Tell me again why, when a government agency ignores a ruling out of the highest court of jurisdiction, anyone else should obey any other law?

Yet the critical question is which votes should be counted? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled before the election that mail ballots lacking formally required signatures or dates should not be included in official results. However, Democratic officials in Philadelphia and surrounding Bucks, Centre and Montgomery counties are ignoring that court order. 

"I think we all know that precedent by a court doesn’t matter anymore in this country," Bucks County Commissioner Diane Ellis-Marseglia, a Democrat, said Thursday as she and other Democrats voted to reject a GOP-led challenge to ballots that should be disqualified. 

Then just last night the State Supreme Court said "by the way, yes we did rule now cut that shit out!"

By Diane's standard she can be raped by anyone at any time because precedent doesn't matter anymore in this country and neither do laws and court rulings and thus from the perspective of the dude that's not rape, its "oh, I wanted sex and you had a proper hole, so here you go like it or not."

Right Diane?

This is how the civil society dies -- people deciding that the law matters not, when they challenge it (which you have a right to do) and lose then you just ignore the ruling, and yet everyone else should do what you say.

Uh, no.

Diane needs to be summarily frog-marched out in handcuffs as does anyone else who is counting ballots the State Judiciary, in a final ruling at the highest court of competent jurisdiction, has disqualified -- twice.

Further, that has disqualified the recount because the ballot pool is now likely polluted and impossible to remove the ballots back out because the secrecy of the ballot has to be maintained, which in turn means the last non-corrupted count has to stand, which of course is the one they don't like.  If they violated that in the process then everyone involved must be executed, right here and right now because secrecy of the ballot is indeed a core requirement for fair elections and anything that deliberately destroys THAT deserves the death penalty.

Too bad, so sad but that's how it has to be because you deliberately did this; it was not happenstance and you must not be rewarded for it.

Will any of that happen?

It had better or Diane and everyone else involved has no room to complain when the law is violated in a way that personally or financially screws her, even if that comes at the cost of great bodily injury to her -- or worse.

And finally, where is the Governor who I remind you has Presidential aspirations for next term.  Well Shapiro, as far as I'm concerned if you and the SoS in PA don't stop this shit, including by having the state cops drag these jackasses into jail and frog-march them out of their "offices" then that very same standard of "fuck the law when it comes to you and anything done to you" should be applied to you too.

When you set the standard, and have a legal duty to follow the law as a steward of same in a given jurisdiction you have no room to complain when that very examples comes back at you and goes straight up your ass, whether figuratively or literally.

Enough of this crap.

This I've never seen before in a political campaign.

The Harris campaign paid $1 million to Winfrey’s company on October 15, according to a report in the Washington Examiner, coming after a star-studded town hall that Winfrey hosted for the vice president in September.

Winfrey also appeared at Harris’ final rally in Philadelphia on the eve of Election Day, with the talk-show star offering a rare endorsement of a presidential candidate.

So Harris paid Oprah $1 million and got in return not just appearances -- but an endorsement.

Paying people doesn't break any laws generally, but it sure does sound a lot like prostitution, and is in your face and in the context of a campaign it would appear to me that it also violates the spirit if not the letter of campaign finance laws.  Paid political advertising must disclose who paid for it in all cases except.... it appears this sort.

Is that legal?  I'm not sure it is; did anyone at the time disclose that these were paid endorsements?

Of course not.

The FEC says that ALL public communication made by a political committee must be disclosed.  A paid appearance or endorsement is made by the committee and certainly would appear to fall under this law.

If the candidate or campaign authorizes and finances a covered communication (including any solicitation), the notice must state that the communication was paid for by the authorized committee. 

So paying an entertainer who endorses a candidate, and a "covered communication" is extremely broad in scope, must disclose conspicuously that it is in fact a paid solicitation and it has to be clear and conspicuous at the time.

This event, and its not just one (Oprah was not the only one paid) certainly appears to have been illegal as it looked like Oprah made that endorsement on her own initiative and at no time was it apparent that any of the acts, performances or other events in which celebrities showed up and endorsed Harris were paid to do so.

Will Harris be prosecuted for this?

She should be; we're talking about millions of expenditures on what amounted to paid advertising with zero disclosure under the "rubric" of "organic support."

That certainly appears to be illegal.

There is an article floating around from The Expose that makes an explosive claim: There is a wildly statistically-significant skew in the death rate from Covid-19 vaccines by lot number.

What originally got my attention was the tinfoil hat crowd screaming about lots being intentionally distributed to certain people to kill them -- in other words certain Covid-19 vaccine lots were for all intents and purposes poisoned.  That was wildly unlikely so I set out to disprove it and apply some broom handles to the tinfoil hatters heads.  What I found, however, was both interesting and deeply disturbing.

Lots are quite large, especially when you're dealing with 200 million people and 400 million doses.  Assuming the lots are not preferentially assigned to certain cohorts (e.g. one goes to all nursing homes, etc) adverse reactions should thus be evenly distributed between lots; if they're not one of these things is almost-certainly true:

• There is a serious manufacturing quality problem or you produced something without understanding how it would work in the body and thus failed to control for something you had to in order to wind up with reproduceable results.  That is, some lots are ok, others are contaminated, have too much or too little of the active ingredient in them, some produce wildly more spike-protein than others in the body when injected, etc.
  
  OR
  
  
• Much worse, the lots are intentionally segregated to produce different results. This implies some sort of nefarious intent such as killing people on a differential basis or that the manufacturers are running unsanctioned experiments on a mass basis among the population at-large, since they know what is in each lot and intentionally varied the contents.
  
  OR
  
  
• Perhaps worst of all, reports are now being intentionally suppressed, the injury and death rate hasn't changed and there are lots with one of the two above problems but it is being intentionally not reported, having been detected almost-instantly and health providers were directed to not report anything serious (e.g. death) associated with the jabs.

Now let's talk about VAERS.  You can grab the public data from it, but VAERS intentionally makes it difficult to discern differences in lot outcomes.  Why?  Because they separate out the specifics of the vax (the manufacturer, lot number, etc.) into a different file.  This means that simply loading it into Excel does you no good and attempting to correlate and match the two tables in Excel itself is problematic due to the extreme size of the files -- in fact, it blew Excel up here when I tried to do it.  But that's an external data-export problem; internally, within HHS, it is certainly not hard for them to run correlations.

Indeed the entire point of VAERS is to find said correlations before people get screwed in size and stop it from happening.

Let's step back a bit in history. VAERS came into being because back in the 1970s the producers of the DTP shot had a quality control problem.  Some lots had way too much active ingredient in them and others had nearly none.  This caused a crap ton of bad reactions by kids who got the jabs and parents sued.  Liability insurance threatened to become unobtanium (gee, you figure, after you screw a bunch of kids who had to take mandatory shots?) and thus the manufacturers pulled the DTP jab and threatened to pull all vaccines from the market.

Congress responded to this threat of intentional panic sown by the pharmaceutical industry by giving the vaccine firms immunity and setting up a tax and arbitration system, basically, to pay families if they got screwed by vaccines.  Rather than force the guilty parties to eat the injuries and deaths they caused Congress instead exempted the manufacturers from the consequences of their own negligence and socialized the losses with a small tax on each shot.

Part of this was VAERS.  We know VAERS understates adverse events because it while it is allegedly "mandatory" it is subject to clinical judgment and there is a wild bias against believing that these jabs, or any jab for that matter, has bad side effects.  In addition there is neither a civil or criminal penalty of any kind for failure to report.  We now know some people who have had bad side effects from the Covid-19 jabs have shown up on social media after going to the doctor and then tried to find their own record, which is quite easy to do if you know the lot number from your card, what happened and the date the event happened -- their doctor never filed it.  This does not really surprise me since filing those reports takes quite a bit of time and the doctor isn't paid for it by the government or anyone else, so even without bias there will be those who simply won't do the work unless there are severe penalties for not doing so.  There are in fact no penalties whatsoever.  The under-reporting does not have a reliable boundary on it, but estimates are that only somewhere between 3% and 10% of actual adverse events get into the database.  That's right -- at best the adverse event rate is ten times that of what you find in VAERS.

But now it gets interesting because VAERS exports, it appears, were also set up, whether deliberately or by coincidink, to make it hard for ordinary people to find a future correlation between injury or death and vaccine lot number.

NOTE THAT THIS EXACT CIRCUMSTANCE -- THAT MANUFACTURERS HAD QUALITY CONTROL PROBLEMS ORIGINALLY -- IS WHY VAERS EXISTS.  YOU WOULD THINK THAT IF CONGRESS WAS ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN SOLVING THE PROBLEM THIS WOULD BE THE EASIEST SORT OF THING TO MONITOR AND WOULD BE REGULARLY REPORTED.  YOU'D ALSO THINK THERE WERE STRONG CIVIL AND EVEN CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR NOT REPORTING ADVERSE EVENTS.

You'd be wrong; the data is across two tables and uncorrelated as VAERS releases it and there is no quick-and-easy reporting on their site that groups events on a comparative basis by lot number.  While it is possible to do this sort of analysis from their web page it's not easy.

(Further, and this also intentionally frustrates analysis, VAERS keeps no record nor reports on the number of shots administered per lot, making norming to some stable denominator literally impossible.  If you think that's an accident I have a bridge for sale.  It's a very nice bridge.)

But, grasshopper, I have Postgres.  Indeed if you're reading this article it is because I both have it and know how to program against it; this blog is, in fact, stored in Postgres.

Postgres, like all databases, is very good at taking something that can be foreign-key related and correlating it.  In fact that's one of a database's prime strengths.  Isn't SQL, which I assume VAERS uses as well, wonderful?

So I did exactly that with the data found here for 2021.

And..... you aren't going to like it.

Having loaded the base table and manufacturer tables related by the VAERS-ID I ran this query:

karl=> select vax_lot(vaers_vax), count(vax_lot(vaers_vax)) from vaers, vaers_vax where vaers_id(vaers) = vaers_id(vaers_vax) and died='Y' and vax_type='COVID19' and vax_manu(vaers_vax)='MODERNA' group by vax_lot(vaers_vax) order by count(vax_lot(vaers_vax)) desc;

This says:

Select the lot, and count the instances of that lot, from the VAERS data where the report ID is in the table of persons who had a bad reaction, said bad reaction was that they died, where the vaccine is a Covid-19 vaccine and where the manufacturer is MODERNA.  Order the results by the count of the deaths per lot in descending order.

vax_lot | count
-----------------+-------
039K20A | 87
013L20A | 66
012L20A | 64
010M20A | 62
037K20A | 49
029L20A | 48
012M20A | 46
024M20A | 44
027L20A | 44
015M20A | 43
025L20A | 42
026A21A | 41
013M20A | 41
016M20A | 41
022M20A | 41
030L20A | 40
026L20A | 39
007M20A | 39
013A21A | 36
011A21A | 36
031M20A | 35
032L20A | 35
010A21A | 33
011J20A | 33
030A21A | 33
028L20A | 32
011L20A | 32
004M20A | 32
025J20-2A | 31 << -- What's this? (see below)
041L20A | 31
011M20A | 31
031L20A | 30
032H20A | 29
030M20A | 28
042L20A | 27
Unknown | 27
006M20A | 27
012A21A | 25
002A21A | 25
043L20A | 24
032M20A | 24
023M20A | 23
040A21A | 23
027A21A | 23
017B21A | 22
036A21A | 20
unknown | 19
020B21A | 19
047A21A | 19
006B21A | 18
044A21A | 17
038K20A | 17
048A21A | 15
003A21A | 15
014M20A | 15
031A21A | 15
031B21A | 15
021B21A | 15
025A21A | 14
007B21A | 14
003B21A | 14
001A21A | 13
038A21A | 13
025B21A | 13
001B21A | 12
046A21A | 12
027B21A | 11
045A21A | 11
038B21A | 11
025J20A | 11
002C21A | 11
016B21A | 11
036B21A | 11
039B21A | 10
002B21A | 10
018B21A | 10
019B21A | 10
008B21A | 10
029K20A | 10
029A21A | 10
028A21A | 9
047B21A | 9
001C21A | 9
044B21A | 8
045B21A | 8
009C21A | 8
048B21A | 8
026B21A | 8
UNKNOWN | 7
039A21A | 7
040B21A | 7
046B21A | 7
032B21A | 7
038C21A | 6
030m20a | 6
027C21A | 6
008C21A | 6
006C21A | 6
004C21A | 6
047C21A | 6
007C21A | 5
025C21A | 5
042B21A | 5
043B21A | 5
025J202A | 5  << -- Same as the above one?
052E21A | 5
003C21A | 5
030B21A | 5
030a21a | 5
016C21A | 5
017C21A | 5
N/A | 5
NO LOT # AVAILA | 5
037A21B | 5
037B21A | 5
024m20a | 4
031l20a | 4
003b21a | 4
026a21a | 4
041B21A | 4
005C21A | 4
033C21A | 4
035C21A | 4
021C21A | 4
040a21a | 4
041C21A | 4
006D21A | 4
022C21A | 4
037k20a | 4
048C21A | 4
03M20A | 3
008B212A | 3
039k20a | 3
024C21A | 3
016m20a | 3
038k20a | 3
025b21a | 3
033B21A | 3
026C21A | 3
Moderna | 3
033c21a | 3
014C21A | 3
.....

There are 547 unique lot entries that have one or more deaths associated with them.  Some of the lot numbers are in the wrong format or missing, as you can also see.  That's not unusual and in fact implicates the ordinary failure to get things right when people fill out the input.  For example "Moderna" in the above results is clearly not a lot number.  I've made no attempt to "sanitize" the data set in this regard and, quite-clearly, neither has VAERS even months after the fact with their "alleged" follow-up on reports.

But there is a wild over-representation in deaths of just a few lots; in fact fewer than 50 lots account for all lots where more than 20 associated deaths accumulated and out of the 547 unique entries fewer than 100 account for all those with more than 10 deaths.

Evenly distribution my ass.

How about Pfizer?

vax_lot | count
-----------------+-------
EN6201 | 117
EN5318 | 99
EN6200 | 97
EN6198 | 89
EL3248 | 86
EL9261 | 84
EM9810 | 82
EN6202 | 75
EL9269 | 75
EL3302 | 69
EL3249 | 67
EL8982 | 67
EN6208 | 59
EL9267 | 58
EL9264 | 57
EL0140 | 54
EN6199 | 54
EJ1686 | 51
EL9265 | 50
EL1283 | 48
ER2613 | 48
EN6204 | 47
EN6205 | 45
EK9231 | 43
EL3246 | 43
EN6207 | 41
EN6203 | 41
ER8732 | 40
EL1284 | 39
EL0142 | 38
EJ1685 | 38
ER8737 | 37
EN9581 | 36
EN6206 | 35
EP7533 | 35
EL9262 | 34
EL9266 | 33
EL3247 | 32
ER8727 | 28
EP6955 | 27
ER8730 | 26
EW0150 | 25
EK5730 | 24
EP7534 | 24
EM9809 | 22
EK4176 | 22
EH9899 | 21
EW0171 | 21
unknown | 20
ER8731 | 19
ER8735 | 18
EW0172 | 18
EL9263 | 17
EW0151 | 15
ER8733 | 15
EW0158 | 14
EW0164 | 14
EW0162 | 14
EW0169 | 14
ER8729 | 13
ER8734 | 13
Unknown | 13
EW0153 | 13
EW0167 | 12
EW0168 | 10
EW0161 | 10
EW0182 | 9
NO LOT # AVAILA | 8
EW0181 | 8
EW0186 | 8
ER8736 | 8
EW0191 | 8
FF2589 | 7
EW0173 | 6
EW0175 | 6
FA7485 | 6
EW0177 | 6
FD0809 | 6
301308A | 6
EW0170 | 6
FC3182 | 6
EW0217 | 6
EK41765 | 5
EW0196 | 5
EW0176 | 5
EW0183 | 4
EN 5318 | 4
el3249 | 4
EW0178 | 4
EW0179 | 4
EW0187 | 4
FA6780 | 4
FA7484 | 4
EN 6207 | 4

Pfizer has 395 unique lot numbers associated with at least one death and, again, there are a few that are obviously bogus.  But again, evenly distribution my ass; there is a wild over-representation with one lot, EN6201, being associated with 117 deaths and fewer than 20 are associated with more than 50.

For grins and giggles let's look at the age distribution for 039K20A -- the worst Moderna lot.

karl=> select avg(age_yrs) from vaers, vaers_vax where vaers_id(vaers) = vaers_id(vaers_vax) and vax_type='COVID19' and vax_manu(vaers_vax)='MODERNA' and vax_lot(vaers_vax)='039K20A' and age_yrs is not null;
      avg
---------------------
 51.4922202119410700
(1 row)

Ok, so the average age of people who got that shot, had a bad reaction (and had a valid age in the table) is 51.

How about for 030A21A which had 33 deaths?

karl=> select avg(age_yrs) from vaers, vaers_vax where vaers_id(vaers) = vaers_id(vaers_vax) and vax_type='COVID19' and vax_manu(vaers_vax)='MODERNA' and vax_lot(vaers_vax)='030A21A' and age_yrs is not null;

       avg
---------------------
 61.1097014925373134
(1 row)

Well there goes the argument that we jabbed all the old people in nursing homes with the really nasty outcome lot and they died but it not caused by the jab and the second lot, which had a much lower rate, all went into younger people's arms and that's why they didn't die.  Uh, no, actually when it comes to the age of the people who got jabbed in these two instances its the other way around; the second lot, which was less deadly, had bad reactions in older people on average yet fewer died -- and significantly so too (by 10 years.)

What's worse is that the "hot" lots for deaths also are "hot" for total adverse events.  If the deaths were not related to general pathology from a given lot there would be no correlation -- but there is.  Oops.

In addition there is no solid correlation between the "bad" lots and first report of trouble.  The absolute worst of Moderna had a bad report in the first days of January.  But -- another lot of their vaccine with only 172 reports against it (1/20th the rate of the worst for total adverse events) had its first adverse event report on January 6th.

What is evenly-distributed with a reasonable bump for the original huge uptake rate?  When people died.

What the actual fuck is going on here?  You're going to try to tell me that the CDC, NIH and FDA don't know about this?  I can suck this data into a database, run 30 seconds of queries against it and instantly identify a wildly-elevated death and hazard rate associated with certain lot numbers when the distribution of those associations should be reasonably-even, or at least something close to it, across all the lots produced and used?  Then I look to try to find the obvious potential "clean" explanation (the higher death rate lot could have gone into older people) and it's simply not there when one looks at all adverse event reports.  I have Moderna lots with the same average age of persons who died but ten times times the number of associated deaths.

Then I look at reported date of death and.... its reasonably close to an even distribution.  So no, it wasn't all those old people getting killed at once in the first month.  So much for that attempted explanation.

Oh if you're interested the nastiest lot was literally everywhere in terms of states reporting adverse events against it; no, they didn't concentrate them in one state or region either.

The outcome distribution isn't "sort of close" when most of the lots have a single-digit number of associated deaths.

Isn't it also interesting that when one removes the "dead" flag the same sort of correlation shows up?  That is, there are plenty of lots with nearly nothing reported against them.  For Moderna within the first page of results (~85 lots) there is more than a three times difference in total adverse events.  The worst lot, 039K20A with 87 deaths, is not only worst for deaths; it also has more than 4,000 total adverse event reports against it.  For context if you drill down a couple hundred entries in that report the number of total adverse events against another lot, 025C21A number 417 with five deaths.

Are you really going to try to tell me that a mass-produced and distributed jab has a roughly ten times adverse event rate between two lots and seventeen times the death rate between the same two, you can't explain it by "older people getting one lot and not the other" and this is not a screaming indication that something that cannot be explained as random chance has occurred?

Here, in pictures, since some of you need to be hit upside the head with a fucking railroad tie before you wake up:

That's Pfizer deaths by lot, worst-to-best.  Look normal to you?  Remember, zero deaths in a given lot doesn't come up since it's not in the system.

How about adverse events of all sorts?

(Yes, there are invalid lot numbers, particularly in the second graph, with lots of "1s".  The left side however is what it is.)

There's a much-larger problem.  Have a look at Moderna's chart of the same thing.  First, deaths:

And AE's....

These are different companies!

Want even worse news?

JANSSEN, which is an entirely different technology, has the same curve.

and

What do we have here folks?

Is there something inherent in the production of the "instructions", however they're delivered, that results in a non-deterministic outcome within a batch of jabs which was not controlled for, perhaps because it isn't understood SINCE WE HAVE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE IN MAN OR BEAST and if it goes wrong you're fucked?

This is a power-law (exponential) distribution; it is not a step-function nor normally or evenly distributed.  Those don't happen with allegedly consistent manufacturing processes and the potential confounding factor that could be an innocent explanation (all the bad ones were early and killed all the old people early who died of "something" but it wasn't the vaccines since they all got the jab first) has been invalidated because the dates of death are in fact reasonably distributed.

Have doctors been told to stop reporting?  Note that HHS can issue such an order under the PREP Act and there is no judicial review if they do that.  Did they?

This demands an explanation.  Three different firms all using spike proteins, two using a different technology than the third, all three causing the body to produce the spike rather than deliver it directly and all three of them have a wild skew of some lots that hose people left and right while the others, statistically, do not screw people.

This data also eliminates the hypothesis put forward that lack of aspiration technique is responsible -- that is, that occasional accidental penetration of a vein results in systemic distribution.  That would not be lot-specific.

Next question, which VAERS cannot answer: Is there an effectiveness difference between the lots that screw people and those that do not?

Are we done being stupid yet?  Statistically all of the adverse events of any sort are in a handful of lots irrespective of the brand.  The rest generate a few bad outcomes while a very, very small number of lots generate a huge percentage of the harm.  And no, that's not tied to age bracketing (therefore who got it first either); some of the worst have average age distributions that are less than lots with lower adverse event rates.  It is also not tied to when used either since one of the "better" lots has a first-AE report right at the start of January -- as do the "bad" lots.

The only thing all three of these vaccines have in common is that all three of them rely on the human body to produce the spike protein that is then attacked by the immune system and produces antibodies; none of them directly introduce the offending substance into the body.  The mechanism of induction is different between the J&J and Pfizer/Moderna formulations but all exhibit the same problem.  The differential shown in the data is wildly beyond reasonable explanation related to the cohort dosed and the reported person's average age for the full set of events (not just deaths) does not correlate with elevated risk in a given lot either so it is clearly not related to the age of the person jabbed (e.g. "certain lots all went to nursing homes since they were first.")  While the highest AE rate lots all have early use dates so do some of the low-AE rate lots so the attempt to explain the data away as "but the highest risk got it first" fails as well.

In other words the best-fit hypothesis is that causing the body to produce part of a pathogen when that part has pathological capacity (as we know is the case for the spike) cannot be controlled adequately through commercial manufacturing process at-scale.  This means that no vector-based, irrespective of how (e.g. viral vector or mRNA), not-directly-infused coronavirus jab will ever have an acceptable safety profile because some lots will be "hot" and harm crazy percentages of those they're given to with no way to know in advance.  The basic premise used here -- to have the body produce the agent the immune system identifies rather than directly introduce it where you can control the quantity, is a failure. 

The entire premise of calling something that does this a "vaccine" is bogus and in the context of a coronavirus this may never be able to be done safely.

Something is very wrong here folks and the people running VAERS either aren't looking on purpose, know damn well its happening and are saying nothing about it on purpose -- never mind segregating the data in such a fashion that casual perusal of their downloads won't find it -- or saw it immediately and suppressed reporting on purpose.

If these firms were not immune from civil and even criminal prosecution as a result of what Biden and Trump did the plaintiff's bar would have been crawling up assholes months ago.

This ought to be rammed up every politician's ass along with every single person at the CDC, NIH and FDA.  They know this is going on; it took me minutes to analyze and find this.

What the HELL is going on here?

THESE SHOTS MUST BE WITHDRAWN NOW until what has happened is fully explained and, if applicable, accountability is obtained for those injured or killed as a result.  If embargoing of reports is proved, and its entirely possible that is the case, everyone involved must go to prison now and the entire program must be permanently scrapped.

THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR THIS DATA THAT REDUCES TO RANDOM CHANCE.

Caution: This is a fairly long and graph-heavy article. It also should be read while sitting down and without coffee or other beverages in your mouth where they can destroy things if sprayed all over the room, such as a keyboard or monitor.

Boy, we got problems here folks.

Remember the claim that Covid-19 killed 500,000+ Americans to excess!

Well..... did it?

I have a gift which has served me very well over the decades; it is part of what allows me to be an excellent programmer and data analyst.  I can look at a data set and intuitively know whether it has discontinuities in it and this leads me to be able to partition it up and work with it more-efficiently than most since I then know where to put my attention when it comes to analysis.  Of course I'm not always right when I see something that looks "off" at first, nobody is, but most of the time it proves up.  That same capacity means I can look at an assembly-language dump of a program and rather-quickly among a multi-hundred page green-bar listing hone in on, for example, where a tax rate that needs to be changed is likely stored and then develop and iterate on a very good set of guesses on how an unknown machine's instruction set is likely organized without a processor instruction manual -- and thus determine how to successfully change the reference and/or data.

Let's look at the CDC's own data, which is the organization telling us what happened, and see if we can find such a data discontinuity without using the Covid data claim itself.  That is, let's look at all the other most-common and thus distinctly-reported and highlighted reasons people die according to the CDC and stack 'em up .vs. 2019, which we will use as our control year, during which there was by their claims no Covid and thus which was the most-recent year we can use for reference.

We should be easily able to see the other morbidities we were all told killed people; all those other conditions that were potentiated by Covid.  Remember, according to the CDC only a vanishingly small number of people died with no other cause on their death certificate; ergo, those other causes, if they were not going to occur anyway, will be on the death certificates and materially elevated over the control year.

Indeed the CDC itself says that your base risk of death if you're under 18 is 1/50,000.  This is a very small risk; to put it in perspective the average under 18 person accepts the same risk of death by being present in automobiles over a few months time and accepts it again and again each and every few more months.  So these conditions, which are the ones that kill people often enough to be of special note and thus be individually reported out by the CDC over the last decade or so, are the ones that are most likely to elevate risk from Covid-19 to a degree that is material in overall death statistics.  This is logical, reasonable, and thus can be considered presumptively correct (in other words the presumption is that it's right; you'd have to present a sizeable body of scientific evidence to convince me otherwise.)

I remind you that there is no base risk of substance from this virus absent some other set of morbid conditions; you accept more risk than the virus presents to a healthy person, by a substantial amount, simply going to buy groceries in your car over a period of a few months.

In addition note that the late weeks in this data set are incomplete -- often badly so.  I went on a series of rants last year on my page here when people were saying the current week data said people weren't dying at all.  That's wasn't true then and isn't now; it takes time to get the reports and correlate them.

But it is for this specific reason that when you see indications of a potential signal in data sets like this you damn well better pay attention because by the time the proof is delivered, if you're doing something that can't be retracted, you will have screwed an utterly enormous number of people and there will be nothing you can do about it.

Each of these graphs has its "X" axis of calendar weeks.  The 2020/2021 line extends beyond "52" because it keeps going into the new year but again remember that the closer you get to "today" the greater the under-reporting risk because the data simply hasn't gotten to them yet.  Nonetheless, four months into 2021 we should expect that basically everything for 2020 is in fact complete.  You'll also notice that while a lot of conditions have seasonal curves to them this is not true for all, and the magnitude, where it is present, varies quite a bit.

We will start our analysis of potential comorbid conditions with cancer.  Cancer kills a lot of people.  We were told it was a major co-morbidity for Covid-19; ergo, we should see a serious cancer death increase that happened last year and into this year based on the claims of the CDC and others.

Huh?  How come there's no material change of any sort when it comes to the rate of cancer death in the age of Covid?  Total additional deaths were 10,928 out of 609,000.  That's statistically non-existent; a 2% increase is very-likely simply associated with our well-established demographic shift toward getting older.  If cancer makes you more-likely to die from Covid the elevation in risk is quite small -- statistically speaking it doesn't do much to make Covid-19 more deadly.

Ok, ok, sepsis was allegedly one of the ways that Covid kills you; multiple-organ failure due to septic shock.  Therefore there should be a really, really big increase in sepsis over the previous 2019 year, right?

Ok, there was a very small increase - 2,470 deaths, a six percent increase.  That's a fairly significant increase in percentage terms but the total number of people who die from this cause, in whole or part, is quite small.  The original weeks, when we didn't know much of anything about Covid-19, gave us a pretty big spike; about 15% over what it was the previous year, but then it settled down and, while there was a burst of associated death in the summer that was quickly attenuated too.  It appears our medical system figured out how to stop sepsis from being a major factor pretty quickly and we stopped people that had The Coof from dying, in part, from sepsis. That doesn't account for the problem.

Moving on how about my favorite one..... fat-ass disease.  You know, Dieeeeeebeeeetus, otherwise known for most people as you keep eating shit for decades and it eventually kills you.  Yeah, virtue-signaling, "healthy at any size" bullshit disease?  Yes, I know, a small (under 10%) percentage of people with diabetes are Type I and that's not their fault in any way; Type I is an autoimmune disorder and while you may choose not to manage it other than by chasing carbs with insulin the actual cause isn't something you did.  But Type II is, in the main caused by being a fat-ass, which is 100% voluntary and a decision you can change at any point.

Oh look!  The blue line is above the red line, and materially so!  In fact in the spring it was really nasty, good for about 700 extra deaths in one week, and it's been 300 or so on average since.  That's fairly significant but, 300 deaths a week x 52 weeks is... 15,712 corpses or a 15% increase over 2019 levels.  Hmmm...... ok, we found some of it but for 90% of the people with the condition it's a lifestyle choice and not my concern nor is it any of my responsibility to mitigate your increased level of risk if you make said choice.

Next up is Alzheimer's.  You would not expect Covid-19 to have anything to do with that, but forcing people into isolation who are progressively becoming more-compromised both mentally and physically damn well might, essentially killing them through neglect and "I don't give a fuck about you" style prison treatment.  We didn't do any of that, did we?

Covid-19 didn't kill those people, our governments, our mayors, both Presidents and we did.  We're bastards and we slaughtered innocent old people through intentional neglect because we refused to implement isolation protocols for the workers in the facilities and find ways for those who loved and care for these older Americans to have said care, comfort and contact with their loved ones.  We're monsters and they died as a result of us, not from a virus.  But even so.... it doesn't account for anywhere near the rest of the dead people.  Every one of them is sad, but it is what it is.  This accounts for 14,567 additional dead bodies, an 11% increase.  Some of that is also likely demographics but you can bet we murdered some of those folks -- we just didn't do it with a virus.

Next up -- Influenza!  You know, our old buddy the flu?  Remember, we were told the flu "disappeared."  Did it?

Heh wait a minute..... there were lots of flu deaths in 2020 weren't there?  In fact it was only a bit below baseline this year so far, although in 2021 it looks to be running low.  Then again, was I noted, beware the latest weeks; they're behind, so I can't draw any firm conclusions.  But this much is clear: Did Covid-19 actually kill those people in those other weeks or did the flu kill them?  Good question; remember that dying with something doesn't mean you died of something.  Did we autopsy those people to find out which was which?  You know damn well we did not and the two are quite-closely related.  The total?  5,095 additional dead bodies, a 9% increase.

How about COPD/Emphysema and related things?  You'd think those folks would have gotten hammered.  After all, someone with either condition has severely-compromised oxygen transport to start with because their lungs are screwed, and we know that people choke to death with Covid, right?  So sufferers of both diseases should have gotten it straight up the pooper and fallen like flies.

Wait, WUT?

The death rate from these two diseases in the spring and early summer tracked below 2019?  And then again as we went into the winter "death season" from Covid, again, it tracked materially below the baseline?  Would someone care to explain this one?  Indeed, there were 1,965 fewer deaths, a 1.27% decrease.  Since when is COPD, emphysema and other related lung disorders protective against a respiratory virus?

I'll answer that for you -- when they're using inhaled steroids like Budesonide and those drugs stop the virus from causing serious harm.  So tell me again why we haven't been handing that out to people who get Covid at the first sign of trouble, given that one of the obvious highest-risk groups of people died less often over the last year despite a raging pandemic respiratory virus circulating everywhere?  Gee, wouldn't it have been nice if we used the data we already had via natural experiment across roughly 20 million Americans with an extreme morbidity bearing on respiratory infection to stop people from being killed?  We had this data before the fall and winter surge and deliberately refused to use it.  Indeed it was that data that prompted the Australian-led study which we refused to sign onto and promote here in the US.

I remind you that if we had done so, and handing that readily-available drug out to anyone testing Covid positive had stopped the death equally as well as it did in the COPD/Emphysema group all of the EUAs would have been illegal to issue and there would be no vaccines or need for them as the death toll would have returned to baseline or below immediately and permanently and the pandemic would have been over.  This was an intentional decision as the data was right under everyone's nose all the way back to the summer months of 2020 including Fauci, Azar, the FDA and the staff of the CDC.

I know, I know!  We must have misclassified a bunch of people and they're in the "other respiratory disease" bucket!  That is definitely where the excess death showed up.  It has to be; this is a respiratory virus and so that only makes sense.  Whew, we found it!

Uh, well, maybe not.  There were only 1,838 more dead people in that classification, a 4% increase.  Meh.

Ok, ok, I know, I know, seriously immune compromised people, such as those with Lupus, all dropped like flies.  Remember, that's a serious comorbidity too according to..... everyone who is a so-called expert.  So all those people died.

Oh wait.... they're not dead at rates higher than were seen in 2019?  WTF?  Heh, wait a minute -- aren't most of those people taking Plaquenil?  You do know what Plaquenil is, right?  Hydroxychloroquine, otherwise known as HCQ.  You have to wonder; there's exactly zero evidence that Covid nailed them at all and most of them are in fact using that eeee-viile drug that the CDC, FDA and Pharma all say doesn't work.  Well if it doesn't work and being immune compromised is a risk factor how come there is nearly zero excess death among those people?  Either being immune compromised is not a comorbidity or HCQ looks to be pretty damned protective of people with a serious comorbidity.  Duh.  Yes, there were 1,818 more dead people.  Count 'em folks, they did not drop like flies; that resulted in only a 3% increase for a condition that was expected to be a death sentence if infected by Covid-19.

The most-likely explanation for their lack of death is the drug a huge percentage of them are using.

That would be two drugs now validated by natural experiment and intentionally ignored by all of these goons eh?

All right, all right, I know, I know..... heart attacks got lots of people.  It's gotta show up somewhere; it must be heart attacks.

Hmmmm.... yes, there was a really, really ugly spike in the first few weeks wasn't there?  About 3,000 of them one week, which is really awful.  That, times 53 weeks, would be..... about 150,000 corpses.  Except.... it didn't stay that bad, did it?  No, but it was elevated, and materially-so over the entire year.  This is problematic though because it goes to what I was talking about the science now saying that spike protein itself is pathogenic, and in the form of causing blood clots.  Clots, of course, cause heart attacks and then the question will become are the vaccines going to cause lots of heart attacks too?  Better keep an eye on this one because that elevation level is very material, unlike all the rest of them we've seen so far.  And here we have real death: to be specific, 47,973 more corpses resulting in a 7% increase, so whatever those folks are taking it sure didn't help.  THAT is an ugly number especially considering that heart disease is already up there with the worst of the "why you died" list.

Let's talk strokes; they're nasty too in the general sense.  So did they take a similar hit?

Uh, yeah they did.  A couple hundred extra dead people a week is nothing to sneeze at and also bears watching in the coming months because once again you can't tell much about the most-recent weeks yet.... or can you?  In 2020 we did have 12,404 more fatal strokes and that too is an ugly number of slightly larger magnitude in percentage terms than for heart attacks, an 8% increase.

What's the common thread between heart attacks and strokes?  Clotting.

And finally, the "aw crap we don't know what it was" column:

Ummmm.... Yeah.

Note that in 2020 this accounted for a grand total of 9,635 more bodies.  But in 2021, well.....

Now a good amount of that disappears back into the other classifications over time, so setting off nuclear alarm sirens isn't quite called for yet.  But anyone who tells you that there's no safety signal when you have a very large spike that is now nearly four months old and unresolved into other cataloged conditions has rocks in their head.  That's just flat-out bullshit considering that we now have over a year's worth of experience with Covid-19.

Yes, there's backlog, there's late reporting and there's updated reports that come in over time.  All true and maybe that finding will all disappear back into the other charts over the next six months or so.  But by God it had better, because if it does not and the so-called "authorities" ignore it there's your evidence, correlated exactly with when we started stabbing people en-masse, that people were dying of those stabs and if it continues then the presumptive linked causal factor is going to be established since there is no other material "unknown" that has materially changed during that time period.

I still can't find 500,000 excess deaths caused by Covid in 2020; they're simply not there among the diseases the CDC reported out and since the base risk is 1/50,000 even across half the population being infected we could only account for 3,000 deaths.  It is thus clear that if in fact Covid-19 has killed anywhere near the number of people claimed those other morbid conditions, all of which are serious diseases standing alone, have to account for the increase between them.

Indeed the most-common, by far (40% of additional deaths by disease) were due to heart attacks and the next was diabetes at 13%.  Between diabetes and heart attacks, both almost-exclusively due to lifestyle choices and thus your personal decisions, 53% of the excess 120,475 deaths are accounted for.  If we add in strokes, which also are largely lifestyle-related then we're at about 2/3rds.

Among those diseases that are allegedly "the biggest comorbid factors" I can find only 120,475 more deaths that Covid-19 may have contributed to and which included those diseases as a causal factor in total.  Did Covid-19 cause all of those 120,000 additional deaths or were they caused by, in the case of diabetes, strokes and heart attacks for example, the additional 50lbs that a material percentage of people put on during the lockdowns (and over 20lbs on average!) from eating takeout trash full of fast carbs and being involuntarily cooped up in their homes?  We do not know so this can only describe an upper boundary or caused mortality -- not a lower one.

This analysis doesn't mean even more people didn't die with Covid, but an alleged "Covid" death that wasn't accompanied by one of the CDC's specifically-called out diseases.  The CDC "selects" these specific categories and ICD codes, I remind you, because they're particularly large percentages of the whole among diseases that kill people.  When the CDC says that only a few thousand people died of Covid alone this data is rather interesting wouldn't you say?

After all being shot while Covid positive, or ODing, dying in a car wreck or wrapping your motorcycle around a telephone pole in no way implies you died of Covid, does it?  To so-imply or state is to deliberately deceive the public and inculcate fear; it is a lie.

Yet the media and government have in fact said it did because they have repeatedly claimed more than four times the number of people who the CDC links to specific diseases in fact died "of" Covid-19.

The CDC's own data proves they lied.

Further, they claim that we had "no evidence" for the effectiveness of repurposed drugs; that's also a bald lie in that there are at least two which are specifically used en-masse by millions in the group of people in two of these morbidity buckets and both of them saw materially less death than was expected.  In other words we had very strong observational evidence across a huge body of people that these drugs are protective and did nothing with that information.  Had we acted and had those drugs proved effective the EUAs for vaccines would have been illegal, there would have been no need or desire for vaccines at all and a huge number of people who are currently dead would still be alive.

To be blunt: By the CDC's own data the FDA, NIH, CDC, Fauci and others lied and as a direct result people died.

Do you think they're being honest about the safety of the jabs given these facts?  After all it's your ass since they made sure you couldn't sue or prosecute anyone if they get caught lying again.

The CDC's published source files from which you can reproduce these results on your own are found here and here.

PS: How long before, if the "unknown" data verifies, Mr. Puddinhead is forced to go on TV and eulogize all those who died due to taking shots predicated on a bogus premise, specifically one crafted before we had the science on the fact that the spike protein itself is pathogenic, as is now known -- and thus any such attempt would inevitably harm or kill a significant number of people -- more than the non-morbid percentage who die from natural infection, since their body is able to prevent the infection from becoming systemic.

Let's go down the list.

• This virus was newly discovered in January of 2020. FALSE; Judicial watch has now proved that Fauci and the NIH knew that Covid-19 was diagnosed no later than December 2nd 2019 in Wuhan.  This was deliberately concealed under confidentiality agreements between China and the NIH.  In short Dr. Fauci and the NIH knowingly and repeatedly lied about the time of first discovery and diagnosis and it is documented that this was known in February and early March and not disclosed.  We also now know with scientific certainty that the virus was in the US no later than the second week of December of 2019 because antibodies were found in about 1.5% of blood donations from that time.  This, along with the sequencing back-computation I performed in early 2020 places the latest the virus entered the US as sometime in October of 2019 and from the blood bank data it is scientifically proved it had infected about 1.5% of the population, or roughly 4 million people in the US, by the second week of December 2019.  This in turn means that we had widespread disease which was blamed on something else. Indeed we handled all 4 million of those cases just fine up until the hysteria started, didn't we?  You didn't even know those 4 million sick people, and those who died of it, existed prior to the hysteria being ginned up.
  
  
• 15 days will slow the spread. "If we all stay home and minimize contact for 15 days -- including closing businesses, schools and not traveling -- Covid will be under control and we can trace infections and stop it."  FALSE and we now know impossible because the virus was already all over the country on an uncontrolled basis by that time and the NIH knew the virus had been circulating for at least a month earlier than they admitted at the time.  It is true that if you immediately slam your borders shut 100% you can trace and quarantine yourself out of a transmissible epidemic -- at the cost of essentially all external trade, travel and tourism.  But Fauci factually knew when we started that this was impossible because the virus had been spreading here for at least two months at the time and we hadn't done a thing about it for those two months.  We were later to learn it was four months and perhaps longer.
  
  
• If you give us 30 more days (remember, this is now six weeks to slow the spread) it'll work. FALSE AGAIN for the same reason; the NIH and Fauci knew there was no possible way to contain the virus when the original 15 days expired as he knew, factually, that the virus had been uncontained for at least three months.
  
  
• But the lockdowns and restrictions worked to save lives! Nope; this is called the "exception fallacy" and now a peer-reviewed journal entry demonstrates it.   We knew this early on too; indeed for five decades we've had "pandemic response plans" that make clear that once you have widespread community dispersion of an infectious agent attempting to lock down people or impose any other sort of non-pharmaceutical intervention is futile and causes harm.  We ignored said decades of hard-won experience -- intentionally.
  
  
• We don't have enough ventilators!  FALSE; not one of the DPA-produced ones was ever needed; NY's Governor lied and had plenty of them, as did everyone else.
  
  
• Ventilators not only are needed they will save lives.  FALSE; they killed nearly everyone put on one then, and still do.  We knew they didn't work in February as they killed 95% of the people put on then in Wuhan and this had been reported out by March.
  
  
• This is mostly a community-spread disease in places like stores, bars, restaurants, churches, concerts and the local city street.  FALSE; the CDC itself documented that more than half of all transmission was happening in homes and the next largest, and only other statistically material spread was occurring in industrial (e.g. meat packing) plants and health care settings.  Nashville suppressed the fact that they could only trace about one percent of infections to social businesses such as bars and restaurants and now the CDC itself has stated that less than 1% of spread is traceable to such public venues as restaurants and bars.  In other words we knew by late spring of 2020 the restrictions, including business closures, school shutdowns and masks couldn't work as that's not where the virus was spreading; we couldn't shut down the industrial plants without starving the population and destroying both energy production and sanitary services leading to an immediate societal and economic collapse.  Nor could we invade every house and forcibly segment positive-tested people either; we had neither the resources nor would they get away with it without the cops and government goons being turned into swiss cheese.  And when it comes to health care we could have segregated Covid-19 facilities and the people working in care homes but intentionally did not.
  
  
• Asymptomatic transmission is a major risk.  FALSE.  Over millions of contacts traced in China not one was ever proved to be from an asymptomatic person.  There has never been scientific evidence that asymptomatic spread has been material in any pandemic through history and there is no documented evidence of material asymptomatic spread for Covid-19 in the US or anywhere else.  Worse, symptomatic persons least able to afford to call out sick due to lack of paid sick time or even the threat of being fired are those in low-wage and high-contact jobs such as fast food, grocery, meatpacking and other "essential" service industries never mind care home employees who are poorly paid and often moonlight in home health care among extremely vulnerable people.
  
  
• We had no way to stop the nursing home deaths and did the best we could.  FALSE.  I pointed out immediately after Kirkland occurred that isolating the employees from all general public interaction, effectively creating a bubble, would stop nearly all of the transmission into these environments.  We happened to have a lot of empty hotels at the time too.  Yes, we would have had to pay significant bonuses to entice employees to go nowhere other than that hotel room and to work but we could have, and if we did it would have saved nearly 50% of those who died in the first four months.  Not one so-called "expert" demanded or even suggested doing so but I was calling for exactly this in March of 2020.  This, of course leaves aside the various Executive Orders that intentionally seeded the virus into nursing homes in multiple states by multiple Governors.  Indeed even this winter in still-locked-down New York there was still no segregation of employees and residents were killed in size by infection brought into the care home by employees.  Recent small case number spikes have been associated with vaccine distribution.  How's that possible?  There's only one rational explanation: The health care workers are giving the virus to the patients getting the shot!  And yet we are still told that all these people are "heroes" and don't you dare forget it.
  
  
• We didn't -- and don't -- have early treatment options that work.  FALSE; Japan spent their effort on early treatment and keeping people out of hospitals.  They have roughly a third of our population and only 8,000 dead people.  Japan is far more-dense population-wise than us yet did a hell of a lot better despite having a materially older population.  What Japan didn't do, in short, is spread the disease via their health care workers.  In short if you went to the hospital you were likely to die; this has proved out in my own county in Tennessee with a >60% death rate.  Up until we started with the panic porn -- the entire first three months of this outbreak in the US until March of 2020 -- we did fine too despite the virus being literally everywhere for months.   We in fact knew of several early treatment candidate drugs, all cheap and available, in March of 2000 and exactly zero of them were investigated by the NIH, CDC or any of the so-called "public health" institutions such as Vanderbilt, IHME, Johns Hopkins and others.  Those physicians and even hospital systems who did investigate them on their own were derogated, attacked and in some cases even threatened with license suspensions and other sanctions which continue to this day.
  
  
• Age is the primary determinant of risk.  FALSE; obesity and the panoply of health conditions caused and exacerbated by being a fat-ass is the primary determinant of risk.  Nations with lower obesity prevalence have a ten times lower or better risk of death from Covid-19 on a per-100,000 population basis.  Obesity is in each and every instance a lifestyle choice.  This was known very early on in the NY Coroner data which is updated frequently; only six persons 75 and older have died of Covid without one of a relatively short list of underlying conditions -- and over 10,500 died with one or more.  Simply put most of those who died deliberately put themselves in a medically compromised condition through their own lifestyle choices just a person who drinks too much and ruins their liver decided to drink.  Absent those personal lifestyle decisions the death rate from this disease, while certainly not zero, is approximately half as likely as death due to an automobile accident over a year's time.  Read here -- this is exactly what I pointed out one year ago.  Who's been right on this -- and who's been wrong?
  
  
• Existing drugs will not work and we have no existing treatments until you're hospitalized; we must develop new treatments and vaccines.  FALSE.  The data is that ivermectin works, among others.  A trial out of Australia conducted in Britain (they locked everything in and did not have enough people in Australia who were sick) showed Budesonide (a cheap inhaled steroid used for asthma) works if given immediately when someone becomes symptomatic.  The latter trial was stopped because it was ruled unethical to not give the controls the medicine since it prevented ninety percent of hospitalizations.  Ivermectin has worked in every trial run thus far except one recently reported study the authors themselves state cannot prove effectiveness as the necessary deterioration in cases to do so was violated to the downside immediately, possibly due to widespread community use of the drug.  The data on HCQ says it works if used early but appears to be worthless if not used until you're in the hospital.  Remdesivir, which has an EUA, was disproved -- that is, shown worthless in a very large trial called "Solidarity" (along with several other drugs) and yet is still being used as it is on-patent and expensive.  No drug works 100% of the time nor should it be expected to, but we should damn well not continue to use drugs that are proved worthless just because they cost $3,000 and the FDA issued an EUA for them.  Deliberately not treating people until they're choking to death is monstrous and has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, many if not most of them avoidable at a cost of a few dollars.
  
  
• Masks are the best tool we have to stop the spread and, if you just wear them for a few -- 4, 6, 8 weeks -- we will have Covid under control.   Stated under oath before Congress by the CDC's director in September following multiple previous statements over a two month period in the summer by the CDC and NIH which urged (and got) the issuance of mandates.  FALSE and known false as Hawaii took a ten times case rate spike a month after their mandate.  This was known before Redfield perjured himself before Congress.  There are ZERO states which did not take a monstrous spike in the winter despite mandates including California with the most-strict lockdowns and mask mandates in the nation.  Compliance via multiple surveys has been around 90% with no evidence of effectiveness anywhere against non-mandate states and counties next door.  Those states including South Dakota and Florida who repudiated the mandates or refused to issue them in the first place had identical or better outcomes than the states and locales that imposed them.  The CDC has now itself published a MMWR (weekly report) in which they "claim" masks work -- their definition of "work" is a shockingly tiny decrease in death and case rates and this assumes you ignore the confounding elements in their study that could invalidate even that tiny impact.  Their "study" also deliberately did not include the control counties (where there were no mandates); if you did, for example, Blount .v. Sevier, it would be obvious that the curve in fact was worse in the mandate county in many cases.  In other words despite the nearly year-long and continual screaming about masks even the CDC itself now states that out of the 500,000 dead statistically no lives were saved at best, they deliberately ignored the control counties and further, statistically-speaking it is entirely possible zero lives were saved.  REMEMBER, WE WERE TOLD IN THE SUMMER AND EARLY FALL THAT MASKS WOULD ABSOLUTELY CONTROL THE VIRUS -- NOT JUST SLIGHTLY REDUCE CASES -- AND IN FACT THE CDC STATED UNDER OATH THAT MASKS WERE BETTER PROTECTION THAN A VACCINE.  THIS LIE WAS REPEATED FOR MONTHS AND IS STILL BEING REPEATED TODAY.  This wasn't a random statement made "off the cuff" it was made under oath to Congress five months ago and has, over time and by the data, been conclusively proved to be a lie.
  
  
• The new strains will cause another spike even worse than the last one.  FALSE; this was stated originally in the fall and repeated in December through February and yet since then cases have dropped like a stone despite these "new strains" becoming more and more prevalent.  Florida in particular has documented widespread prevalence of one of the "demon strains" that were trumpeted in Fauci's fear porn.  There has been no spike.  Incidentally viruses mutate all the time; within the first few months there were hundreds of distinct viral RNA strains of Covid-19 known and that was only of the infections sequenced -- a tiny minority.  If our actions do lead to new strains (specifically our ridiculously-unsound mass-vaccination campaign) and viral evasion occurs you may well be more screwed if you took the vaccine due to ADE than if you did not!
  
  
• The Super Bowl will cause a huge case, hospitalization and death spike in Florida due to the ridiculously crowded parties and no masks in bars and similar all over the Tampa area.  In fact the mayor threatened to arrest people for exactly this reason (an empty threat as the Governor had banned enforceability of said mandates.)  FALSE; there has been no spike.  Look for yourself; it's been over a month and cases, hospitalizations and deaths are all falling.  Where's the spike?
  
  
• Texas dropping its mask order will lead to mass-disease and death.  FALSE; there has been no spike at all.  Biden called the move "Neanderthal thinking" and predicted disaster, as did California's Newsom among myriad others, both among political leaders and so-called "medical experts" such as Fauci.  Multiple lefties claimed that "there is no limit to how far Republicans will go to kill people."  The truth is that Covid-19 cases fell by 28% in the next two weeks.  The histrionics were, once again, wrong.
  
  
• If we social distance and wear masks we will buy enough time for the vaccines to be developed and approved.  FALSE.  The case and hospitalization rate on a national basis peaked and was falling before the first jab went in the first arm.  That which you do after something happens cannot be the cause.  Simply put the vaccines did not stop any of the death; despite the lack of testing and rushed approvals they came too late.
  
  
• The only people who count for "herd immunity" are those vaccinated.  FALSE; never in history has such a lie been propagated for any disease, ever, anywhere.  The CDC by its own estimates puts the lower boundary of persons infected and recovered at over 1/3rd of the nation and that's their lowest estimate.  By more-reasonable belief the number is over half.  Those people have immunity and absolutely count.  Further, we knew in the first months that a material percentage of the population has pre-existing resistance to some degree, likely due to previous infection with other coronaviruses.  This is why the case rate peaked before fully-vaccinated persons existed in the US; there is no other possible explanation.
  
  
• Even if you've had the disease and recovered you should get vaccinated.  There is zero science behind this claim.  If you've had the measles or Chicken Pox would you take a vaccine against either?  I certainly would not and have not; that would be pointless and stupid.  The claim that there is no durable protection once infected is nothing more than conjecture; note that coronaviruses circulate among us all the time and while immunity may not be perfect (e.g. eventually you may well get it again) the odds are extremely high that if you do it will be a mild case and of no clinical or personal significance.  Suggesting that you take the risk of an experimental vaccine if you were previously infected is wildly inappropriate; there is no such thing as a drug without risk and there is zero scientific evidence that your acquired immunity will not protect you against serious disease.
  
  
• Even if you've been vaccinated or had the disease and recovered you should wear a mask and distance from others.  FALSE, unless you believe the vaccines are worthless.  If you believe the vaccine protects the person who takes it then you no longer need a mask or to distance and since others can choose to take a vaccine or not you have no reason to wear a mask or distance for allegedly protecting others either.  If you do not believe the vaccines are effective protection then why did you take it?  In short you either believe that you gain immunity by vaccination or infection or you do not; if you do then there's no reason for you to take any measures beyond either recovery or completion of the vaccination.  Further, if you don't believe infection and recovery provides meaningful and durable protection then neither will the vaccine so the same scenario applies to both cases and if you do not then believe the shots are protective then you are stupid for accepting them.

These are the very same people folks -- the NIH, the CDC, State Departments of Health, Fauci, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, IHME, Vanderbilt and many more who now tell you after a solid year of unbroken lies and falsehoods that the vaccines are both safe and effective while at the same time our government has provided a 100% waiver of all liability to the pharmaceutical companies that developed and manufactured them.

I note that unlike the other common vaccines that are safe and effective, and which took 10+ years to so-prove, the mechanism of action of these shots are wildly different; they use only part of the virus and rather than introduce it into your body they hijack your cellular metabolism to produce the spike protein exactly as would a replicating infection with the virus, but since only the "spike" is there rather than the entire virus the hypothesis is that hijacking your cellular metabolism in this fashion will not hurt you.  While for other vaccines the immunity produced is metabolically identical to infection because a killed whole virus that cannot replicate is used in this case the shots deliberately cause replication in your body of only one part of the virus, the spike protein.  This is not identical to the broad immunity provided by natural infection because it can't be with this approach; if the entire virus was used you'd get the disease and it would be systemic in every case instead of localized to your upper respiratory tract.  Further, unlike a killed virus vaccine that cannot replicate in your body at all these shots all cause production of the spike protein by your cells exactly as would an infection and that production is systemic since it is given by injection and thus circulates through the body.

The safety of this approach is unproved and in fact the rate of deaths closely associated with these vaccines is wildly higher than that associated with any of the other routinely given vaccinations including flu and chicken pox.  The intermediate and longer-term effects of this approach including the possibility of long-term or even permanent damage as a result of systemically hijacking your cellular metabolism to produce that foreign protein are unknown.

Unlike a mask you can remove you cannot un-take a shot and the litany of those previous lies killed over 400,000 Americans who otherwise would not have died.

What if their statements are false this time, specifically on safety?  What if viral evasion shows up as did during early trials for a SARS vaccine in animals, trials that were abandoned and not performed for these preparations?  It typically takes ten years to know if a candidate vaccine produces unacceptable side effects including lifetime disability due to immune dysfunction, never mind exactly how effective it is and for how long.  Further, the media and these people continually claim that nobody has been killed by these vaccines yet VAERS, the CDC's own reporting data which is public, shows roughly two thousand associated deaths.  The number of associated deaths with the annual flu shot from last year's flu vaccination which shipped roughly 170 million doses, was twenty-six.

That means the Covid-19 shots are associated thus far with roughly seventy five times (7,500%) as many deaths as last year's entire set of flu vaccines!  Remember that we give flu vaccines to old and morbid people just like the first priority for Covid-19 vaccines, so these should produce similar "associated" rates of bad events if they are similarly safe.

VAERS reporting is voluntary and thus always under-reports vaccine-associated events.  Association does not establish causation but a pattern of 75 times as many deaths as are associated with another commonly-given vaccine in the same population group damn well ought to raise anyone's eyebrows; to claim that such does not represent a "safety signal" is a flat-out lie.

I remind you that the false statements of alleged facts outnumber, by a wild margin, the true ones particularly when it comes to things you were told to do that "would work" to stem the spread of this virus.  Every single one of those claims has been proved false over time.

In short you're now being exhorted to believe a cadre of people and government agencies who are proved repeated liars and to trust them with your life after their previous lies killed your mother.

The facts are that Covid-19 basically burned itself out before the first shot went in the first arm and that none of the mitigating factors prevented net deaths from occurring; in fact all these mitigations, from mask orders to lockdowns to closing businesses and others caused more deaths due to ODs, suicides, avoidable heart attacks and strokes not screened for and other maladies by a wide factor than the mitigations, even using fatally flawed claims taken on faith by these very same agencies, could have possibly saved.  The actions we could have taken to actually reduce death, specifically as regards care home and other medical facilities we deliberately refused to do and we knew those actions would save lives.  Instead of protecting the most-vulnerable while those least-likely to be seriously harmed were naturally infected and built a wall of population immunity we deliberately refused to protect those older and sicker people from infection via the health care system and they died.

Given this record of falsehoods, actions and intentional refusals to act you're willing to bet your life they're telling the truth this time?

Even without full testing there may be reason for certain people to accept the vaccine, particularly those at specifically-high risk who have not had the virus.  However, on the data if you are not specifically morbid in known ways the risk of death from Covid-19, by the CDC's own data along with that of the NY coroner, is approximately 3/100,000.  From the associated deaths in the CDC's own VAERS system it appears the vaccines are approximately as dangerous to materially more dangerous than the disease in non-morbid individuals and that is without having any data on intermediate and longer-term effects which can only add to those risks.  Further, if you've already been infected with Covid-19 you already have broad immunity and there is zero scientific evidence that vaccination can be of any value to you whatsoever.

When do we stop allowing people like Fauci, the CDC, Joe Biden, Donald Trump and Governors along with various health departments to lie through their teeth about virtually everything related to this virus?

Is not your dead Grandmother enough reason to put a stop to this horseshit -- and all who support it?