17 thoughts on “News/Politics 2-27-23

  1. Attention media.

    Your crow is now being served…..

    Liked by 1 person

  2. You know, in the good old days of like up to a week ago.

    Kessler’s “fact checks” are a joke.

    I would say some apologies are in order.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Sue them into bankruptcy.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Say it with me now….

    “Safe and effective…”

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Nice of them to join us. And it only took them 3 years to admit the obvious facts.

    “Three Years Late, the Lancet Recognizes Natural Immunity

    The public-health clerisy rediscovers a principle of immunology it derided throughout the pandemic.”


    “The Lancet medical journal this month published a review of 65 studies that concluded prior infection with Covid—i.e., natural immunity—is at least as protective as two doses of mRNA vaccines. The most surprising news was that the study made the mainstream press.

    “Immunity acquired from a Covid infection is as protective as vaccination against severe illness and death, study finds,” NBC reported on Feb. 16. The study found that prior infection offered 78.6% protection against reinfection from the original Wuhan, Alpha or Delta variants at 40 weeks, which slipped to 36.1% against Omicron. Protection against severe illness remained around 90% across all variants after 40 weeks. These results exceed what other studies have found for two and even three mRNA doses.

    This comes after nearly three years of public-health officials’ dismissing the same hypothesis. But now that experts at the University of Washington have confirmed it in a leading—and left-leaning—journal, it’s fit to print.

    The Lancet study’s vindication of natural immunity fits a pandemic pattern: The public-health clerisy rejects an argument that ostensibly threatens its authority; eventually it’s forced to soften its position in the face of incontrovertible evidence; and yet not once does it acknowledge its opponents were right.”

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Some media outlets are having difficulty dealing with reality.

    “Los Angeles Times Bitterly Clings to Mask Mandates and Decries “Covid Deniers”

    Meanwhile, Google is obfuscating searches on the new Cochrane Study that suggests mask mandates ‘did nothing’”


    “The “experts” have been wrong so often about their policies and assertions about the covid virus that there have been pleas for a “pandemic amnesty.”

    I would like now to take a look at one of my predictions about covid, related to the use of masks that was published in the autumn of 2020.

    There are numerous other rules for good mask-wearing, including laundering after use. However, how many people actually grab a clean, fresh mask every time they use one? How many people properly launder (i.e., use bleach if washing by hand).

    Californians have lived with mask mandates for over 6 months now. Perhaps it is a good time to review if they are working. A group of researchers, including A.J. Kay, author of “The Curve Is Already Flat,” graphed the timing of the mask mandates and COVID-19 deaths, showing a steep rise following their implementation.

    …There has been a great deal of debate if masks prevent the spread of the coronavirus. However, the real question should be, “Do the strict mask mandates work?” They don’t.

    Tom Jefferson, an Oxford epidemiologist, and 11 colleagues conducted the study for Cochrane, a British nonprofit that is widely considered the gold standard for its reviews of health care data. The Cochrane Study, as its now known, conclusions were based on 78 randomized controlled trials, six of them during the Covid pandemic, with a total of 610,872 participants in multiple countries.

    The conclusions, which were summed up by Jefferson in The New York Times as part of an op-ed written by Bret Stephens is that mask mandates did nothing.

    The most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses — including Covid-19 — was published late last month. Its conclusions, said Tom Jefferson, the Oxford epidemiologist who is its lead author, were unambiguous.

    “There is just no evidence that they” — masks — “make any difference,” he told the journalist Maryanne Demasi. “Full stop.”

    But, wait, hold on. What about N-95 masks, as opposed to lower-quality surgical or cloth masks?

    “Makes no difference — none of it,” said Jefferson.
    What about the studies that initially persuaded policymakers to impose mask mandates?

    “They were convinced by nonrandomized studies, flawed observational studies.”

    So when a leading epidemiologist sums up a detailed review of a massive body of work and asserts mask mandates didn’t make a difference, the case is closed.

    Not so fast. Not if you are Big Tech or Big Media, perhaps enjoying some connections to Big Pharma and/or Big Government.

    In my quest to get information, I was limited in my search by this “helpful” suggestion from Google.”

    “Then, I stumbled upon the Los Angeles Times‘ hot take on The New York Times op-ed.

    In a nutshell, the author of that op-ed, Michael Hiltzik, neglects to mention the actual conclusion of the Oxford epidemiologist and bitterly clings to limited studies in his defense of mask mandates.

    Among them are a study of an outbreak aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, where sailors lived and worked in close quarters, which found that masks produced a 70% reduced risk of infection.

    Another study of 33,000 pupils in eight school districts in Massachusetts found an infection rate of 11.7% for unmasked and 1.7% for masked children.

    During the 2021 outbreak of the Delta strain of COVID, outbreaks were 3½ times more likely in schools without masking rules compared with those with the mandates.

    As an added bonus, Hilzik complains about “right-wingers” and “covid deniers” in a spectacularly elitist screed.”

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Dilbert is getting cancelled….


  8. Yep.


  9. Lather, rinse, repeat….

    Next verse, same as the first…..

    Meet the new worst thing ever. TDS is morphing into DDS.

    Poor thing!

    Cope harder.


  10. Clown media members are not happy today.


  11. Don’t be distracted by the sudden media interest in the lab leak story, which most of us knew was true some three years ago. It’s a distraction from the studies over the last few weeks from highly-respected researchers (as reported by Dr. Marty Makary) showing that:

    1. Masks had NO impact on the epidemic trajectory (Cochran).
    2. Natural immunity > vax immunity (Lancet).
    3. Vax mandates did NOT increase vaccination rates (GMU).
    4. Myocarditis up to 28x > after vax than Covid itself (Hoeg study).


  12. Confused why its the Dept of Energy not the CDC or DHS involved in the Wuhan information

    The article on masks suggests some success in enclosed spaces – naval vessels, classrooms, etc. This suggests masks have a role

    Tychicus – vaccines mandates have no effect on vaccine rates? That’s counter intuitive. Many people will get vaccines when required for employment or travel.

    The Chloe Cole case demonstrates the problem with the profit motive in health care. Health care companies are more likely to recommend unnecessary treatments if they can make money. Health care should be non-profit.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.