The email from Dr. Peter Daszak, President of the EcoHealth Alliance, a group that has extensive ties to the Wuhan lab gain of function research, sent the email to Fauci on April 18, 2020, roughly six weeks after the outbreak had taken hold.

The email states:

“As the Pl of the ROl grant publicly targeted by Fox News reporters at the Presidential press briefing last night, I just wanted to say a personal thank you on behalf of our staff and collaborators, for publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID-19 from a bat-to-human spillover, not a lab release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

From my perspective, your comments are brave, and coming from your trusted voice, will help dispel the myths being spun around the virus’ origins. Once this pandemic’s over I look forward thanking you in person and let you know how important your comments are to us all.”

Fauci responded to the email the day after, writing

“Peter:

Many thanks for your kind note.

Best Regards,

Tony”

Daszak, who also works for the World Health Organisation, is on record admitting that he was involved with manipulating coronaviruses. Here is a video of him talking in DECEMBER 2019 about how ‘good’ the viruses are for messing around with in a lab:

Daszak notes that “coronaviruses are pretty good… you can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily… the spiked proteins drive a lot about what happens. You can get the sequence you can build the protein, we work with Ralph Baric at UNC to do this, insert into the backbone of another virus and do some work in a lab.”

Elsewhere, the emails show that Fauci also knew very early on, before the WHO even declared a pandemic, that researchers suspected the virus had been ‘potentially engineered’ in a lab, as this exchange with Kristian G. Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute from January 2020 shows:

The emails with Fauci show that Daszak had already dismissed the lab leak notion nearly a year before that ‘investigation’ began, and despite other researchers saying it looked potentially engineered.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this is that Daszak was one of the lead “investigators” on the WHO panel tasked with looking into the origins of the pandemic.

Is it any surprise that this guy, whose organisation has shovelled at least $600,000 to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the past few years to play around with coronaviruses inside the lab, determined within 3 hours of visiting the lab in February 2021 that there was ‘nothing to see here’?

Daszak, like Fauci, has also since denied that there was any gain of function research being conducted at the Wuhan lab, and that it wasn’t being funded by EcoHealth Alliance or via the NIH with US tax dollars.

These are blatant lies, as there is mountains of evidence that confirms this was exactly the case.

Why would they deny it when it can be so easily proven the research was being conducted?

Another interesting factoid about Daszak is that he was employed as an ‘expert fact checker’ by Facebook when it was monitoring and removing ‘misinformation’ about the origins COVID on its platform.

If all of that doesn’t scream coverup then what does?

The post Email: Researcher Who Funded Wuhan Lab, Admitted To Manipulating Coronaviruses Thanked Fauci For Dismissing Lab Leak Theory appeared first on Planet Free Will.

After asserting that most coronaviruses have an “animal origin,” Walensky was pressed by Senator John Kennedy into addressing “other possibilities.”

“Certainly a lab-based origin is one possibility,” said Walensky.

Last week, we highlighted an open letter signed by a group of the world’s leading scientists urging further investigation into the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

As we previously noted, after spending months trying to negotiate a visit, WHO officials largely absolved China of blame for the COVID-19 pandemic after visiting a virus lab in Wuhan for just 3 hours.

In the early weeks of the pandemic, the WHO regurgitated Chinese propaganda that there was no human to human transmission of COVID and even after acknowledging there was, the health body suggested it was racist for countries to impose border controls.

Earlier this month, an independent body ruled that the WHO could have saved 3 million lives if it had urged travel restrictions earlier.

Walensky’s predecessor Robert Redfield, who served under Donald Trump, also discussed the lab leak origin of COVID during an interview with CNN in March when he said it was the “most likely” explanation.

A prominent German scientist with the University of Hamburg also released findings in February of a year long study that concludes the most likely cause of the coronavirus pandemic was a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The establishment press and social media networks have previously attempted to bury questions about the lab origin of COVID by declaring them “conspiracy theories” and censoring information, but now there are too many prominent voices making the same argument for that to continue.

The post Biden’s CDC Director Says Lab Origin of COVID-19 a “Possibility” appeared first on Planet Free Will.

From The Washington Post:

The Biden administration has approved the sale of $735 million in precision-guided weapons to Israel, raising red flags for some House Democrats who are part of the shifting debate over the U.S. government’s support for the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Congress was officially notified of the proposed sale on May 5, three people based on Capitol Hill familiar with the notification told my colleague Karoun Demirjian and me.

Newsweek has more:

A$735 million arms sale to Israel approved last month by President Joe Biden would include the same kind of precision-guided weapons that the Israel Defense Forces use to target hundreds of sites across the Gaza Strip, including a tower housing international media outlets.

[…] The proposed U.S. package includes Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) that convert missiles into so-called “smart bombs” with lethal accuracy and destructive effect. The sale is subject to a 15-day review that is set to end on Thursday, amid a sharp spike in the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israel ordered Biden to “stay out” of the conflict but they’re more than happy to take our weapons using the $4 billion they take from U.S. taxpayer every year.

WATCH: The owner of al-Jalaa tower pleads with an Israeli officer on live TV to let journalists collect their gear before he bombs it.

Biden expressed tepid support for an eventual cease-fire on Monday after Antony Blinken said a few hours earlier that the U.S. wasn’t demanding one and “it is up to the parties to make clear that they want to pursue a cease-fire,” according to the AP.

“Blinken also said Monday he had asked Israel for any evidence for its claim that Hamas was operating in a Gaza office building housing The Associated Press and Al Jazeera news bureaus that was destroyed in an Israeli airstrike over the weekend,” the AP reported. “But he said that he personally had ‘not seen any information provided.'”

The post Biden Approves Sale Of $735M In Missiles to Israel, Including Same Type Used to Strike Gaza Tower appeared first on Planet Free Will.

Global corporations just continue to get larger and more powerful, and in recent years they have been increasingly using that power to shape society.  This is a very dangerous trend, because in the western world many of the constraints that our national governments are forced to operate under simply do not apply to corporations.  This gives them an enormous amount of leverage, and they are using it.

Here in the United States, the federal government still has a monopoly on power in areas such as border security, national defense and foreign policy.

But when it comes to the things that matter the most in the day to day lives of most Americans, it could be argued that the giant corporations have now become more powerful than the federal government.

For example, our politicians like to brag about how many jobs that they have “created”, but the truth is that they don’t actually create any jobs unless you want to count useless government desk jobs.

Our politicians can help to foster an environment that will be favorable for economic growth, but it is the corporations that really determine whether the economy will grow or not.

In fact, it could be argued that the corporations are the economy at this point.

Over time, it has become increasingly difficult for any American to become truly independent of the corporate system.  Even if you own a small business or you work for yourself, there is a good chance that you depend on the big corporations in many ways.

If you doubt this, just try to “go it on your own” without ever using any corporate products, without ever dealing with a big tech company, and without ever bringing in any income from any corporate source whatsoever.

These days, most of our lives are defined by our corporate overlords.  They decide what job you will have, what your pay will be, what hours you will work and what your health plan will look like.

Beyond that, now many large corporations have decided that there are certain beliefs, opinions and values that their employees are not permitted to have.

By now, you have probably heard that a certain actress was fired by Disney for having opinions that were not acceptable.  That was a very high profile case, but the truth is that this sort of thing is constantly happening all over the country at this point.

As we move into the future, being guilty of “thought crime” is going to eliminate large blocks of people from ever having certain types of jobs.  If you do not pledge fealty to the current version of political correctness, you simply will not be permitted to hold a prominent position in society.

If your beliefs are considered to be “offensive”, you may get to mop the floors for the elite if you are lucky.

Even when you are at home, the elite want to endlessly monitor and control what you do, say and think.  The primary way that they do this is through the Internet, and in recent months they have tightened their control considerably.  The following comes from an opinion piece that was just authored by former U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch…

Consider the events of the last month. Social media sites banned the sitting president of the United States from their platforms. A purge of conservative voices on Twitter ensued. Amazon Web Services expunged Parler, a conservative social media site, from the internet. Just days later, YouTube blocked public access to a Senate hearing on COVID-19.

These events confirmed what many of us have long known: true political power no longer resides in Washington, but in Silicon Valley. Big Tech now effectively decides who has the right to speak, who has the right to assemble online and who has the ability to build a business in the digital age. For many Americans, Twitter’s terms of service agreement now has more power over what they can and cannot say in the public square than the First Amendment does.

In the old days, Americans could go to the public square and say anything that they want.

But now the big tech companies are the public square.

Freedom of speech is a thing of the past on the Internet, and more voices are being “deplatformed” with each passing day.

On Wednesday, it was LifeSiteNews…

YouTube just completely removed the LifeSiteNews YouTube channel. This isn’t a temporary ban; every single one of our videos is completely gone.

This greatly grieved me, because so many other pro-life voices have already been silenced.  We desperately need those voices, because if we stay on the path that we are currently on, there is no future for America.

On Thursday, Twitter suspended Project Veritas.

Project Veritas would like to continue to share their information in the public square, and I would like to continue to share it with my readers.  In fact, I share Project Veritas videos on The Most Important News all the time.

But Twitter has decided that Project Veritas has become too offensive.

“Cancel culture” has gotten wildly out of control, and it is starting to infect every area of our society.  Here is more from Orrin Hatch…

The pattern of “canceling” individuals for social media posts is well established. This can result in deplatforming, termination of employment or—if you’re baseball legend Curt Schilling—even losing your health insurance. We’re used to seeing cancel culture on a micro-scale: a newspaper editor being fired here, a university professor being suspended there. But now, thanks to an assist from Big Tech, we’re seeing cancel culture on a much broader level. Take the mass cancelation of Parler’s more than 10 million users, or growing calls to ban Fox News, Newsmax and other right-leaning channels altogether. If successful, these efforts will shrink the window of acceptable viewpoints in American society until conservatives find themselves on the outside.

As we continue to go down this road, just think about what this would mean for the next generation of Americans.

Children that are guilty of “thought crime” won’t get into good schools, they will never be allowed to have good jobs, they will be shunned by banks and financial institutions, and they will be banned or marginalized by all of the major entities on the Internet.

Basically, they will have to find a way to survive on the fringes of society somehow.

All of this is designed to force people to believe what they are supposed to believe.

In fact, it is dangerous for you to be reading this article right now.

They are always watching everything that you do on the Internet, and expressions of noncompliance are not acceptable in this brave new world that we live in.

The post When Corporations Become More Powerful Than The Government, Our Definition Of “Big Brother” Needs To Change appeared first on Planet Free Will.

The House impeachment resolution charges Trump with one article of “incitement of insurrection” and the effort is being led by Democratic Reps. David Cicilline of Rhode Island, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Ted Lieu of California.

The vote Wednesday was 232-197 with many Republicans, including Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger, Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, and New York Rep. John Katko voting to impeach. There were ten Republicans who voted to impeach Trump.

Democrats in the House of Representatives introduced at least one article of impeachment against Trump on Monday morning after rioters supporting Trump stormed the U.S. capitol Wednesday, committing acts of vandalism and violence and postponing the electoral college certification process, forcing members of Congress to evacuate the building.

Read Entire Article

The post House Votes To Impeach President Trump For The Second Time appeared first on Planet Free Will.

What was the basis of panic that led the lights to darken on civilization? The most important date here might be March 11, 2020. That’s when Congress itself flew into an unwarranted panic, and acquiesced to a lockdown at the urging of the “experts.” State governors followed one by one, with few exceptions, and the rest of the world joined the lockdown frenzy.

In February, people were aching to know the answer to the following. Would this “novel virus” have familiar patterns we associate with the flu, seasonal colds, and other predictable and manageable pathogens? Or would this be something entirely different, unprecedented in our lifetimes, terrifying, and universally deadly?

Crucial in this stage was public-health messaging. In previous pandemics from post-1918 throughout the 20th century, the central messaging was to stay calm, go to the doctor if you feel sick, avoid deliberately infecting others, and otherwise trust the systems in place and keep society functioning. This was long considered responsible public-health messaging, and this was pretty much where we stood throughout most of January and February, when publications regardless of their political outlook maintained sobriety and rationality. 

Something dramatically changed this time. They pushed panic, tapping into a primal fear of disease. The reality of pandemic, as it turns out, has been familiar. The severity of its impact has been radically disparate across demographics, hitting mainly the elderly and infirm with 40% of deaths tracing to long-term care facilities with an average age of death nearly equal to the average lifespan. It is regionally migratory. It follows a seasonal pattern from pandemic to its endemic equilibrium. 

What has been different has been the messaging that has almost universally been structured to create public frenzy, from the New York Times’s February 28 urge to “go medieval” to Salon’s latest demand that we panic even more. 

My own sense of impending doom began on March 6 with the cancellation of South by Southwest in Austin, Texas, an action of the mayor alone, and completely without modern precedent. I wrote about it on March 8. Four days later, President Trump gave a nationwide address that ended with a shocking announcement that all flights from Europe would be stopped to keep the coronavirus out even though the virus had been here since January. The next day, on March 13, the administration issued what amounted to a shutdown plan for the nation. 

This timeline, however, misses a crucial step. 

We should be grateful to Ronald B. Brown of Waterloo University for his extraordinary paper that appears in Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness (Vol 14, No. 3): “Public Health Lessons Learned From Biases in Coronavirus Mortality Overestimation.” It also appears on the website of the National Institutes of Health with a date of August 12. Our author’s thesis was that the wild overreaction and unprecedented lockdowns of life began with what was a terminological mixup that led to a misplacement of a decimal point in a report from the National Institutes of Health. 

It was a seemingly small error but it provided the basis on which Anthony Fauci testified at the House Oversight and Reform Committee about the seriousness of novel coronavirus spreading across the globe.

Here is the video in question. As you watch, you will note the seeming precision of data that actually masks a huge problem. He obscures the huge difference between the infection fatality rate, the case fatality rate, and the overall death rate. Nowhere does he mention survival rates. Not one person present pushed back on his claims. In the blizzard of data, he finally summarizes in a way that terrified everyone. Covid, he said, is “10 times more lethal than the seasonal flu.” 

Even apart from that prediction, his entire demeanor was: this is entirely new, very deadly, and unbearably unmanageable without extreme measures. Fauci’s implicit message to Congress and the American people was that it is time to panic. 

Fauci was claiming what in fact he could not know, conflating two distinct data sets, and extrapolating in ways that allowed him to make a completely unsupported claim that very obviously turned out to be false. Two years ago, 61,000 Americans of all ages died of flu, exclusive of other ailments. If you incorrectly impose on that a “case fatality rate” of 0.1% and extrapolate to Covid infections, you end up with at least 800,000 deaths from Covid alone – not “with” or “involving” Covid as the CDC classifies deaths today (that alone represents a big change). This is a scary prediction at the time; it seemed to add weight to the estimates out of the Imperial College of London that 2.2 million people would die without locking down. This testimony led a whole generation of lawmakers to believe that none of the traditional medical measures could or would work. There is no comparing this with the flu or any respiratory illness. This was the Other that justified a once-in-many-generations national emergency that required an end to our way of life. 

The trouble is that the whole claim was based on a terminological misstatement that fed a basic math error. As Brown explains:

Sampling bias in coronavirus mortality calculations led to a 10-fold increased mortality overestimation in March 11, 2020, US Congressional testimony. This bias most likely followed from information bias due to misclassifying a seasonal influenza IFR as a CFR, evident in a NEJM.org editorial. Evidence from the WHO confirmed that the approximate CFR of the coronavirus is generally no higher than that of seasonal influenza. By early May 2020, mortality levels from COVID-19 were considerably below predicted overestimations, a result that the public attributed to successful mitigating measures to contain the spread of the novel coronavirus.

Let’s follow Brown here as he takes the reader through the crucial differences between the IFR and the CFR. IFRs from samples across the population “include undiagnosed, asymptomatic, and mild infections.” To calculate the average IFR across the population, you do randomized samples to judge its prevalence. The results are inclusive of cases – what we used to call actual “sick” people – but extend to people who merely carry traces of the dead virus but are in no substantial danger of passing it onward or experiencing any severe outcomes. Cases, on the other hand, “are based exclusively on relatively smaller groups of moderately to severely ill diagnosed cases at the beginning of an outbreak.” The CFR is a smaller group. Brown provides the following graphic to show how epidemiology has long considered the difference. 

Fauci was claiming what in fact he could not know, conflating two distinct data sets, and extrapolating in ways that allowed him to make a completely unsupported claim that very obviously turned out to be false. Two years ago, 61,000 Americans of all ages died of flu, exclusive of other ailments. If you incorrectly impose on that a “case fatality rate” of 0.1% and extrapolate to Covid infections, you end up with at least 800,000 deaths from Covid alone – not “with” or “involving” Covid as the CDC classifies deaths today (that alone represents a big change). This is a scary prediction at the time; it seemed to add weight to the estimates out of the Imperial College of London that 2.2 million people would die without locking down. This testimony led a whole generation of lawmakers to believe that none of the traditional medical measures could or would work. There is no comparing this with the flu or any respiratory illness. This was the Other that justified a once-in-many-generations national emergency that required an end to our way of life. 

The trouble is that the whole claim was based on a terminological misstatement that fed a basic math error. As Brown explains:

Sampling bias in coronavirus mortality calculations led to a 10-fold increased mortality overestimation in March 11, 2020, US Congressional testimony. This bias most likely followed from information bias due to misclassifying a seasonal influenza IFR as a CFR, evident in a NEJM.org editorial. Evidence from the WHO confirmed that the approximate CFR of the coronavirus is generally no higher than that of seasonal influenza. By early May 2020, mortality levels from COVID-19 were considerably below predicted overestimations, a result that the public attributed to successful mitigating measures to contain the spread of the novel coronavirus.

Let’s follow Brown here as he takes the reader through the crucial differences between the IFR and the CFR. IFRs from samples across the population “include undiagnosed, asymptomatic, and mild infections.” To calculate the average IFR across the population, you do randomized samples to judge its prevalence. The results are inclusive of cases – what we used to call actual “sick” people – but extend to people who merely carry traces of the dead virus but are in no substantial danger of passing it onward or experiencing any severe outcomes. Cases, on the other hand, “are based exclusively on relatively smaller groups of moderately to severely ill diagnosed cases at the beginning of an outbreak.” The CFR is a smaller group. Brown provides the following graphic to show how epidemiology has long considered the difference. 

Based on this graphic alone, you can see why it becomes crucial to keep these terms straight. The CFR is higher; IFR is lower; the crude mortality rate is lower still. The CFR measures severity; the IFR measures prevalence. Those are the two general issues one needs to know to assess whether and to what extent a virus outbreak is mild, moderate, serious, or severe. This matters due to the long-observed evolved reality of respiratory viruses: there is a trade off between the forces. The more severe the virus, the quicker it burns itself out. The milder (and “smarter”) it is, the more it can spread. To mix up severity and prevalence is to make a mess of all the important categories that infectious disease specialists use to assess the social impact of a new virus. 

Moreover, if you are going to compare how severe a pandemic is, you have to compare apples to apples, which means at the very minimum that we must be careful to distinguish apples from oranges from pears. That is precisely what the early messaging surrounding the coronavirus did not do. 

Cases are not deaths; even more crucially, cases in a traditional sense mean that people are actually sick, not merely that they have been tested positive by a PCR test. Adding to the confusion, most data sources on Covid today use the term “cases” to identify any positive test, with or without symptoms, when the correct word would be “infections.” Further, the PCR test itself presents its own problems. As Brown notes, “A serious limitation of RT-PCR testing is that nucleic acid detection is not capable of determining the difference between infective and noninfective viruses.” The widespread use of the PCR test has made its own contribution to blurring all these crucial distinctions. 

Now consider an extraordinary article from the New England Journal of Medicine that appeared on February 28, with Anthony Fauci as the co-author. The import of the piece was to claim that Covid and flu are quite similar in severity. “The overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.”

What matters here is not the prediction as such but the switching of the word infection with case: the flu has “a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%.” This was incorrect even at the time of writing. You can call it a misprint or sloppy or downright duplicitous. Regardless, even the World Health Organization had identified the 0.1% figure as the flu’s infection fatality rate. If you assume one symptomatic confirmed case for every infection (or what is now confusingly called “cumulative cases”), the error could be a misplace decimal: 0.01% not 0.1%. Regardless, Fauci’s article directly contradicted the WHO, and ran counter to everything that was already then known. But his CFR claim about flu is precisely what led him to claim in front of the Congressional committee that Covid would be deadly in ways that defy all experience of this generation. 

Brown further explains: 

As the campaign to mitigate coronavirus transmission was implemented from March into May, 2020, expected coronavirus mortality totals in the United States appeared much lower than the overestimation reported in Congressional testimony on March 11. Compared with the most recent season of severe influenza A (H3N2) in 2017-2018,with 80,000 US deaths reported by CDC officials, US coronavirus mortality totals had just reached 80,000 on May 9, 2020.By then, relative to the 2017-2018 influenza, it was clear that the coronavirus mortality total for the season would be nowhere near 800,000 deaths inferred from the 10-fold mortality overestimation reported to Congress. Even after adjusting for the effect of successful mitigation measures that may have slowed down the rate of coronavirus transmission, it seems unlikely that so many deaths were completely eliminated by a nonpharmaceutical intervention such as social distancing, which was only intended to contain infection transmission, not suppress infections and related fatalities.Also in early May, 2020, a New York State survey of 1,269 COVID-19 patients recently admitted to 113 hospitals found that most of the patients had been following shelter-in-place orders for 6 wk, which raised state officials’ suspicions about social distancing effectiveness. Still, polls showed the public credited social distancing and other mitigation measures for reducing predicted COVID-19 deaths, and for keeping people safe from the coronavirus.

As of this writing, however, deaths “involving” or “with” Covid has passed 300,000, which while less than half as high as what Congress heard they would be on March 11, is still quite high, provided these deaths have not been broadly misclassified. However, on March 24, the CDC made an announcement of serious significance. It would now calculate coronavirus mortality by including “probable” and “likely” deaths in the International Classification of Diseases code (ICD). 

This became an invitation to misclassification. People who otherwise would have previously been classified as having heart disease or some other comorbidity could now be classified as Covid. This also included a financial incentive to do just that. For this reason, when the CDC announced that “for 6% of the deaths, Covid-19 was the only cause mentioned,” it came as a shock to people. What that means is that 94% of the deaths attributed to Covid were associated with additional comorbidities that prevented the immune system from fighting off the virus. 

Following the March 11 Fauci testimony, in which he conflated IFR and CFR, the national media went wild with Covid and flu comparison. The following article, for example, blew up from BusinessInsider in June: “The coronavirus death rate in the US is almost 50 times higher than that of the flu. See how they compare by age bracket.” If you look carefully at the charts, you can see something fishy: they calculated infection fatality rate for flu against the case fatality rate for Covid. That necessarily generates a wild overestimate for Covid deaths. The charts are terrifying – and have nothing to do with reality. 

Let’s hop forward from the testimony days to one month later when full-scale panic had already hit the U.S. Speaking at a White House press conference, Fauci then made a claim that strains credulity at every level. He said at a White House press briefing that the stringencies and “social distancing” could not and would not be relaxed until there are no “no new cases, no deaths.” Such a thing has happened only once in the history of viruses: smallpox. From the first experiments with inoculation to the final eradication took some 250 years. And yet here we have Fauci explaining that life could not be normal and functioning again until this widespread virus, relatively mild for 95% of the population, was completely eradicated from the planet! 

And now we have the vaccine, and plenty of questions remaining about it, such as why non-vulnerable populations would prefer to take it over gaining the exposure necessary for naturally acquired immunity. Asking such a basic question is very close to being tabooed, even as lawmakers and other institutions are toying with the idea of making it mandatory. Even then, many of the lockdown advocates from earlier this year are saying that it will not enable us to go back to normal, to take off the masks, to go to the movies, or travel again. This is precisely the belief you might expect from a crowd that participated in what John Iaonnidis called a “one-in-a-century evidence fiasco” and are desperately trying to dig themselves out of losing every bit of scientific credibility. 

Whether Brown is correct that the whole panic truly does trace to a brain flakeout on the part of Fauci – or even perhaps a deliberate “noble lie” to deceive the public into accepting the unacceptable – it hardly matters. The problem we face now is a huge tangle over terminology such that “infections” that could include as many as 90% false positives (according to the NYT) are called cases, while the once-distinct condition called cases which used to indicate actually being sick no longer has any precise meaning. The cacophony of statistical confusion here truly boggles the mind. 

In the midst of all of this, the CDC itself finally updated its own estimates of the infection fatality rate of Covid-19. The CDC wisely took account of the huge demographic stratification of severe outcomes. There is not one rate that applies to the whole population or to any particular individual. There are only backward looking estimates of outcomes. They are all follows: 

• 0.003% for 0-19 years
• 0.02% for 20-49 years 
• 0.5% for 50-69 years 
• 5.4% for 70+ years

Flipping the data to state it by survival rate by age:

• 99.997% for 0-19 years 
• 99.98% for 20-49 years
• 99.5% for 50-69 years 
• 94.6% for 70+ years 

John Ioannidis sums up the disparity by age with the following infection fatality rate for people under the age of 70: 0.05%. This conclusion has been peer-reviewed and published by the World Health Organization. 

How does this compare with the flu? We do not really know. As science journalist Shin Jie Yong has written, “There seems to be no data on age-specific IFR of the seasonal flu.” What this means is that crucial testimony of Fauci from March 11, in which he casually predicted based on bad numbers, that Covid would be ten times worse than the flu, can neither be confirmed or denied based on age-specific severe outcomes. 

However, we can assemble the data based on years of lost life. Consider the long-term view over the future course of existing lifetimes. JusttheFacts reports:

If 500,000 Covid-19 deaths ultimately [in the future] occur in the United States—or more than twice the level of a prominent projection—the disease will rob about 6.8 million years of life from all Americans who were alive at the outset of 2020. 

In contrast:
* the flu will rob them of about 35 million years.
* suicides will rob them of 132 million years.
* accidents will rob them of 409 million years.    

As testing has expanded dramatically throughout the population, the estimated infection fatality rate of Covid will fall further. Thus can we observe a chart of “cases” (actually positive tests) all over the world and compare it with severe outcomes and see something remarkable that should make every living person fundamentally question why they decided to shut down the world and wreck billions of lives. 

Another statistic that bears repeating, Covid – based on infections vs deaths – has close to a 99.9% survival rate. Imagine how the world would have been different had Fauci told that to the Congress on that fateful day of March 11. Or what if Fauci had revealed that the average age of death from Covid would almost equal the average lifespan in the US and exceed it in most parts of the world? People present might have wondered why they were holding hearings at all. 

The post The Decimal Point that Blew Up the World appeared first on Planet Free Will.

The largest public school district in Washington state is reportedly training white teachers to “bankrupt their privilege” by focusing on social justice in the classroom, Discovery Institute scholar Christopher Rufo reported.

A series of reportedly leaked documents shows what appears to be a training on critical race theory at Seattle Public Schools, prompting teachers to explain how they will promulgate racial justice in the classroom.

The slides begin by asking teachers to acknowledge that they are meeting on “the ancestral lands and traditional territories of the Puget Sound Coast Salish People,” which is followed by “Stolen Labor Acknowledgments” asking them to recognize that the U.S. was “built off the stolen labor of kidnapped African and enslaved Black people’s work, which created profits that created our nation,” according to Rufo.

Read Entire Article

The post REPORT: Public School District Holds Training Instructing White Teachers On How To ‘Bankrupt’ Their ‘Privilege’ appeared first on Planet Free Will.

President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration ceremony is poised to be the smallest ever after his inauguration committee gutted live attendance, dropping it from 200,000 to barely over 1,000 on Wednesday.

The committee is taking the precautions in response to the coronavirus pandemic, saying the inauguration audience will now resemble that of a State of the Union address, according a statement from the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC). Republican Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, who chairs the committee, told reporters his committee is looking into “enhanced opportunities to watch the ceremonies online, in addition to the traditional televised national broadcast.”

Biden’s own inauguration organizers urged Americans to stay home from the ceremony Tuesday, also citing the coronavirus pandemic. The JCCIC typically sends out roughly 200,000 tickets for members of Congress to distribute among their constituents. This year, however, there will only be 1,070 — two tickets for each member of Congress.

Read Entire Article

The post Biden Inauguration To Be Smallest Ever After Committee Guts Live Audience appeared first on Planet Free Will.

At a Senate hearing, six prominent physicians called for removing obstacles to outpatient therapies for COVID-19 they contend are saving lives.

The testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on Tuesday was the second part a hearing organized by Chairman Ron Johnson titled “Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution.”

Dr. Jane Orient, the executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, urged the committee to exercise its oversight over federal agencies that are “effectively blocking treatment that could prevent 100,000 needless deaths and stop the crippling fear and the destruction of millions of livelihoods.”

“Today’s top-down, authority-based ‘standard of care’ for early COVID, promulgated in NIH guidelines, is therapeutic nihilism,” she said in her prepared statement.

“This is shocking and unprecedented, but in today’s litigious environment,” she said, doctors who “dare prescribe” a drug proven to effectively treat COVID-19 like hydroxychloroquine could be “fired, removed from insurance panels, investigated, or even delicensed.”

Read Entire Article

The post Doctors tell Senate they’re attacked for saving COVID patients appeared first on Planet Free Will.

Unless there is some sort of unforeseen miracle, millions of people could literally starve to death in 2021.  We are facing a global food crisis that is unlike anything we have ever seen before in modern times, and 2021 is going to be the year when it starts to become extremely painful all over the globe.  But don’t take my word for it. 

David Beasley is the head of the UN World Food Program, and so he is in a better position to assess the global hunger crisis than any of us.  According to Beasley, 2021 “is literally going to be catastrophic” and his organization is facing “the worst humanitarian crisis year since the beginning of the United Nations”…

“2021 is literally going to be catastrophic based on what we’re seeing at this stage of the game,” said Beasley, adding that for a dozen countries, famine is “knocking on the door.”

He said 2021 was likely to be “the worst humanitarian crisis year since the beginning of the United Nations” 75 years ago and “we’re not going to be able to fund everything … so we have to prioritize, as I say, the icebergs in front of the Titanic.”

Beasley is feverishly trying to raise more money to meet the rising tide of hunger that he is witnessing all across the planet, but he feels like he is fighting a losing battle.

Freakish weather patterns, crippling droughts and colossal armies of locusts have devastated crops throughout 2021, and the COVID pandemic is putting an extreme amount of stress on global food distribution systems.

As a result, food prices are surging and hundreds of millions of people living in impoverished countries now find themselves unable to afford enough food to eat on a regular basis.

Here in the United States, approximately 50 million people have experienced food insecurity at some point in 2021.  According to PBS, this hunger crisis is even worse than what we went through during the last recession…

Those fighting hunger say they’ve never seen anything like this in America, even during the Great Recession of 2007-2009.

After the initial wave of fear caused by the COVID pandemic started to subside, a lot of Americans thought that we were out of the woods, but now a new wave of lockdowns is being instituted and CNN is reporting that the hunger crisis in America is actually “getting worse” as we approach the end of the year…

Hunger skyrocketed at the pandemic’s onset because of record high job losses, school closures and strained food pantries. But at that point, Americans were better positioned to make ends meet with support from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) Act and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamp, benefits. Yet, as we near year’s end, the problem is getting worse, not better. With the expiration of CARES Act benefits and without any hint as to when the next round of federal aid will hit people’s pockets, families around the country are suffering and will likely continue to do so throughout the holiday season.

Could it be possible that 2021 will end up being even painful for hungry Americans than 2020 was?

That is difficult to imagine, because the numbers from this year have been truly horrific.  The AP analyzed Feeding America data from 181 different food banks, and they found that those food banks had given out 57 percent more food in 2020 than they did in 2019.

If the demand continues to skyrocket, eventually there simply will not be enough food for everyone.

We are all familiar with the photographs from the Great Depression that show men waiting in very long lines for free food.

Well, the same thing is happening now, but with a twist.  Needy people are lining up as early as 2 AM and are waiting in their vehicles for up to 12 hours just to get a few bags of provisions from their local food banks…

The history books are filled with iconic images of America’s struggles against hunger. Among the most memorable are the Depression-era photos of men standing in breadlines, huddled in long coats and fedoras, their eyes large with fear. An overhead sign reads: “Free Soup. Coffee and a Doughnut for the Unemployed.”

This year’s portrait of hunger has a distinctively bird’s eye view: Enormous traffic jams captured from drone-carrying cameras. Cars inching along, each driver waiting hours for a box or bag of food. From Anaheim, California to San Antonio, Texas to Toledo, Ohio and Orlando, Florida and points in-between, thousands of vehicles carrying hungry people queued up for miles across the horizon. In New York, and other large cities, people stand, waiting for blocks on end.

Of course my readers were warned in advance that all of this was coming.

For years I have been warning my readers that economic collapse, civil unrest and global famine were approaching, and I strongly urged everyone to stockpile food and supplies.

Now we are constantly being bombarded by headlines that declare that the days that I have been warning about are here, and 2021 threatens to be even worse than 2020 was.

Today, I came across a news story that I think is an appropriate metaphor for what we are potentially facing in 2021.  Hundreds of black vultures have invaded the town of Marietta, Pennsylvania and they are causing tremendous problems.  They are tearing up rooftops and garbage cans, they are defecating all over the place, and they “spew vomit that smells ‘like rotting corpses’ on sidewalks and homes”.

Residents have been desperately trying to scare them away, but they can’t shoot the vultures because they are protected by law…

More permanent solutions are in short supply, as the black vulture is federally protected and can’t be exterminated without permission.

It’s illegal in the US to trap, kill or own black vultures without a permit and violators can face a fine of up to $15,000 and up to six months in prison.

So those vultures will get to stay in Marietta for as long as they wish.

Sadly, vultures are now circling over America too.  I have written countless articles about the rotting, decaying carcass that our society has become, and those that hate traditional American values have increasingly gained more and more power.

Now we are just a few weeks away from the start of 2021, and there is every indication that it is going to be an exceedingly painful year.

The post Famine Is “Knocking On The Door” appeared first on Planet Free Will.