american thinker

It began with a March 17 article in Stat [2020] that suggested governments around the world were taking sweeping and potentially harmful actions to limit the spread of COVID-19 without sufficient data. Then came a May 5 white paper he authored which suggested COVID-19 was not nearly as deadly as initially feared, a claim later supported by an NPR report that cited research from Johns Hopkins University showing a fatality risk as low as 0.5 percent. Ioannidis’s latest research on the COVID fatality rate pegs the median COVID-19 fatality risk at 0.25 percent, much lower than previous estimates but still about two and a half times higher than the seasonal flu. [snip] Ioannidis may be no libertarian, but many of the lockdown themes he touches will sound familiar to FEE readers -- deadly government policies that prohibited nursing homes from screening for COVID-19, soaring suicide, and widespread economic destruction resulting in millions of businesses wiped out and 40 million jobs lost. 

While the costs of the lockdowns are apparent to all, less clear is how effective they have been in limiting the spread of the virus. A recent Bloomberg found “little correlation between the severity of a nation’s restrictions and whether it managed to curb excess fatalities.” Norway’s top health official recently stated the lockdowns probably were not necessary. Evidence from a recent JP Morgan report suggests most nations saw COVID infection rates fall after lockdowns were lifted. 

“What happened was that the Chinese lab in Wuhan conducted some mad science experiments.”

“Unfortunately, partly funded by the American government. In fact, by the agency that I can now currently lead. That experiment went astray. It leaked and caused the havoc that we faced for years.”

“For China to now turn around and say well, the U.S. is to blame -- well, I mean, it’s ridiculous, it’s absolutely ridiculous.”

He unleashed the truth:

“The Chinese were responsible for allowing these experiments to happen in a low security lab. It leaked. They covered it up. And that’s just a fact.”

Richard Ebright, board of governors professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University and laboratory director at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology, told Newsweek these documents show "unequivocally" that NIH grants were used to fund controversial gain-of-function (GOF) research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China -- something U.S. infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci has denied. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is part of the NIH, told Congress in May that the NIH "has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology."

Ebright said: "The documents make it clear that assertions by the NIH director, Francis Collins, and the NIAID director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement in Wuhan are untruthful."

GOF research involves modifying a biological agent, like a virus, so that it becomes more active. For obvious reasons, GOF research on influenza or coronavirus viruses has been "the subject of substantial scrutiny," by the NIH's own admission, as it potentially makes the virus more dangerous to humans. 

[T]here was then being built a vast censorship machinery involving the federal government, outposts at universities such as Stanford and Johns Hopkins, tech companies, and media embeds in all important outlets. It was not only being built but being deployed in order to craft the public mind in ways that would maintain the spirit of fear and the reality of lockdowns until the magic inoculation arrived [snip] Think here of the timing of the Great Barrington Declaration. It came out barely a month before the election, after which the plan from the top was to release the vaccine, presumably after the sitting president was defeated. That way the new president could get the credit for the distribution stage and thus would the pandemic end. 

The underlying dynamic of the timing of the release of the GBD… worked utterly to subvert the entire censorship regime. The perception too was that this document would undermine vaccine acceptance. At that point in the great plan, all focus was on molding the public mind toward mass jabbing. That meant cultivating among the population the appearance of expert unity.

“Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed,” said the document. “As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all -- including the vulnerable -- falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity… Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.”

[snip]

Reading those words today, in light of what we now know, we can start to make sense of the sheer panic at the top. Natural infection and immunity? Can’t talk about that. The end of the pandemic is not “dependent upon” the vaccine? Can’t say that either. Go back to normal for all populations without significant medical risk? Unsayable. 

You need only reflect on the astounding barrage of vaccine propaganda that began immediately upon release, the attempt to mandate it on the whole population and now the addition of the Covid jab to the childhood schedule even though children are of near zero risk.

[snip]

Even now, therefore, there is every effort being made to keep a lid on what surely ranks as the greatest failure/scandal in the modern history of public health. Some brave experts called it out before the whole calamity unfolded even further. 

The problem with the Great Barrington Declaration was not that it was not true. It’s that -- unbeknownst to its authors -- it flew in the face of one of the most funded and elaborate industrial plots in the history of governance. Just a few sentences sneaking through the wall of censorship they were carefully constructing was enough to threaten and eventually dismantle the best laid plans. 

In other words, hundreds of thousands more Floridians died in the 12 months following the Pfizer jab than Moderna, when there should have been no difference at all. Specifically, they found that +230 more people died after Pfizer for every 100,000 jabbed. Not only that, but Pfizer getters died from cardiovascular causes at a rate of +83 more often per 100,000.

The researchers were super careful to avoid leaving room for criticism. They started with known vaccinees, then excluded nursing home residents, the homeless, and people who died from violent causes (homicides and suicides). Then they took out people who got their shots more than six weeks apart (i.e., not as recommended), people who mixed shot types, people who got more than 2 shots, and people whose health records were incomplete (such as unknown gender). Finally, they separated people who died from covid.

Those left over included more than 9 million Floridians. I.e., it was a big sample. Then they matched recipients 1-to-1 based on their location (census tract), avoiding any potential regional differences.

It wasn’t even close.