Fear of Covid is alive and well, except among politicians

Fear of Covid still lives. I have friends and relatives still getting the shot. Plus, many younger parents have developed a fear of useful, life-saving vaccines.

What stays with me is my bewilderment of how that pandemic and its results seem to have been forgotten by both political parties and all the institutions that were affected--particularly education and religion.

 
Donald Trump pushed too hard for a vaccine so he could be a hero, in my opinion, and he was at the starting gate of the closings and flinging money at us with CARES ( Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act), which corrupted and compromised every aspect of our culture. Fear of Covid put Biden in the White House (in my opinion) after he had previously castigated Trump's vaccine effort and promised he had a plan to stop the spread (he didn't; no one did). The people fell for that after being terrorized by the media which hated Trump with constant fake rates and numbers.

 
Then CARES + Biden turned out to extend the closing of our economy with a crippling mandate which hardly touched the rich and powerful Democrats and got Republicans fired or cancelled. Covid cases soared so that by the end of 2021 the rate was higher than under Trump even with the vaccine. Biden buddies destroyed the economic gains made under Trump in his first term, but I think Trump moved too quickly with a science he didn't understand, then his advisors were blacklisted under Biden.

 
Both presidents fell for Dr. Fauci and his gain of function lies allowed him celebrity status. Both presidents ignored years of research on the mental health effects of locking people up and fell for the masking and distancing lies. IMO, the old folks should have stayed home and the kids should have been in school.

We're still paying for this, particularly the children who lost about 2 years of learning. Something like it but different could happen again. Where are the lessons learned?

BTW, do you know that Peter Daszak (who got the grant money from Fauci for the gain of function research in Wuhan) has a new gig on global health and is seeking donations? https://naturehealthglobal.org/nhg-signs-5-year-contract.../

NIH is "bat crazy"

Heard this on Megyn Kelly's podcast. She must have some great researchers. They turned this up and she mentioned it in her podcast interview with Robert Kennedy Jr.

Biden Admin Grants Another $2.3 Million to EcoHealth Alliance for Bat Coronavirus Research - American Faith

"The non-profit organization, led by British zoologist Peter Daszak, was at the center of the COVID-19 lab leak theory when former President Donald Trump suspended the grant in April 2020.

The grant was initially terminated after it was discovered that NIH had funneled U.S. taxpayer dollars through EcoHealth to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

The WIV is known for conducting gain-of-function research, a process that involves the intentional alteration of viruses to make them more infectious or deadly.

According to U.S. intelligence assessments, the COVID-19 virus likely originated from the Wuhan lab, Daily Mail notes.

Three years after the suspension, the Biden administration has decided to renew the NIH grant, allocating $2.3 million in taxpayer funds to EcoHealth over the next four years for bat-origin coronavirus research.

This decision has been met with strong criticism from members of Congress." 

Go to the link to see the rest of the story. 

Why is Dr. Fauci untouchable? The Forbes story

Adam Andrzejewski “published 206 investigations while writing an estimated quarter million words on the platform.” His targets were bipartisan, outing Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and plenty of others. But then. . . he wrote about Dr. Fauci. Bye, bye. After extensive digging and overcoming NIH foot-dragging, Andrzejewski discovered that Fauci and his wife, Christine Grady, chief bioethicist at NIH, are worth more than $10.4 million, and they rake in major money for a lot of things. Andrzejewski’s reporting held up under scrutiny, even from the National Institutes of Health, which found only minor semantics corrections to complain about. Nevertheless, it seems that pressure from NIH got Andrzejewski cut from Forbes’s lineup.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/86911-in-brief-how-fact-finding-fauci-led-to-my-cancellation-2022-03-15

from the original article at https://openthebooks.substack.com/p/factfindingfaucicanceledforbes?s=r

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2022/01/12/no-faucis-records-arent-available-online-why-wont-nih-immediately-release-them/?sh=766d1f7e46bd  Story about Fauci's financials NOT being public and transparent

"Two [NIH] directors, two bureau chiefs, and two top PR officers didn’t send an email to the Forbes’ chief on a Sunday morning because they wanted to correct the record about Fauci’s travel reimbursements.

They sent that email to subliminally send a message: We don’t like Andrzejewski’s oversight work, and we want you to do something about it.

Unfortunately, Forbes folded quickly."

What you can say and what will get you cancelled

We can say, "China doll."
We can say, "dinner China."
We can say, "Chinese calligraphy."
We can say, " Chinese Communist Party.."
We can say, "Made in China."
We can say, "Chinese slave labor."
We can say, "all the tea in China."
We can say, "Chinese cabbage."
We can say, "Chinese silk."
We can say, "The great wall of China."

But we can't say, "The China Virus," even though the NIH and Congress have shown it to be so, and in February 2020 our major news outlets were calling it that.

"China virus outbreak has now killed six people and infected more than 300" CBS News, January 21, 2020.

"Economic impacts of Wuhan 2019‐nCoV on China and the world," Journal of Medical Virology, Feb. 18, 2020.

"News outlets contribute to anti-Asian racism with careless stock photos on coronavirus coverage." Media Matters, March 5, 2020

While Nancy Pelosi was calling Trump a racist for referring to a global threat as the "China virus," or the "Wuhan virus," which the media were also calling it, she was inviting tourists to come to San Francisco. ‘Come to Chinatown, we are careful, safe, and come join us.’ Fox News, Feb. 24, 2020.

What is choice--to a Democrat?

Democrats still don’t understand choice. One can have a vaccine (aka the shot which isn’t actually a vaccination), and still advocate for freedom of choice. Democrats only think abortion when they say choice, when that is destroying someone else’s body. A choice to kill. The most vulnerable. The weakest. Those who can’t fight back. Democrats ridiculed Trump’s Warp Speed, called it dangerous, said he’d never meet the deadline, said it was unsafe. Now they fret that many don't trust the vaccine.  Well, duh!  Fauci, who Trump put on TV every night, and who was supposed to be advising him, was actually working behind the scenes covering up his deeds with the Wuhan Lab. The media said calling it the Wuhan Virus was racist, further trying to smear Trump. And as they all now admit sheepishly, it most likely was a leak (or a deliberate plant) from a 3rd rate lab that U.S. taxpayers were funding and with whom Fauci had been working by funding a non-profit through the NIH. So that implicates us all, if we use the systemic racism meme of the woke—we taxpayers helped the Chinese spread a pandemic.

Also, after denying inflation for months, the Biden folks are finally admitting it, but still going ahead with the 3+ trillion demands to spread it. I saw a very ordinary steak at the grocery today for close to $20/pound. Used car prices are up 85%. We can’t trust Biden and cronies on anything—not health, not inflation, not Cuba, not withdrawal and leaving our allies behind in Afghanistan, not securing the border, not stopping the drug traffic, not protecting our freedom of speech and assembly, and definitely not with our money no matter what they say it’s for—Covid, infrastructure, families, etc. And Blacks particularly should not trust the most racist president ever (based on his speeches and voting record of the past)—he thinks they are too dumb to get an ID!

Ethics probe stopped by Biden

This week a mumbling, whispering confused Joe Biden referred to the Tuskegee Airmen as the men the federal government experimented on for decades--completely rewriting history. The media just smile. Good old Joe. Well, the government did actually experiment on black men right into the 1970s, and it is still protecting experiments with humans--and Biden is pushing child abuse by shutting down the investigation. This research was stopped by President Trump, but it's baaaaack. The ghouls of the Biden administration have given the “best and brightest” government researchers and agencies "license to use the skin, brains, liver, and eyeballs of aborted children for taxpayer-funded research."

 But Biden doesn't tweet, thank goodness.

Biden To Shut Down Fetal Harvesting Probe After Shocking Revelations About Brutalized Babies (thefederalist.com)

There have been many government commissions and ethics panels. List of former entities found in the Georgetown archives. https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcbe/reports/past_commissions/?  some of which include fetal and stem cell. Good intentions, no results. Looking through them in the index section, I see that most authors are "unknown," and the comments and summaries are gobbledegook of academics and bureaucrats, particularly this 1975 report on Research on the Fetus, Research on the Fetus (georgetown.edu)

Remdesivir, the President and his enemies

“Researchers began a randomized, controlled trial of the antiviral in February 2020 to test whether remdesivir could be used to treat SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. By April, early results indicated that remdesivir accelerated recovery for hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. It became the first drug to receive emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19.

Researchers have now completed the trial, known as the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT-1). The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). The final report appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine on October 8, 2020.”

The results?  Treatment with Remdesivir reduced hospitalization by about 1/3, lessened the seriousness of the disease, and reduced mortality.  However, most interesting about this article is what it left out.  President Trump was treated with it and went on TV praising the drug. He should be the poster child for its effectiveness.  However, the article which appears in NIH Research Matters, doesn’t mention his incredibly fast recover and return to his old energetic self as he outcampaign Biden about 10 to 1.  Rudy also took Remdesivir during his recent, brief treatment.

Final report confirms remdesivir benefits for COVID-19 | National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Cultural differences and Covid cases

I was browsing an NIH study on Covid in Boston which reported that most people hospitalized with it would recover. Good news, right? Well, there's a racial disparity. Covid19 disproportionately affects people of color, and the researchers found a large number of their patients were Hispanic (30 percent) or Black (10 percent). Well, that didn't look very alarming to me, and I'm not a demographer. So I took a quick look at the population of Boston. Now, some ZIP codes are 60-70% minority, but overall, the population is 28.2% black and either 17.5 or 19.7% Hispanic depending on the source. If viruses cared about equity, there would be more blacks and fewer Hispanics in Boston with Covid.

Because "Hispanic" is a made up term, people in that demographic are not a racial group, but black or white or multiracial people who either speak Spanish, or whose parents did. So checking further, I did find an article that seems to indicate black Hispanics do more poorly than white Hispanics, and overall, Hispanics use more intensive care and support than other groups. When the data diving has finally used up all the grant money, I think researchers will find a cultural element to these infection numbers. We have been warned about keeping our distance from the beginning of this viral spread, and if you have any experience outside your own neighborhood, you know that personal space differs widely among cultures. People of Latin American and Southern European countries require less personal space according to research, and Asians are comfortable with more distance and will start backing up if you get too close. Europeans (including the majority of white Americans), Asian Indians and Native Americans prefer something in the middle. So think about how viruses spread. Close up and personal. Little tiny virus particles clinging to bits of droplets expelled when breathing, talking or singing.

My letter to a grant recipient at OSU

Today I noticed in OnCampusToday you’ve received a handsome grant of $2.27 million from NIH for “patient engagement.” Congratulations.  I’ve read through your publications, and you have had an impressive career. Although I don’t know what “concept map to define capacity for engagement” means, I would like to comment on patient portals as a means to engage patients in their own care.

I hate them.

My husband has 2 doctors, 3 if you count the cancer specialist whom he rarely sees, and I have 3, family, ophthalmologist and cardiologist. We share the family doctor. Each practice uses a different portal system for finding our lab results, asking questions, tracking meds, etc.  But the worst feature is their sending us advertisements! I don’t know until I’ve made the effort to get in—not easy—why I’m being contacted. What a mess! Fortunately, I don’t think my ophthalmologist uses one, because he’s the one I see most frequently. When I ask him to send a record to my family doctor, he uses a fax.

Recently we received a notice from our financial advisor suggesting we have our own “portal” for his financial services, and I fired back, Absolutely Not. Face to face is always better. I’ve not had eye-contact with a doctor since Obama imposed the horribly expensive EMR system, which had never been tested for improved care or cost reduction. One of the Emanuel brothers just thought the tech industry needed a pay off. My medical records could be transported faster by carrier pigeons from Riverside Hospital to Dr. Jennifer Bush, 2 miles away. And I hold no hope that patient portals will improve my care, at least not the ones in use by any of our doctors.

And by the way, how secure are these portals? Who designs them to be unworkable? Are they more secure than large medical practice records? Two years ago my husband’s urologist’s practice was hacked, and thousands of records exposed with all the personal data that goes along with that.

I have 9 blogs, I’m on at least 4 e-mail discussion lists, I’m on Facebook, I read a lot of medical, political, technology and religious information web sites, and I’m a retired librarian (veterinary medicine) who formerly taught classes in data base searching and information skills.  I used to teach “older learners,” which is anyone over 25.   You need a system that is easy for 80 year olds or admit this technology does not have the capacity to engage.

Norma J. Bruce

OSU Libraries faculty, retired

What has NIH done with funding specifically for preparedness and biosurveillance?

The NIH has already been given massive amounts of money beginning with post Katrina funding to handle the situation we have now with Ebola.  Where has the money gone?

Here’s what’s covered in the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013

• National Health Security Strategy
• Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response
• National Advisory Committee on Children and Disasters
• Modernization of the National Disaster Medical System
• Temporary reassignment of State and local personnel during a public health emergency
• Improving State and local public health security
• Hospital preparedness and medical surge capacity
• Enhancing situational awareness and biosurveillance
• Enhancing medical countermeasure review
• Accelerating medical countermeasure advanced research and development

“The 2013 law builds on work the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has undertaken to advance national health security. These include authorizing funding for public health and medical preparedness programs, such as the Hospital Preparedness Program and the Public Health Emergency Preparedness Cooperative Agreement. These programs build the capabilities of communities’ health care and public health systems to support people in need during and after disasters.

Thousands of hospitals and communities across the country participate in these programs, and because of this participation they now have stronger capabilities and better planning to respond to disasters. They regularly exercise and conduct drills. They are building partnerships across their communities so that if parts of the infrastructure are overwhelmed by disaster, the system can still provide care. Using these programs over the past seven years to strengthen health systems and build coalitions, states have been able to handle in a number of disasters on their own without federal responders.”

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2013pres/03/20130313a.html

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr307/text

Children, wanted and unwanted

It's a great imponderable. My faith and church informs me that God loves all his children, from conception to old age death, both those who know him and those who don't, the ones with blessings and the ones without. For now, I'll just have to trust that, because I don't always see it working in real time and place.

I'm thinking about little three year old Zack (not his real name) who is actually wanted by two different foster families who have been sharing custody of him for a year and a half. The original foster family who raised Zack from birth have negotiated every legal delay and trick to keep him, and although they signed off from the beginning on plans to adopt him (were told this was not an option), it is obviously their goal. The other foster family, which immediately stepped up to the plate when the state discovered it even existed (months after his birth), is Zack's uncle and his wife, who also raised his half sibling. Zack's birth parents are totally incapable of caring for child (although they have visitation rights) both by behavior and intelligence--the mother being mentally challenged and the father being the boyfriend of her mother (grandmother of the child--remember the movie "Precious?") who took advantage of the woman's low intelligence and had sex with her. So here's a little guy loved too much by people who are asking the court to split him down the middle. On the sidelines, I'm left to ponder what motivates people to even agree to raise a child of such doubtful intellectual heritage and future possibilities and problems--but I'm glad there are people willing to take such risks. That's a risk God takes with us, and one we don't see that often at our level. Both a stranger and a relative took him in and want him, and are now fighting over him with lawyers, judges, guardian ad litem, social workers and child psychologists in pitched battle over a little guy who is happy and well adjusted with both families.

The other special group of children God loves are those with Down and Fragile X syndromes. If you keep up with news from the pro-life community, or have followed the vilification of Sarah Palin and her Down Syndrome child born shortly before she was selected by McCain as a running mate in 2008, you know that over 90% of the children are now aborted after pregnancy testing reveals their condition. This has all sorts of ramifications for other families with mentally challenged children, because these families were strong backers of special health benefits, legislation and schooling for their children. They are now out of the advocacy business. But recently a mouse model in which the critical gene is knocked out has been developed that allows researchers to probe the synapses of brain neurons. Even later in life, mice with Down syndrome or fragile X syndrome (FXS) that are given targeted treatment can experience improvements in cognitive function. Findings from such animal studies have paved the way to human trials. And things are moving rather quickly. There is hope on the horizon that there will be therapeutics developed to help those with the most severe symptoms of stereotypic behavior, hyperactivity and inappropriate speech (Sci Transl Med. 2001:3[64] 64ral).

Other drugs are also being tested that show improved cognition in mouse models. One little mouse model, Ts65Dn, has been particularly useful in testing for memory deficits. This is wonderful news--but comes much too late for so many children killed before they saw the light of day. I wish all children, challenged or blessed with good health, could be as loved as little Trig Palin.

If the therapies under study for FXS and Down syndrome prove effective, the approach may have implications for other developmental disorders that involve invtellectual impairment or autism-like symptoms, or even more common disorders like Alzheimer Disease. The brain is more plastic than ever before imagined. (Summary of material from JAMA Jan. 26, 2011)

The Hype of ARRA: shovel ready jobs created and saved

Now that even the President as admitted (New York Times) that there never were "shovel ready" projects, the hype and tripe we were fed the past 2 years sound even worse. Plus the subtle message is that the government was doing nothing before Obama descended from the lofty heights of white guilt to save us, despite the fact that President Bush was the biggest spender on social programs in all the history of the U.S., only to be outdone by the raging trillion dollar deficits of Obama!

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) was signed into law by President Obama on February 17th, 2009. It is an unprecedented effort to jumpstart our economy, create or save millions of jobs, and put a down payment on addressing long-neglected challenges so our country can thrive in the 21st century. The Act is an extraordinary response to a crisis unlike any since the Great Depression, and includes measures to modernize our nation's infrastructure, enhance energy independence, expand educational opportunities, preserve and improve affordable health care, provide tax relief, and protect those in greatest need."

If there were challenges "long neglected" then where was Congress--controlled by the Democrats for most of my voting years? Jobs have not been created or saved, and if you laid the graph of our economic ups and downs since 2008 on top of one from the 1930s, you'd see Obama is following FDR's failed template.

The above quote came from the National Eye Institute where I was researching the number of Americans at risk for glaucoma over the age of 40. When I tried to check on how much of ARRA for the NIH (over $10 billion) has been spent, I found "spin doctors" from left wing think tanks and golly gee-whiz writers for government agencies all saying the same thing about saved or created.

Look folks, the health research industry (mainly universities) lives on government grants--this was a huge infusion for NIH, but I seriously doubt hiring a temp researcher or newly minted doctor on a project started 5-10 years ago really "created" anything. The time and effort to solicit and process the grant proposals, plus the special quasi-government companies that sprang up to do all this probably ate up 50% of it. All these jobs are temporary--a bit more glamorous than FDR's CCC camps of the 1930s, but from them we at least got some parks and roads.

For the common good--a progressive health plan

Our current Democratic administration has had to apologize for another Democratic administration (FDR, Truman)--the infecting of a brown race, Guatamalan Indians, with syphilis for research in the 1940s. And why was the researcher combing the archives surprised? Have you seen what the Woodrow Wilson administration ("I will keep us out of war") did to women who wanted to vote? Or what FDR did to loyal Americans of certain ethnicities (Italians, Germans, Japanese)--putting them into camps or spying on them? How the Democrat administrations beginning in 1932 continued to experiment on black men with syphilis until 1972 even after penicillin could have cured them?

And don't you believe it when Francis Collins, NIH, says there are strict prohibitions in place today to prevent this. Oh really? There is a lot of HIV testing going on in the U.S.A. on poor women, mostly black. They don't give them the retroviral drugs--they refer them for that--they use the data they gather (funded by fat gov't grants) from them to study poverty, parenting, relationships, etc. Vaccinations for HIV is being tested on African women--probably can't do that in the U.S.A.

And what about withdrawing DDT from the market before there was a viable alternative because a novelist, not a scientist, (Rachel Carson) testified before Congress? Environmentalists and their fellow travelers in the various progressive administrations have killed more African children and adults with malaria than the 18th century slave trade.

So why do progressive politicians, both Democrat and Republican, do this? It's for the "common good," which means, what do individual lives or individual freedom of choice matter as long as you (the government, the academic) have a better plan for the larger group. So what if a few hundred or thousand poor African women die or infect their children during experimentation--it will help Africans in the long run. So what if penicillin could have cured those black men. It would have interrupted the data set and researchers' published articles in peer-review journals, which surely would help the larger population. And what does the life of an unborn child, or 50 million unborn children, mean if you can bring more women into the board room and the university?

Why wasn't a 92% death rate enough?

Better science doesn't always mean a better life (Nov 2005). At least not a Down Syndrome baby. A faster, more accurate test for Down Syndrome.

Published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine (Nov. 10, 2005 issue), the study is known as the FASTER trial (First and Second Trimester Evaluation of Risk). It was funded by a $13 million grant from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development – one of the largest ever grants for an obstetrical study.

But even in 1998 the termination rate following a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome was 92 per cent Research here.Think of it. $13 million of our tax money so parents and doctors can know even earlier. Does an earlier abortion cause less guilt? Less grief as the years go by?