The War on Reality

[Michael Ejercito]

http://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-war-on-reality-gutentag


The War on Reality
As the mainstream narrative about the origin of COVID-19 falls apart,
it’s time to put other widely accepted facts about the virus—and the
devastating measures they were used to justify—under the same scrutiny
BY
ALEX GUTENTAG
JUNE 27, 2021
Michael Loccisano/Getty Images
MICHAEL LOCCISANO/GETTY IMAGES
On March 13, 2020, the public school district where I teach announced
that all classrooms and buildings would be closed for two weeks. Then
two weeks turned into two months, and two months turned into over a full
year without in-person instruction. My school serves a diverse
population of low-income students in the San Francisco Bay Area. It is
impossible to overstate the severity of this disruption caused by school
closures for these students, many of whom did not have a computer or
internet at home when virtual learning began. Online, my students got
only a fraction of the regular curriculum. Kids who had once loved the
social aspects of school were left with only the parts of school they
hated, and students with disabilities who depended on school for daily
living needs were cut off from a vital service.

“Public health” and “the safety of our children” came to mean students
Zooming from homeless encampments, experiencing severe abuse, regressing
academically, falling into depression, going hungry, struggling through
catastrophic learning loss, and, in the saddest cases, not making it
through the year alive. Despite consistent evidence that schools were
not sites of high transmission for COVID-19, many teachers failed to put
aside baseless fears about classroom superspreading and rampant
infection. As a result, many of the most vulnerable children in our
society suffered outrageous hardships, while their affluent peers
attended private schools in person. We’ve all been told that school
closures and lockdowns were mandated by science, but what if these
mandates were immoral? What if they were based on a series of lies? In
fact, what if the entire rationale for most restrictions was actually
rotten to the core?

We’re watching the mainstream pandemic narrative starting to unravel.
While the Senate and House intelligence committees investigate the
origins of SARS-CoV-2, many reporters are openly wondering why they
initially dismissed the lab leak hypothesis as “misinformation.” Few in
media consider the possibility that their approach to the theory was not
an anomaly, but rather a long-established pattern of journalistic
dereliction of duty. For the public, these renewed questions about the
virus (and their hard-to-face answers) speak to a deep sense that
something is amiss in the story we’ve been told by major media outlets.
But gain-of-function research is just the tip of the iceberg.

A trove of media darling Dr. Anthony Fauci’s emails was recently
released to the public. The emails reveal early assertions that
asymptomatic transmission is rare, that post-infection immunity is
highly likely, and that masks are “not really effective.” However, you
wouldn’t know that from the public messaging since the start of the
pandemic, in which bureaucrats and journalists upheld lasting
misconceptions that asymptomatic cases are dangerous, natural immunity
is not a factor in protecting the population, and individuals are
responsible for viral spread. These misconceptions fueled countless
months of lockdowns, business closures, and job losses, pushing millions
of people into poverty and despair through the destructive lie that
stringent “sick until proven healthy” interventions save lives.

In reality, the rushed doomsday forecasts and commitment to politically
correct pseudoscience prompted leaders to abandon decades of pandemic
planning. This not only had disastrous economic consequences, but it
also exacerbated the effects of COVID-19 itself. And rather than swiftly
correct their errors, public health officials and politicians doubled
down, manipulated data, and blamed ordinary people for the failure of
nonsensical policies. The uncomfortable truth is that “The Science” did
not protect vulnerable populations. Instead, “expert” advice served only
to make the pandemic more deadly and replace the scientific process with
destructive anti-science.

Saving Lives by Killing People
In December 2020, 35% of Americans believed that half of the people with
COVID-19 required hospitalization. The correct figure was 1%-5%.
Americans also estimated that the share of COVID-19 deaths for people
between 18 and 24 was 8%. It was actually 0.1%. These incorrect
assumptions were influenced by anecdotes, shocking media coverage, and
early projections like the influential Imperial College model, which
threatened that without lockdowns there would be 40 million COVID-19
deaths worldwide. The model assumed an infection fatality rate (IFR) of
0.9%, but the actual IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15% and the median IFR for
people under 70 is 0.05%.

As a result of mistaken prognostications like this, the media compared
COVID-19 to the 1918 influenza pandemic, for which the average age of
death was 28. For COVID-19 the average age of death is 73, and about
half of all deaths are in people 80 or older. While the CDC projected a
one-year decrease in life expectancy for the U.S. population, the
overall decrease in life expectancy was only five days, and the U.S.’s
excess mortality in 2017 was greater than its excess mortality in 2020.

There is no better example of the harm created by flawed simulations,
and the subsequent misguided interventions, than New York’s disastrous
nursing home policy. While Gov. Andrew Cuomo landed a $5 million book
deal and won an Emmy for his televised briefings, conditions on the
ground for COVID-19 patients in his state were catastrophic. Over 9,000
elderly COVID-19 patients were sent from hospitals back to nursing
homes. Additionally, Cuomo required group homes for people with
intellectual disabilities to take COVID-19 patients and attempted to
issue a blanket DNR guideline for all cardiac patients in New York City.
He also denied nursing homes’ requests for testing kits, ignored the
concerns of families, and gave immunity to nursing home executives. This
resulted in the deaths of nearly 15,000 long-term-care patients.

These deaths did not occur because Cuomo ignored scientists and
researchers. They occurred precisely because Cuomo was adhering to
predictions from his team of experts who projected the need for 140,000
hospital beds and 40,000 ICUs. Ultimately, New York’s actual bed and ICU
use peaked in mid-April at 18,825 and 5,225, respectively. The deadly
decisions the governor’s office made were motivated by a perceived need
to save resources and space—a manufactured imperative based on
fictitious IFR figures and a baseless belief in universal risk.

Moreover, although some New York hospitals were overwhelmed, many were
not. While Elmhurst hospital in Queens was at full capacity in April,
the hospital had 26 new ambulances to take patients to 3,500 empty beds
in New York City, many within a 20-minute drive. Because of panic
induced by horrific forecasts, New York City doctors cited the need for
“wartime ethics” when advising patients and families about DNRs. At some
hospitals, doctors were informally allowed to override patients’ desires
for medical intervention. These ethical violations were urged on by
crazed media coverage and an environment of psychological terror, but
they were not justified by the true level of danger involved in treating
patients.

Despite concerns about hospital beds and ICUs, field hospitals across
the country remained largely empty, costing taxpayers $660 million
despite the fact that most of them did not serve any patients. Cuomo’s
nursing home order was replicated by four other Democratic governors,
and one-third of all American deaths from the virus are now linked to
nursing homes. As a consequence of these practices, New York State has
the second-highest COVID-19 mortality rate in the country.

Following the Science
Three of the top four states in overall COVID-19 mortality have
Democratic governors who “followed the science” long after the initial
promises that it would only take “two weeks to flatten the curve.”
Although these states have high population density, density is often
associated with lower COVID-19 death rates. After Texas Gov. Greg Abbott
lifted all his state’s restrictions in April, Texas saw no resulting
surge in cases, hospitalizations, or deaths. In fact, many states that
continued restrictions saw higher cases and deaths than states that
lifted restrictions early.

FOLLOWING THE ANTI-SCIENCE
Science section icon
America’s Smug Elite Is Harming Our Kids
The push to decouple skepticism from science turns schoolchildren into
victims
BYJACOB HALE RUSSELLANDDENNIS PATTERSON
Science section icon
Science Says
Becoming worshippers at the altar of ‘Science.’ Bad for our health, bad
for science, bad for society.
BYNORMAN DOIDGE
Science section icon
The Herd Immunity Taboo
Purity and danger: Why some are strangely comforted by lockdowns,
fearful of herd immunity, and quick to punish anyone who questions the
stark choice between them
BYNORMAN DOIDGE
These trends are consistent with dozens of peer-reviewed studies and
retrospective analyses indicating that stay-at-home orders did not have
an impact on rates of fatal infection and that comparisons between many
countries do not show superior outcomes from lockdowns. Besides
hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care settings, households
show some of the highest rates of transmission, while the share of
transmission that has happened outdoors is less than 0.1%. Furthermore,
vitamin D and exercise have both been linked to better outcomes for
COVID-19 patients. In the U.S. 78% of people hospitalized for COVID-19
were overweight or obese. Lockdowns caused Americans to gain an average
of two pounds per month and reduce their daily steps by 27%, thereby
increasing the likelihood of adverse COVID-19 outcomes.

Not only were government orders confining people to their homes highly
detrimental, but the early recommended treatment procedures for the
virus were often fatal. Although experts and the media claimed that
ventilators were lifesaving, death rates in most states actually dropped
dramatically once the use of ventilators was abandoned in favor of other
treatments. In order to meet what was supposed to be an astronomical
medical demand, the U.S. spent $3 billion manufacturing ventilators, but
by August 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services had
distributed only 15,057 ventilators, leaving 95,713 of them untouched in
a federal stockpile.

Usually, 40%-50% of patients in severe respiratory distress die on
ventilators, but in New York City the death rate for COVID-19 patients
on ventilators was 88%. Hospital staff often intubated patients
prematurely or left them on ventilators for 10-15 days. Patients were
given unusually heavy sedatives so that staff would be able to check on
them less frequently. U.S. hospitals received $13,000 for each Medicare
COVID-19 patient and $39,000 for each Medicare patient they intubated.
These patients were separated from their families and had no one to
advocate for them. Many people died after terrified doctors, misinformed
about the scale of the risks, used intubation as a way to avoid virus
exposure.

When lockdowns began, commentators referred to herd immunity as a
“genocidal” concept that meant exposing vulnerable people to disease.
That is actually what happens when natural immunity is prevented.
Lockdowns limit and delay the acquired immunity of the younger
population, making older people more vulnerable to exposure, especially
in the absence of focused protection measures. Long-lasting immunity
from COVID-19 is acquired after mild or asymptomatic cases, and
sensational stories about “long COVID” and “COVID heart” have been
debunked. In-person learning was not correlated with lower rates of
student illness and school closures may have actually worsened death rates.

Clearly, quarantining the healthy did exactly the opposite of what was
sold to the public: It increased non-COVID-19 excess deaths while
leaving elderly and immunocompromised people completely unprotected.
While some may excuse the destructiveness of lockdowns as a simple
error, the sheer volume of reversals public health officials have made
during the pandemic paints a picture of bureaucrats intentionally
misleading the public in order to cover up their failures or pursue
agendas unrelated to public health.

Moving the Goal Posts
Experts have consistently taken an imprecise approach to statistics,
changed their minds, and withheld information while claiming the mantle
of “scientific consensus.” Over the summer of 2020, the WHO quietly
changed its definition of herd immunity from protection acquired through
both natural immunity and vaccination to one acquired only through
vaccination. Similarly, in December 2020, Fauci declared that he was
changing his estimate for vaccination rates needed to achieve herd
immunity from 60% to 90%. When asked for a scientific rationale, Fauci
said he changed the percentage based purely on polling that indicated
more Americans were willing to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

When lockdowns failed to yield meaningful mitigation results, public
health agencies that had previously recommended against masking changed
their position. Although simulations suggested that 80% mask compliance
would do more to stop the spread of COVID-19 than lockdowns, regional
analysis in the United States does not show that mandates had any effect
on case rates, despite 93% compliance. Moreover, according to CDC data,
85% of people who contracted COVID-19 reported wearing a mask.

Research has shown that once unquestioned rules like 6 feet for social
distancing are arbitrary and not actually associated with lower
transmission. Reporting of death and hospitalization rates was also
inexact, and mass asymptomatic testing distorted public understanding of
the virus. Ninety-five percent of COVID-19 deaths had an average of four
related underlying conditions and the CDC’s death count includes “deaths
involving unintentional and intentional injury.” As a result of testing
children hospitalized for unrelated conditions, the number of pediatric
COVID-19 hospitalizations was exaggerated by at least 40%.

The PCR testing protocol for COVID-19 was based on a paper by Christian
Drosten, which was peer-reviewed and published within just two days in a
journal on whose editorial board Drosten sits. The method was created
“without having virus material available,” using instead a genetic
sequence published online. The PCR test amplifies genetic material of
the virus in cycles but does not determine whether a case is infectious.
A higher number of cycles indicates a lower viral load. The cycle
threshold for PCR tests used in the U.S. was usually limited at 37 or
40, highly sensitive levels. In July 2020, Fauci remarked that at these
levels, a positive result is “just dead nucleotides, period.”

For vaccinated Americans, the CDC has lowered the cycle threshold for
“breakthrough infections” to only 28 cycles and announced that
post-vaccine cases will only be counted if they result in
hospitalization or death. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky stated that
vaccinated Americans who died and tested positive for COVID-19 merely
died “with” COVID-19, not “from” COVID-19. This method of tallying would
eliminate many pre-vaccine cases. It is also likely that 85%-90% of
tests that are positive at a cycle threshold of 40 would be negative at
a cycle threshold of 30.

Despite this lack of accurate data, authorities have consistently
scapegoated members of the public as “anti-maskers” or “anti-vaxxers”
responsible for prolonging the pandemic. They have used divisive
messaging and disorienting scare tactics in order to justify months of
COVID-19 restrictions that were based on dogma, not on science.

Scientific Inversion
Our current state of scientific inversion has sown intense division in
the U.S. and threatens to rip apart the social fabric. For the past 16
months, the public has been told that it is our duty to serve the needs
of medical institutions and personnel, not the other way around.
Effective low-cost therapeutics like ivermectin were dismissed in favor
of a vaccine program that transferred billions of dollars from taxpayers
to pharmaceutical executives and shareholders. Critics of measures like
school closures were accused of far-right white supremacy, even though
these measures were most damaging to working-class people and
minorities. Deadly policies were portrayed as lifesaving, and public
health protocols caused immense clinical damage.

A few people have benefited from this war on reality while many have
paid a heavy price. In 2020, workers lost $3.7 trillion, while
billionaires gained $3.9 trillion and 493 new individuals became
billionaires. During this same period, decades of progress against
diseases like malaria and tuberculosis were reversed. Disruptions to
health and nutrition services killed 228,000 children in South Asia.
Globally, the impact of lockdowns on health programs, food production,
and supply chains plunged millions of people into severe hunger and
malnutrition.

In the U.S., we are facing a crisis of cardiovascular disease and
undiagnosed cancer. Unemployment shock will cause 890,000 additional
deaths over the next 15 years. Overdoses from synthetic opioids
increased by 38.4%, and 11% of U.S. adults considered suicide last June.
Three million children disappeared from public school systems, and ERs
saw a 31% increase in adolescent mental health visits.

Now, the stories that were used to justify these hardships are
continuing to unravel. Many of the people responsible will insist that
the second-order consequences are the horrible symptoms of a magic virus
and that the mistakes made in handling such a crisis were inevitable.
But preventing young children from reaching crucial developmental
milestones in the face of mounting evidence is not just a “mistake.”
Forcing hospital patients to die alone without saying goodbye to their
families is not just a “mistake.” Pushing millions of people into
poverty and starvation is not just a “mistake.” These are crimes.

Basic civil, human, and economic rights were violated under demonstrably
fraudulent pretenses. The sacrifices we thought we were making for the
common good were sacrifices made in vain. Unlawful lockdowns demoralized
the population and ruined lives. The tragic reality is that this was all
for nothing. The only way to prevent these events from recurring is to
exhaustively investigate not just the origin of the virus, but every
corrupt and misguided decision made by politicians, NGOs, public health
organizations, and scientific institutions made since its fateful emergence.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[HeartDoc Andrew]

The only *healthy* way to stop the pandemic, thereby saving lives, in
the U.S. & elsewhere is by rapidly ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 )
finding out at any given moment, including even while on-line, who
among us are unwittingly contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or
asymptomatic) in order to http://bit.ly/convince_it_forward (John
15:12) for them to call their doctor and self-quarantine per their
doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic. Thus, we're hoping for the
best while preparing for the worse-case scenario of the Alpha lineage
mutations and others like the Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, & Delta
lineage mutations combining to form hybrids that render current COVID
vaccines no longer effective.

Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 )
and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.

So how are you ?








...because we mindfully choose to openly care with our heart,

HeartDoc Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cardiologist with an http://bit.ly/EternalMedicalLicense
2016 & upwards non-partisan candidate for U.S. President:
http://bit.ly/WonderfullyHungryPresident
and author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrewCare
which is the only **healthy** cure for the U.S. healthcare crisis

[Michael Ejercito]

I am wonderfully hungry!


Michael

[HeartDoc Andrew]

MichaelE wrote:

> I am wonderfully hungry!



While wonderfully hungry in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy
8:3) us to hunger, I note that you, Michael, not only don't have
COVID-19 but are rapture (Luke 17:37) ready and pray (2 Chronicles
7:14) that our Everlasting (Isaiah 9:6) Father in Heaven continues to
give us "much more" (Luke 11:13) Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) so
that we'd have much more of His Help to always say/write that we're
"wonderfully hungry" in **all** ways including especially caring to
http://bit.ly/convince_it_forward (John 15:12 as shown by
http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 ) with all glory (
http://bit.ly/Psalm117_ ) to GOD (aka HaShem, Elohim, Abba, DEO), in
the name (John 16:23) of LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Laus DEO !

Be hungrier, which really is wonderfully healthier especially for
diabetics and other heart disease patients:

http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrewToutsHunger (Luke 6:21a) with all glory to
GOD, Who causes us to hunger (Deuteronomy 8:3) when He blesses us
right now (Luke 6:21a) thereby removing the http://HeartMDPhD.com/VAT
from around the heart

...because we mindfully choose to openly care with our heart,

HeartDoc Andrew <><

[Michael Ejercito]

Thank you for noting that I do not have COVID-19.

[HeartDoc Andrew]

> Thank you for noting that I do not have COVID-19.

Laus DEO ( http://bit.ly/Psalm117_ )