Saturday, May 22, 2021

New Study Shows COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects May Be More Common and Severe in Recovered Recipients

A new study of COVID-19 vaccine recipients globally should give the public health community a reason to reevaluate recommendations that everyone needs to be vaccinated regardless of prior infection with the virus. The researchers surveyed slightly more than 2,000 self-reporting vaccinated individuals who were at least seven days past their first vaccine dose and monitored their reports of side effects and their severity through the vaccination process. They compared the results for recovered patients with a confirmed COVID-19 PCR or antigen test with those who had not had COVID-19. From the study (emphasis mine):

People with prior COVID-19 exposure were largely excluded from the vaccine trials and, as a result, the safety and reactogenicity of the vaccines in this population have not been previously fully evaluated. For the first time, this study demonstrates a significant association between prior COVID19 infection and a significantly higher incidence and severity of self-reported side effects after vaccination for COVID-19. Consistently, compared to the first dose of the vaccine, we found an increased incidence and severity of self-reported side effects after the second dose, when recipients had been previously exposed to viral antigen. In view of the rapidly accumulating data demonstrating that COVID-19 survivors generally have adequate natural immunity for at least 6 months, it may be appropriate to re-evaluate the recommendation for immediate vaccination of this group.

While this is the first study of its kind and certainly warrants further examination, particularly because the side effects were self-reported, it acknowledges something that the public health bureaucracy, including CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and Dr. Anthony Fauci, rarely, if ever, mention. The science has consistently shown an adequate immune response in recovered patients, and we also know that the response includes more than just antibodies. In March, researchers found the immune response was durable at eight months with minor declines in several immune system components, including T cells, B cells, and neutralizing antibodies. According to The New York Times:

“That amount of memory would likely prevent the vast majority of people from getting hospitalized disease, severe disease, for many years,” said Shane Crotty, a virologist at the La Jolla Institute of Immunology who co-led the new study.

The findings are likely to come as a relief to experts worried that immunity to the virus might be short-lived, and that vaccines might have to be administered repeatedly to keep the pandemic under control.

And the research squares with another recent finding: that survivors of SARS, caused by another coronavirus, still carry certain important immune cells 17 years after recovering.

The study above is in addition to several studies on durable natural immunity noted in the research paper on side effects. Clearly, this type of research should be ongoing, but it is only valuable if our public health officials share it broadly, and to date, they have not. Even if it is emerging data, there have been no reports of large numbers of reinfections with any COVID-19 variant causing severe illness or death in recovered patients. This fact appears to reinforce the research findings to date.

The new study also compared side effects between the mRNA and viral vector vaccines:

Moreover, this is the first head-to-head real-world comparison of the self-reported safety of viral vector versus mRNA vaccines, with the latter associated with a 58% decreased incidence of self reported severe side effects, requiring hospital care. While more recipients of mRNA vaccines reported at least one (any) side effect, the difference was predominantly driven by the frequent local reactions, while the incidence of each of the systemic side effects evaluated, which are more burdensome to the recipients, was significantly reduced. Recipients of the viral vector-based vaccines were relatively older. However, differences in the incidence of adverse events were confirmed in multivariate analyses accounting for the age of the respondents as a covariate. Moreover, given that older people reported side effects less frequently, potential bias due to age difference would be expected to favour viral vector-based vaccines. These findings may have an impact on vaccine choice, and health policies.

Hooman Noorchashm, M.D., Ph.D., has warned of the possibility of a harmed minority in the public health bureaucracy’s rush to vaccination. He is not an anti-vaxxer by any means, views the development of the COVID-19 vaccines as a medical miracle, and has received the COVID-19 vaccination himself. Noorchashm raised the issue of receiving the vaccine after recovering because of how vaccine-induced immune responses work during an appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight:

I want to reiterate as we have before, the most unprecedented thing that we’re doing in this vaccine campaign is that we’re deploying it indiscriminately into folks who have been recently or previously infected. And I think that we shouldn’t underestimate what the effect of a vaccine-driven immune response is on the tissues in individuals who have been previously infected, that literally, the antigenic footprint of the virus persists in the tissues of the previously infected.

So, it’s not a far stretch to imagine that those tissues, such as the inner lining of the blood vessel, will be targeted by the vaccine immune response.

To simplify, the sites where a recovered patient’s body fought off the virus—the lungs, the heart, the blood vessels, and even the brain, to name a few—remain physiologically “marked.” Vaccine-generated immune cells will attack these sites in the body as if they are still infected, potentially causing problems. Given the number of organs in the body that COVID-19 reportedly infects, Noorchashm’s explanation made me wonder if this phenomenon could cause the range of adverse reactions seen on VAERS data, from diarrhea to blinding headaches, high fevers, and shortness of breath. This study is the first to provide insight into a possible answer to those questions.

Anyone interested in finding out if they have a current immune reaction to COVID-19 can order a T-Detect test. It does not require a doctor’s order and can be completed at a local lab. The CDC estimates that only 1 in 4.3 infections with COVID-19 have been confirmed by testing. This test may be worthwhile for those who did not receive a positive test but are hesitant to get the vaccine to help them better assess their risk in conjunction with their doctors.

It would be great if our public health gurus would acknowledge recovered immunity. Then colleges and employers could accept proof of immunity in place of proof of vaccination, at least while researchers continue to study the question of the durability of naturally acquired immunity. Given this first glimpse regarding the increased severity of side effects, it would be irresponsible not to. And worth wondering why, if they do not.


Why Does the Left Seemingly Hate Israel?

With more than 3,000 rockets having been fired into Israel by Hamas recently, the Democratic Party seems paralyzed over how to respond to the latest Middle East war.

It is not just that it fears that “The Squad,” Black Lives Matter, the shock troops of Antifa, and woke institutions such as academia and the media are now unapologetically anti-Israel. It is also terrified that anti-Israelism is becoming synonymous with rank anti-Semitism. And soon, the Democratic Party will end up as disdained as the British Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn.

The new core of the Democrats, as emblemized by Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, has in the past questioned the patriotism of American Jews who support Israel, and occasionally has had to apologize for puerile anti-Semitic rants.

The left in general believes we should judge harshly even the distant past without exemptions. Why then, in venomous, knee-jerk fashion, does it fixate on a nation born from the Holocaust while favoring Israel’s enemies, who were on the side of the Nazis in World War II?

It was not just that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, was a Nazi sympathizer. Egypt, for example, welcomed ex-Nazis for their hatred of Jews and their military expertise, including infamous death camp doctor Aribert Ferdinand Heim and Waffen-SS henchman Otto Skorzeny. The Hamas charter still reads like it is cribbed from Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”

The left claims it champions consensual government and believes the United States must use its soft-power clout to isolate autocracies. But the Palestinian National Authority and Hamas refuse to hold free and regularly scheduled elections. If an Israeli strongman ever suspended free elections and ruled through brutality, U.S. aid would be severed within days.

If history and democratic values can’t fully explain the apparent hatred of Israel on the left, perhaps human rights violations do. But here, too, there is another example of radical asymmetry. Arab citizens of Israel enjoy far greater constitutional protections than do Arabs living under either the Palestinian National Authority or Hamas.

Is the left bothered by the allies of Hamas? After all, most are autocracies such as Iran and North Korea.

We return, then, to other reasons for the woke contempt directed toward Israel.

In part, the Western left always despises the unapologetically successful—as if they are inevitably beneficiaries of unfair privilege. Underdog Israel was not so hated from 1947 to 1967. Then, it was poorer, more socialist, and in danger of being extinguished by its many neighboring enemies.

But after the victories in the 1967 and 1973 wars, the Israeli military proved unconquerable in the region, no matter how large the numbers, wealth, and armaments of its many enemies.

For the left, Israel’s current strength, confidence, and success mean it cannot be seen as a victim, but only as a victimizer. As its Iron Dome missile defenses knock down the flurry of Hamas rockets, and as its planes take out the military installations that launched those rockets, the left bizarrely believes Israel wins too easily and acts “disproportionately.”

The left also has a strange idea of current “imperialism” and “colonialism.” The general rule is that Westerners cannot settle in numbers in the non-West. But the reversal is certainly not true.

Millions of Middle Easterners are welcomed into Belgium, France, Germany, the U.K., and the United States. Yet Jews have been in what is now Israel since nearly the dawn of civilization. And their 1947 borders only grew after they were attacked and threatened with extinction.

The left claims that its anti-Israelism has had nothing to do with anti-Semitism. But it is almost impossible now to make that distinction, when woke criticism obsesses over democratic Israel and ignores far greater oppressors and oppressed elsewhere.

Why are there no demonstrations in major Western cities damning the Chinese government for putting 1 million Muslim Uighurs in camps? Why are the world’s millions of former refugees—the Volga Germans, the East Prussians, the Cypriot Greeks—long forgotten, and yet the Palestinians alone are deified for being perpetually displaced?

Our formal NATO ally, Turkey, received little global pushback for its treatment of the Kurds, or its frequent intolerance of religious minorities. Why does Israel alone always earn such venom?

Hating democratic Israel while it is under attack is not just a reflection of the new woke and ethically bankrupt left. It is also a symptom of a deeper pathology in the West, one of moral equivalence, amoral relativism, and self-loathing.

Hating Israel has become the surrogate Western way of hating oneself.




Wednesday, May 19, 2021

Science Catches Up -- And Burns You All

The article below is an attempt to explain simply what has appeared in a prestigious  academic journal article.  Unfortunately, even the simplified account takes  lot of brain strain to follow.  One can only hope that those who do understand it take notice of it

There is a reason science is a process and until you understand something you should keep your ******ned mouth shut.

Especially when all you have against 40+ years of hard science is computer models.

Massssskss was one of them.  I warned early on that physics said masks could not work if the virus was in aerosols or transmitted in feces, no matter whether the feces were manually spread or through aerosols.  We knew this was virtually certain when a mass-spread event happened twice in Wuhan and Hong Kong in apartments on the same vertical drain stack where there were no P-traps; the people infected did not know each other and thus any other form of transmission other than through fecal aerosol was wildly improbable.  That was ignored.  We then had the German meatpacking plant where everyone was wearing masks and yet a huge outbreak took place across tens of feet, a claimed impossibility.  Yet it happened and was proved by RNA sequencing; the researchers were able to identify the index and daughter cases and thus conclusively prove that the infections happened in that plant via that route, despite masks.

Now MIT has weighed in and said the same thing. They try to sidestep the mask issue in their "research" but fail; nothing less than an N95, which is not a mask but rather a respirator, stops aerosols, and source control does not work even with N95s because when you exhale the positive pressure escapes around the edges and for aerosols goes right through the gaps.  Workplaces and airlines have banned N95s with exhaust valves which preserve the seal on your face and thus are the only ones that will provide protection for you against inhaling said aerosol.  Non-valved respirators repeatedly break said seal and thus render it ineffective within minutes.  Don't believe me?  Put on an N95 without a valve and do some sanding where there's lots of dust, when you take it off let me know what you find around the edges where the respirator used to be.  This is why you want the ones with a valve and why the ones I have for such work have a valve.

Pay attention to this paper folks and note its publication date, January 2021.  Nobody has paid any attention to it at all yet it is peer-reviewed in Nature, one of the "better" medical publications.  I will start right here with what you do not want to read, but you damn well should before you take the shots.

This T cell-mediated immune response is even more important as studies on humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-1 provided evidence that antibody responses are short-lived and can even cause or aggravate virus-associated lung pathology

Note that when you get the shot the first thing you get is antibodies; you may get a T-cell reaction.  This pre-existing knowledge, from SARS (CoV-1) entirely explains why people who just got vaccinated often get hammered by the virus and frequently end up in the hospital or die.  It marks the premise of attempting to vaccinate out of a pandemic where transmission is actively occurring as stupid.

You go get the shot.  Five days later you get the virus.  You have not yet developed immunity and the partial expression makes it worse.

You would have been better off, by far, taking the same infection straight up front.  It likely would have harmed you less.

This generally applies, by the way, to all vaccines and all viruses.  The government and researchers know this.  They've known this for decades.  It's fact.  It's why you don't wait until the measles is raging around you to get a measles vaccine and the same is true for the flu shot; you get it before the flu season starts for this very reason.  Attempting to vaccinate out of a raging infection does not work and in fact kills people.

Yeah, if you don't get infected during that latent period you get protection.  But if you do get infected you're screwed and all of the two-dose shots have a roughly four week window during which you get hosed instead of protected.  Israel's data, by the way, proves this is real; Berenson has been reporting on it since the beginning of the year and I've noted it as well.

If you remember I've also pointed out that multiple studies have shown that somewhere between 30-50% of the population is T-cell reactive to Covid-19 despite never having had it, nor SARS or MERS, its alleged "precursors."  But those studies were non-specific; that is, they looked for T-cell reactivity but never tried to identify the specific protein sequences and their part of the whole that was involved.  This study does, and it finally puts light on basically the entire reason that what we've done is not only wrong it's criminally stupid.

These folks did what we should have done originally -- they isolated a panel of 120 peptides that comprised roughly 10% of the entire virus, containing 57% and 1% of the nucleocapsid and spike proteins.  Note that while the "spike" facilitates entry into the cell there is evidence that it is, standing alone, pathological -- that is, it causes disease in the human body without the rest of the virus.  The nucleocapsid portion, on the other hand, is the part that is responsible for replication; if it is tagged and the cell containing it is destroyed then viral replication is prevented even though penetration of the cell has occurred.
This fully explains the wild divergence in outcomes even among similarly-morbid people.  The more "matches" you have on a pre-existing basis the more-fully your immune system can recognize the virus and while you will get infected if those matches are among the nucleocapsid section you're much more-likely to drive it off without serious consequence.

Note that among the "PRE" (not-infected) collection of samples all were prior to November of 2019 and thus presumed non-infected.  We in fact know there were infections during that time frame but most in that group were from wildly before Covid-19 by as much as 10 years or more, so the cross-contamination percentage is going to be very low.

Now let me point to the data itself.

Of the SARS donors, 100% showed T cell responses to cross-reactive and/or specific ECs (HLA class I 86%, HLA-DR 100%; Fig. 5d,e), whereas 81% of PRE donors showed HLA class I (16%) and/or HLA-DR (77%) T cell responses to cross-reactive ECs (Fig. 5d).

81% eh?  Isn't that an interesting number?  Where have we seen that before?

You know damn well where, don't you? It's the rough percentage of alleged Covid-19 infections that were either asymptomatic or very low-symptom for which no medical treatment was sought and, in many cases, not detected.

So it wasn't 30 or 50% who had pre-existing protection it's actually roughly 8 in 10!  This was not a "novel, everyone is susceptible" virus at all.  It never was.  You were lied to from the very beginning and thus all the "models" based on that were trash.

Again, just a bit further down:

Taken together, SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes enabled detection of post-infectious T cell immunity in 100% of individuals convalescing from COVID-19 and revealed pre-existing T cell responses in 81% of unexposed individuals.

Now we know why Diamond Princess happened the way it did.  It was never possible for more than 20% of the people on that ship to get seriously-symptomatic Covid-19 despite being cooped up in close quarters for weeks with an aerosol-spread disease and cruise passengers generally being wildly-overrepresented for various morbidity factors.  It also completely explains why one of two people quarantined in the same cabin got sick and the other did not.

We also know why my friend's grandfather was killed by it but his equally-morbid grandmother was not touched symptomatically even though she tested positive despite literally sleeping in the same bed with him until he wound up in the hospital and ultimately expired.

We also know why there is no place on the planet that has seen >20% of people with significant, symptomatic disease from Covid-19.  Not a single place has had that happen, even where sanitation is crap and people spread it like crazy (e.g. Iran where they lick monuments sequentially -- literally.)

This study explains every single example seen everywhere in the world, including high-concentration examples, of infection with Covid-19 back to the start of the pandemic.  We now know why no more than 20% of any exposed population has ever exhibited materially-serious disease -- it simply was not possible as no more than 20% of the population was potentially susceptible to serious disease.  Ever.  Period.



Let me distill this down for you before I go on:

In 100% of the persons who had and recovered from Covid-19 and 81% of those who have never had the virus a vaccine may well be worthless as they already have T-cell response.  While this will not prevent them from getting it again there is questionable at best benefit over their existing immunological state but there is risk, including a risk of death, from the side effects.

Furthermore, evidence was provided for a lower recognition frequency of cross-reactive HLA-DR EC in hospitalized patients compared to donors with mild COVID-19 course, which might suggest a lack of pre-existing SARS-CoV-2 T cells in severely ill patients.

No kidding?  Gee, yet more points of contact with the obvious?

Then there's this:

Our observation that intensity of T cell responses and recognition rate of T cell epitopes was significantly higher in convalescent patients compared to unexposed individuals suggests that not only expansion, but also a spread of SARS-CoV-2 T cell response diversity occurs upon active infection.

Let me be clear: The entire premise of all of the "mitigations" and demand for mass-vaccination relied on a lie; that this was a "novel" virus to which nobody had existing resistance.  We now know that's false; 81% of the population in fact does have existing immunity and further, that immunity is strengthened, materially so, by natural infection.  In short if you have said partial resistance you want to get the disease as the odds of you being seriously harmed are statistically zero yet you will perfect your immunity and from a public health perspective you want those people who are not going to be seriously harmed to get it naturally, not take a ******ned shot because it is that perfection of immunity that stops the disease from being of harm to the public on a durable basis.

It gets worse -- the resistance isn't to the spike, it's almost-exclusively to the nucleocapsid portion of the virus among those with existing resistance; the largest set of reactions by far was to the nucleocapsid, not the spike.  This is very strong evidence that it is that nucleocapsid reactivity that provides effective resistance to serious disease.  The existing "vaccines" do not and cannot provide this since they encode only the spike.

Again for those who are reading-comprehension challenged: The existing vaccines are worthless for building said perfected immunity since the data is that the nucleocapsid section, which the vaccines do not code, is where most of the pre-existing resistance against serious disease resides.

Who is in the "not at risk" group?  Basically everyone under 50; said persons have comprised less than 5% of the deaths and especially those under 18 who almost never get serious ill or die.  This means we should have never closed schools, never masked kids and in fact we should have encouraged the equivalent of mass chicken-pox parties for both children and healthy young adults, especially in colleges.  The current push to vaccinate college students is not only stupid it's directly counter-productive to them building a robust and durable, likely life-long, immune response to this specific virus including the variants.

Further this paper points out that induction of immunity against the spike may well be worthless or even harmful.  Again "prevention of infection" is meaningless if it is bypassed and you get hammered, as has repeatedly occurred during the window following vaccination.  Indeed, such might even enhance the progress of infection and mortality and if that's not enough insult there's reason to believe the same enhanced risk may also present itself on the "back end" as antibodies to the spike wane too with no way to know when that window occurs in a specific individual.

It is quite clear from this study that recognition of the nucleocapsid proteins is the difference between asymptomatic or mild infections and severe ones; the correlation is exact and yet exactly zero of the existing vaccines target anything other than the spike.  You cannot build immunity to that which is not presented.  With the spike now having evidence of direct pathology and in fact quite possibly being why serious organ damage and death occur with natural infection we have clearly gone down the wrong road with "warp speed" and in fact may have done irrevocable and severe harm to millions of Americans while failing to induce long-term nucleocapsid immune recognition which occurs via natural infection and is the key to turning a potential infection into a nuisance at worst.

Short-term prevention of "infection" among the 81% of those with existing T-cell recognition to the nucleocapsid proteins is not only stupid it is likely to kill people over the intermediate and longer term since those who are not vaccinated and get infected with partial resistance build additional and durable immunity via said low-symptom and asymptomatic infections which do not materially harm them and blocking that process is harmful, not helpful.

This group includes nearly all young adults and children for which people are trying to force vaccination.

There are some holes in this study that require more work; specifically, trying to pin down how much protection is afforded by which specific nucleocapsid recognition profile, and how cytokine production bears on that along with binding properties.  This is definitely not the last word on such by any means, but it is a rather important contribution -- and one we should have pursued given that it certainly appears to fully explain the low-symptom and asymptomatic "infections."  The authors note this and intend to do further study.  Good!

What is not clear yet is where the cross-reactivity came from; it's obviously some other disease and it didn't kill the person with it; perhaps intentional infection with something that causes nothing more than a cold would be a good idea eh?  Of course first we must identify what gave that 80% of the population their cross-reactivity, which we have not done -- again, on purpose, despite having a full year to work on it.

To repeat this study is 100% congruent with what we have seen thus far in the wild with this virus.





Tuesday, May 18, 2021

Australian team develop antiviral treatment that could reduce virus by 99.99 per cent

A team of Queensland scientists has co-developed a “gene-silencing” antiviral treatment that could effectively kill COVID-19, in what’s been dubbed an “important missing piece” in the arsenal against the virus.

Nigel McMillan and his team from the Menzies Health Institute at Griffith University, alongside scientists from City of Hope research centre in the US, say the “next-generation” antiviral approach could stop the virus from replicating in the lungs.

Professor McMillan said stage one clinical trials revealed the antiviral treatment reduced the viral load in mice lungs by 99.99 per cent.

The antiviral treatment reduces viral load in the lungs by 99.99 per cent, according to the Queensland-led team.
The antiviral treatment reduces viral load in the lungs by 99.99 per cent, according to the Queensland-led team.
While traditional antivirals, such as Tamiflu and remdesivir, reduce symptoms and help people recover earlier, this new technology uses small-interfering RNA to attack the virus’s genome directly, stopping the virus from replicating.

Lipid nanoparticles, designed at Griffith University and City of Hope, will be used as the drug delivery vehicle to deliver the siRNA to the lungs.

Professor McMillan said the treatment had proved incredibly effective in mice trials.

“Treatment with virus-specific siRNA reduces viral load by 99.99 per cent,” he said.

“These stealth nanoparticles can be delivered to a wide range of lung cells and silence viral genes.”

The treatment can work on all betacoronavirus, including the original SARS virus, SARS-CoV-2 (the virus which causes COVID-19), and any new variants that could arise in the future, because it “targets ultra-conserved regions in the virus’s genome”.

“We have also shown that these nanoparticles are stable at 4C for 12 months, and at room temperature for greater than one month, meaning this agent could be used in low-resource settings to treat infected patients,” Professor McMillan said.

The team is hoping to progress to the next stage of trials by the end of the year, and if proven effective, could be made available commercially by 2022.


What the Left Ignores About Anti-Asian Hate Crime

Data shows that blacks are the primary perpetrators of violent crimes against Asians.

In his speech before a few joint members of Congress last month, Joe Biden insisted that the greatest terrorist threat our nation faces is “white supremacy.” Then, after asserting that George Floyd’s death presented an opportunity to address the country’s “systemic racism,” Biden praised the Senate for passing the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act “to protect Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders from the vicious hate crimes we’ve seen this past year.” The message is clear: According to Biden and his fellow Democrats, the root problem plaguing the nation is white racism.

However, despite all the pontification and accusations regarding “white supremacy” being the supposed source for the rising number of hate crimes against Asian Americans, neither the media nor Democrat politicians care to genuinely examine the facts or report them. The facts not only fail to support the “white supremacy” narrative, they contradict it.

Ying Ma, author of Chinese Girl in the Ghetto, notes, “Political leaders, activists, and the media have widely attributed the rise in hate crimes to former President Donald Trump’s controversial use of the terms ‘China virus’ or ‘kung flu’ … [but the] racially motivated violence [is] in heavily Democratic areas and from demographic groups that overwhelmingly opposed him.”

Ying Ma observes that the problem of anti-Asian hate crimes predates Trump. She reports, “A survey conducted by the San Francisco Police Department in 2008 revealed that 85% of the city’s violent crimes were black-on-Asian, a figure officials in this notoriously liberal city confronted with ‘squeamishness.’” The officials’ “squeamishness” was likely due to the data not supporting the Left’s white supremacy narrative that sees racism as a whites-only problem.

And it’s not just San Francisco witnessing this same race dynamic. Other major urban areas like New York, Los Angeles, and Seattle have seen the same.

In an interview with Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, Ying Ma noticed something about those most often engaged in attacks against Asian Americans. “They don’t quite look like white supremacists,” she said. “They don’t look like white voters or Trump voters. In fact, many of these attacks have occurred in heavily Democratic cities where they did not vote for Trump in 2020 or 2016.” She adds, “What the Democrats or the far left have done, actually quite effectively, in the past year or so, is to libel former President Trump for something that the Democrats themselves actually are very much guilty of. And what is that? That is their silence and their cowardice before black-on-Asian attacks that often occur in America’s urban areas.”

Finally, Ying Ma rightly contends, “America must not only inquire but engage in a long overdue, honest conversation about the prevalence of black crime and the existence of racism among nonwhite Americans. The goal is not to vilify an entire race for the crimes of individuals, nor is it to absolve individuals of other races who commit racist acts.”

Individuals need to be held accountable for their actions, not the ethnic group from which they come. A high or low melanin count is not a metric for measuring morality.




Monday, May 17, 2021

Singapore looks to tear up its vaccine playbook amid new virus surge

Singapore: In near lockdown less than three weeks after being named the best place in the world to be during COVID-19, Singapore is considering a significant shake-up of its vaccine strategy, including increasing the time between shots.

The city state recorded 38 new cases of community transmission on Sunday, its highest number in more than a year. Eighteen of those cases were unlinked.

It swiftly announced further tightening of restrictions, including the closure of most schools.

Singapore’s Health Minister Ong Ye Kung also revealed the fresh outbreak had convinced the government to weigh up a significant change in its approach to vaccination.

A quarter of the country’s 5.5 million people have been fully vaccinated and one-third have received at least one dose, he said. That makes the rollout in Singapore comfortably the fastest in south-east Asia in terms of an average of the population.

But after prioritising the most vulnerable citizens and frontline workers in a vaccination drive that to date is only open to people over the age of 45, the government may change tack.

“One possibility is that maybe for phase two we should try our best to give as many people a good level of protection against COVID-19. That means give as many people as possible one dose of COVID-19 vaccination,” Ong Ye Kung said on Sunday night.

“There have been many international studies that show even with one dose it confers good protection without compromising efficacy.

“Our scientists have been studying this. We have an expert committee and the evidence, locally and overseas, points towards [it being] reasonable for dose two to be further apart from dose one. So instead of 21, or 28 days or three weeks or four weeks, it can possibly extend to six to eight weeks without materially affecting the efficacy of the vaccine.

“This is something we are studying and once we are ready, not too long in the future, we’ll announce the details.”

Singapore is using the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which has been given to people in the island nation with a three-week interval between the two shots. It is also rolling out Moderna, which has a four-week gap between doses.

If Singapore does press ahead with widening the interval between shots it would be following the path adopted by countries like the UK, which is leaving a three-month gap between doses of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine.

India, which had 311,170 new cases and 4077 deaths on Sunday, has started doing the same, extending the gap between doses of Covishield – the brand name AstraZeneca is distributed under there – from six to eight weeks to 12 to 16 weeks.

An Oxford University study found the efficacy of AstraZeneca rose from 55 per cent to 82 per cent if the time between doses was raised from less than six weeks to 12 weeks or more, and a single shot provided 76 per cent protection in the first 90 days.

Research by the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention has also found the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is 80 per cent effective with a single dose. On Friday, it was announced that a study of people over 80 by the University of Birmingham University had determined that a 12-week break between administering the first and second shots of Pfizer-BioNTech produced a three-and-a-half times better antibody response.

Singapore is facing nowhere near the scale of infections experienced in the UK and, more recently, in India. On April 27, Bloomberg’s COVID resilience rankings named Singapore as the best place to live during the pandemic.

However, a surge in cases is reflective of a new wave that has torn through south-east Asia in the past six weeks.

While Indonesia and the Philippines have been the hardest-hit countries in the region, Malaysia has entered a third lockdown and countries that had avoided major outbreaks such as Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam and East Timor are recording record numbers.

With children among those infected during the latest spike in cases in Singapore, its Education Minister Chan Chun Sing said health authorities were deciding whether it was safe to use Pfizer-BioNTech for the 12-15 year age group.

US and Canadian health regulators have both approved Pfizer-BioNTech for that age category.

Sunday, May 16, 2021

Israel Dupes Hamas into Fleeing into Their Tunnel Network Then Bombs Them Systematically

The IDF made Hamas think that a ground incursion was about to happen. Fearing the attack Hamas terrorists escaped into their tunnel system. At least they thought they were escaping. They didn’t realize they were being set up, they weren’t escaping–the Israeli Airforce was waiting for them at the tunnels. 

At around 3pm EDT Thursday, the IDF began to assemble troops on its border with Hamas-controlled Gaza. It looked like the expected IDF incursion into Gaza to force Hamas to stop firing missiles would happen any second. About two and a half hours later, the IDF released this message:

The mainstream media throughout the world pounced on the story. Establishment media reported the attack with headlines such as. “Israeli troops have entered the Gaza Strip as conflict with Palestinians escalates, Israeli military says.”

Notice that the MSM said that the IDF ‘entered” Gaza, but the IDF only said attacked?

Hearing this news, Hamas terrorists fled into the ‘Metro’ tunnels, an underground city/tunnel system built by Hamas after the 2014 war. Hamas uses the Metro tunnels to hide their and move them from point to point within Gaza without being seen by the Israeli Air Force (IAF). But what the Hamas terrorists didn’t understand was there was no ground offensive. As they ran through the tunnels and began to come out the other side, they were sitting ducks. 160 IAF planes had assembled for a massive bombing run over the Gaza Strip specifically targeting the Metro.

According to Arutz Sheva:

On Thursday night, the IDF brought in 160 aircraft and dropped 450 bombs containing over 80 tons of explosives, hitting 150 terror targets in 35 minutes. Hamas’ underground city was hit with enormous force, and the IDF collapsed the terror tunnel system, on the heads of the terrorists hiding in the tunnels.

During the attack, many kilometres of terror tunnels were destroyed. As of now, neither Israel nor Hamas is clear on the exact scope of the damage, but according to estimates, a large number of terrorists were buried in the sands beneath Gaza.

(…)Simultaneous to the air force attacks, infantry, artillery and armored forces deployed along the border fired hundreds of artillery shells and dozens of tank shells at targets in Gaza.

“In addition, we apparently succeeded in injuring a senior official in the [Islamic] Jihad anti-tank force,” he added.

Avoiding a ground incursion saves the lives of Israeli soldiers and avoids collateral Palestinian casualties. This doesn’t mean that there will be no Israeli ground force incursion into Gaza. As long as Hamas keeps up its rocket attacks, that is an unfortunate strong possibility.

Liberal Media Viewers Misinformed About US Crime: Rasmussen Poll

Fewer than 50 unarmed black suspects were killed by police last year, and more people were killed with knives than with assault weapons. Viewers of MSNBC and CNN are far more likely than Fox News viewers to get those facts wrong.

Half of likely U.S. voters who said CNN or MSNBC was their favorite cable news outlet believe more than 100 unarmed African Americans were fatally shot by police in 2020, according to a new Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports survey.

Only 22% of Fox News viewers believe police shot more than 100 unarmed black people last year.

One survey question asked: "Approximately how many unarmed African Americans were fatally shot by police in 2020? Less than 50, 50 to 100, 500 to 1,000, 1,000 to 5,000, 5,000 to 10,000, or more than 10,000?"

Twenty-four percent of CNN viewers and 19% of MSNBC viewers thought cops fatally shot more than 500 unarmed black suspects last year. Only 9% percent of Fox News viewers thought so.

Fox News viewers (60%) and talk radio listeners (60%) were nearly three times more likely than MSNBC (19%) or CNN (23%) viewers to correctly estimate the number of unarmed black people shot and killed by police in 2020 as less than 50.

President Joe Biden's strongest supporters were most likely to overestimate the number of unarmed black suspects killed by police. Among voters who strongly approved of Biden’s job performance, only 19% correctly estimated the number of unarmed black people shot and killed by police in 2020 as less than 50.

Whites (46%) were more likely than black voters (38%), Hispanics (38%), or other minorities (44%) to correctly estimate the number of unarmed black people shot and killed by police in 2020 as less than 50.

The survey also asked voters about their viewing preferences for major network news and other media outlets, including online streaming services.

"There is a strong correlation between a likely voter's favorite television news outlet and his or her understanding of basic facts about police shootings and homicides involving rifles," Justin Haskins of the Heartland Institute observed in an analysis.

"Compared to viewers of Fox News, 'another' cable news outlet [such as Newsmax], and those who do not watch television news, viewers of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC were substantially more likely to overestimate the number of fatal police shootings of unarmed African Americans."

Among Republican voters, 58% said they watched Fox News. Democrats are divided between CNN (34%) and MSNBC (29%). Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 27% said they went to Fox News, 15% said CNN, 12% said MSNBC, 30% said "another" network, and 15% said they didn’t watch cable news.

Homicides committed with knives in the U.S. annually total about 1,500, and those committed with rifles number fewer than 500.

However, 30% of likely voters said the annual number of homicides committed with rifles was more than 500, including 18% believing more than 1,000 homicides are committed annually with rifles.

Thirty percent of MSNBC viewers, 22% of CNN viewers and 19% of Fox News viewers correctly estimated the number of homicides committed with rifles as between 100 and 500.

But while 63% of Fox News viewers underestimated the number of killings with rifles as less than 100, viewers of CNN and MSNBC were more likely to overestimate the number of homicides committed with rifles.

CNN viewers (43%), MSNBC viewers (40%), and talk radio listeners (26%) were more likely than Fox News viewers (19%) to believe rifles are used in more than 500 homicides annually.

The national telephone and online survey of 2,000 likely voters was conducted April 29-May 3, 2021 by the Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 2 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

A Gaza Building Housing Media Outlets Was Destroyed by IDF. This is Why

Earlier today the Israeli Defense Forces took out a building in Gaza that housed a Hamas intelligence office. The building was shared with the Associated Press and Hamas propaganda outlet Al Jazeera. IDF warned of the strike ahead of time, giving journalists ample time to safely evacuate. 

"An Israeli airstrike on Saturday targeted and destroyed a high-rise building in Gaza City that housed offices of The Associated Press and other media outlets. Hours later, Israel bombed the home of Khalil al-Hayeh, a top leader of Gaza’s ruling militant Hamas group," the AP reported. "The Israeli military said Al-Hayeh’s home served as part of what it said was the militant group’s “terrorist infrastructure.” Al-Hayeh is a senior figure in the Hamas political leadership in Gaza, and the attack marked a further escalation, signaling that Israel is going after Hamas’ top leadership, and not just military commanders. His fate after the strike was not immediately known."

"Earlier, AP staffers and other tenants safely evacuated the building after the military telephoned a warning that the strike was imminent within an hour. Three heavy missiles struck the 12-story building, collapsing it in a giant cloud of dust," the report continues. 

The Associated Press is blasting the Israeli military for the strike, but hasn't condemned Hamas for putting them in harms way and conducting military operations within a commercial building. The White House has done the same.

The coverage of the incident has been wildly dishonest and severely lacking context, prompting pushback.