RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://healthy-skeptic.com/2020/11/18/flash-on-the-danish-mask-study/

This is the fuller post.   The headline result–wearing a mask makes no difference in cases or in level of transmission in the community.   It is obvious to all of us now, that this is true, as we can see the case growth in areas of the country with extremely high mask-wearing rates.  Here is the cite.  (Danish Mask Study)  Coupled with the withdrawal of the county study which purported to show a benefit based on limited time period study, this should put an end to any Governor claiming that mask mandates are backed by science and data, but it won’t.  As I noted in my flash report, people are already coming out with all kinds of BS criticisms of the trial. It is amusing in a sense, that people who just accepted all the mask modeling “research” without any quibbles or skepticism are finding all kinds of criticism directed at an actual randomized trial attempting to answer a real-life question–what is the effect of wearing a mask in the community.

Before describing the study and its findings, let me make a couple of preliminary observations.  I have been reading medical research for 40 years and science papers for even longer.  When you read this study and you know the history of the attempt to get it published, you are immediately struck by what the authors must have been forced to do to get any reputable journal to publish it.  They were clearly forced to constantly refer to limitations and caveats about the study and there is a discussion about the confidence intervals around the results that you absolutely never see in the published reports of research.  What kind of science is it that decides in advance what the results have to be and tries to suppress any research that challenges those pre-ordained results?  When I complain that science has become completely politicized, what happened to this study is Exhibit A.

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://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.

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.