Trust the SCIENCE!

What is meant by that, exactly? Do the people who urge us to “trust the science” or “follow the science,” actually perform scientific experiments regarding the issues in question? In most cases, no.

Well, have they actually read the scientific papers that support the conclusions they are urging us to accept? Perhaps, in some cases. Usually no.

The reality is that what most people think of as “The Science” is a collection of soundbites and buzzwords distilled, via several layers of media and political spin, from scientific papers, which may be worthless or bogus, and official pronouncements by bodies such as the World Health Organization, which may be lying through their teeth.

Now, this is not to say that we should cynically reject every scientific finding that is communicated to us through the usual channels. You are certainly welcome to do so, but personally I tend to believe scientists when they are talking about matters within their areas of expertise (astronomy, say, or nuclear physics).

There is a major exception, though, and that is scientific issues that have been politicized or otherwise distorted by political, financial or social pressures. In these cases I think we have to carefully filter and apply critical reasoning to the assertions that are being made. This is especially the case when we are being asked to give up some amount of money or control over our lives in the name of those scientific assertions. And this is massively the case when those assertions are accompanied by the fastest rollup of wealth and power the world has ever seen. In that case, my skepticism about the pronouncements of official Science is going to be off the charts, and rightly so.

Our task of challenging the official scientific narrative is made easier when it turns out that many actual scientists—credible, accomplished scientists at major universities—powerfully reject the supposed “consensus” on the issue in question. Most people have never heard of it, but the Great Barrington Declaration, signed last October, destroys the idea that anything like a “consensus” exists about the necessity of lockdowns and stay-at-home orders to fight the microbe (you know which one). The statement was authored by three scientists at Harvard University, Oxford University and Stanford University Medical School, was co-signed by 44 experts, and has now collected signatures from 40,199 medical practitioners and 13,290 medical and public health scientists.

Read it yourself here or below:

The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

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 – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. 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.

On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:

It will never end

You do realize that, don’t you? The “COVID” restrictions have no expiration date. They will continue forever, unless they are stopped by force majeure.

People look at me like I’m crazy when I say the lockdowns will never end, but consider that in the US, we are now on day 301 of what was sold to us as a 15-day campaign to slow the pathogen’s spread. Dr. Doom assures us that “we can start essentially approaching some form of normality” this fall, which I would note starts on September 22 this year, or another 254 days from now.

In other words, extraordinary “public health” measures that were supposed to last 15 days have already been extended to 555 days, a timeline predicated on the success of a mass vaccination program that is already faltering as large swaths of the healthcare profession decide they’d rather take their chances with the virus than with a novel mRNA vaccine that was essentially designed on a computer in a matter of hours. We also have no idea how long immunity lasts after getting vaccinated, whether the vaccines even stop transmission of the virus, etc., so it is not hard to imagine this timeline being stretched further into the future. As the CDC website notes:

There is not enough information currently available to say if or when CDC will stop recommending that people wear masks and avoid close contact with others to help prevent the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19. Experts need to understand more about the protection that COVID-19 vaccines provide before making that decision.

To the people who think I’m nuts, my response is to ask what their major malfunction is that prevents them from seeing the simple facts that are hitting them in the face, day after day. Americans accepted lockdowns in mid-March because they were told it would be over in a handful of weeks. Ten months later, restrictions are still in place: mask mandates; offices closed; sporting events canceled; indoor dining banned in places like New York City and California; capacity restrictions in churches; mandatory self-quarantines for people who cross state lines… the list goes on and on and on, a sinister catalog of rules, regulations, cancelations and disruptions that have transformed our lives to the point where it is hard to even remember what things were like before the madness began. Many of the restrictions, like California’s “Stay Home Order,” have no end date; they are literally in place “until further notice“! Not for 90 days; not for 180 days; indefinitely. WHAT WILL IT TAKE FOR SOME OF YOU TO GET THE MEMO? YOU ARE EXPLICITLY BEING TOLD BY THE RELEVANT AUTHORITIES THAT THE MEASURES MAY NEVER END.

On April 4, 2020, I predicted that the lockdowns were here to stay:

Coronavirus appears to be forcing some US troops out of Iraq, a sign that America’s “forever war” in that country may be winding down after just 17 years of destructive and pointless conflict. Ironically, though, SARS 2.0 has inspired the launch of a new type of forever war: the indefinite suspension of society and commerce in the name of defeating a microbe. Call it the forever lockdown. […]

“There is no quick fix” is the message that is increasingly coming from our elites. They are preparing us for a long, miserable and ruinous battle against the microbe, one which our economy, society, and political order are not likely to survive. The forever wars weakened and demoralized America. The forever lockdown, if actualized, will finish us off. Buckle up!

I take no joy in reporting that this prediction is looking pretty accurate just about now. But let me amend it slightly. If the coronavirus does indeed “go away,” either in reality or because the media loses interest in it, then another crisis will quickly be found to replace it as the pretext for continued (albeit modified) restrictions. This could take the form of a new virus, or another fake emergency such as “systemic racism” or “climate change,” which cries out for radical action. If you think I’m exaggerating or losing it, again, I would just ask what is wrong with YOU that you seem unable to process the messages that are being screamed at you nonstop by the people in positions of institutional power.

In November, the American Medical Association declared that “Racism is a threat to public health.” In June, an open letter claiming that “White supremacy is a lethal public health issue that predates and contributes to COVID-19” was signed by a large number of medical doctors and epidemiologists. The letter called for allowing BLM protests while maintaining lockdowns and prohibiting anti-lockdown protests. As for climate change, it has not escaped our rulers’ notice that the lockdowns have slashed carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 7 percent year-on-year in 2020, or the equivalent of taking 500 million cars off the planet’s roads. It’s perhaps odd that this story has not received more coverage, given the massive ramp-up of climate hysteria in 2019 (again, these things are hard to remember). In any case, don’t be surprised if our rulers announce their intention to “lock in” these emissions reductions. New Zealand has already declared a “climate change emergency,” and the US appears poised to do the same under Fake President Biden:

“Folks, we’re in a crisis,” Biden said at an event in Wilmington, Delaware. “We literally have no time to waste … Just like we need to be a unified nation to respond to COVID-19, we need a unified national response to climate change.”

And last month, a collection of 538 environmental groups urged Biden to declare a national climate emergency. It’s easy to imagine his puppet-masters, drunk with power after taking over the entire federal government on January 20, pushing through such a measure. The restrictions associated with it could end up looking a lot like the COVID response: travel restrictions, limits on consumption, shuttering of commercial buildings, bans on energy-intensive activities such as food service, etc. As the London-based think tank ODI, wasting no time, put it back in early March:

The level and speed of action taken to try and halt the spread of COVID-19 has given us the chance to witness and live in real-time some of the actions that are urgently needed to reduce our carbon emissions. For some, these restrictions might represent a dystopian vision of the future, for others, a real opportunity to tackle the climate emergency. […]

People expect the restrictions on their lifestyles in response to COVID-19 to be short term. But how might governments sustain public support for such restrictions in the long term? Let’s start by being honest.

The recent unpleasantness in the US Capitol gives rise to another possibility, that a bogus “national security threat” will replace or supplement the public health emergency as a means of controlling the population in granular detail. We can see this in the propaganda campaign to designate the incident as “domestic terrorism” and the push for a new domestic terrorism bill that will be used to restrict the activities of Trump supporters. The tech giants that control the flow of information for 3 billion people also appear more than willing to deplatform everyone associated with the MAGA movement, including the sitting POTUS himself.

The conjunction of these government and private-sector actions means that Trump supporters will not only have their freedom of speech curtailed, but also their ability to find jobs, promote their businesses, attend gatherings/rallies, travel, etc. In this context it’s interesting to note that the largest flight attendant union is calling for everybody who participated in the Capitol riots (not those charged with crimes, but those who are identified as having participated) to be blacklisted from flying. Remarkably, the statement adds: “Acts against our democracy, our government, and the freedom we claim as Americans must disqualify these individuals from the freedom of flight.”

This arbitrary, subjectively defined and elastic standard will be used to strip 74 million Americans of their freedoms and civil rights, to isolate them and disconnect them from modern society, for the sake of “national security.” One way or another, the lockdowns will never end.

Narrative control

The chattering classes are very disturbed by the flourishing of conspiracy theories, particularly among Trump supporters and Generation Z TikTok users. And why wouldn’t they be? People who make a living through words (authors, journalists, academics, politicians) correctly perceive that their power to shape public opinion is threatened by a collapse in trust. Their control of the narrative, and therefore their ability to manipulate and mobilize the public in support of various agendas, is gravely compromised by the explosion of counter-narratives on social media and alternative media.

Much of this material is obviously bogus, but some of it is not. After all, conspiracies are a recurring theme of history, from the murder of Julius Caesar by a cabal of Roman senators to the wretched intrigues of our own time (Crossfire Hurricane, the bizarrely uniform global COVID response, and the 2020 election theft being the most glaring recent examples). “Conspiracy theory” is, for the most part, simply a term of abuse used to discredit alternative explanations of public events without actually addressing the facts and arguments being presented. This thread is an amusing example. A screenwriter says that his nieces and nephews believe that Helen Keller was a fraud and his response is, essentially, to blame Trump for undermining people’s respect for the truth.

What makes it especially funny is that he admits that the basis for his knowledge of Keller is The Miracle Worker, a 1962 Hollywood movie. Perhaps it’s not surprising that someone who works in show business would confuse a film with reality, but an educated person should be capable of doing a modicum of research. He shows no signs of having done this. Instead of presenting historical evidence for his position, which might have resolved the debate and certainly would have shown respect for the intelligence of his interlocutors, he decides instead to grandstand about conspiracy theories (“This is 100% a teachable moment”) and then disparage his teenage relatives on Twitter. As of this writing, the thread has 3.5K retweets.

For all their posturing about the “truth,” our elites are remarkably incurious and intellectually lazy. They demand censorship of opposing views and punishment of those who don’t conform to a specific narrative. They rapidly adopt a bullying tone when confronted with perspectives they don’t agree with. But the truth doesn’t need to be shoved down people’s throats. When you are beaten over the head with a narrative, you can be almost certain it’s false. That doesn’t bother our elites, because they are hungry for power, not the truth.

They don’t want it

Suppose a breakthrough mRNA vaccine were developed and produced in record time and with immense government support, hyped to a lockdown-weary public as the answer to the pandemic and the path back to normalcy, and rushed out across the fruited plain in scores of ultracold refrigerated trucks… but then it turned out that large swaths of the healthcare workers toiling in our virus-ravaged hospitals and nursing homes didn’t, in fact, want it? That would be embarrassing, would it not?

Comically enough, that seems to be the situation in places like New York City, although you have to read between the lines a little to figure it out (emphasis added):

The small number of vaccine recipients is particularly striking in New York City, where roughly 110,000 people — in a city of more than eight million — have received the first of two doses necessary to help prevent serious cases of the disease. That is about a quarter of the total number of doses received by the city. […]

State officials noted that the city’s public hospital system — NYC Health and Hospitals — had received about 38,000
vaccines, but only vaccinated 12,000 eligible employees, using less than a third of the doses thus far. […]

Nearly 900,000 vaccines have been distributed in the state, according to the latest available federal data, but the estimated 300,000 people Mr. Cuomo said had been vaccinated represent only about 1.5 percent of the state’s population of about 19.5 million people.

The governor has delegated much of the vaccine rollout to individual hospital systems across 10 regional hubs each encompassing several counties.

What’s the holdup? It’s not quite clear, but the bolded data is very telling. It should not be difficult for hospitals that have vaccines on hand to administer them to their own employees. Gross bureaucratic incompetence on a hospital level does not seem likely in this case. Perhaps the fear of punitive fines if they somehow run afoul of the state’s vaccine distribution plan is making some hospitals overcautious, but I don’t see how that would explain two-thirds of eligible employees not getting the jab.

More likely, many hospital workers simply don’t want experimental genetic engineering technology injected into their upper arms. That would be in keeping with reports of widespread vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers across the country, throwing something of a wrench in the PR strategy for the much-trumpeted medicine:

US health care workers are first in line to receive the COVID-19 vaccine — but an alarming number across the country are refusing to do so.

Earlier this week, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine disclosed that about 60 percent of the nursing home workers in his state have so far chosen not to get vaccinated.

More than half of New York City’s EMS workers have shown skepticism, The Post reported last month.

And now California and Texas are experiencing a high rate of health care worker refusals, according to reports.

An estimated 50 percent of front-line workers in Riverside County in the Golden State opted against the drug, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing public health officials.

It will be very interesting indeed to see how the creeps openly threatening to make the vaccine compulsory will react when they find out that, say, one in three healthcare workers nationwide flat-out refuse to take it. Imagine what the rate will be among the general population, furious at being locked down, exhausted by all the lies and manipulation of the past year, and immersed in skeptical commentary thanks to social media. Your move, tyrants.

The big steal

At this point, I think it is very obvious that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. The evidence of fraud and irregularities is massive, overwhelming and damning. The violations of laws and procedures alleged by Team Trump and substantiated by an ever-accreting mass of evidence are more than sufficient to change the outcome of the election, and until a full audit is conducted in each of the contested states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, there are no grounds for certification of the results. That last point is crucial. Trump does not, in fact, have to prove that any fraud occurred. He merely has to prove that the elections in these states were held in an illegal and unconstitutional manner, which they clearly were, to deny Biden his pseudo-victory.

The Democrats and the media, of course, are not interested in hearing the evidence. Neither are the courts, law enforcement or most of the Republican establishment, for that matter. Almost all of the available remedies to address this historic theft have been closed off to the president and his 74 million supporters. The attorney general (a month ago) stated in an interview that the DOJ had not yet seen fraud on a scale that could have changed the outcome of the election. The courts have rejected lawsuit after lawsuit by Team Trump, mostly on procedural grounds. On the basis of these dimly registered facts, Democrats conclude that there was no fraud. “Where is the evidence?” they ask. “I haven’t seen any evidence.” When the evidence is presented to them, they either ignore it or dismiss it as baseless right-wing conspiracy theorizing, citing the vociferous reassurances of the authorities that the election was free and fair—indeed, that it was “the most secure in American history.” But it does not follow from those reassurances that the evidence is false. Indeed, the prima facie evidence of fraud is so powerful and immediately obvious to any thinking person that another possibility suggests itself: that those aforementioned institutional actors are sweeping the fraud under the rug because they are corrupt and dishonest.

The problem is, most Democrats rule out the possibility that such widespread corruption and dishonesty can exist in our institutions, much as they rule out the possibility that our new permanent global lockdown regime is a totalitarian power-grab, so they reflexively dismiss any evidence that suggests otherwise as fake or baseless. If 2020 taught us anything, it is that there is nothing that can’t be rationalized away. The evidence simply does not matter to those with ideological blinders bolted to their heads. I have no doubt that even a “smoking gun” would fail to change their minds. If an authentic video emerged of, say, Stacey Abrams sneaking into Atlanta’s State Farm Arena in the dead of night with a huge sack marked FAKE BALLOTS slung over her shoulder, the Democrats would say it wasn’t enough votes to change the outcome.

This blog post is not written for those people. Their minds and hearts are closed, perhaps for good. We can always hope that they will have an awakening, but it’s not realistic to expect that a supporter of naked tyranny in the form of ongoing lockdowns would give a quantum of a damn about something as minor as election fraud.

For everyone else—for the roughly half of the electorate, including many Democrats, who know the election was in some manner stolen—and for people who may be on the fence about the issue, I here provide a handy compilation of the key documents laying out the evidence of the steal. The evidence comes in many forms, as Peter Navarro explains in his report, ranging from bizarre statistical anomalies to sworn affidavits testifying to all manner of illegal behavior. If even a fraction of this evidence checks out, every American should be outraged and no American should support the election or installation of a president on such dubious grounds.

Here it is, then—the evidence:

  • President Donald Trump’s speech on election fraud (external link | video | PDF download)
  • The Immaculate Deception: Peter Navarro’s report on election irregularities (external linkPDF download)
  • Texas v. Pennsylvania: Lawsuit filed with the US Supreme Court by Texas and supported by 18 other states (external link | PDF download)
  • Here is the Evidence: Website compiling the anomalies and legal issues (external link)
  • “Yes, It Was a Stolen Election”: Article by John Perazzo at FrontPage Magazine (external link | PDF download)
  • “Reasons why the 2020 presidential election is deeply puzzling”: Article by Patrick Basham at Spectator USA (external link)

WuFlu vs. Hong Kong flu

Remember the Hong Kong flu of 1968? That horrific pandemic that killed 100,000 Americans and triggered mass panic, economic devastation and harsh “non-pharmaceutical interventions” designed to stop people from socializing for nearly a year?

If you are like most Americans, you’ve never heard of the Hong Kong flu. And, of course, you’ve never heard about the panic, lockdowns, etc. etc., because they didn’t happen.

Let’s do some back-of-the-envelope calculations (all numbers refer to the US).

  • 1968 pandemic (H3N2 virus) death toll: ~100,000
  • 1968 population: 200.7 million
  • H3N2 deaths per 100,000 people: 49.8
  • WuFlu death toll (as of Dec. 26): 329,592
  • 2020 population: 331,002,651
  • WuFlu deaths per 100,000 people: 99.6

Ergo, WuFlu is about twice as deadly, per capita, as H3N2. Sounds bad, but not catastrophically so.

But wait! This analysis overlooks a few crucial issues. First, the US population today is much older than in 1968, so naturally we would expect a higher per capita death rate from a flu of equal severity. I am not enough of a statistician to know how to adjust the figures according to age structure (not am I able to easily find the relevant numbers), but suffice it to say the median age of the population in 1970 was 28.1, and in 2019 it was 38.4—a full decade older.

Moreover, in 1968 there were 7,187,000 people aged 75 and older*; and in 2019, there were an estimated 22,574,830 aged 75 and older.** So, there were triple the number of people from the highly vulnerable 75+ age group in 2019 vs. 1968.

Another factor to consider is the health of the population. Americans in 2020 are, obviously, far less healthy and far more obese than their 1968 counterparts. So that would also lead to a higher per capita death rate from a flu of equal severity. Again, I have no idea how to adjust for this variable, but it seems huge to me. Thus, it might be more productive to ask why Americans are so unhealthy today, and what can be done about that, than to shriek about a virus which seems to be killing mostly those unhealthy people (along with the old).

Finally, there is the ambient question of whether the reported WuFlu death toll is juiced. I say it most likely is. According to an analysis by statistician William Briggs, “excess” deaths in 2020 will come to about 250,000, of which some fraction will be caused by the effects of the panic/lockdowns rather than WuFlu. If that is true, then the actual WuFlu death rate is no more than 75.5 per 100,000—just 50% more than the H3N2 death rate, and that is before adjusting for age structure, etc.

Therefore, I conclude that WuFlu is roughly as severe as the 1968 Hong Kong flu.

*Source (PDF)

**Source (CSV)

Is it safe?

Unless I am very much mistaken, the new mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna are unique in three respects:

Given these facts, and the incredibly rushed nature of the trial and approval process, one does not have to be an “anti-vaxxer” to register a modicum of skepticism about these breakthrough offerings from Big Pharma. Are they really safe and effective? What are their possible long-term effects, which have obviously not been studied? Is vaccination necessary, or even recommended, for people who are younger than retirement age? Given that COVID is, essentially, a case of VOPDOC (Very Old People Dying of a Cough), wouldn’t a bit of “vaccine hesitancy” be not only understandable, but even justified, for the majority of the population that is in no serious danger from this pathogen?

Whatever the answers to these questions might be, there is a good chance you will be penalized, or at least silenced, for asking them. Which is unfortunate, because the skepticism I articulated above is far less radical than the powerful warning against gene-based vaccines voiced by eminent German microbiologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi in two chilling videos, here and here.


Thirdly, strangely enough, this vaccine can contribute an adverse overreaction to subsequent naturally occurring infections. And not just with this virus, also with other viruses, such as a flu virus. It causes an explosive immune overreaction. Tests done on animals for SARS-COV-1 showed that there was amplification of the immune system reaction to the disease. The animals that were vaccinated nearly died. This is an immense danger. Once a gene-based vaccination is injected in your arm, within minutes the vaccine (mRNA) spreads throughout your body. It also enters cells that normally wouldn’t be infected. There it starts the production of this virus protein. In your cells. Your cells become a factory.


Imagine how different the global response to COVID would have been, and would be, if the media, politicians and public health officials referred to the affliction not as COVID but as VOPDOC: Very Old People Dying of a Cough.

This, of course, would not be entirely accurate, because it’s not exactly a “cough” (not for everyone), and many people who are *not* very old have died of the disease. But it would be far more accurate than the hysterical nonsense that has been endlessly peddled by our institutions for nine months, striking useless, debilitating fear into the hearts of the elderly and the young alike, wrecking countless lives and reducing most social interactions to looking at stuff on a screen.

VOPDOC would certainly be far more accurate than calling COVID a “plague,” less misleading than calling it a “once-in-a-century pandemic” (the 1957-58 Asian flu says otherwise), and less idiotic than comparing COVID to the Spanish Flu, in which the average age of death was 28 years old.

Let’s take a look at the latest COVID numbers for Connecticut, which I would note has a population of 3.5 million and is adjacent to New York City, as we head into this terrifying plague’s winter wave:

  • Dec. 23 current hospitalizations: 1,155
  • Dec. 15 current hospitalizations (90-day peak): 1,269
  • Dec. 23 new deaths: 33
  • Oct. 1 new deaths: 3
  • Total deaths (cumulative): 5,736
  • Total deaths in long-term care (cumulative): 3,736

Like I said. Very Old People Dying of a Cough. QED.

A wee table

From the CDC (figures as of Sept. 10. 2020):

AgeInfection Fatality Ratio (Current Best Estimate)
0-19 years 0.003%
20-49 years0.02%
50-69 years0.5%
70+ years5.4%

You read that correctly. People under the age of 50 have a 0.02% (zero point zero two percent, or two hundredths of one percent) or less chance of dying from a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Remember, this is why we shut down the world, rather than, say, allowing old people to self-isolate for a bit.