Some Interesting Stats, an Old Article, and New Commentary . . .

 Compare these stats for the USA and some Western European countries with Nigeria and Taiwan and note where there are dramatic differences . . .  

Here is an Old Article (this past April) from Taiwan: Taiwan FDA distributing Hydroxychloroquine for free after WHO declares it ineffective for COVID treatment

... And some New Commentary (Yesterday) from Dr. Ben Carson on Sunday Morning Futures: On Fox News, Ben Carson says there should be less emphasis on vaccines and more on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin

Dr. Carson thinks our officials have "tunnel vision" with their focus on vaccines and exclusion of alternatives.

I think it's something else.

What do you think?

Parrots, Sitting on their Perches, Fixing Nothing . . .

It's alarming to read that New Covid Cases have climbed to almost 250 per day here in Oneida County while hospitalizations are now at 92.  (That's a lot of patients in an area that has only a few hundred hospital beds!) 

More alarming is government's response: Deny medical treatment to others (Hochul/Cuomo's denial of "elective" procedures), and more parroting of the national government's vaccine-pushing and demonization of the unvaccinated -- ignoring that a significant percentage of those now being hospitalized are also vaccinated (about 1/3 locally) . Vaccines can't help someone already diagnosed with Covid.

What can be done to keep the newly-diagnosed out of the hospital?  

Here is a recent study for one well-known drug: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines

"Conclusions: 

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."

There are now and have been other similar professional papers (even going back to the beginning of the pandemic) recommending this and other drugs for early-disease intervention. These drugs have been proven safe over many years use for other ailments, however they are now severely restricted or demonized by government officials, insurance companies and media. We can only speculate on the reasons why, but it clearly is not based on "science."  

The restrictions and demonizations need to stop and officials responsible for protecting the public health need to stop ignoring these treatments or pretending that they don't exist.  Doing so in the middle of a pandemic is immoral.  

Deconstruction of Another Fact Check: Death Rates for Vaccinated vs Unvaccinated for a Covid Variant.

 This is another Reuters' "Fact-Check" that I happened to run across while researching something else:

"Fact Check-Claim that vaccinated people are six times more likely to die from the Delta variant than those who are unvaccinated is misleading"

"Social media posts have claimed that those who have received a COVID-19 vaccine are more [sic] six times more likely to die from being infected by variants than those who have not been inoculated. While the data was indeed taken from a Public Health England (PHE) briefing held in June, it was taken out of context."

Reuters then links to several blog posts that make the claim. (Follow the links provided in Reuters' fact-check if you want to read the original claims -- two are provided in the last section of this post below.)

Unlike the last Reuters fact-check reviewed in this blog, this time Reuters fairly characterized the "six times" claim in the blog posts. 

However, like the last fact-check reviewed, Reuters, again, confirmed all the salient data in the blog posts. In particular ... 

"Referring to data compiled by Public Health England (PHE) in a technical briefing released on June 18 regarding the SARS-CoV-2 variants (here), the authors of the blogs make several calculations.

 "On page 12 of the briefing, it shows that 26 people have died since February 1 after testing positive for the Delta variant of the virus, having also been fully vaccinated for more than two weeks. In total, 4,087 tested positive more than two weeks after their second dose. Meanwhile, 35,521 people who were unvaccinated tested positive for the Delta variant and 34 people died.

"The authors then divide the number of deaths by the total number of people who tested positive for the Delta variant and found the rate of death to be 0.000957 for unvaccinated individuals and 0.00636 for those who have been inoculated."

Reuters does not claim that the source data is wrong.  Nor does it claim that the mathematical calculations are wrong. You can check the math yourself. Nothing is wrong with it. 

A DELTA VARIANT DEATH RATE OF 0.00636 FOR VACCINATED PEOPLE IS INDEED BETWEEN 6 AND 7 TIMES THE  DELTA VARIANT DEATH RATE OF 0.000957 FOR UNVACCINATED PEOPLE.

Math is a form of logic. (Some call it "critical thinking.") Since the math is correct, and the data is correct, then the conclusion reached (as restated above) based upon that data has to be both logical and correct.  

What does Reuters say?

"The logic is flawed, however, and PHE told Reuters that two doses of the vaccine has shown “high levels” of protection against the Delta variant....

"“The analysis presented is very misleading and ignores the fact that deaths predominantly occur in older age groups who have had much higher vaccination coverage,” Prof Paul Hunter, Professor in Medicine at Norwich Medical School told Reuters over email . . . 

""The figures in the blog posts lack context, Dr Muge Cevik, clinical lecturer in infectious diseases and medical virology at the University of St Andrews, told Reuters by email. . . .

"“When most people are vaccinated, most infections and deaths are expected to be among those vaccinated,” she added.

"The vaccination program also prioritised [sic]“clinically vulnerable” individuals, and thus the majority of those vaccinated will “disproportionately represent elderly and those with underlying comorbidities, who are already at significant risk of hospitalisation and death,” Dr Cevik, said. ...

"The overall rate of infection is much less in vaccinated populations, which “indicates that vaccination is working,” Dr Shamaila Anwar, science communicator with Team Halo, told Reuters ..."

Reuters also has several other people making comments on various aspects of the vaccination program, and reaches its ultimate:

        "VERDICT 

"Missing context. Vaccinated people are not at higher risk of dying from the Delta variant than those who are unvaccinated . . ." 

If you read all the statements Reuters presents to make its case, NONE of them state that "Vaccinated people are not at a higher risk of dying from the Delta variant than those who are unvaccinated." 

Fault Line's Verdict on the Reuters Fact-Check: FALSE.  

Basically Reuters is trying to compare Apples to Oranges and does not really address the issue. Although Reuters implies that older ages of the persons in the study could have lead to a faulty conclusion, Reuters failed to present any alternative data and/or calculations to demonstrate that a different conclusion on the risk of death for vaccinated vs unvaccinated could be reached.

Reuters entirely failed to present any evidence to support the factual assertion made in its so-called "verdict." 

Since Reuters cited no flaw in the Bloggers' math, nor any flaw in the data cited, and since Reuters failed to produce its own evidence to directly refute the Bloggers' calculations, Reuters statement that the Bloggers were "Missing Context" is false.

Why is this important?

The two main blog posts cited and archived by Reuters, "DC Clothesline," and  "Lifesite" both raise a question whether or not the higher risk of death for vaccinated persons for the Delta variant is evidence that Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) is occurring. Per Lifesite, "ADE blighted previous attempts at coronavirus vaccines and frequently resulted in enhanced lung disease among vaccinated lab animals" and "led researchers in 2012 to advise scientists to proceed with “caution” for any human coronavirus vaccines which could lead to enhanced lung disease." Lifesite also indicated that ADE could "activate other sleeping infections in the vaccinated person such as herpes virus, creating symptoms of Bell’s palsy or shingles" and might even "accelerate the rate at which the vaccine-resistant mutant strains become dominant among all the SARS-Co-V2 [coronavirus] strains.” 

The Reuters "Fact-Check" failed to even mention let alone address these concerns. If ADE is occurring, it would mean that the vaccine could actually be causing harm. Any "fact-check" on this issue really needs to address the ADE issue.

Deconstruction of a "Fact Check" --- or "Fact-checking a Fact-Checker"

Are "Fact Checkers" reliable, or are they no better than those they are "fact-checking?" 

A friend sent me the following article:  Elderly population suddenly dying off for unexplained reasons, and it’s no longer coded as covid-19 – NaturalNews.com

Per the article:

"Around the world, medical authorities are seeing a spike in elderly deaths, after covid-19 vaccination. Gibraltar, a nation located at the southern tip of Spain, is suffering from an unexplained surge in elderly deaths. In the second week of January, a subset of the elderly population suddenly started to die off. ...

"Before the vaccine experiment began, the covid-19 related death toll accounted for ten people. After the vaccine rollout, the total number of deaths had skyrocketed to forty-five people. In the first eight days of the vaccination program, thirty-five seniors suddenly passed away.".

Not familiar with "NaturalNews.com" I did a search of what for me were the key elements of the story: a surge in deaths following the Covid vaccine in Gibraltar.  I eventually found this article in Reuters: 

Fact check: Vaccine not linked to COVID-19 deaths in Gibraltar.  Per the article: 

"The claim that coronavirus deaths in Gibraltar have been caused by the vaccine, not the virus, has been shared on social media. This claim is false."

Reuters then linked to two Facebook posts (which had the Facebook "False Information" flag attached) and recited the offending language:

“Gibraltar is 2.6 square miles in size. On 6th January they had only 10 covid deaths in total. The vaccine arrived to the island on 10th January. By 20th of January there were 53 deaths. Today worldometer is showing that there are now 70 deaths. SEVENTY!! Why is no one talking about Gibraltar?”

Observation 1: Reuters misconstrued the social media posts. 

 Do you see a claim in the quote above that the vaccine caused the deaths? It's not there!

Observation 2:  Reuters confirmed all the salient information in the social media posts while claiming them to be false.

Specifically it confirmed that the vaccine program had begun in Gibraltar on January 10, 2021, that as of that date 16 Covid deaths had been record, that by the 20th the deaths had increased to 53, and that 7 days later they had increased to 70.

Observation 3: Reuters then falsely claimed "But there is no evidence whatsoever that these deaths are linked to the roll out of the vaccine." 

But there IS evidence: the close following of the surge in deaths to the commencement of the vaccine program links the two together in time. Although this evidence is clearly insufficient to prove a causal relationship, it WAS sufficient to both cause (1) the social media posts and (2) Reuters to read into the social media posts a statement of causal relationship that was not there. 

Observation 4: Reuters then offers, without evidence, two alternative theories to explain the surge in deaths.

Reuters states that "The increase appears to be part of an upward trend that started before the first vaccine dose was administered." After lying to us three times, why should we accept this claim without any data to support it? None is presented. 

Reuters goes on to allege that per government officials, 6 people "appear to have caught Covid-19 before they were vaccinated ... Despite testing for COVID-19 before vaccination, the infection had not been detected in them at the time they were vaccinated, but in the days immediately after.”  The "appearance" of an infection before the vaccination is a speculative opinion, not a fact.

Observation 5: The Reuters headline "Vaccine not linked to Covid-19 Deaths in Gibraltar" is deliberately misleading because it can be read in two different ways: 

(1) The vaccine did not cause the deaths in Gibraltar; or (2) No one has proven a link between the Deaths and the Vaccine. The first is unproven. The second only has meaning if a diligent search for a connection had been made -- which is not in evidence.

Verdict on the Reuters Fact Check: FALSE.  

The fact-check, by what is usually considered to be a reliable news source, contains three lies, presents alternative theories without evidence, and presents a misleading headline.  The social media posts, which merely cite undisputed facts that prompted a question, are more credible!

(Because the Fact Check confirmed a surge in deaths following the vaccine rollout in Gibraltar, it tended to support some of what was in the Natural News article that initially piqued my interest.)

Capitol Riot: Connect These Dots -- and Tell Me what you Think

1) Capitol Police: "[T]he responsibility of policing the Capitol [is] under the direction of the presiding officer of the House and Senate" 

2) Capitol Police warned by FBI, NYPD of risk of violence at Capitol: report

3) 'Unacceptable!': Probe Demanded After Footage Shows Capitol Police Standing Aside for Pro-Trump Mob

4) Outgoing Capitol Police chief accuses House, Senate security officials of hindering efforts to call in National Guard

"Sund told The Washington Post in an interview published Sunday night – his first since the events at the Capitol Wednesday — that he asked House and Senate security officials in the days before Congress was set to count the Electoral College votes to allow him to request the D.C. National Guard to be on standby in case troops were needed ahead of the pro-Trump protests. 

 

 "But Sund, who was officially replaced as Capitol Police chief on Friday after his resignation, told tthe newspaper that the officials denied the request."

5) The FBI failed to give a "defensive briefing" to the Trump Campaign of possible foreign influence during the 2016 election while it gave such a briefing to the Clinton Campaign. (added 1/11/21)

6) Non-Trump supporters may have been present. (added 1/12/21)

7) McConnell is said to be pleased about impeachment, believing it will be easier to purge Trump from the G.O.P. (added 1/12/21)

8) FBI report warned of ‘war’ at Capitol, contradicting claims there was no indication of looming violence (compare with #2,4) (added 1/12/21)

9) FBI says there is ‘no indication’ that antifa took part in U.S. Capitol riot (added 1/13/21)

10) FBI director says antifa is an ideology, not an organization (added 1/13/21)

11) Dick Morris: Impeachment Goal: Ban Trump In 2024 (added 1/14/21) 

Connect these dots and tell me what you think.  If you have additional info that might change the conclusion, post a link.   

MARK LEVIN CONNECTED THE DOTS!

12) Mark Levin: There's No Evidence Of Trump Inciting An Insurrection (added 1/16/21)

The new bit of info from this monologue is that Trump and his Secret Service detail were never told of the likelihood of violence.  That would be consistent with #5 above to show a political motive (my opinion).