Connect with us

International

Fauci, Birx, & The Small-Print That Destroyed America

Fauci, Birx, & The Small-Print That Destroyed America

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

In a maddening interview yesterday, Anthony…

Published

on

Fauci, Birx, & The Small-Print That Destroyed America

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

In a maddening interview yesterday, Anthony Fauci performed his usual song and dance when faced with even the most mild questioning. He stonewalled in his trademarked way.

He spoke in long, drawn-out sentences, emphasizing the word consonants, punctuated by pauses and silences that convey the sense of precision without the reality. He strung together terms that seem vaguely scientific which intimidated his interviewers into an overly cautious pose.

“Oh wow, I’m interviewing a very powerful person,” the interviewer thinks, “so I had better not say anything wrong!”

He’s been pulling this trick for 40 years. He is very good at it.

In this interview, several messages stands out: 1) in retrospect, we should have locked down even more, 2) he never pushed lockdowns; he was only passing on CDC guidance, and 3) he is utterly and completely blameless for all things, particularly in funding gain-of-function research which, in any case, is not responsible for the creation of the virus in Wuhan.

The first part is startling because many of us have had the sense that lockdowns are in disrepute. Far from it: Fauci’s message is that next time, the lockdowns will be harder and longer. And there certainly will be more. The third part I feel sure will be revealed in time. The fear that the virus escaped from the lab is likely what drove the lockdowns agenda.

What intrigues me the most is the second part, the claim that he never ordered lockdowns. This was the CDC and he only served as messenger. Everyone else is to blame for anything that went wrong.

In a second interview the same day, Fauci says this explicitly: “All I have ever done, if you go back and look at everything I’ve ever done, was to recommend common-sense, good CDC-recommended public health policies that have saved millions of lives. If you want to investigate me for that, go ahead.”

I’m going back to the March 16, 2020, press conference at which Fauci, Deborah Birx, and Donald Trump are announcing a fundamental change of life in the United States, one that would disregard all normal rights and liberties. It’s not entirely clear, to me in any case, that Trump knew what was happening even then. He had a sense that he was doing something to stop the spread but he didn’t know entirely what.

This has always puzzled me. It’s one thing for him to be hornswoggled into greenlighting the destruction of the economy that was booming and roaring under his administration. That’s bad enough. But to be confused even about the details of what he was ordering that day is next-level stuff.

The following exchange occurred that day. Trump is asked whether restaurants and other venues should close. Trump responds: “Right now we don’t have an order one way or the other. We don’t have an order, but I think it’s probably better that you don’t [go to restaurants].”

From that, I gather that Trump believed that he was not forcing anything on anyone.

A reporter asks for a clarification: “Telling people to avoid restaurants and bars is a different thing than saying that bars and restaurants should shut down over the next 15 days. So why was it seen as being imprudent or not necessarily to take that additional step offered at additional guidance?”

At this point, Trump demurs and turns over the microphone to Deborah Birx, who must not have been paying attention and says something vague about the virus living on hard surfaces.

At this point, Fauci interrupts and says: “I just want, there’s an answer to this.”

Fauci says the following: “The small print here. It’s really small print. ‘In states with evidence of community transmission, bars, restaurants, food courts, gyms and other indoor and outdoor venues where groups of people congregate should be closed.’”

This was obviously a very startling thing to say—it means the end of regular life—but it is not clear that Trump was paying attention. A reporter asked a follow-up question. “So Mr. President, are you telling governors in those states then to close all their restaurants and their bars?”

Trump says: “Well we haven’t said that yet … we’re recommending things. No, we haven’t gone to that step yet. That could happen, but we haven’t gone there yet.”

I take from this exchange that Trump did not believe that he was calling for lockdowns. However, he believed that he might. And yet Fauci himself had just read from the CDC guidelines that called for exactly that.

Curious, I looked up the guidelines to which Fauci referred. It is a two-page PDF that was sent all over the country, the one labeled “15 Days to Flatten the Curve.”

They are here reproduced in graphic form:

The only part that truly matters is the section with a black background with white print, the part that looks like boilerplate fluff. It was not. It was the scraping of freedom itself.

As he demonstrated at the press conference, Fauci knew this fine print was there. He might even have been the one to make sure it was there and that it was too small for Trump to read. No question that Trump had no idea that it was there. He makes clear in the press conference that he didn’t know it was there. Even after Fauci highlighted its existence, Trump remained oblivious.

What does the fine print say? It’s the full loaf: lockdown.

“School operations can accelerate the spread of the coronavirus. Governors of states with evidence of community transmission should close schools in affected and surrounding areas. Governors should close schools in communities that are near areas of community transmission, even if those areas are in neighboring states. In addition, state and local officials should close schools where coronavirus has been identified in the population associated with the school. States and localities that close schools need to address childcare needs of critical responders, as well as the nutritional needs of children.”

“Older people are particularly at risk from the coronavirus. All states should follow Federal guidance and halt social visits to nursing homes and retirement and long-term care facilities.”

“In states with evidence of community transmission, bars, restaurants, food courts, gyms, and other indoor and outdoor venues where groups of people congregate should be closed.”

Consider the implications of this. Your mother is in the nursing home that you are paying for. But now you are even banned by the government from visiting. It’s an utterly shocking violation of human rights. You are deploying the state to separate families, as in a dystopian novel. It’s a death sentence.

As for schools, astounding. There was never any evidence that schools spread death and, in any case, we already knew that the risk of COVID to kids is near zero. Sweden never closed schools and not a single death resulted. And yet in the United States, the kids were denied education and likely traumatized for life.

As for the last sentence banning all gatherings—sports, weddings, funerals, gyms, malls—and completely wrecking all enterprise, this is an edict worthy of history’s most horrible despots in the annals of history.

And it was all buried right there in tiny print, so small the president of the United States didn’t even read it. What’s more, no one in his inner circle at the time read it. Surely, Fauci and Birx knew it was there. Any reporter in the room could have read it. It was only a few sentences but they overrode the U.S. Constitution, all American law, plus 500 years of progress in rights and liberties. And it came to America in small print!

What happened then? State health departments took the two-pager and rendered the small print into larger print. Here is a screen shot of the order from the state of Georgia.

The small print quickly became the large print that transformed life for everyone. You think there was no plot here? That this was just some mistake that somehow caused the end of America to be buried in the fine print? Wise up. This is a level of malice that is truly boundless.

As for Deborah Birx, she admits later in her book that the idea of 15 Days was always a trick. “No sooner had we convinced the Trump administration to implement our version of a two-week shutdown than I was trying to figure out how to extend it,” she admits.

This was how the chaos in American life began: in small print. Very quickly, this small print was extended to the entire world. And then extended to two years. And now we face a devastating economic, cultural, and political crisis. The population is demoralized and hope is nearly lost.

Who to blame? Anthony Fauci’s fingerprints are all over this sadistic caper, but he denies having anything to do with it.

It’s our fault, he says: We didn’t read the fine print.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/27/2022 - 22:55

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Nonprofit Blood Donation Service Starts Matching Unvaccinated Patients With Donors

Nonprofit Blood Donation Service Starts Matching Unvaccinated Patients With Donors

Authored by Allan Stein via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Swiss…

Published

on

Nonprofit Blood Donation Service Starts Matching Unvaccinated Patients With Donors

Authored by Allan Stein via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Swiss naturopathic physician George Della Pietra believes people worldwide should be free to choose whether to get a COVID-19 vaccine injection or not.

He believes the same should hold for those receiving transfusions with “vaccinated” blood.

“The problem is right now we have no choice,” said Della Pietra, founder of the nonprofit Safe Blood Donation service in 2021, matching unvaccinated blood recipients with donors in 65 countries.

“It was very clear from the beginning that the COVID hype was way out of control,” Della Pietra said. “It was not as dangerous as they say it was.

“As a naturopath, I can make no sense of this pandemic, which was never really a pandemic. It leaves space for so many explanations.”

Della Pietra believes that an mRNA injection is more dangerous than the pharmaceutical companies are willing to admit. He said the growing numbers of adverse reactions are reason to question their safety and effectiveness.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed that vaccinated and boosted people made up 58.6 percent (6,512) of the COVID-19 deaths in August—up from 41 percent in January.

We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Cynthia Cox, the Vice President of the Kaiser Family Foundation told The Washington Post in an article on Nov. 23.

Nearly 70 percent of the world’s 8 billion people have received at least one mRNA injection for COVID-19 since the vaccines began rolling out in 2021 at the height of the virus’s spread.

Each of the three primary mRNA COVID-19 vaccines contains COVID-19 “spike protein” fragments, which bind at the cellular level to stimulate an immune response to the virus.

Della Pietra believes these spike proteins produce “classic symptoms”—namely blood clots—that “horrified” him.

“I’ve never seen anything similar—and I’m not talking only about spike proteins,” Della Pietra told The Epoch Times in a phone interview.

It’s unbelievable because we never had this problem before. It’s been only two years. They want to keep the narrative [that an mRNA vaccine] is not dangerous.”

A man looks at his phone while donating blood at Vitalant blood donation center in San Francisco on Jan. 11, 2022. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Although donated blood and plasma must undergo a cleansing process before transfusion, Safe Blood Donation says this is not enough to remove all mRNA ingredients.

“I’m talking about graphene oxide and non-declared inorganic components in the vaccine, which we can see in the blood. When I see them, I have no idea how we can get rid of them again,” Della Pietra said.

Looking at the abnormalities in vaccinated blood, he said, “OK, we have a problem.” People are receiving the vaccine “more or less through the back door.”

“You can not avoid it anymore.”

In the United States alone, there are approximately 16 million units of donated blood annually. Of those units, about 643,000 are “autologous”—self-donated—and the number is increasing yearly, according to BloodBook.com.

Della Pietra said that, to his knowledge, Safe Blood Donation, based in Switzerland, is the first unvaccinated blood donation service of its kind.

“So, there is no blood bank with mRNA-free blood yet, not even with us,” Safe Blood Donation states on its website.

“And, although we have already asked hundreds of clinics, at the moment—at least in Europe—all of them still refuse to allow the human right of free blood choice with them—or at least do not want to be mentioned because otherwise, they fear reprisals.”

A nurse works as employees donate blood during a blood drive held in a bloodmobile in Los Angeles on March 19, 2020. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Della Pietra said the main goal of Safe Blood Donation is not to start an mRNA-free blood bank. Rather, it is to make it possible to match unvaccinated blood donors and unvaccinated recipients, “which we bring together in a clinic (medical partner) that allows the choice of blood donor.”

Medical website Seed Scientific said that blood banks and biotech companies will offer as much as $1,000 monthly for blood donations.

While Della Pietra said there are no unvaccinated blood banks, he sees the demand for unvaccinated blood rising.

This is why I decided to do [SafeBlood Donation]. I wanted to make a network for unvaccinated people looking for a blood donor because they need it—whether they have scheduled surgery or an emergency,” he said.

Safe Blood Donation began working in the United States about a month ago, building an infrastructure of medical partners.

However, in the current medical environment, central blood banks such as the Red Cross do not segregate their blood donations based on their vaccinated or unvaccinated status.

Rendering of SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins binding to ACE2 receptors. (Shutterstock)

“The American Red Cross does not facilitate designated donations for standard blood needs, as this process often takes longer and is more resource intensive than obtaining a blood product through our normal process,” the Red Cross told The Epoch Times in an email.

In a small number of situations, there is an exception for rare blood types where compatible blood types are extremely difficult to find. A rare blood type is defined as one that is present in less than 1/1000 people.

“We want to emphasize that the Red Cross adheres to all donor and product requirements as determined by the FDA to ensure the safety of the blood supply and is committed to continuing to provide life-saving blood products for patients across the country.”

The National Library of Medicine said that “across study sites, the average hospital cost per unit transfused was $155 and the average charge per patient was $219.”

Still, the Red Cross, which provides 40 percent of the nation’s blood donations, said “no studies” demonstrate adverse outcomes from transfusions of blood products collected from vaccinated donors.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/04/2022 - 20:55

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Pedestrians choose healthy obstacles over boring pavements, study finds

Up to 78% of walkers would take a more challenging route featuring obstacles such as balancing beams, steppingstones and high steps, research has found….

Published

on

Up to 78% of walkers would take a more challenging route featuring obstacles such as balancing beams, steppingstones and high steps, research has found. The findings suggest that providing ‘Active Landscape’ routes in urban areas could help tackle an “inactivity pandemic” and improve health outcomes.

Credit: Anna Boldina

Up to 78% of walkers would take a more challenging route featuring obstacles such as balancing beams, steppingstones and high steps, research has found. The findings suggest that providing ‘Active Landscape’ routes in urban areas could help tackle an “inactivity pandemic” and improve health outcomes.

[A copy of the paper and images can be downloaded here]

Millions of people in the UK are failing to meet recommended targets for physical activity. Exercising “on the go” is key to changing this but while walking along a pavement is better than nothing it causes no significant increase in heart rate so only qualifies as mild exercise. Walking also fails to significantly improve balance or bone density, unless it includes jumping, balancing, and stepping down.

But would adults opt for such ‘fun’ routes if given the choice? A University of Cambridge-led study published today in the journal Landscape Research suggests that with the right design, most would.

Previous research on ‘healthy route choices’ has focused on people’s likelihood of walking instead of using transport. But this study examined how likely people are to pick a more challenging route over a conventional one and which design characteristics influenced their choices.

Lead author, Anna Boldina, from the University of Cambridge’s Department of Architecture, said: “Even when the increase in level and extent of activity level is modest, when millions of people are using cityscapes every day, those differences can have a major positive impact on public health.”

“Our findings show that pedestrians can be nudged into a wider range of physical activities through minor changes to the urban landscape. We want to help policy makers and designers to make modifications that will improve physical health and wellbeing.”

Boldina began this research after moving from Coimbra in Portugal – where she found herself climbing hills and ancient walls – to London, which she found far less physically challenging.

Working with Dr Paul Hanel from the Department of Psychology at the University of Essex, and Prof. Koen Steemers from Cambridge, Boldina invited almost 600 UK residents to compare photorealistic images of challenging routes – variously incorporating steppingstones, balancing beams, and high steps – with conventional pavements.

Participants were shown images of challenging and conventional tarmac routes and asked which route they would choose. The researchers tested out a range of encouraging / discouraging parameters in different scenarios, including crossing water, shortcuts, unusual sculptures and the presence / absence of a handrail and other people. Participants were asked to score how challenging they thought the route would be from 1 (as easy as walking on level tarmac) to 7 (I would not be able to do it).

Eighty per cent of the study’s participants opted for a challenging route in at least one of the scenarios, depending on perceived level of difficulty and design characteristics. Where a challenging option was shorter than a conventional route, this increased the likelihood of being chosen by 10%. The presence of handrails achieved a 12% rise.

Importance for health

The WHO and NHS recommend at least 150 minutes of ‘moderate’ or 75 minutes of ‘vigorous’ activity spread over a week, including a variety of activities aimed at enhancing bones, muscles, and agility to stay healthy. In addition, adults over 65 are advised to perform strength, flexibility, and balance exercises.

Boldina said: “The human body is a very complex machine that needs a lot of things to keep working effectively. Cycling and swimming are great for your heart and for your leg muscles but do very little for your bone density.”

“To improve cardiovascular health, bone density and balance all at once, we need to add a wider range of exercises into our routine daily walks.”

Psychology of choice

Co-author Dr Paul Hanel said: “Children don’t need much encouragement to try out a balance beam but we wanted to see how adults would respond, and then identify design modifications which made them more likely to choose a challenging route.”

“We found that while embarrassment, anxiety, caution and peer pressure can put some adults off, the vast majority of people can be persuaded to take a more challenging route by paying careful attention to design, safety, difficulty level, location and signage.”

The proportion of participants who were willing to pick a more challenging route varied from 14% for a particular balance beam route to 78% for a route involving wide, low stepping stones and a log with a handrail. The least intimidating routes were found to be those with wide, steady-looking balancing beams and wide steppingstones, especially with the presence of handrails.

The researchers suggest that routes that incorporate more difficult challenges, such as obstacle courses and narrow balancing beams, should be placed in areas more likely to be frequented by younger users.

The participants expressed a range of reasons for picking challenging routes. Unsurprisingly, the study found that challenging routes which also acted as short cuts appealed. Up to 55% of participants chose such routes. The researchers also found that the design of pavements, lighting and flowerbeds, as well as signage helped to nudge participants to choose more challenging routes. Many participants (40%) said the sight of other people taking a challenging route encouraged them to do the same.

The participants who picked conventional routes often had concerns about safety but the introduction of safety measures, such as handrails, increased uptake of some routes. Handrails next to one steppingstones route increased uptake by 12%.

To test whether tendency to choose challenging routes was linked to demographic and personality factors, participants were asked to answer questions about their age, gender, habits, health, occupation, and personality traits (such as sensation seeking or general anxiety).

The researchers found that people of all levels of activity are equally likely to pick a challenging route. But for the most difficult routes, participants who regularly engaged in strength and balancing exercises were more likely to choose them.

Older participants were as supportive of the concept as younger ones but were less likely to opt for the more challenging routes for themselves. Nevertheless, across all age groups, only a small percentage of participants said they would avoid adventurous options completely.

The study applies the idea of “Choice Architecture” (making good choices easier and less beneficial choices harder) plus “Fun theory”, a strategy whereby physical activity is made more exciting; as well as some of the key principles of persuasion: social proof, liking, authority, and consistency.

Future work

The researchers hope to run experiments in physical test sites to see how intentions convert into behaviour, and to measure how changes in habits improve health. In the meantime, Dr Boldina continues to present her findings to policy makers.

Critics might question the affordability and cost effectiveness of introducing ‘Active landscape routes’ in the current economic environment.

In response, the researchers argue that installing stepping stones in a turfed area can be cheaper than laying and maintaining conventional tarmac pavements. They also point out that these measures could save governments far greater sums by reducing demand for health care related to lack of exercise.

Reference

A. Boldina et al., ‘Active Landscape and Choice Architecture: Encouraging the use of challenging city routes for fitness’, Landscape Research (2022). DOI: 10.1080/01426397.2022.2142204

Media contact

Tom Almeroth-Williams, Communications Manager (Research), University of Cambridge: researchcommunications@admin.cam.ac.uk / tel: +44 (0) 7540 139 444


Read More

Continue Reading

International

Tesla’s Chinese Rivals Set New Records

Tesla’s Chinese EV rivals are putting pressure on the market leader with monthly records.

Published

on

Tesla's Chinese EV rivals are putting pressure on the market leader with monthly records.

Tesla's competition in the electric vehicle market has been heating up over the past two years as more EV manufacturers ramp up production and deliveries.

Elon Musk's Austin, Texas-based company has seen its share of the EV market shrink from about 79% in 2020 to 75.8% in June 2022 to about 65% today as rival automakers continue to ramp up their factories.

Tesla  (TSLA) - Get Free Report still has a lot of good news to report through the first three quarters of 2022, as it is well on its way to delivering 1 million EVs with 908,000 delivered in the year through Sept. 30 after delivering 343,000 in the third quarter. The company also rolled out its newest EV on Dec. 1 with the delivery of its Semi Trucks.

While Tesla's top competitors in the U.S. hold small percentages of the market -- Ford  (F) - Get Free Report, 7%; Kia, 5%; Chevrolet, 4%, Hyundai, 4% -- these companies and smaller ones are setting records at delivering EVs as they increase production.

Ford reported in November that it had a 103% year-over-year increase in EV sales. Kia in the same month said it had a 133% increase in sales year-over-year. Volkswagen reported in November that it had reached its delivery benchmark of 500,000 units a year earlier than expected after recording  a 25% year-over-year increase in deliveries in October.

Shutterstock

Pressure from Chinese Rivals

Tesla is seeing increased pressure coming from China, and not just from covid pandemic-related restrictions and factory closures. Chinese rivals Nio  (NIO) - Get Free Report, Li Auto  (LI) - Get Free Report, and BYD all had impressive numbers for November.

BYD reported that it sold 113,915 fully electric vehicles in November, which was a 147% increase year-over-year. It also sold 116,027 plug-in hybrids, which was a 164% year-over-year increase.

Nio on Dec. 1 reported it delivered 14,178 vehicles in November, a new record-high delivery amount, for an increase of 30.3% year-over-year. Cumulative deliveries of Nio vehicles reached 273,741 as of Nov. 30.

Nio's November deliveries consisted of 8,003 premium smart electric SUVs including 4,897 ES7s, and 6,175 premium smart electric sedans including 3,207 ET7s and 2,968 ET5s.

Nio said that it plans to further accelerate production and delivery in December.

Li Auto on Dec. 1 said that it delivered a record-high 15,034 EVs in November for an 11.5% year-over-year increase. Cumulative deliveries through November reached 236,101.

Li Auto SUV Sales

“We set another monthly record with 15,034 deliveries in November," Yanan Shen, co-founder and president of Li Auto said in a statement "In particular, Li L9 has been the sales champion of full-size SUVs in China for two consecutive months since it commenced delivery, establishing it as a top choice for six-seat full-size family SUVs in China."

Shen said that the Li L9 SUV in November received the highest safety rating for tests on the driver and passenger sides from the China Insurance Automotive Safety Index.   

NIO and Tencent Holdings on Nov. 28 entered into a strategic cooperation agreement to further deepen partnership in the areas of autonomous driving related cloud services, intelligent driving maps and digital ecosystem to provide users with experiences beyond expectation, according to a statement.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending