https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/massive-study-masks-may-actually-increa
Sean Davis
@seanmdav
A massive Danish study on mask usage found no statistically significant difference in coronavirus infection rates between mask-wearers and non-mask-wearers. In fact, according to the data, mask usage may actually increase the likelihood of infection. https://acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/18/democrats-and-the-media-keep-lying-about-obamas-agencies-spying-on-trumps-campaign/
Proving whether election irregularities occurred will require a willingness to judge the evidence fairly, not a habit of declaring demonstrable facts to have been ‘debunked.’
Four years after the FBI sent “Confidential Human Sources” secretly to gather information on Donald Trump’s team, the president’s opponents in politics and the media continue to deny that the bureau spied on his 2016 campaign. They are now using that denial to dismiss questions of voting irregularities in the 2020 election by arguing that Trump and his allies traffic in outrageous falsehoods for partisan purposes.
During the vice-presidential debate, Mike Pence said, “When Joe Biden was vice president of the United States, the FBI actually spied on President Trump and my campaign.” The response from NBC “fact checkers” was to declare that “Pence repeated a false claim that Trump made during the first presidential debate – accusing the Obama administration of spying on their 2016 campaign.”
Media Are Denying the Facts
At Politico, Kyle Cheney and Andrew Desiderio caricatured the accusation of spying as alleging “Biden was a mastermind of an effort to spy on Trump’s 2016 campaign,” saying it was a story “riddled with falsehoods, exaggerations and assumptions.” By pressing accusations of spying, the president has politicized “institutions in a way that will leave lasting damage,” Politico quoted Democrats saying. The outlet warned, “Trump may exacerbate that strain in the coming weeks.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/the-covid-vaccines-bernies-crooks-to-the-rescue/
“Progressing from discovery of a novel virus to safe and effective vaccines utilizing a new technology in just ten months demonstrates the innovative power of the private market to discover, develop, and deliver life-saving new products. The regulation and price controls Bernie Sanders and his fellow travelers prefer would destroy the incentives and profits needed for continued innovation and leave us unprepared for the next pandemic.”
The regulations Sanders & Co. seek would destroy the incentives needed for innovation and leave us unprepared for the next pandemic.
Bernie Sanders has described pharmaceutical companies as “crooks” who are “literally killing people every day.” So I guess we have some pretty nefarious characters to thank for the unprecedentedly rapid development of safe and effective vaccines that promise to bring the COVID-19 pandemic to an end. These innovative companies have invested years of work and billions of dollars that put them in a position to create new vaccines in record time.
It normally takes ten years or more to develop new vaccines for novel viruses. But now, only ten months after China identified the hitherto unknown SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for COVID-19 and shared its genetic sequence, 53 COVID-19 vaccines created by a variety of new and old vaccine-making techniques are being tested in humans in 18 countries. Eleven of these are in the most advanced stage of trials (Phase 3).
Two private companies have just announced promising results in their ongoing trials. On November 16, Moderna, based in Cambridge, Mass., announced that preliminary data show its COVID-19 vaccine is 95 percent effective. A week earlier New York based Pfizer with its German partner BioNTech announced their vaccine is 90 percent effective in preventing COVID-19 in a preliminary analysis. Today Pfizer announced final results indicating that its vaccine is 95 percent effective and causes only rare and mild side effects. It was effective for different races, ethnic groups, and ages — unlike many older vaccines that do not work well in the elderly, the Pfizer m-RNA vaccine was 94 percent effective in people over 65, the group at highest risk for severe COVID-19 illness and death. Pfizer plans on seeking emergency-use authorization within days. Neither the Moderna nor the Pfizer trial has reported severe side effects.
From former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson, the second installment in the best-selling series that offers hard data about the coronavirus epidemic – rather than hysterical predictions of doom.
While Unreported Truths Part 1 focused on how many people are dying from COVID-19, this section discusses an equally important but even more complex topic: the history of lockdowns, and the evidence that they work as intended. Like Part 1, this section draws on primary sources like Centers for Disease Control and World Health Organization reports, along with news articles, government documents, and scientific papers.
In three chapters, this section explains the surprising scientific debate around lockdowns BEFORE March, along with the evidence that they did or did not work as intended to reduce the spread of the coronavirus and save lives. If you have been wondering whether lockdowns made any difference – as the media has loudly insisted – Part 2 will give you the truthful, accurate and well-sourced information you need to make up your own mind.
Please note: This booklet contains only the second section of Unreported Truths. Part 1 is available separately.
Former New York Times reporter and prominent lockdown critic Alex Berenson provides a counterweight to media hysteria about coronavirus in this series of short booklets answering crucial questions about COVID.
Drawing on primary sources from all over the world – including state and national-level government data, Centers for Disease Control reports, and papers in prominent scientific journals – Unreported Truths offers clear, concise, and measured answers to some of the most important questions around the coronavirus:
How are COVID deaths counted?
How many Americans are likely to die in a worst-case scenario?
What is the evidence that lockdowns do or do not help reduce the spread of the illness?
Are masks an effective way to reduce the spread?
Why did the forecasts for coronavirus hospitalizations prove so wrong?
Are children at serious risk from coronavirus?
What has the mental health impact of lockdowns been?
Whether you have been skeptical of the media’s panicked reporting all along or are just starting to wonder why the predictions of doom from March and April have not come to pass, Unreported Truths will provide you with the factual, accurate, and impeccably sourced information you need.
Please note: Unreported Truths about COVID-19 and Lockdowns will be published in multiple sections. Part 1 includes an introduction, an examination of the way COVID deaths are counted, and a forecast for a potential worst-case scenario of coronavirus deaths in the United States.
https://pjmedia.com/columns/stephen-kruiser/2020/11/18/the-morning-briefing-congress-needs-to-slay-big-techs-3-headed-monster-n1154627
I feel like we have been here before when it comes to Big Tech overreach.
Oh wait, that’s because we have.
Twitter CEO Jack “Great Rasputin’s Beard” Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark “Bowl Cut” Zuckerberg were back for another virtual get-together with some senators again on Tuesday, this time in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I am beginning to lose count, but I know that this is at least the third time since the summer that members of Congress and the CEOs have staged one of these political kabuki theater performances. The pattern is familiar: Zuckerberg doesn’t remember much, Dorsey shows up stoned but with plenty of stalling, sometimes nonsensical answers. Then Ted Cruz ABSOLUTELY DESTROYS them, which makes for some good blog traffic.
After that, the Jack and Zuck show gets back to business as usual.
Tyler covered yesterday’s latest “Cruz vs Dorsey” moment:
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) took Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to task over his company’s suppression of the bombshell New York Post report on Hunter Biden’s emails linking Joe Biden to his son’s notorious business deals. In a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Cruz pressed Dorsey on how Twitter could possibly claim not to be a publisher when it selectively applied its hacked materials policy against the Biden story but not against the New York Times article on Trump’s tax returns.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/11/hypocrisy_alert_obama_won_first_election_by_challenging_voter_fraud.html
The first question the fawning Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes asked former president Barack Obama during their interview this past Sunday was this: “What is your advice in this moment for President Trump?”
Pelley was referring specifically to Trump’s continued challenge to the posted results of the November 3rd election. “When your time is up, then it is your job to put the country first and think beyond your own ego and your own interests and your own disappointments,” Obama pontificated. “My advice to President Trump is if you want, at this late stage in the game to be remembered as somebody who put country first, it’s time for you to do the same thing.”
More specifically, Obama insisted that Trump should have conceded no more than two days after the election. “When you look at the numbers, objectively, Joe Biden will have won handily,” Obama continued. “There is no scenario in which any of those states would turn the other way and certainly not enough to reverse the outcome of the election.”
Although Pelley was interviewing Obama about his new memoir, A Promised Land, neither of the two obviously thought it prudent to share with viewers how Obama won his first political campaign, a story that Obama tells in his new memoir.
https://issuesinsights.com/2020/11/18/lockdowns-for-the-pandemic-now-global-warming-later/
The lockdown hammer landed hard on California and several other states Monday. At one time it seemed absurd to think government officials’ pandemic orders were a dry run for future attempts to confine and subjugate the country to mitigate global warming. It’s time we rethink that.
Observant and cunning politicians have gone to school since March and are now likely convinced they can use the pretext of a climate emergency to control Americans and break the back of capitalism. No, we’re not likely to see the open-ended lockdowns we’re enduring during the coronavirus outbreak. Those would be too obvious. Politicians can be sneaky sorts so we expect something more subtle and incremental.
For instance, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who clearly relishes having near absolute control over the most populous state in the country, could issue an executive order next summer which says, beginning in January 2022, all businesses except the few deemed essential must be closed every other Friday, and car travel on those days will be restricted solely to those who can demonstrate an absolute need to be on the roads.
Or Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, whose pandemic lockdown rules have been among the most prohibitive, pointless and imbecilic (and have stoked efforts to impeach her), might decide she has the authority to limit the automobile miles driven each month by Michiganders, ration fuel, and dictate thermostat settings in private homes.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/obamas-ridiculous-call-for-speech-police/
The ex-president shows again he’s a deeply unserious man with an outlandishly un-American proposal.
F un game: Imagine President Obama’s litany of bitter grievances expressed not in the imitation deepthink of middlebrow magazines and their compassion for good government, but in the somewhat earthier demotic of his successor. Take this example, from Obama’s recent BBC comments to promote his third book on his favorite subject:
There are millions of people who subscribed to the notion that Joe Biden is a socialist, who subscribed to the notion that Hillary Clinton was part of an evil cabal that was involved in pedophile rings. I think at some point it’s going to require a combination of regulation and standards within industries to get us back to the point where we at least recognize a common set of facts before we start arguing about what we should do about those facts.
Obama, apparently referring to Facebook posts and other non-mainstream sources of information, is saying the United States should have a regulatory body empowered to stop anyone from publicly stating opinions with which he disagrees (“Biden is a socialist”) or assertions for which there is no evidence (Hillary Clinton was involved in a pedophile ring). Let’s be honest here: What Obama is saying is crazy. It’s a triple-layer cake of crazy with whipped craziness on top. He might as well tweet out: “We would win every election if it weren’t for the FAKE NEWS who will be DEALT WITH!!! My new DEPARTMENT OF FAKE NEWS BLASTERS will shut them up FOREVER!!!”
It’s crazy that Obama thinks the existence of a free press is, on balance, worse for his party than for Republicans; it’s crazy that Obama, a former constitutional-law lecturer, thinks there is some previously unnoticed truth clause in the First Amendment; it’s crazy that he thinks his idea would pass muster with a judiciary that is at the moment more supportive of the free exchange of ideas than in any previous period in American history, especially given the current makeup of the Supreme Court; it’s crazy that Obama thinks that Clinton narrowly lost her bid for the presidency, and Biden narrowly won his, because swing voters decided either that Biden is a socialist or that she is in league with pedophiles. It’s also crazy that Obama hasn’t noticed there are already “standards within industries” to limit the spread of information uncongenial to Obama’s party, revealed in Twitter and Facebook’s publicly admitted efforts to stop the New York Post’s reports about the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop from spreading, a determined effort by mainstream-media outlets to ignore or downplay the story, and the startling admission by the editor of the New York Times that he removed accurate information from an already-published story centering on a sexual-assault allegation against Joe Biden because Biden’s campaign complained.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/11/dr-death-becomes-biden-coronavirus-advisor-don-feder/
Maimonides, the great 12th century codifier of Jewish law, said: “The good doctors will go to hell first,” because skilled physicians will be tempted to play God.
Enter Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a member of Biden’s recently-announced Coronavirus Advisory Committee. The architect of Obamacare, and brother of former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, is one scary dude. Kindly, Old Doc Emanuel is an advocate of health care rationing for the elderly.
In a 2014 article for The Atlantic, “Why I hope to Die at 75,” Emanuel wrote: “Living long is also a loss. It renders many of us if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived. It robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to society …. We are no longer remembered as vibrant and engaged but as feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic.”
When he became prime minister in 1940, Winston Churchill was 66. He was 71 at the end of World War II and 77 when he became prime minister for a second time in 1951. Feeble, ineffectual and even pathetic aren’t words generally associated with Britain’s greatest wartime leader. Ronald Reagan was 70 when he took the helm in 1981.
The problem here isn’t that Emanuel doesn’t want to live past 75, but that he doesn’t want the rest of us to live beyond that age either. In 2009, medical ethicist Wesley J. Smith wrote that Emanuel “explicitly advocates rationing based on what appears to be a quality of life measurement.”
Top Stories @ Fox News