Categories
Accountability government transparency international affairs

Lab Leak Not Disproved

A Wuhan wet market is ground zero of the pandemic;
COVID-​19 could not have originated in a Wuhan laboratory.

At least, so say many “science reporters” commenting on recent research about the origin of the virus. Former New York Times science editor Nicholas Wade begs to differ.

Wade (whom we’ve cited before) says it’s possible that the virus jumped from an animal host or that it originated in a Wuhan lab. Although both can’t be true, “so far, no direct evidence exists for either.”*

He expounds:

  1. The cited research papers, still un-​peer-​reviewed, do not contradict circumstantial evidence of a lab origin.
  2. Nor do they show that the virus originated in the wet market. Even if the earliest known case were of a person attending the market, one can’t know whether he got infected there or brought the infection with him from a lab.
  3. One paper looks only at data from December 2019 and later. Yet the epidemic had been underway for weeks.
  4. The same paper claims that the distribution of cases with no overt connection to the wet market is so similar to that of the market-​related cases that the former cases must also be connected to the market.

But the outside-​the-​market cases selected for study by Chinese authorities — by Xi Jinping himself for all we know — were not randomly selected. One criterion was proximity to the wet market.

So: massive selection bias.

And a pandemic of unscientific reporting.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* Wade does not consider some of the smoking-​gun type evidence for gain-​of-​function we’ve mentioned in the past, like the Moderna patent.

PDF for printing

bat!

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Internet controversy media and media people

This Is Just Huge

“Why isn’t this in the newspapers?” 

That’s what Dr. John Campbell asked on his YouTube channel yesterday, reviewing several studies of ivermectin as an agent in the fight against COVID-​19 — but directly regarding the results of research out of Brazil. It was an impressive large-​number study, in which the researchers invited the whole population of Itajaí to participate, with 159,561 included in the analysis: 113,845 regular users of ivermectin and 45,716 non-users. 

“Seventy percent reduction in mortality in this study” of those who took a very “tiny dosage of ivermectin every fortnight, acting as a prophylaxis” over those did not. “I mean, this is just huge!”

Dr. Campbell, who has been a voice of calm science during the pandemic, goes on to say that “It’s almost as if information has been deliberately suppressed throughout the pandemic, to be quite honest.” With a wry look, he went on to say “No one’s saying that’s true, of course, but it’s almost like that.” 

Droll.

But non-​ironically, he insists the evidence is “powerful, present, and overwhelming.” 

“Seventy percent,” he marvels, “how do you argue with a number like that? It’s a very, very high number.”

And the decrease in hospitalization was 67 percent.

All in all, the study found less infection, fewer hospitalizations, and an astoundingly lower death rate in the ivermectin group.

Earlier in the video, the doctor considered another study, comparing the cheap anti-​parasitic to the far more expensive remdesivir, a Fauci-​pushed Gilead Sciences anti-​viral, with similar results.

It’s “almost as if” the expert class that spurned ivermectin doesn’t care if people die.

No one’s saying that, but.…

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


The studies:

Kerr L, Cadegiani F A, Baldi F, et al. (January 15, 2022) “Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-​19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching.” Cureus 14(1): e21272. doi:10.7759/cureus.21272.

I. Efimenko, S. Nackeeran, S. Jabori, J.A. Gonzalez Zamora, S. Danker, D.Singh, “Treatment with Ivermectin Is Associated with Decreased Mortality in COVID-​19 Patients: Analysis of a National Federated Database.” International Journal of Infectious Diseases 116 (2022) S1 – S130.

PDF for printing

Categories
government transparency international affairs

U.S. Patent 9,587,003 B2

“Study finds genetic code in Covid’s spike protein linked to Moderna patent,” reads the headline in the Daily Mail. The story is another in a long chain of revelations linking American researchers and funding to the laboratory in Wuhan, China, that likely created the novel coronavirus.

But wait! some readers will shout. Isn’t the big COVID Origin story right now the new studies strongly pushing the Bat Soup (wet market) origin?

No. Those studies are slapdash — perhaps designed to balance against the continuing scientific revelations pointing to SARS-​CoV‑2 as a gain-​of-​function job funded in part by American taxpayers.

The far more important story tells us that an “international team of researchers” discovered a tell-​tale string of genetic code “in SARS-CoV‑2’s unique furin cleavage site, the part that makes it so good at infecting people and separates it from other coronaviruses.” It’s a key part of the infamous “spiked protein.” The Daily Mail piece by Connor Boyd explains that this “structure has been one of the focal points of debate about the virus’s origin, with some scientists claiming it could not have been acquired naturally.”

The research team claims that “there is a one-​in-​three-​trillion chance Moderna’s sequence randomly appeared through natural evolution.”

And by “Moderna’s sequence” the scientists mean a genetic product that the company patented in its cancer research projects. 

This is all still controversial, of course, but it is worth noting that much of past controversy consisted of desperate attempts by the Dr. Fauci/​Peter Daszak faction to avoid any responsibility for what may be history’s greatest medical malpractice case.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom nannyism national politics & policies paternalism

Self-​Inflicted Death — by Vax?

It’s been disheartening how little alarm has been raised about the rise of suicide (along with drug use, obesity, and other markers for despair) in reaction to the lockdowns and de-​humanizing mask mandates — especially among the young.

But there’s another way suicide has become an issue with the pandemic. It’s a little roundabout.

Adverse effects of the vaccines have been severely under-​reported. A number of maladies are associated with the various vaccines, including micro-​clotting and myocarditis — that latter up especially in younger people who have been vaccinated.* 

But some adverse reactions are fatal — those up 40 percent in the adult population, says the CEO of one life insurance company. 

Our leaders and vaccine promoters don’t talk about this: if they admitted fatal side-​effects, the push for universal, mandatory vaccination might be generally considered inhumane,even monstrous. But insurance companies have a more pressing concern.

Last month, a Frenchman with a large life insurance policy died of the jab. His family cannot sue the drug company — legal immunity having been granted during the emergency — so his heirs and assigns sued to collect on the insurance. The court denied the claim. 

“The side effects of the experimental vaccine are published and the deceased could not claim to have known nothing about it when he voluntarily took the vaccine,” the court’s logic runs. “There is no law or mandate in France that compelled him to be vaccinated. Hence his death is essentially suicide.” 

And suicide is not covered in most term life insurance policies. 

The message: you take your chances with the vaxxes. 

If more such cases come to light, this may be the issue that fatally undermines the Vaccine Mandate Narrative.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights general freedom social media

#GoPoundSand

The exact words of GiveSendGo, on Twitter:

“Know this! Canada has absolutely ZERO jurisdiction over how we manage our funds here at GiveSendGo. All funds for EVERY campaign on GiveSendGo flow directly to the recipients of those campaigns, not least of which is The Freedom Convoy campaign.”

Just the attitude one would hope for.

This wonderful statement is in response to assertions by the government of Ontario that they’re preventing the Freedom Convoy from getting the funds via GiveSendGo that truckers need to eat, gas up after police steal their gas, etc. All the standard expenses involved in being a national (and now international) trucker convey fighting tyranny.

Compare the inspiring policies of the folks at GiveSendGo with the dreary interventionism of the pinch-​mouthed overlords at GoFundMe.

In addition to shutting down the Freedom Convoy campaign, GoFundMe briefly but seriously planned to steal some of the donations that had already been made.

GoFundMe has also shut down other fundraising campaigns to oppose mask and vaccine mandates, campaigns to help Kyle Rittenhouse and to help conservative students harassed at Arizona State University, a campaign to investigate voter fraud, etc.

We have to think long and hard. If we need to raise money for a purpose the tyrannical left would disapprove, are we better off going with new-​kid-​on-​the-​block GiveSendGo or better-​established GoFundMe?

I hope that you ponder this question for the same full millisecond that I did.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom ideological culture international affairs media and media people

Exclusion-​Enforced Inclusion

When the prime minister of Canada told the world that “Building Back Better means” not only helping the “most vulnerable” but also “maintaining our momentum on reaching the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” it might behoove us to look it up.

It’s not a secret.

It’s part of what Davos globalist Klaus Schwab calls “The Great Reset.” And the links between Schwab and Justin Trudeau are not tenuous: “what we’re really proud of now is the young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau,” gushed Schwab weeks ago.

Well, Trudeau really had a chance to prove his Klausian globalist mettle last week.

Trudeau had indeed leveraged the coronavirus pandemic to institute tight statist controls on the Canadian population, right out of Schwab’s playbook.* But his vax mandate for truckers led not merely to supply-​chain problems in the U.S. and Canada, but also to the massive convoy protests in Ottawa.

So how did Schwab’s proud privileged prodigy perform?

First, he went into hiding. And then, while the protesters were explicitly directed against the vaccine mandates — notwithstanding the fact that 90 percent “of Canada’s cross-​border truckers … has had two shots” — Justin Trudeau couldn’t help himself, condemning “the antisemitism, Islamophobia,** anti-​Black racism, homophobia, and transphobia that we’ve seen on display in Ottawa over the past number of days,” he proclaimed in a tweet. “Together, let’s keep working to make Canada more inclusive.”

Well, mandating vaccines is forced inclusion, the ominous part of the Schwab/​Trudeau agenda, enforced by exclusion

No wonder the growing opposition, sporting anti-​Klausian signs such as “Mandate Freedom.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* The ’book in question being Schwab’s explicit program in Covid-​19: The Great Reset.

** Some participants are undoubtedly many of those phobic things, but evidence at the rally? Scant. As Tucker Carlson pointed out in his coverage, the protesters even shoveled snow and picked up trash after themselves.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts