Wednesday, October 14, 2020

Trump's son Barron had Covid-19, says first lady

 Donald and Melania Trump's son Barron, 14, contracted Covid-19 but has since tested negative, first lady says

 

 

Donald Trump's teenage son Barron tested positive for coronavirus but had no symptoms, according to first lady Melania Trump.

In a personal post on the White House website, entitled 'My personal experience with COVID-19', she said: "Recovering from an illness gives you a lot of time to reflect."

 

 

In the post, she told how she and her US president husband were diagnosed.

"Naturally my mind went immediately to our son. To our great relief he tested negative, but again, as so many parents have thought over the past several months, I couldn't help but think 'what about tomorrow or the next day?'.

"My fear came true when he was tested again and it came up positive. Luckily he is a strong teenager and exhibited no symptoms.

"In one way I was glad the three of us went through this at the same time so we could take care of one another and spend time together.

"He has since tested negative."

 

https://news.sky.com/story/melania-reveals-teenage-son-barron-had-coronavirus-and-says-her-symptoms-hit-her-all-at-once-12104278 

 


 

Coronavirus: France to impose night-time curfew to battle second wave

 

French President Emmanuel Macron has announced that people must stay indoors from 21:00 to 06:00 in Paris and eight other cities to control the rapid spread of coronavirus in the country.

The curfew will come into effect from Saturday and last for at least four weeks, Mr Macron said in a televised interview.

A state of emergency has also been declared.

A further 22,951 infections were confirmed on Wednesday.

Across Europe, governments are introducing new restrictions to battle a second wave of infections.

 

 

A partial lockdown comes into force in the Netherlands at 22:00 (20:00 GMT) and cafes and restaurants are closing.

Earlier on Wednesday, Spain's north-eastern region of Catalonia said that bars and restaurants would close for 15 days from Thursday.

The Czech Republic has shut schools and bars. It has the highest rate of infection in Europe over the past two weeks, at 581.3 cases per 100,000 people

Across Europe, infection rates are rising, with Russia reporting a record 14,321 daily cases on Wednesday and a further 239 deaths.

What are the new measures in France?

President Macron said this wave of coronavirus was different to the outbreak in the spring because the virus had spread to all parts of France.

The night-time curfew will apply to the capital Paris and its suburbs as well as Marseille, Lyon, Lille, Saint-Etienne, Rouen, Toulouse, Grenoble and Montpellier.

It will be applied for four weeks to begin with and Mr Macron's government will seek to extend it to six.

 

 

The measures will stop people visiting restaurants and private homes during the evening and night-time, Mr Macron explained.

Residents will need a valid reason to be outside their homes during the hours of curfew, the president said. Essential trips will be permitted.

Schools will remain open and people will still be able to travel between regions during the day.

"We have to act. We need to put a brake on the spread of the virus," Mr Macron said, adding that he understood that a curfew was a "hard" thing to ask people to do.

Anyone found breaking the curfew will be fined €135 (£121).

Additionally, no more than six people will be allowed to gather inside private homes, but exemptions will be made for large households, Mr Macron explained.

Business that suffer financially due to the new measures will be eligible for state aid, he said, adding that a second nationwide lockdown would be "disproportionate".

"The message I want to send this evening is that I need each of you, we need each other, to find solutions," the president said. "We will get through this, together."

Meanwhile the number of people admitted to hospital in France with Covid-19 rose above 9,100 for the first time since the end of June.

 



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54535358 

 

CIA Director Gina Haspel “May be part of this conspiracy as well”

Earlier this morning Senator Chuck Grassley (Senate Finance Committee Chairman), appeared with Maria Bartiromo to discuss conflicts for documents between the legislative oversight committees, and ongoing stonewalling efforts by current FBI Director Christopher Wray and current CIA Director Gina Haspel.

Senator Grassley and Senator Johnson are seeking the communication from former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and officials within the DOJ and FBI surrounding the investigative targeting of candidate Trump and President Trump.  [LINK] Additionally, both Grassley and Johnson are seeking internal documents connected to former CIA Director John Brennan and current CIA Director Gina Haspel.

During the interview Grassley states the non-compliance with oversight may be due to former and current officials participating in a conspiracy to target the office of the president:

Relevant Deep State/Haspel segment begins at minute 5:40


The proverbial rabbit hole deepens…

Whitmer ‘Kidnapping Plot’ May Have Been An FBI Entrapment Of A Bunch Of Crackpots



A recent thwarted plan to take Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer hostage could have been an FBI entrapment, a defense attorney suggested Tuesday for one of six men charged with conspiracy to kidnap.

Scott Graham, who is representing 26-year-old Kaleb Franks, argued in court there was no real plan to capture Whitmer. Instead, he said the accused were merely acting as “militia wannabees” who engaged in “big talk between crackpots,” according to the Detroit Free Press. In other words, Graham said, those charged in a plot to kidnap Whitmer were “people who talk a lot … but are never going to do anything.” 

“Have you ever dealt with big talkers?” Graham asked an FBI Special Agent Richard Trask during cross examination. “There’s kind of a military-wanna-be theme that runs between militias.”

Graham specifically asked Trask about his testimony that 13 militia members were planning to steal Whitmer from her vacation home and leave her in the middle of Lake Michigan or try the governor for treason in a nearby state. Trask, the paper reported, said he couldn’t offer a specific answer but that there were audio recordings of the members discussing their plans.

Graham argued in court that it was the FBI’s own informant involved with this group that was actively encouraging the others to engage in illegal activity.

“One of the most active leaders was your informant,” Graham charged.

Gary Springstead, who is representing 24-year-old Ty Garbin, also said the use of an informant raised suspicions that without FBI involvement the “plot” would never have gone anywhere.

“(I)t’s become an issue in certain cases where the informant pushes some of the information, and the court and the government and the defense attorneys have to be leery of that,” Springstead told reporters outside the courthouse. “Because their job is not to assess what the government informant wants them to do, it’s to assess the accused’s intent and what they actually planned on doing.”

Prosecutors pushed back on Graham’s claims, citing the militia members allegedly conducting surveillance on Whitmer’s home three times.

“Have you ever heard of someone casing someone’s house?” the federal prosecutor asked the FBI agent on the stand. Trask testified that the group also considered going after Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam.


Senators Demand 300 Pages of Hidden McCabe Texts – FBI Has Refused for Two Years


To provide some context for this letter, even beyond what is stated by Senators Grassley and Johnson, it is worthwhile remembering the 300 pages of text messages between FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and his DOJ lawyer Lisa Page were originally revealed in March of 2019.   Catherine Herridge reported on two of those pages.

Yesterday Grassley and Johnson sent a letter [pdf here] asking FBI Director Chris Wray to stop stonewalling congressional oversight and provide the text messages.  Within the letter the senators outline a few examples highlighting how McCabe and Page were coordinating FBI leaks to their media allies during a key and critical time-frame:

(source pdf – also embed below)

Those 2016 text messages were during the time when an internal argument was taking place about the need for McCabe to recuse himself from the reopening of the Clinton email investigation because he tried to bury the Weiner laptop emails for 28-days in October.

Here’s the letter from Grassley and Johnson:


Here’s the background:

Within this interview below Mr. Comey is questioned about the announcement of re-opening of the Hillary Clinton email investigation on October 28th, 2016.

In his response to why there was a delay between the FBI being notified by New York on September 28th, and waiting until October 28th, James Comey revealed a very important nugget.

The New York U.S. Attorney (SDNY) called Main Justice in DC to ask about why they were not receiving authority for a search warrant. We knew that call took place on October 21st, 2016. Now we know “why” and who New York called at DOJ HQ.

Listen closely to James Comey at 06:06 to 07:30 of the interview (prompted):



Baier: “Did you know that Andrew McCabe, your deputy, had sat on that revelation about the emails”?

Comey: “Yeah, I don’t know that, I don’t know that to be the case. I do know that New York and FBI headquarters became aware that there may be some connection between Weiner’s laptop and the Clinton investigation, weeks before it was brought to me for decision – and as I write in the book I don’t know whether they could have moved faster and why the delay”

Baier: “Was it the threat that New York Agents were going to leak that it existed really what drove you to the ‘not conceal’ part?

Comey: “I don’t think so. I think what actually drove it was the prosecutors in New York who were working the criminal case against Weiner called down to headquarters and said ‘are we getting a search warrant or not for this’? That caused, I’m sorry, Justice Department Headquarters, to then call across the street to the FBI and poke the organization; and they start to move much more quickly. I don’t know why there was, if there was slow activity, why it was slow for those first couple of weeks.”

There’s some really sketchy stuff going on in that answer. Why would SDNY need to get authorization for a search warrant from DC, if this is about Weiner’s laptop? Yes, you could argue it pertains to a tightly held Clinton investigation run out of DC but the Weiner prosecution issues shouldn’t require approval from DC.

But let’s take Comey at face-value…. So there we discover it was justice officials within SDNY (Southern District of New York) who called Main Justice (DOJ in DC) and asked about a needed search warrant for “this”, presumably Weiner’s laptop by inference. Now, let’s go look at the Page/Strzok description of what was going on.

Here are the messages from Lisa Page and Peter Strzok surrounding the original date that New York officials notified Washington DC FBI. It’s important to note the two different entities: DOJ -vs- FBI.

According to the September 28, 2016, messages from FBI Agent Peter Strzok it was the SDNY in New York telling Andrew McCabe in DC about the issue. Pay close attention to the convo:

(pdf source for all messages here)

Notice: “hundreds of thousands of emails turned over by Weiner’s attorney to SDNY”.

Pay super close attention. This is not an outcome of a New York Police Dept. raid on Anthony Weiner. This is Weiner’s attorney going to the U.S. attorney and voluntarily turning over emails. The emails were not turned over to the FBI in New York, the actual emails were turned over to the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District.

Key point here: Weiner’s attorneys turned over “emails”. Actual “emails”.

♦If the U.S. Attorney in New York has the actual physical emails on September 28th, 2016, why would they need a search warrant on October 21st, 2016? (Comey’s call explanation)

♦Why would Weiner’s attorney be handing over evidence?

Think about this carefully. I’ll get back to the importance of it later; but what I suspect is that Weiner had physical material that was his “insurance policy” against anything done to him by Hillary Clinton. Facing a criminal prosecution Weiner’s lawyer went to the U.S. Attorney and attempted to exploit/leverage the content therein on his client’s behalf.

Fast forward three weeks, and we go back to FBI in DC.

On October 21, 2016, this is the call referenced by James Comey in the Bret Baier interview. Someone from New York called “Main Justice” (the DOJ National Security Division in DC) and notified DOJ-NSD Deputy Asst. Attorney General George Toscas of the Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton emails via the “weiner investigation”.

[I would point out again, he’s not being notified of a laptop, Toscas is notified of “emails”]

George Toscas “wanted to ensure information got to Andy“, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe…. so he called FBI Agent Peter Strzok…. who told George Toscas “we know”.

Peter Strzok then tells Bill Priestap.

Of course, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe already knew about the emails since September 28th, 2016, more than three weeks earlier.

In his Bret Baier interview FBI Director James Comey says this call is about a search warrant. There is no indication the call is actually about a search warrant. [Nor would there be a need for a search warrant if the call was actually about the emails that Wiener’s attorney dropped off on 9/21].

However, that phone call kicks off an internal debate about the previously closed Clinton email investigation; and Andrew McCabe sitting on the notification from New York for over three weeks – kicks off an internal FBI discussion about McCabe needing to recuse himself.

Now it’s October 27th, 2016, James Comey chief-of-staff Jim Rybicki wants McCabe to recuse himself. But Rybicki is alone on an island. Lisa Page is furious at such a suggestion, partly because she is McCabe’s legal counsel and if McCabe is recused so too is she.

At the same time as they are debating how to handle the Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton emails, they are leaking to the media to frame a specific narrative.

Important to note here, that at no time is there any conversation -or hint of a conversation- that anyone is reviewing the content of the emails. The discussions don’t mention a single word about content… every scintilla of conversation is about how to handle the issues of the emails themselves. Actually, there’s not a single person mentioned in thousands of text messages that applies to an actual person who is looking at any content.

Quite simply: there is a glaringly transparent lack of an “investigation”.

Within this “tight group” at FBI, as Comey puts it, there is not a single mention of a person who is sitting somewhere looking through the reported “600,000” Clinton emails that was widely reported by media. There’s absolutely ZERO evidence of anyone looking at emails or scouring through laptop data…. and FBI Agent Peter Strzok has no staff under him who he discusses assigned to such a task…. and Strzok damned sure ain’t doing it. So what gives?

Moving on – Note to readers. Click the graphics and read the notes on them too:

It’s still October 27th, 2016, the day before James Comey announces his FBI decision to re-open the Clinton investigation. Jim Rybicki still saying McCabe should be recused from input; everyone else, including FBI Legal Counsel James Baker, is disagreeing with Rybicki and siding with Lisa Page.

Meanwhile the conversation has shifted slightly to “PC”, probable cause. Read:

While Lisa Page is leaking stories to Devlin Barrett (Wall Street Journal), the internal discussion amid the “small group” is about probable cause.

The team is now saying if there was no probable cause when Comey closed the original email investigation in July 2016 (remember the very tight boundaries of review), then there’s no probable cause in October 2016 to reopen the investigation regardless of what the email content might be.

This appears to be how the “small group” or “tight team” justify doing nothing with the content received from New York. They received the emails September 28th and it’s now October 27th, and they haven’t even looked at it. Heck, they are debating if there’s even a need to look at it.

Then on October 28th, 2016, the FBI and Main Justice officials have a conference call about the entire Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton email issue. Here’s where it gets interesting.

George Toscas and David Laufman from DOJ-NSD articulate a position that something needs to happen likely because Main Justice is concerned about the issue of FBI (McCabe) sitting on the emails for over three weeks without any feedback to SDNY (New York).

Thanks to Deputy Director McCabe, Main Justice in DC, specifically DOJ National Security Division, now looks like they are facilitating a cover-up operation being conducted by the FBI “small group”. [which is actually true, but they can’t let that be so glaringly obvious].

As a result of the Top-Tier officials conference call, Strzok is grumpy agent because his opinion appears to be insignificant. The decision is reached to announce the re-opening of the investigation. This sends Lisa Page bananas…

…In rapid response mode Lisa Page reaches out to Devlin Barrett, again to quickly shape the media coverage. Now that the world is aware of the need for a Clinton email investigation 2.0 the internal conversation returns to McCabe’s recusal.

Please note within all of the released communication, emails and texts, at no time is anyone in the FBI directing an actual investigation of the content of the Clinton emails. Every single second of every FBI effort is devoted to shaping the public perception of the need for the investigation.

The FBI group is seeding media with voluminous leaks; every media outlet is being scoured and watched; every article is being read; and the entire apparatus of the FBI small group are shaping coverage by contacting their leak outlets.




No, Taking Police Out Of Schools And Refusing To Discipline Won’t Help Brown Kids

If Minneapolis school officials and other educators across the country want to keep students safe, they should abandon student discipline policies based on quotas and eradicate notions of 'defunding the police.'



Dangerous calls from activists to “defund the police,” including school police, were splashed across the headlines over the summer. Now officials in one school district at the forefront of the movement are having second thoughts.

Minneapolis Public School officials were among the first to announce they were canceling their contract with local law enforcement for school security after the tragic incident involving George Floyd occurred in that city. That the episode happened in Minneapolis was the only thing connecting local public schools, law enforcement, and Floyd. The incident had nothing to do with school safety nor the performance of local law enforcement in the schools. 

The Board of Education had been looking to make such a move since at least 2017, and the heightened attention to police and racial unrest this year allowed the board to appear responsive to current events, even if the policy makes schools less safe in the event of a violent incident.

According to recent reports, however, these same school officials are considering hiring private security contractors who have backgrounds in — you guessed it — law enforcement. The vote to disband the district’s contract with local police might have been a nod to “woke” activists, but the board appears to lack confidence in the change.

It’s hard to blame them. Minneapolis school officials and others made similar moves to adopt progressive ideas for school safety and student discipline in the past, even if the research did not substantiate those ideas.

In line with a federal directive issued under the Obama administration in 2014, Minneapolis school officials use school discipline policies to lower the figure of minority students and children with special needs who faced suspension or expulsion, called “exclusionary discipline.” The district’s stated discipline policy aims to reduce “suspensions and out-of-class time, especially for our African American males and students receiving special education services,” putting data collection ahead of student behavior. 

Research demonstrates that limiting exclusionary discipline does not improve student learning nor make members of a school community feel safer. We all agree that racist acts are a blight on our society, but a survey of the research on school discipline says that “once prior [student] misbehavior is taken into account, the racial differences in severity of discipline melt away,” a finding representative of the literature on this topic.

The Obama administration’s 2014 letter on school discipline threatened to investigate schools if minority students faced exclusionary discipline at higher per capita rates than white students. Large school districts around the country, such as Broward County, Florida, and the Los Angeles Unified School District, were either already limiting suspensions and expulsions in schools before the letter or did so after the administration issued the missive.

Quota-based systems that discipline students differently depending on their race or ethnicity do not take into account critical factors that affect behavior and misbehavior. Examples include the concentration of minority students from single-parent families, as well as the concentration of dangerous neighborhoods near a particular school. Researchers from the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Chicago, to name a few, suggest such factors are important.

To improve these conditions, families deserve robust policy solutions. They need more opportunities to choose how and where students learn through charter schools and private school scholarships, not manufactured data reports on discipline. 

The Trump administration appropriately rescinded the Obama-era Dear Colleague letter that limited school discipline because the research didn’t support it and because the “disparate impact” standard on which the letter was based is simply unlawful. Under the disparate impact theory, a public policy that affects proportionately more minority individuals would still be deemed discriminatory even when it does not seek to discriminate by treating people differently according to their race.

Disparate impact theory continues to drive discipline policies in some school systems today, including Seattle and Milwaukee. While the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to strike down disparate impact directly, ample opinions demonstrate the legal problems with basing policy on this philosophy. As the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said in 1997 in People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education:

Racial disciplinary quotas violate equity in its root sense. They entail either systematically overpunishing the innocent or systematically underpunishing the guilty. They place race at war with justice. They teach schoolchildren an unedifying lesson of racial entitlements.

If Minneapolis school officials and other educators across the country want to keep students safe, they should abandon student discipline policies based on quotas. Teachers and parents — those adults closest to children every day — should work together to evaluate each incident on its own merits and make decisions in a child’s best interests regardless of his or her race.


Fauci ‘in Bed with Forces,’ ‘Decisions not Based on Science,’ ‘Killing Americans.’

Why Is No One Investigating Him?




You may not have heard, but on August 23, a guy named Harvey Risch made some shocking accusations against Anthony Fauci.

Of course, that by itself doesn’t say much since a lot of people have accused Anthony Fauci of a lot of things since he stepped into the spotlight as the de facto leader of America’s response to COVID-19.

But Harvey Risch isn’t just anybody. Risch is a professor of epidemiology at Yale University. He has an M.D. from UC San Diego, a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, and he’s published over 300 papers in a career that spans four decades.

Harvey Risch can’t be dismissed as a “crackpot conspiracy theorist.” You can’t brush aside such unbelievably serious accusations with some mantra about “following the science” when a world-renowned scientist is the one making them.

Yet what’s in a way more alarming than Risch’s accusations themselves is the way they, nonetheless, have been completely brushed aside. There hasn’t been a single call by anyone to investigate whether there’s any truth to what Risch is saying. As the palace guard says after seeing the ghost of Hamlet’s father, something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Very rotten.

Risch claims that Fauci has knowingly lied about the drug hydroxychloroquine and used his influence to get the FDA to help him suppress it because he and other bureaucrats are “in bed with other forces that are causing them to make decisions that are not based on the science [and are] killing Americans.”

Moreover, Risch specifically claims that Fauci and the FDA have caused ” the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans who could have been saved by” HCQ

Dr. Risch was mentioned in an open letter lambasting Fauci for lying about HCQ written by three working physicians I reported on a couple of months back.

Drs. George C. Fareed, Michael M. Jacobs, and Donald C. Pompan open with a perfect description of the disturbing way Fauci’s opinions are presented as incontrovertible fact “without formal public opposition from physicians who passionately disagree,” which, despite his media branding as a “man of science,” is actually the antithesis of how science should operate and, in fact, emblematic of a cult.

From the very beginning of the pandemic:

“[P]hysicians worldwide discovered that high-risk patients can be treated successfully as outpatients, within the first five to seven days of the onset of symptoms, with a “cocktail” consisting of hydroxychloroquine, zinc and azithromycin (or doxycycline). Multiple scholarly contributions to the literature detail the efficacy of the hydroxychloroquine-based combination treatment.”

Besides the “hundreds of physicians in the United States and thousands across the globe who have had dramatic success treating high-risk individuals” with HCQ,  there are also “at least 10 studies demonstrating” its effectiveness.

The three MDs go on to cite an article by esteemed Yale epidemiologist, Dr. Harvey Risch in the American Journal of Epidemiology that urged in its very title – sadly to no avail – that prescribing HCQ should be “…Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis.”

The trio of doctors point out that Dr. Risch and the thousands of physicians worldwide who’ve had such great success with HCQ recommend it only for high-risk patients within the first five to seven days of the onset of symptoms. It also has to be administered in a “cocktail” along with zinc and another medication. No one has ever claimed that HCQ is effective when taken by itself or more than a week after symptoms first appear.

Yet, as Drs. Fareed, Jacobs, and Pompan go on to directly rebuke Fauci for shamelessly deceiving the public about, all of the randomized controlled trials which he claimed show that HCL is ineffective either used HCL by itself without the rest of the full cocktail or didn’t administer it within the first five to seven days after symptoms appeared.

The studies Fauci’s touting to suppress HCQ might as well be about some other drug entirely for all the relevance they have to the actual course of treatment those who’ve been saving lives with it since the outbreak began are recommending.

Harvey Risch and Drs. Fareed, Jacobs, and Pompan are by no means the only physicians or scientists who’ve called out Fauci for ignoring established scientific facts and research to justify inflicting ruinous and deadly fake remedies on us.

As I pointed out way back in July, though the media pretends that Fauci’s opinions represent some kind of scientific consensus. literally thousands of working physicians and distinguished scientists have been calling out his deadly quack medicine since almost the very beginning. Their numbers even include Nobel Prize-winning biophysicist, Michael Levitt.


In May, over 600 physicians from “all specialties and from all states” signed a public letter to President Trump  describing, not COVID-19, but Fauci’s lockdowns as a “mass casualty incident.” Their letter warned:

It is impossible to overstate the short, medium, and long-term harm to people’s health with a continued shutdown. Losing a job is one of life’s most stressful events, and the effect on a persons health is not lessened because it also has happened to 30 million other people. Keeping schools and universities closed is incalculably detrimental for children, teenagers, and young adults for decades to come. The millions of casualties of a continued shutdown will be hiding in plain sight, but they will be called alcoholism, homelessness, suicide, heart attack, stroke, or kidney failure. In youths it will be called financial instability, unemployment, despair, drug addiction, unplanned pregnancies, poverty, and abuse.


The original 600 physicians who signed that letter warning us that Fauci was inflicting a literal mass casualty incident on America has since grown to the thousands.

The fact is the shocking number of experts warning that Fauci’s advice had no scientific basis and is causing an unprecedented disaster means that he should have been investigated ages ago. But Harvey Risch has gone a step further and explicitly charged Fauci with suppressing a drug he knows full well would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives because he’s “in bed with forces” who benefit.

Risch also says that this is by no means the first time Fauci has caused Americans to die by depriving them of life-saving medication. He says that Fauci did exactly the same when AIDS emerged in the 80s, resulting in over 17,000 needless deaths:

This was started, and most noticeably in 1987, when people with AIDS in New York City were dying of what is called pneumocystis pneumonia, PCP, and the clinical experience then had been amassed. A large number of cases who were prevented from dying by use of the antibiotic, Bactrim. This is even then was a generic medication and cheap.

And activists obtained a meeting with Dr. Fauci and 15 of his selected scientists at F.D.A., at N.I.H. and asked Dr. Fauci just to make guidelines to physicians that they consider using Bactrim to treat preventively AIDS people so that they wouldn’t die of this pneumonia. Dr. Fauci refused. He said, I want randomized, controlled, blinded, controlled trial evidence. That’s my gold standard. That or nothing.

The activists left. The N.I.H. did not fund any randomized trials. They raised money themselves from their own AIDS patients to collect the data to do a randomized trial. It took them two years. They came back to Dr. Fauci. During those two years, the F.D.A. approved AZT as a treatment for AIDS, AZT works, but not completely. It needs other medications as well.

And during the two years that it took them to get this data to come back to Dr. Fauci to support using Bactrim, 17,000 people with AIDS died because of Dr. Fauci’s insistence on not allowing even a statement supporting consideration of the use.

Moreover, Fauci himself even admits to”killing people with red tape” by withholding life-saving AIDS medication!

The gay groups said we were killing people with red tape. When the smoke cleared we realized that much of their criticism was absolutely valid.

It’s difficult to understand how he even kept his job after that.

But something is even more seriously wrong when thousands of doctors and scientists spend months warning us that Fauci is peddling pseudoscientific quack medicine that’s causing a mass casualty incident and a world-renowned Yale epidemiologist goes on to openly accuse him of causing hundreds of thousands of deaths by suppressing medication he knows is effective because he’s in bed with special interests yet not a single person in authority has evinced the slightest concern about whether any of this is true.

As my colleague Bonchie reported this morning, in an interview on CNN yesterday Fauci claimed he’s unable to think of a single reason besides COVID-19 for the excess deaths America has suffered since his lockdowns began.

He must not read the Washington Post. Even they reported Fauci’s lockdowns had killed over 13,000 Alzheimer’s patients by August 15 alone. God knows how many more have died since.


Of course, that’s just a number. Sometimes to fully grasp how awful something is we need to see a picture…


…or a video…


Or to read one woman’s awful story of how Fauci’s policies caused her beloved mother to suffer and die.


I know what some of you are thinking.

It was a tradeoff. Lockdown was a difficult decision that had to be made in order to save countless more people from dying of COVID-19.

Except this is utter BS. There was never a shred of scientific evidence that putting healthy people in quarantine would accomplish anything and everything we know about viruses made it 100% certain it wouldn’t.

Even the CDC’s most recent pandemic planning guide from 2017 admits that “direct evidence for the effectiveness of these measures is limited.” And by limited they meant non-existent. There isn’t a single study that supports the idea that isolating healthy people does a damn thing to stop viruses from spreading.

The European Centre for Disease Control’s summary of the research was more honest. They noted that “there are few, if any, empirical data underpinning these assumptions” that workplace closures do anything to stop viruses from spreading. Indeed, they found no evidence for the effectiveness of any social distancing measures.


Another review of the research published in the journal, Biosecurity and Bioterrorism, concluded:

There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread of influenza.

And the reason they mention influenza specifically is that every single study that has been done on the subject was narrowly focused on whether isolation stops the spread of the flu. So, even if any of them had shown that social distancing would do anything, WHICH NOT A SINGLE ONE DID, it still wouldn’t have proved anything about COVID-19.

Finally, as the previous study noted, even the World Health Organization had concluded that “forced isolation and quarantine are ineffective and impractical.”


You can find lots of research saying that there was no reason to think putting healthy people in quarantine would accomplish anything. But you won’t find a single one that claims there’s any solid reason to think it would.

And everything we know about viruses made it a given that social distancing wouldn’t do a damn thing to stop one from spreading.

Respiratory viruses travel in tiny pockets of moisture called aerosols that almost certainly make their way across the ocean.

In 1969, a group of people in Antarctica experienced a spontaneous respiratory virus outbreak in their 17th week of isolation!


And if you’re thinking that it’s possible that none of that applies to COVID-19, you’ve got another think coming. An Argentinian naval ship suffered a COVID-19 outbreak after 35 days at sea which were preceded by 14 days of isolation for everyone on board.


But forget that. Researchers have found aerosols containing live COVID-19 virus 16-feet away from the only people who could have possibly shed them. That’s as far as they tried to find them and, as that crew of Argentinian sailors found out, they’re bound to travel a lot farther than that.


Moreover, as stupid as the idea of quarantining healthy people was, we weren’t even truly isolated at all. Instead of shopping in local stores, we were funneled into megastores like Walmart and Costco and exposed to the germs of literally thousands of people we otherwise would have never had an opportunity to catch a disease from.

The utter ineffectiveness of the measures we were conned into adopting was as obvious from the very beginning as the massive harm they would cause which Fauci and the others pushing them pretended didn’t even exist. There was literally no scientific justification for thinking lockdown would accomplish anything except raining down hardship, misery, and death on the heads of the American people, which was 100% guaranteed.

If it hadn’t been marketed under the nifty sounding name “social distancing” along with that idiotic slogan we were taught to mindlessly bark at each other, Flatten the curve!, but instead been described accurately as quarantining the healthy, everyone would have immediately realized the preposterous BS we were being fed.

Since lockdowns were imposed, there have been at least eight studies showing what anyone who looked into the matter and wasn’t an imbecile would have known from the start. Lockdowns did absolutely nothing to slow down the virus’s spread or decrease the number of people who allegedly died from it. Areas that lockdown did no better than those that didn’t. In fact, some studies found the reverse to be the case.

Dr. Dan Erickson is one of the leaders of a group of working physicians called Frontline Doctors who organized to oppose the deadly anti-science policies Fauci inflicted on us.

He’s been trying since almost the beginning of this nightmare to get people to understand that “social distancing” – which somehow wasn’t mentioned when the Swine Flu hit under Obama or in all of recorded human history prior to the propaganda campaign that kicked off seven months ago – should really be described as quarantining the healthy. As such, it contradicts the basic tenets of both microbiology and immunology.

We decided to keep people at home and isolate them, even though everything we’ve studied about quarantine…[says] you quarantine the sick. When someone has measles you quarantine them. We’ve never…[taken] those without disease and without symptoms and lock[ed] them in [their] homes. So, some of these things [given] what we’ve studied from immunology and microbiology aren’t really meshing with what we know as people of science

You’ll notice that I haven’t use the title “Dr.” when referring to Fauci. That’s something that has to stop right now. Fauci literally hasn’t seen a single patient in his entire 50-year professional career. And calling him Dr. Fauci is obscene – like referring to Joseph Mengele as Dr. Mengele.

Because those tens of thousands of elderly Americans suffering from Alzheimer’s that Fauci’s policies killed are just the tip of the iceberg even putting aside the hundreds of thousands of deaths Dr. Risch says Fauci knowingly condemned to death and the tens of thousands of AIDS patients he’s admitted to “killing with red tape” as if it were no big deal.

And, as my colleague Bonchie noted in his column this morning, Fauci knows full well about all the devastation and death he’s inflicted on us. “He’s not stupid, he just thinks you are.”

Are we really supposed to believe he didn’t know that shutting down medical care for all other ailments was going to kill a lot of people?

Did he not realize that isolating American’s struggling with depression or addiction from other human beings would drive a lot of them to suicide or back to deadly drugs?

Was he unaware that inflicting economic hardship on them while taking away their daily routine would push even more past the brink of despair?

Random people on Twitter were pointing out the horrors Fauci’s cruel and pointless lockdowns would bring before the hellish nightmare he inflicted on our most vulnerable fellow citizens even began. But we’re supposed to believe none of this ever occurred to Fauci at all? And, in fact, that to this day it still hasn’t?

Well-known people with huge platforms also warned of what was to come at the very beginning. But Fauci somehow never heard anything about or even considered it?


Doctors take an oath to “first do no harm.” So for heaven’s sake, under no circumstances should you or anyone else be calling Anthony Fauci, Dr.

If you don’t get it, take another look at that video above of the poor old woman breaking down from loneliness and trying to claw her way out of the prison Fauci put her, reread the awful account of the miserable and degrading death he inflicted on another woman’s mother, then imagine how many times similar scenes have played themselves out these past seven months.

There was ample reason to fire and investigate Fauci months ago. But how is it possible that a renowned epidemiologist from Yale can openly accuse Fauci of suppressing medication he knows would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives because he’s “in bed with forces” who profit from such unspeakable evil without anyone in authority becoming concerned enough to look into the matter?

Something’s very wrong with America at this moment in time. And if it doesn’t get right soon, it’s hard to see how our nation has much of a future.