RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/

The use of universal lockdowns in the event of the appearance of a new pathogen has no precedent. It has been a science experiment in real time, with most of the human population used as lab rats. The costs are legion. 

The question is whether lockdowns worked to control the virus in a way that is scientifically verifiable. Based on the following studies, the answer is no and for a variety of reasons: bad data, no correlations, no causal demonstration, anomalous exceptions, and so on. There is no relationship between lockdowns (or whatever else people want to call them to mask their true nature) and virus control. 

Perhaps this is a shocking revelation, given that universal social and economic controls are becoming the new orthodoxy. In a saner world, the burden of proof really should belong to the lockdowners, since it is they who overthrew 100 years of public-health wisdom and replaced it with an untested, top-down imposition on freedom and human rights. They never accepted that burden. They took it as axiomatic that a virus could be intimidated and frightened by credentials, edicts, speeches, and masked gendarmes. 

The pro-lockdown evidence is shockingly thin, and based largely on comparing real-world outcomes against dire computer-generated forecasts derived from empirically untested models, and then merely positing that stringencies and “nonpharmaceutical interventions” account for the difference between the fictionalized vs. the real outcome. The anti-lockdown studies, on the other hand, are evidence-based, robust, and thorough, grappling with the data we have (with all its flaws) and looking at the results in light of controls on the population. 

https://spectator.us/nevertrumpers-betrayal/

In March 2016 as Donald Trump looked likely to be the Republican party’s nominee to run for president, more than 100 foreign policy professionals signed a letter vowing not only that they wouldn’t work for him should he become president but that they would work ‘energetically’ to prevent his election. As the months wore on, the light in which the signatories appeared often shifted. Once Trump became the nominee, and then the President, these representatives of the ‘national security community’ appeared to have demonstrated one of the most damaging things any such group could demonstrate: their own irrelevance.

It turned out that more than a decade and a half into a set of wars that the world’s most advanced military had managed to fight to various draws, the American public did not much want to hear from foreign policy professionals.

Once Trump was actually in office the whole thing appeared in another light. A Republican president was in the White House, but 120 people who would normally have filled the administration of such a president had already signed a document vowing not to work for him. A number of people who would have been crucial in specific roles were overlooked because they had signed this and other similar letters.

Shortly after this vetting was becoming clear, I met with one of those who had convened the biggest NeverTrumper list. In retrospect, I asked, was it wise of him to have invited so many people who could have been of serious service to their country to effectively remove themselves from the running? The convener had no qualms. The Trump team were struggling already — and would struggle for another four years — to fill up many of the key foreign policy positions. But it was worth it. The NeverTrumpers were not cooperating. All they needed to do was to sit back and be seen to be right. Though few did fully sit back. For four years, the NeverTrumpers formed groups and pacs, filed columns and blogs and launched many a derisive tweet. But at least they had not contaminated themselves.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/12/18/governor-cuomo-should-take-a-polygraph-test-just-like-he-said-brett-kavanaugh-should-have-n1215636

I’m not fond of recovered memories of sexual harassment, nor, of some the definitions of harassment, but it is satisfying to see the Guv hoist on his own petard…..rsk

Governor Andrew Cuomo is reportedly on Biden’s shortlist for attorney general.

He’s also been accused of sexual harassment by a former aide.

The governor has denied the allegations, of course, but there still ought to be an investigation.

But if Cuomo really is potentially going to be the attorney general of the United States, the top law-enforcement officer of the nation, we need some answers quickly. Perhaps he should follow his own advice and take a polygraph test.

Back during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, when Democrats tried to thwart his nomination with bogus accusations of sexual assault, Governor Cuomo had a grand idea that Kavanaugh should take a polygraph test.

“President Trump, you said you would watch the hearings today. I believe Dr. Ford’s testimony is very compelling. Only a political skeptic could find a reason to disbelieve her,” Cuomo said. “What is her possible motive to lie? In any event, I fear this will just increase the political polarization. Whatever happens, your decision will be tainted for history and with it the credibility of the Supreme Court.” He went on to say:

“Here is one basic fact that badly hurts Judge Kavanaugh: Why won’t he take a polygraph? Dr. Ford did. If he does not take a polygraph test, it is the ultimate, ‘he said, she said.’ It is the one powerful piece of evidence that seriously damages his credibility and the credibility of his Republican supporters, including yourself. You can and should ask him to take the test. If he refuses, you should pull the appointment. It will show at least a modicum of fairness on your part. If you do not insist that Judge Kavanaugh take a polygraph, it will be further evidence that you are putting political motivation over your constitutional obligation. Do not aid and abet a lie. Demand a polygraph.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-court-stands-on-principle-11608334424?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

The fuss over President Trump’s order to exclude undocumented immigrants from the decennial reapportionment may be much ado about nothing. That’s essentially what a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court said Friday in dismissing a legal challenge (Trump v. New York) by Democratic states for lack of standing.

“A foundational principle of Article III is that ‘an actual controversy must exist not only at the time the complaint is filed, but through all stages of the litigation,’” the Court noted in an unsigned ruling with Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting.

Democratic states claimed they would lose federal funding and Congressional seats if the President’s order was implemented, though these harms are speculative. President Trump’s order directed the Commerce Secretary to gather information “to the extent practicable” and exclude undocumented aliens “to the extent feasible.”

The Justice Department conceded during oral arguments this month that the government lacked records on many of the 10.5 million or so undocumented immigrants in the country. It was also unclear whether the Census Bureau could even mesh the records in its possession with the decennial enumeration.

In other words, the order might not even be implemented, let alone harm Democratic states. “At present, this case is riddled with contingencies and speculation that impede judicial review,” the Court noted.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-green-lights-trump-removal-of-illegal-aliens-from-census-count_3624432.html?utm_source=news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2020-12-18-3

The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government may remove illegal aliens from the 2020 Census count, which eliminates that population from the process of allocating congressional seats and Electoral College votes that officially determine the presidency.

The 6-3 decision in Trump v. New York issued Dec. 18 is a victory for the Trump administration.

Placed on a judicial fast track because various census-related deadlines are nearing, oral argument took place telephonically before the nine justices on Nov. 30.

The Trump administration wanted illegal aliens removed from the decennial census count to prevent them from having an impact on the apportionment of political power among the states.

States and local governments, including so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, which refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials, sued to prevent the administration’s plan from moving forward. They argued that President Donald Trump, a Republican, was attempting to interfere with the count and prevent Democratic-leaning areas with large illegal-alien populations from gaining congressional seats.

But the high court found that their challenge was premature because they could not demonstrate any so-called concrete injury they might suffer. The ruling apparently leaves open the possibility of further challenges in the future and acknowledges the Trump administration may have difficulty implementing its policy.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/12/the_new_england_journal_of_medicine_is_now_fully_woke.html

Although it’s seemingly good news that there’s a Wuhan virus vaccine available, not everyone is embracing it. After all, they’ve seen the medical establishment, from Fauci on down, make one mistake after another during this difficult year. Worse, many in the medical establishment are proving to be insane as only leftists can be. The latest example is the once prestigious and reliable New England Medical Journal, which published an article declaring biological sex irrelevant.

In the latest issue of the NEMJ, two doctors and a lawyer have written that it’s time to do away with putting a newborn baby’s biological sex – as demonstrated by its external genitalia – on birth certificates. The article is behind a paywall, but the summary is there for all to see:

Sex designations on birth certificates offer no clinical utility, and they can be harmful for intersex and transgender people. Moving such designations below the line of demarcation wouldn’t compromise the birth certificate’s public health function but could avoid harm.

First, let’s meet the authors. Vadim Shteyler is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine at Brown University. He’s a hospitalist, which means he’s a regular internal medicine doctor who doesn’t have an office practice but works only in a hospital.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/ama_lied__how_many_died.html

The American Medical Association has been adamantly against hydroxychloroquine as a therapeutic for COVID for the past year. Just a few days before the presidential election they reversed course, reversing their opposition. Did they suddenly realize HCQ might have benefit in certain patient groups or were they lying for the past year? How many individuals died as a result of being denied potential lifesaving treatment?

The AMA is synonymous with organized medicine, despite myriad specialty societies that may better represent the needs of its member physicians. In fact, only 12 percent of practicing physicians belong to the AMA due to concerns that the AMA is more interested in its own finances and politics than the concerns of doctors.

When the AMA talks, media and the public listen, due to their perceived clout. Last spring, the AMA issued a statement critical of hydroxychloroquine as it was being used off-label in the treatment of COVID, not FDA-approved for this purpose with supposed “dangerous side effects.”

Quietly at the end of October, the AMA issued a new statement, conveniently overlooked by the media, giving the green light to doctors prescribing HCQ to their COVID patients.