced with COVID-19 due to the novelty of the disease and increased fear of infection, increased childcare responsibilities due to school closures, and loss of livelihoods. Thus, in addition to the risk of stigmatization and feeling of isolation, this shielding approach may have an important psychological impact and may lead to significant emotional distress, exacerbate existing mental illness or contribute to anxiety, depression, helplessness, grief, substance abuse, or thoughts of suicide among those who are separated or have been left behind. Shielded individuals with concurrent severe mental health conditions should not be left alone. There must be a caregiver allocated to them to prevent further protection risks such as neglect and abuse.
The biggest risk, the document explains, is as follows: “While the shielding approach is not meant to be coercive, it may appear forced or be misunderstood in humanitarian settings.”

(It should go without saying but this “shielding” approach suggested here has nothing to do with focused protection of the Great Barrington Declaration. Focused protection specifically says: “schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.”)

In four years of research, and encountering truly shocking documents and evidence of what happened in the Covid years, this one certainly ranks up at the top of the list of totalitarian schemes for pathogenic control prior to vaccination. It is quite simply mind-blowing that such a scheme could ever be contemplated.

Who wrote it? What kind of deep institutional pathology exists that enabled this to be contemplated? The CDC has 10,600 full-time employees and contractors and a budget of $11.5 billion. In light of this report, and everything else that has gone on there for four years, both numbers should be zero.

Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Life After Lockdown, and many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

https://brownstone.org/articles/the-cdc-planned-quarantine-camps-nationwide/

[Crafty_Dog]

Witness what was actually done in Australia!

[Crafty_Dog]

https://brownstone.org/articles/the-cdc-planned-quarantine-camps-nationwide/

The CDC Planned Quarantine Camps Nationwide
By Jeffrey A TuckerJeffrey A. Tucker   November 7, 2024   Government, Public Health, Vaccines   7 minute read
SHARE | PRINT | EMAIL

No matter how bad you think Covid policies were, they were intended to be worse.

Consider the vaccine passports alone. Six cities were locked down to include only the vaccinated in public indoor places. They were New York City, Boston, Chicago, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., and Seattle. The plan was to enforce this with a vaccine passport. It broke. Once the news leaked that the shot didn’t stop infection or transmission, the planners lost public support and the scheme collapsed.


It was undoubtedly planned to be permanent and nationwide if not worldwide. Instead, the scheme had to be dialed back.

Features of the CDC’s edicts did incredible damage. It imposed the rent moratorium. It decreed the ridiculous “six feet of distance” and mask mandates. It forced Plexiglas as the interface for commercial transactions. It implied that mail-in balloting must be the norm, which probably flipped the election. It delayed the reopening as long as possible. It was sadistic.

Even with all that, worse was planned. On July 26, 2020, with the George Floyd riots having finally settled down, the CDC issued a plan for establishing nationwide quarantine camps. People were to be isolated, given only food and some cleaning supplies. They would be banned from participating in any religious services. The plan included contingencies for preventing suicide. There were no provisions made for any legal appeals or even the right to legal counsel.

The plan’s authors were unnamed but included 26 footnotes. It was completely official. The document was only removed on about March 26, 2023. During the entire intervening time, the plan survived on the CDC’s public site with little to no public notice or controversy.

It was called “Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings.”


“This document presents considerations from the perspective of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for implementing the shielding approach in humanitarian settings as outlined in guidance documents focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings. This approach has never been documented and has raised questions and concerns among humanitarian partners who support response activities in these settings. The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC’s perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data. Considerations are based on current evidence known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may need to be revised as more information becomes available.”

By absence of empirical data, the meaning is: nothing like this has ever been tried. The point of the document was to map out how it could be possible and alert authorities to possible pitfalls to be avoided.

The meaning of “shielding” is “to reduce the number of severe Covid-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (‘high-risk’) and the general population (‘low-risk’). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or ‘green zones’ established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector, or community level depending on the context and setting. They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.”

In other words, this is what used to be concentration camps.

Who are these people who would be rounded up? They are “older adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions.” Who determines this? Public health authorities. The purpose? The CDC explains: “physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population” allows authorities “to prioritize the use of the limited available resources.”

This sounds a lot like condemning people to death in the name of protecting them.

The model establishes three levels. First is the household level. Here high-risk people are“physically isolated from other household members.” That alone is objectionable. Elders need people to take care of them. They need love and to be surrounded by family. The CDC should never imagine that it would intervene in households to force old people into separate places.

The model jumps from households to the “neighborhood level.” Here we have the same approach: forced separation of those deemed vulnerable.

From there, the model jumps again to the “camp/sector level.” Here it is different. “A group of shelters such as schools, community buildings within a camp/sector (max 50 high-risk individuals per single green zone) where high-risk individuals are physically isolated together. One entry point is used for exchange of food, supplies, etc. A meeting area is used for residents and visitors to interact while practicing physical distancing (2 meters). No movement into or outside the green zone.”

Yes, you read that correctly. The CDC is here proposing concentration camps for the sick or anyone they deem to be in danger of medically significant consequences of infection.

Further: “to minimize external contact, each green zone should include able-bodied high-risk individuals capable of caring for residents who have disabilities or are less mobile. Otherwise, designate low-risk individuals for these tasks, preferably who have recovered from confirmed COVID-19 and are assumed to be immune.”

The plan says in passing, contradicting thousands of years of experience, “Currently, we do not know if prior infection confers immunity.” Therefore the only solution is to minimize all exposure throughout the whole population. Getting sick is criminalized.

These camps require a “dedicated staff” to “monitor each green zone. Monitoring includes both adherence to protocols and potential adverse effects or outcomes due to isolation and stigma. It may be necessary to assign someone within the green zone, if feasible, to minimize movement in/out of green zones.”

The people housed in these camps need to have good explanations of why they are denied even basic religious freedom. The report explains:

“Proactive planning ahead of time, including strong community engagement and risk communication is needed to better understand the issues and concerns of restricting individuals from participating in communal practices because they are being shielded. Failure to do so could lead to both interpersonal and communal violence.”

Further, there must be some mechanisms to prohibit suicide:

Additional stress and worry are common during any epidemic and may be more pronounced with COVID-19 due to the novelty of the disease and increased fear of infection, increased childcare responsibilities due to school closures, and loss of livelihoods. Thus, in addition to the risk of stigmatization and feeling of isolation, this shielding approach may have an important psychological impact and may lead to significant emotional distress, exacerbate existing mental illness or contribute to anxiety, depression, helplessness, grief, substance abuse, or thoughts of suicide among those who are separated or have been left behind. Shielded individuals with concurrent severe mental health conditions should not be left alone. There must be a caregiver allocated to them to prevent further protection risks such as neglect and abuse.

The biggest risk, the document explains, is as follows: “While the shielding approach is not meant to be coercive, it may appear forced or be misunderstood in humanitarian settings.”

(It should go without saying but this “shielding” approach suggested here has nothing to do with focused protection of the Great Barrington Declaration. Focused protection specifically says: “schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.”)

In four years of research, and encountering truly shocking documents and evidence of what happened in the Covid years, this one certainly ranks up at the top of the list of totalitarian schemes for pathogenic control prior to vaccination. It is quite simply mind-blowing that such a scheme could ever be contemplated.

Who wrote it? What kind of deep institutional pathology exists that enabled this to be contemplated? The CDC has 10,600 full-time employees and contractors and a budget of $11.5 billion. In light of this report, and everything else that has gone on there for four years, both numbers should be zero.