RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/01/new_study_of_pfizers_covid_vaccine_has_some_disturbing_findings.html

I just read a disturbing study of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine’s efficacy by the Canadian COVID Care Alliance.  This organization comprises over 500 independent Canadian doctors, scientists, and health care practitioners.  The title of the article, “The Pfizer Inoculations for COVID-19: More Harm Than Good,” is disturbing. The article itself, which discusses the many nuances of this study, is even more distressing.

You may recall the much-reported “95% efficacy” of the vaccine against COVID-19.  We all assumed that if we were vaccinated, we would then only have a 5% chance of becoming infected.  Sounds great, but the statement is misleading.  In the Pfizer study, only 8 out of 18,198, or 0.043% of participants who received the vaccine, contracted COVID, while 162 out of 18,325, 0.884% in the control group who received injections of saline became infected.  Therefore, while there was a Relative Risk Reduction of 95%, the Actual Risk Reduction was a mere 0.84%.

This disparity certainly changes one’s perspective on just how effective the vaccine is.  Everyone in the study, including the control group, had a less than 1% chance of infection.  Of course, as the virus spread throughout the population, a higher percentage of people became infected.  The conclusions of the study remain the same insofar as the likelihood of the vaccine preventing infection in any given controlled group of persons.

The article also asserts, among other things, that the study was conducted on relatively young and healthy persons but was then recommended to be used first on old, less healthy individuals.  The trials did not follow scientific protocols, owing to the desire for rapid deployment.  Follow-up studies were made virtually impossible because as subjects were unblinded — made aware of whether they had received the vaccine or the placebo.  The unvaccinated largely chose to receive the vaccine.  Thus, there is no control group remaining to study

The most damning findings concerned lack of disclosure of possible, or even likely long-term health risks on vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals.  These findings revealed significant increases for the vaccinated.  It also pointed out that for adolescents and children, the vaccine posed all risk with virtually no benefit, since those young individuals, even if they became infected, had a near universal good outcome.  Myocarditis and other afflictions are a substantial health hazard facing vaccinated young people.

https://www.city-journal.org/defund-progressive-prosecutors

Mayors and city councils are increasingly exasperated with “progressive prosecutors,” but they have little leverage to control them. It may be time to exercise a traditional check on underperforming public agencies: the power of the purse.

Displeasure with progressive prosecutors has been simmering for a while but is starting to boil over. San Francisco mayor London Breed, seeing the chaos unleashed by District Attorney Chesa Boudin, recently said, “It’s time the reign of criminals who are destroying our city, it is time for it come to an end.” Philadelphia’s city council president and mayor took turns bashing the lack of leadership and cooperation from District Attorney Larry Krasner, even as the city set a new record for homicides. Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot traded barbs with Cook County state’s attorney Kim Foxx over Foxx’s decision not to charge violent criminals, in a year when Chicago topped 800 homicides.

But very few tools exist to stop a rogue prosecutor. A prosecutor seeking convictions must get through an arrest, preliminary hearing, pre-trial motions, trial, and appeals. A prosecutor who doesn’t want to prosecute criminals can simply announce that he or she is not prosecuting. The criminals will then walk free; there is no oversight and no appeal. In the 1980s and 1990s, when the United States saw a tremendous surge in violent crime, legislators and prosecutors worked together to figure out solutions. Today, certain prosecutors seem intent on fueling the violence rather than trying to stop it.

How, then, can these radical prosecutors be curbed? Voters may eventually catch on and send them packing, of course, though both Foxx and Krasner were recently reelected handily in low-turnout elections. But officials could also cut funding. Local prosecutors’ offices, like other agencies, get funded from municipal and state coffers. The progressive prosecutor movement has made much about arresting less, prosecuting less, incarcerating less: in short, doing less work than traditional prosecutors. District attorneys’ offices can accordingly see their budgets adjusted to reflect that diminished role. Progressive candidates in the Manhattan district attorney’s race explicitly promised to cut the size of the office in half because the office would be doing less prosecuting under their leadership. If Chesa Boudin is only prosecuting or convicting half as many people in San Francisco, then shouldn’t his budget be cut by half? The remaining funds could be repurposed to provide other city services.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/new-data-out-of-new-york-differentiates-between-patients-hospitalized-as-a-result-of-covid-19-and-those-who-later-tested-positive/

New York released data on Friday differentiating between those hospitalized with coronavirus and those hospitalized with other maladies who tested positive for it after being admitted for the first time.

While there are 11,548 New Yorkers hospitalized who have tested positive for Covid, only 6,620 were admitted as a result of Covid or complications from the disease. That means that 43 percent of those counted were admitted for reasons believed to be unrelated to the coronavirus.

In New York City, 51 percent of those considered to be hospitalized with Covid were for reasons other than the virus itself.

This marks the first time that the state has counted and reported these numbers as separate groups. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which shows hospitalization data for all fifty states, does not presently make that distinction. It reports a 41.1 percent increase in its seven-day average of hospitalizations.

https://glennloury.substack.com/p/who-bears-the-costs-of-progressive

One of the ironies of progressive criminal justice and education policies is that their costs are often borne by the very people they claim to help. And I don’t mean the financial costs. What I’m talking about is, I think, more consequential than money. Living in an under-policed high-crime area could cost you your life. Living in a school district full of dysfunctional schools could set your child behind in ways they may never recover from. And yet progressives who wave the banner of equity and inclusion continue to defund the police, to decline to prosecute potentially dangerous criminal offenders, and to stand in the way of school choice.

Of course, progressive politicians rarely bear those costs themselves. They often live in safe neighborhoods and send their kids to private schools their constituents could never afford. In this excerpt from my recent conversation with the great Robert Woodson, we discuss the ironies (maybe “hypocrisies” is a better word) and costs of progressive policies that continue to disadvantage the already disadvantaged while giving a boost to the careers of the politicians that advocate for them. These are perennial concerns here at The Glenn Show, and I’m pleased to add Bob’s on-the-ground experience to the mix.

GLENN LOURY: As I’m sure you are aware, Bob, Philadelphia is a basket case now, in terms of crime. They’ve exceeded 500 homicides in a year for the first time in, I don’t know, 35 years. You’ve got this open argument between former mayor Michael Nutter and District Attorney Krasner, self-consciously progressive D.A. who’s been elected as a Democrat in Philadelphia to transform policing—not policing. He’s not chief of police, he’s the D.A. But to transform criminal justice policy in the city, get rid of cash bail, not bring all of these cases for low-level property crimes.

And Philadelphia is only one of a dozen cities about which a similar story could be told. Baltimore, close to you in D.C., also having trouble with the mayor and the police commissioner and the district attorney, all self-consciously progressive black women, if I’m not mistaken, who are presiding over a disaster. Chicago, my hometown, carjackings are through the roof, homicides are through the roof, assaults are through the roof, guns are everywhere, et cetera. St. Louis. I mean, we could go on for a long time,

ROBERT WOODSON: But it makes the class issue. But let me tell you what, it’s even gotten worse. And I just read that in Seattle there is a ballot initiative that will reduce the enhancements of people who engage in drive-by shootings, because of racial equity, because a higher number of black gang members are guilty of drive-by shootings. And therefore, since it adversely affects them, they’re going to try to reduce the penalties in the name of racial equity.

Yeah.

But trust me, the people advocating this do not live in those neighborhoods suffering the problem. That’s the point. 80 percent of blacks living in those communities are against defund the police. And so that makes my class argument.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/07/preserve-the-narrative-the-public-rejects-the-insurrection-claim-in-new-polling/?utm_source=pocket_mylist

In the day long events commemorating January 6th, Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a telling statement to her fellow members and the public at large. Pelosi declared “It is essential that we preserve the narrative of January 6th.” Part of that narrative is that this was not a riot but an “insurrection,” an actual “rebellion” against our country. Pelosi’s concern over the viability of that narrative is well-based as shown by a recent CBS News poll. The majority of the public does not believe that this was an “insurrection” despite the mantra-like repetition of members of Congress and the media. The public saw that terrible day unfold a year ago and saw it for what it was: a protest that became a riot. (For full disclosure, I previously worked as a legal analyst for CBS News).

Not surprisingly, the poll received little comparative coverage on a day when reporters and commentators spoke of “the insurrection” as an undeniable fact. Yet, when CBS asked Americans, they received an answer that likely did not please many. Indeed, CBS did not highlight the answer to the question of whether the day was really a “protest that went too far.”   The answer was overwhelming and nonpartisan.  Some 76% believe that this was a protest that went too far.

That, however, was not one of the four options to the matinee question featured by CBS. It did not allow the public to call this a riot when it asked them to describe “What happened at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021?” Why? There was the ever present “insurrection” and “trying to overthrow government.” However, the other two options were “patriotism” or “defending freedom.” That is perfectly bizarre. The most obvious alternatives to an actual rebellion in a violent clash would be a protest or a riot. However, the public was simply not given those options.

The result was predictable. Some 85% of Democrats dutifully checked “an insurrection” or “trying to overthrow government” while only 21% and 18% of Republicans agreed respectively.  For those who did not see the riot as an act of patriotism or defending freedom, they were simply left without a choice.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/01/07/another-disastrous-jobs-report-lands-on-bidens-desk-n2601550

Another disastrous job report dropped on Friday morning with predictions of new growth missing by hundreds of thousands. Economists predicted 442,000 positions would be created. The number came in at just 199,000. 

“Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 199,000 in December, and the unemployment rate declined to 3.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment continued to trend up in leisure and hospitality, in professional and business services, in manufacturing, in construction, and in transportation and warehousing,” the Department of Labor released Friday morning. “The labor force participation rate was unchanged at 61.9 percent in December but remains 1.5 percentage points lower than in February 2020. The employment-population ratio increased by 0.2 percentage point to 59.5 percent in December but is 1.7 percentage points below its February 2020 level. Over the year, these measures have increased by 0.4  percentage point and 2.1 percentage points, respectively.” 

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/joe-biden-potemkin-presidency-january-6-kamala-harris/

The one-year anniversary of the January 6 riots unfolded in a manner as dramatic as it was predictable. The Pearl Harbor and 9/11 comparisons were uttered before noon — not by some media hack on MSNBC, but by our own vice president. Democrats, led by Speaker Pelosi, stood on the steps of the Capitol adorned with face masks and holding fake candles to hold a prayer vigil. At one particularly bizarre point during the day’s ceremonies, Pelosi introduced playwright Lin-Manuel Miranda, who in turn introduced cast members from his hit musical Hamilton to sing a virtual rendition of “Dear Theodosia.” If that last sentence confuses you, don’t worry: I’m also not sure exactly what I just wrote. Not to be forgotten in all of this theater was President Joe Biden, a man far more interested in panic pageantry than governing.

It’s not hard to work out why the normally hard-to-reach Joe and Kamala were bright-eyed and bushy-tailed to take to the podium on Thursday morning. After all, they were eager to be their old selves again. Remember pre-election Joe and Kamala? They were so popular and fearless.

Times have changed. The Biden-Harris administration is saddled with inflation issues, border crises and at-home testing failures. But on January 6, 2022, Biden was able to put aside his shortcomings and remind the world of his greatest asset: that he isn’t Donald Trump. That’s why the Potemkin president spent his entire speech incessantly talking about the “former guy.” If Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s theory on political criticism is true, it would appear as though Biden is sweet on 45.

Beyond fixating on the former president, Biden also made a point of insulting all of Trump’s supporters. The unifier-in-chief had no qualms about depicting the 74 million Americans who voted for Trump in 2020 as akin to the deranged rioters who breached the Capitol.

“Instead of looking at election results from 2020 and saying they need new ideas or better ideas to win more votes, the former president and his supporters have decided the only way for them to win is to suppress your vote and subvert our elections,” he said.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/01/06/desantis-calls-medias-jan-6-coverage-nauseating-and-a-politicized-charlie-foxtrot/

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis mocked the corporate media’s “nauseating” coverage of the Jan. 6 Commemoration at the Capitol Thursday, calling it “Christmas” for Democrats, and a “politicized Charlie Foxtrot,” using  military slang for a poorly-managed operation, or “clusterf-ck.”

​”This is their Christmas,” ​DeSantis said, meaning Washington and New York-based media outlets. “They are going to take this and milk this for anything they can to be able to smear anyone who ever supported Donald Trump​,” he added. DeSantis made the remarks during a news conference about COVID-19 testing in West Palm Beach. The governor took a number of questions from reporters on COVID-related issues. The last question related to the Jan. 6 anniversary of the Capitol Hill riot.

The likely 2024 presidential contender told reporters that “obviously” he would not be watching any of the media’s histrionic coverage.

“I don’t expect anything good to come out of anything that [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and the gang are doing,” he said. “I don’t expect anything from the corporate press to be enlightening. I think it’s going to be nauseating, quite frankly, and I’m not going to do it.”

DeSantis compared the media’s obsessive nonstop coverage of the Jan. 6 riot to their light coverage of the congressional baseball shooting in 2017, when a left-wing activist opened fire on Republican lawmakers as they were practicing for the next day’s Congressional Baseball Game for Charity.

On June 14, 2017, Bernie Sanders supporter James Hodgkinson came to the park with a GOP kill list, and shot U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, U.S. Capitol police officer Crystal Griner, congressional aide Zack Barth, and lobbyist Matt Mika.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/01/06/lia-thomas-is-guilty-of-institutional-cheating-and-gender-eugenics/

You were born a biological male. You have XY chromosomes that irrevocably designate your sex as male. You began to identify as either non-binary or female around two years ago. You are currently a member of the University of Pennsylvania’s women’s swim team where you recently were victorious against Cornell University women’s team. As a transwoman with the physical advantages of still being a biological male, you have broken several of the University of Pennsylvania’s women’s swim records. In your 1,650-meter freestyle win, you beat second-place finisher and teammate Anna Kalandadze by 38 seconds. 

Because of you, women such as Kalandadze who held records no longer hold them. You, as a biological male, have unfairly stripped them of their hard-fought honors. According to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), it is permissible for biological men to compete in women’s sports. A man simply has to announce that he is a woman and take testosterone suppressors for a year. 

Here are some facts, Lia. One of the advantages you still carry—regardless of your testosterone levels—is that as a person who was born male you have certain innate physical advantages over women. You are stronger. You are faster. You have larger lungs, a larger heart, and larger skeletal size. You enjoy greater circulation, and you possess less fat than biological women. 

I cannot understand the deeply misogynistic attitude evinced by the NCAA, nor can I fathom the way our nation, for the most part, stands by and watches while mass psychosis subsumes reality. 

As a professionally trained ethicist who is also a cisgendered gay man, I respect your individual right to self-identify and to cull a conception of the good life for yourself around your gender identity. You have a right to be treated with dignity and respect. No one should ever violate your bodily identity. Your decision to view yourself as a woman should never permit others to eviscerate you of your individual rights as a human being. But I also advocate the individual rights of women.

Your freedom to cull such a life stops when you foist that identity as an unassailable truth onto others and force them to adopt it as a normative mandate. You and the cowardly NCAA are guilty of wholesale cheating on a massive scale. Biological men competing with women is a form of massive cheating. There are rules that create different sporting categories for men and women based on objective criteria found in nature and reality. You swam on a men’s team, and you competed with men. You know very well what those differences are. 

My sense is that even though you came out as transgendered, that disclosure gave you no right to decide, as a biological man, to compete with real biological women. You are not a biological woman, and you will never be one. That is an objective reality. There is one first, irreducible, and fundamental criterion for determining membership on college athletic teams: It is biological sex—not gender identity.