COVID Vaccine Truth Continues to Come Out

The video below is with Dr. Robert Redfield, CDC Director under President Trump, and Chris Cuomo. This is an excellent clip and well worth three-and-a-half minutes of your time.

Dr. Robert Redfield was CDC director under Trump.

He was known to be a covid Vaccine truthteller, even back then.

This is a fantastic clip with Chris Cuomo.pic.twitter.com/7DCCvpXmQP

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) June 5, 2024

Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
trevorgrantthomas@gmail.com 

The Whole Truth on the Barnstable County, Massachusetts COVID-19 “Outbreak”

Near the end of July, the CDC reversed course and again told Americans to put on their face diapers. The renewed call for masks included even those who were vaccinated. Part of the justification for this was, as the Washington Post put it at the time, “new data showing vaccinated people can spread infections caused by delta variant.” The Post also noted that, “health officials also call for all teachers, staffers and students in schools to wear masks, regardless of their vaccination status.”

The “new data” was reported by other media outlets as well. As NPR put it at the time,

When revising its mask guidance this week to urge even vaccinated people to wear masks indoors in much of the country, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was criticized for not citing data in making that move.

Now it has — and the data is sobering.

The study details a COVID-19 outbreak that started July 3 in Provincetown, Mass., involving 469 cases. It found that three-quarters of cases occurred in fully vaccinated people…

The CDC said the finding that fully vaccinated people could spread the virus was behind its move to change its mask guidance.

At least NPR mentioned that it was “Provincetown” that was responsible for this “disturbing” outbreak. The CDC study referenced did not, though it had numerous opportunities to do so it its four-page report on the incident. When reporting on the numerous “breakthrough infections” that occurred, the CDC study only vaguely mentions “Barnstable County, Massachusetts.” There’s a reason for this.

As Ryan Bomberger at The Christian Post recently put it,

[Provincetown is] considered a gay Mecca to tens of thousands of homosexual men and women. In fact, the town’s Chamber of Commerce confirms such a description, stating on its website: “LGBTQA+ visitors are a major component of Provincetown’s tourism economy and continue to make Provincetown one of top GLBT destinations in the world.”

The CDC also never mentions that the “summer event” in Barnstable County at the center of the COVID-19 spread was “Bear Week.” As Mr. Bomberger describes it,

“Bear Week” is celebrated by Provincetown Tourism as “the largest gathering of bears [hairy and often overweight gay men] in the world” where “tens of thousands come to Provincetown during this annual [July] event.” The website proudly proclaims: “You know what you’re getting into when you attend.” By “getting into,” they mean a weeklong orgy among thousands of strangers. 

As they gleefully reported that Americans were now again under another mask-up edict from the CDC, leftists in the media also failed to report these important facts. As Mr. Bomberger rightly concludes, from an “epidemiological standpoint,” what happened in Provincetown is not at all representative of the general U.S. population. In other words, there can be little doubt that orgiastic homosexual behavior greatly contributed to the COVID-19 outbreak in Barnstable County, yet this is never reported by the CDC or its media allies.

Of course, none of this is surprising. Like the left-wing media in the U.S., the CDC has long been a nefarious agent in the evil LGBT agenda, and thus long ignored or glossed over the tremendous dangers of homosexual behavior. When warning others about putting trust in the CDC on all matters concerning COVID-19, I’ve often said, “They can’t even rightly tell us who is a male and who is a female. Thus, why should we trust them on any matter concerning the health of America?!”

Even if they weren’t apologists for the evil LGBT agenda, the CDC has proven wrong numerous times since COVID-19 entered the U.S. This is certainly true when it comes to the widespread masking of school children. And now many schools across America are again foolishly placing children (and teachers) in masks largely because of a homosexual orgy in Barnstable County, Massachusetts! The data from Provincetown again proves the CDC is a highly politicized organization that simply cannot be trusted when making policy on COVID-19 or any other healthcare issue.

Copyright 2021, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Vaccine Ratios vs Wuhan Virus Ratios

Northeast Georgia Health System (NGHS) is one of the largest hospital networks in Georgia. Their Wuhan Virus data are widely used by the local media and other organizations throughout northeast Georgia. This week, NGHS tweeted out a graphic (see below) that has been circulated by those pushing the Wuhan Virus vaccine.

Getting vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus reduces your risk of developing severe or critical symptoms or even dying from COVID-19. You still have the power to protect yourself and the people you love. Visit https://t.co/ojBmsVHPN2 to get the facts and find a shot near you. pic.twitter.com/k2Pqv4UZoC

— NGHS (@myNGHS) August 9, 2021

Of course the implication is that, given the data, if one is “fully vaccinated” your chances of testing positive for the Wuhan Virus, requiring hospitalization because of the Wuhan Virus, or dying from the Wuhan Virus are miniscule. Vaccine apologists need to be asked: If these small ratios are justification for getting vaccinated, why are other small ratios ignored when Wuhan Virus policy is being made?

I’ve long made the case that the actual data—especially where the young and healthy are concerned—on the Wuhan Virus are being ignored. For example, from the tweet above we see that, according to NGHS and the Georgia Department of Public Health data, if one is vaccinated, your chances of dying from the Wuhan Virus is a tiny 0.00058%.

If one is zero to 17 years old, your chances of dying from the Wuhan Virus is even smaller, 0.00048% (there are just over 73 million Americans ages zero to 17, and 354 deaths in that same age range). Yet the NGHS and the Georgia Department of Public Health (GDPH) advocate widespread masking, including masks for school-age children. (Note: The GDPH doesn’t directly say this on their website, but on their “COVID-19 Guidance” page, under “Education” they link directly to the CDC’s page on “K-12 Schools Guidance.”)

There can be little doubt that similar tactics are playing out in other U.S. states. School boards and public health bureaucrats throughout the U.S. continue to ignore the data as they push for universal masking in schools. Don’t stand for it America!

(See this post at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2021, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

On the Wuhan Virus: Why Doesnt the NFL Believe Its Own Data?

This past Thursday, the NFL sent a memo warning all 32 of its teams that, “We do not anticipate adding a ‘19th week’ to accommodate games that cannot be rescheduled within the current 18 weeks of the regular season.” In other words, just like last year, the NFL intends on playing all of its games (this year, 17 games per team in an 18 week season). Other “highlights” from the memo:

• Every club is obligated under the Constitution and Bylaws to have its team ready to play at the scheduled time and place. A failure to do so is deemed conduct detrimental. There is no right to postpone a game…
  
  
• If a game is cancelled/postponed because a club cannot play due to a Covid spike among or resulting from its non-vaccinated players/staff, then the burden of the cancellation or delay will fall on the club experiencing the Covid infection…
  
  
• If a game is rescheduled due to a Covid outbreak among unvaccinated players on one of the competing teams, the club experiencing the outbreak will be responsible for all additional expenses incurred by the opposing team and will also be required to pay any shortfall between actual and expected payment to the VTS pool.
  
  
• If a game cannot be rescheduled within the current 18-week schedule and is cancelled due to a Covid outbreak among unvaccinated players on one of the competing teams, that club will forfeit the contest and will be responsible for the lost payment to the VTS pool.
  
  
• If a game is cancelled and cannot be rescheduled within the current 18-week schedule due to a Covid outbreak, neither team's players will receive their weekly paragraph 5 salary.

Additionally, Breitbart reports,

According to another in a series of recent and aggressive new restrictions targeting unvaccinated players, the NFL announced on Saturday that if a player violates one of the league-mandated Covid protocols that applies to unvaccinated players, they will receive a $14,650 fine…

According to league rules, all Tier 1 personnel, including coaches, must receive the vaccine or provide religious and/or medical reasons for why they cannot.

Just what are those “league-mandated Covid protocols?” According to Yahoo! Sports,

[T]he protocols are different for vaccinated players than they are for unvaccinated players. And those differences aren't small. They're big, honking differences that will make life much more difficult for unvaccinated players.

The training camp and preseason protocols:

The NFL and NFLPA have agreed to updated COVID-19 protocols for 2021 training camp and preseason, per source.

How different will life by for vaccinated and unvaccinated players? From the memo that just went to clubs: pic.twitter.com/8yMPW0JBWZ

— Tom Pelissero (@TomPelissero) June 16, 2021

With all of this, not only is the NFL ignoring Wuhan Virus data the world over, but it is ignoring its own data from last season. As I noted in late January of this year, medical officials from the NFL and CDC found that in over 256 NFL games (not including playoff games), and for well over 1,000 practices (probably closer to 2,000) involving 32 teams and over 2,000 players, there was zero evidence of “on-field transmission.” 

Additionally, in well over 600,000 tests performed over several months in the 2020 season, only 329 NFL personnel (out of over 11,000) “tested positive.” As I also noted at the time,

It’s also important to note that in spite of these “positive” tests, almost zero serious illnesses from the Wuhan virus were reported.

In other words, though the NFL’s rampant testing yielded a few “positives,” virtually no one got sick. ABC News details each team’s “cases” as of early December here. Almost every player or coach who was reported to have missed a game had to do so because of a “positive test.” Thus, as we have seen throughout the past ten months, a “positive test” does not in any way indicate an actual Wuhan virus case. 

Only two NFL employees—Denver’s defensive coordinator Ed Donatell and Jacksonville running back Ryquell Armstead—reportedly had to be hospitalized due to Wuhan virus complications. Both have fully recovered.

Remember that all of this happened prior to the vaccine. So after thousands of hours involving hundreds of thousands of extremely close, maskless contacts in which bodily fluids were almost always present, the NFL and the CDC are telling us that there were zero person-to-person transmissions of the Wuhan Virus, and of those who did happen to test positive, virtually no one got sick.

In spite of all of this, and plenty of other evidence that suggests the vaccine is unnecessary for many of us—at its peak, the U.S. hospitalization rate for 18-29 year-olds (the age range for the vast majority of the NFL) was 1.13 per 100,000, and out of about 53 million 18-29 year-olds in the U.S., there have been 2,470 deaths “involving COVID-19” (that’s a 0.0047% rate)—and possibly dangerous for some, the NFL is mandating the Wuhan Virus vaccine for many employees, and for the personnel whom it is optional, is making life miserable for those who refuse it.

In other words, the NFL is fully bought into the Wuhan Virus fear-mongering, and wants to perpetuate that with an ignorant vaccine policy. Influential stars of the NFL who are against this should organize and speak out against it. Much of the world is watching (though fewer than would have been if the NFL hadn’t gone “woke”).

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2021, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com  

Don’t Fall for Alabama Doctor’s Wuhan Virus Fear Porn

In order to keep alive the false notion that “systemic racism” is rampant in the United States, leftists across America have peddled massive amounts of misleading information. (The hotly debated “Critical Race Theory” is filled with it.) Thus, it should come as little surprise that the COVID-loving mask cultists on the left would stoop to spinning false or misleading tales about Wuhan Virus doom and gloom in order to help keep as much of the nation as possible on edge.

Dr. Brytney Cobia of Alabama seems to be such a leftist. This past Sunday, Dr. Cobia posted the following on her Facebook page:

(NOTE: DO NOT "visit" Facebook's biased "COVID-19 Information Center for vaccine resources!")

To say the post went “viral” is putting it mildly. Not only was it shared wildly via Facebook, numerous news outlets and left-wing websites ran Dr. Cobia’s account as if it were the gospel truth. This includes The Washington Post, CNN,  NBC News, MSNBC, HuffPost, Newsweek, and the like. It’s almost as if they were just waiting on someone—anyone—to say that, “‘Young healthy people’ are now getting hospitalized and dying from the Wuhan Virus! Quickly, surrender your liberties!”

Of course, this is because as often as the left hypes the Wuhan Virus—along with the vaccine, masks, lockdowns, etc.—they keep getting put in their place by the data. It seems it has become particularly important to the COVID-worshipping left to scare as many as possible when it comes to the young and healthy. Yet the data here are especially troubling for the left’s Wuhan Virus narrative.

For the mask cultists, simply not enough young, healthy Americans are dying from the Wuhan Virus, or even requiring hospitalization. (A recent Johns Hopkins study found zero Wuhan Virus deaths among healthy kids.) Enter Dr. Cobia and her story. However—and again—when one actually looks at the data, her account shouldn’t strike the fear that she, and those like-minded, hopes it will.

The images from CDC charts below show the death totals “involving COVID-19” (note: this does not necessarily mean that a death recorded in this column is from COVID-19) for the state of Alabama:

As you can see, for ages 0-17, in April through July there are zero recorded deaths in Alabama “involving COVID-19.” This is actually the case for February through July of this year. In the 0-17 row for January, there is a blank cell. Again, as one can see, this is common in the chart. According to a note below the chart, “Empty data cells represent counts between 1-9 that have been suppressed in accordance with NCHS confidentiality standards.” So the empty cells represent death totals in the single digits.

What’s more, and again using CDC data, as of July 21, the “7-day Moving” average number of Wuhan Virus deaths (for all ages) in Alabama was 3. On July 18, the day of Dr. Cobia’s post, it was zero. At the end of June it was 3. At the end of May it was 4. At the end of April it was 7. For the U.S. as a whole, as of July 21, the “7-day Moving” average number of Wuhan Virus deaths (for all ages) was 223. At the end of June it was 225. At the end of May it was 413. At the end of April it was 612.

The numbers are similar when one looks at hospitalization rates. Again using CDC data, in Alabama, for ages 0-17, as of July 20, the hospitalization rate was 0.16 per 100,000. At the end of June the rate was 0.09 per 100,000. At the end of May it was 0.11 per 100,000. At the end of April it was 0.16 per 100,000. Likewise, in Alabama, for the age group 18-29, the July down to April numbers (per 100,000) are 0.67, 0.18, 0.31, and 0.33. Even though the latter group has seen an uptick in hospitalization rate in recent month, the July number (0.67) is exactly what it was at the end of March. For the U.S. as a whole, for ages 0-17, the corresponding rates (per 100,000) of hospitalization are 0.14, 0.09, 0.12, and 0.18. For ages 18-29 they are 0.53, 0.30, 0.40, and 0.63.

Thus, the data are again clear: whether or not “cases” are on the rise, whether or not vaccination rates have flattened, the numbers that matter most—hospitalizations and deaths—show no disturbing trend, in Alabama, or the U.S. as a whole. The lockdown, mask-up apologists need to take heed: we will not stand for your (mostly) useless, life-defeating, economic destroying measures again!

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2021, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Southeast's Largest Newspaper Commands You to Keep Being Terrified of COVID

As we are now well into July, plans for the 2021-2022 school year are ramping up. For many school systems, the first day of school is less than one month away. Given this, and in order to make sure that the government schools maintain as much control as possible over American children, the COVID-worshipping media are again ramping up the Wuhan Virus panic porn. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC) is no exception.

With an opinion piece entitled, To mask or not to mask: Why’s that even a question in schools?, the AJC’s chief education writer, Maureen Downey, bemoans the fact that, “Almost all Georgia school districts will leave it to parents to decide whether their kids wear masks when they return to school next month.” In addition to its authoritarian tone, Ms. Downey’s lengthy column is rooted in three false premises: 1.) Unvaccinated children are in danger from the Wuhan Virus. 2.) There’s a “new COVID variant” that places children in new danger. 3.) Masks work.

There’s a mountain of data (much of it chronicled here and here) that reveal that masks and lockdowns are unnecessary (and often dangerous) when it comes to slowing or preventing the spread of the Wuhan Virus, and that children—vaccinated or not—are in very little to no danger from the Wuhan Virus. As far back as August of last year the data made clear that children were in virtually zero danger from the Wuhan Virus.

Numerous school districts across the U.S.—especially private schools, and especially those in GOP-led states—did not shut down, did not mandate masks or social distancing, and had no Wuhan Virus related problems. Ms. Downey also pushes the false notion that, because of the close contact that most sports require, high school athletes are in more danger from the Wuhan Virus. On this she writes, “However, the findings do suggest athletics, especially indoor, pose a higher infection risk than outdoor spaces or classrooms. ‘We need to have special policies in place to protect athletes,’ [Zimmerman] said.”

We most certainly do not need “special policies” to protect athletes from the Wuhan Virus. Data from the NFL make this clear. Earlier this year, the NFL and the CDC published a paper that showed in over 256 NFL games, and for well over 1,000 practices (probably closer to 2,000) involving 32 teams and over 2,000 players, there was zero evidence of “on-field transmission.” In addition, as we already well know, even if kids “get infected” (have a positive test result), they are very unlikely to get sick.

My 12-year-old son and my 14-year-old daughter both played basketball this past season. There were few to no masks at every game, in every gym (often the gyms were packed; I have photographic and video evidence), and we had no Wuhan Virus related issues throughout the season. Two of my sons and my daughter competed in a karate tournament in early February of this year. It was held in a local high school gym. There were hundreds (approximately 500) in attendance (again, I have photographic and video evidence). Again, there were no Wuhan Virus related issues. Of course, this has played out countless times across the U.S. (including Super Bowl parties) where the Wuhan Virus fear porn has been ignored.

To further the false narrative that children are in significant danger from the Wuhan Virus, Ms. Downey cites CDC Director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky. Downey declares, “At a recent symposium, she [Walensky] said COVID-19 has resulted in 471 U.S. pediatric deaths, more than the flu in recent years.” This is the second time in recent weeks that the AJC has reported this number.

As of about two weeks ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association reported 336 child deaths from COVID-19. What’s more, these numbers are for nearly 1.5 years. That’s a far longer period than death totals given for a typical flu season. According to the CDC, the 2018-2019 flu season saw approximately 480 deaths due to influenza in children.

The AJC also wants the public frightened over the much hyped “Delta variant” of the Wuhan Virus. Ms. Downey’s piece is subtitled, “With a new COVID variant and no vaccine for young kids, study affirms masks matter.” On the date of this writing (7/8/21) the lead story on the front page of the AJC website begins, “As a highly contagious delta variant spreads in Georgia, the number of coronavirus cases and hospitalizations is ticking upward, particularly in pockets with low vaccination rates, state data shows.”

Yet CDC data continues to show case rates across the U.S. in every age bracket near zero:

Hospitalizations across the U.S. also remain significantly lower:

(Go here to see the hospitalization rates for various age groups across the U.S. and every U.S. state.)

Almost all that we hear from the fear-porn peddlers in the left-wing media of the Delta variant is that it is “highly contagious” or “easily transmissible.” Tony Fauci himself said, “The Delta variant is currently the greatest threat in the U.S. to our attempt to eliminate COVID-19.” First of all, we likely will never completely “eliminate” the Wuhan Virus. Secondly, we are told that the “vaccines” protect against the Delta variant, and more importantly, the Delta variant is significantly less lethal that the original virus. Again, this is especially the case with children.

In pushing her mask-up agenda, Ms. Downey references a “new study out of North Carolina.” Downey writes, “Reaffirmed by results in several other states, the North Carolina data showed masks were a key factor in limiting the spread of the coronavirus in school buildings.” Downey quotes extensively from “the study.”

First of all, it isn’t “a study” but rather a “report” on an “analysis” of data. The report does declare, “Wearing masks is an effective strategy to prevent in-school COVID-19 transmission.” However, the information in the report makes no indication that “COVID-19 transmission” in schools with mask mandates was compared to those without mask mandates. There has been plenty of analysis of data comparing areas with mask mandates vs. those without. As I have noted often, the data do not support the position of the mask apologists.

In early May, Scott Morefield at Townhall reported on data from Brown University Professor Emily Oster. Morefield writes,

In areas of high community transmission, masked school students saw a case rate (defined here as daily cases per 100,000) 37 percent higher than non-masked school students, or 19 cases per 100,000 in ‘no masks required’ schools vs 26 in ‘masks required’ schools. Even worse, staff experienced a case rate 84 percent worse in masked schools, at 19 cases per 100,000 in ‘no masks required’ schools vs 35 in ‘masks required’ schools. 

Also, even if children in schools are forced to mask up, it is almost always a clownish activity. Given that children almost universally hate the masks, they constantly have their hands on them, and if they have them on, they almost never wear them properly. Noted epidemiologist Carl Heneghan points this out as he made the case in April of this year against mandating masks in schools.

The AJC is the largest newspaper in the southeastern U.S. Though, with the tremendous decline of U.S. newspapers, that doesn’t mean what it used to. Nevertheless, like most others in the left-wing media, for over a year now the AJC has pushed the lockdown narrative when it comes to schools and such. To do this, numerous times they have pushed false narratives and fake information. Again, shame on you, AJC!

(See this column at American Thinker and The Blue State Conservative.) 

Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

 

"Masking the Science": "We Wished Masks Worked, But They Don't"

One of the best takedowns of the "masks slow (or even stop) the spread of the coronavirus" narrative--sometimes known as "wear your (expletive) mask" narrative--was recently published by two Oregon physicians, Dr. Tim Powell and Dr. John Powell. Their excellent essay entitled "Masking the Science" was published on the blog of Evergreen Family Medicine where Dr. Tim Powell is the CEO and Medical Director. I came across the piece a couple of weeks ago, and linked to it from my site. 

Yesterday (2/8/21) I was dismayed to discover that my link was to a page that no longer existed. It seems their truth-filled essay has been scrubbed from their blog. I can find it nowhere on their site. Also, I can find no explanation on the internet as to why this piece was taken down. However, I can speculate. I imagine that the cancel-culture mask Nazis targeted (and threatened) these good doctors and thier business. Much pressure was then applied--perhaps even by those like-minded as the doctors on masks, but neverthless frightened by the cancel crowd--for the docors to remove their mask-narrative destroying post. What a shame! However, as many have often rightly said, "the internet is forever." 

Using the internet archive "Wayback Machine," one can still find "Masking the Science." In the name of the truth, and to help end the wicked, widespread masking of Americans, and to help end the evil lockdown of America, here is the complete essay (including many the many informative graphics used):

1/25/2021 Masking the Science

We have purposely avoided directly confronting the issue of masks because it is such an emotional and political issue. Like waving a red flag in front of a bull, the topic elicits strong emotions which overwhelms reason. We wear a mask in the hospital and don a N95 mask, gown and gloves when we see a patient known to have COVID-19. Masks are used for source control when patients are admitted with various types of infectious respiratory diseases. After the visit, we dispense of the gown, gloves and change into our regular surgical mask to continue patient rounds. In public, we wear a cloth mask to comply with executive orders and as a courtesy to others who feel afraid and uncomfortable. Like most of you, we rarely wash the mask, we stick it in our pockets, pick it out of the glove compartment or off the floorboard when we need it.

In truth, we wish masks worked. If they did, it would be a cheap, and easy way to control the spread of Covid. The idea that they protect not only their wearer, but also those people around them seems noble. We wished masks worked because citizens are spending billions of dollars on them.

We wish masks worked because most Americans wear them now. Telling them it was unnecessary will not make them happy. We wish masks worked because they have become a symbol for virtue and social responsibility. Anyone who doubts their utility is personally attacked; as though they don’t believe the viral pandemic is real, or don’t care about those who die from it.

We wish masks worked, because they distract from other important Covid related issues such as: school closings, lack of access for non COVID related illness, increased mental illness, elderly dying alone, missed youth experiences, substance abuse, suicides, increased poverty and homelessness, suppression of free speech, censorship of science, disruption of supply chains, government agencies used to oppress small businesses, restriction of religious gatherings, travel disruptions, isolation protocols, modeling over actual data, quarantines, lockdowns, contact tracing, and global harm of the economy that most impacts the working class, vulnerable and poor.

We wish masks worked.

But they don’t.

At least, not the cloth and surgical masks you see in the public arena. They litter the landscape and waterways. They are difficult for people with disabilities and small children. It promotes natural germaphobe tendencies and indoctrinates the young to see their fellow humankind as a sack of germs.

There have been many randomized controlled trials (RCT) and meta-analysis of previous studies that suggest that masks do not work to prevent influenza- like illnesses, or respiratory illness transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles – like Covid. This knowledge was the basis for the WHO and CDC recommending against the public wearing masks in the spring of 2020. It was repeated by authorities and experts at every level.

Dr. Jerome Adams, the Surgeon General tweeted, “Seriously people – STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing the general public from catching Coronavirus”

Dr. Anthony Fauci told 60 minutes, “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask”.

In April, the New England Journal of Medicine wrote: “we know that wearing a mask outside of health care facilities offers little, if any protection from infection”.

What changed? Well, it wasn’t the science.

All studies are not equal. The gold standard of medical evidence comes from randomly controlled studies. Recent observational studies that were used to support mask mandates were poorly designed for confounding factors, carried out in medical environments, and then, impressions were extrapolated to the general public. Studies that evaluated the viral exposure of mice in a cage covered with mask material vs. caged mice without a mask cover does not seem to translate well to a world of humans who use their hands. In contrast, a recent Danish mask study of the general public that was performed in a prospective, randomized fashion did not endorse the current majority narrative and was vigorously criticized and suppressed by some.

A new drug, medical product or procedure would never be approved based on this type of evidence.

Logic argues against mask effectiveness. The size differential between viral particle or droplet size expelled from the human respiratory tract compared to the filter size of surgical or cloth masks is substantial. If you read the fine print on most consumer masks, one will likely read a statement such as this; “not intended for medical purposes and has not been tested to reduce the transmission of disease”.

The best studies are outcome based and measure “patient oriented evidence that matters.” A pharmaceutical company may show their statin drug greatly reduces cholesterol and science can show a correlation between cholesterol and heart disease. So, the obvious premise is that lowering cholesterol reduces risk of heart attacks.

Except it doesn’t. At least not for primary prevention in patients without preexisting vascular disease. It is why you must do the study. Does the intervention work in real world conditions?

In August, Pew Research reported that 85% of Americans said they wore masks in public all or most of the time. If this is so, and if masks are effective, why has the incidence of SARS-Cov-2 increased so rapidly? Why is there not a favorable correlation between mask usage and disease transmission in countries and states with different mask policies?

If masks and lockdowns work, why don’t they work?

The graph below shows the daily number of deaths per million in the UK, France, Spain, Italy and Sweden from March to December. The number to the right reflects the percentage of the population that report wearing a mask in public spaces. Sweden has the lowest number of deaths per million in this comparison despite only 7.7% of the surveyed population reported wearing a mask. For those who argue that Norway, Denmark and Finland have lower mortality rates than Sweden. They would be correct, but these countries also have much lower rates of mask use compared to other European countries (less than 50%). Masks have been oversold as a solution.

Dr. Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s state epidemiologist said, “face masks are an easy solution, and I’m deeply distrustful of easy solutions to complex problems”. He was right. Sweden now (1/23/2021) has fewer deaths per million people (1086) than the United States (1284). In fact, they have a lower death rate than 30 of our states. History is replete with examples when politics or religion meddles with science and adversely impacts solutions. Dr. Martin Kulldorff has argued against widespread public mask mandates from the beginning. He is a professor at Harvard Medical School and a leader in disease surveillance methods and infectious disease outbreaks. He describes the current pandemic policy of COVID lockdowns and mask use this way; “after 300 years, the Age of Enlightenment has ended.”

At this point, many do not need an expert opinion to trust their own intuition and lying eyes that masks are not working. Everyone wants to mitigate the transmission of the virus, but let’s focus on what works.

But, wearing a mask is so easy to do. Can’t you just shut up and wear the damn mask?

Why are we poking this tiger, this mask issue now?

Because there is mass hysteria, and many are blind to it.

Because it’s an irrational and divisive policy when unity is required more than ever.

Because evidence should matter.

Because in 2019, if we saw a father struggling to muzzle a terrified, crying 2-year old child on a plane with a cloth, we would report them to authorities for possible child abuse. In 2021, we kick the whole family off the plane unless the father is successful in his efforts.

Because of a young man with autism who is unable to tolerate a mask on his face is publicly shamed.

Because the masks offer a false sense of security and may adversely impact more important public health mitigation measures.

Because our local high school cross-country teams should not be running the trails wearing masks.

Because the Oregon Board of Medicine suspended the license of a physician who objected to this policy.

Because one of the greatest losses in this pandemic has been the loss of credibility of organizations for whom we held in high regard. Organizations such as the CDC, WHO and Public Health Organizations that need to maintain the trust of the citizens.

Because it is increasingly apparent that the basis for the mask mandate is not medical, but political.

Because fear and panic should not prevail over actual evidence, even when many powerful institutions have expended so much political capital promoting the wrong policy.

We wish masks worked.

We wished we didn’t have to fight about them.

But they don’t.

And we do.

Tim Powell MD

John Powell MD

If you want to see more graphs, we have included them below as well as a video demonstration.

In September 2020, the CDC acknowledged that SARS-Cov-2 could be spread in an aerosolized manner. Masks are ineffective against this mode of transmission. Early in this pandemic, some physicians showed video evidence of how masks might work as a source control for droplet transmission of COVID-19. Unfortunately, this is not the case for aerosolized transmission of viruses as demonstrated in the video below.

CDC/NFL Publish Revealing Wuhan Virus Paper

Multiple outlets have recently reported on a new “scientific paper” published by the CDC in partnership with the NFL. The paper was authored by “medical experts” from both the NFL and the NFL Players Association. The paper details the efforts by the NFL to conduct its season in the midst of the Wuhan virus. As the lockdown narrative—almost always accompanied by the masking narrative—still prevails across much of the U.S., this paper provides some important revelations.

Before discussing the paper, it is important to note that, in spite of a few postponements, every NFL regular season game was played. Only the Super Bowl remains. In other words, unlike the NCAA and thousands of high schools across the U.S. that caved to the foolish Wuhan virus fear porn, every NFL team played every game on its schedule.

Reporting on the CDC/NFL paper, Fox News notes that “from Aug. 9 to Nov. 21 approximately 623,000 COVID-19 tests were performed on approximately 11,400 players and staff members and 329 tested positive (2.9%).” That’s about 55 tests per individual conducted over a 105-day period. (This period constitutes the bulk of the NFL regular season.) That means, on average, these NFL employees were getting tested once every two days.

The 2.9% number is calculated by dividing the number who tested positive (329) by the total number tested (11,400). However, it would be more revealing to note, of the 623,000 tests, how many tests were positive. Almost certainly this number is significantly lower than 2.9%. It’s also important to note that in spite of these “positive” tests, almost zero serious illnesses from the Wuhan virus were reported.

In other words, though the NFL’s rampant testing yielded a few “positives,” virtually no one got sick. ABC News details each team’s “cases” as of early December here. Almost every player or coach who was reported to have missed a game had to do so because of a “positive test.” Thus, as we have seen throughout the past ten months, a “positive test” does not in any way indicate an actual Wuhan virus case. 

Only two NFL employees—Denver’s defensive coordinator Ed Donatell and Jacksonville running back Ryquell Armstead—reportedly had to be hospitalized due to Wuhan virus complications. Both have fully recovered. It seems that for NFL players—and for football players at any level—the dangers from the Wuhan virus pale in comparison to the dangers that come from playing in football games.

Most telling from the CDC/NFL paper was the fact that, according to Dr. Allen Sills, the NFL’s chief medical officer, “We have not seen any evidence of on-field transmission in NFL games or practices.” Dr. Sills added,

I think that that is an important observation. It’s certainly a question that many people raised before we started as to why that occurred. I think there are a number of theories that people have advanced. One of them is that obviously we’re playing either in an open area or at least an extremely large air environment where we’ve got a lot of ventilation, a lot of movement and likely quick dispersal of any droplets or particles.

So in over 256 NFL games (not including playoff games), and for well over 1,000 practices (probably closer to 2,000) involving 32 teams and over 2,000 players, there was zero evidence of “on-field transmission.” This is significant because of what happens during an NFL game or practice.

Undoubtedly, you are somewhat familiar with the game of American football, but just in case you’re not, football is akin to ritualized combat. Every play involves multiple boys or men (depending on the level of competition) engaged in blocking, tackling, pushing, pulling, and so on. What’s more, because this is done over a multiple-hour period while running in full (or, in the case of practice, sometimes partial) pads, this variety of numerous close contacts is done while players are profusely expelling bodily fluids via sweating, spitting, bleeding, and the like.

So after thousands of hours involving hundreds of thousands of extremely close, maskless contacts in which bodily fluids were almost always present, the NFL and the CDC are telling us that there were zero person-to-person transmissions of the Wuhan virus! Don’t tell me this had anything to do with the fact that some players wear face shields (many, if not most, did not—they were not required). In fact, the CDC does not recommend face shields to prevent the spread of the Wuhan virus. 

If, as Dr. Sills suggests, this lack of transmission is due to the fact that NFL games and practices are conducted “in an open area or at least an extremely large air environment where we’ve got a lot of ventilation,” then why in the world would any government official or municipality mandate masks, etc. for outdoor activity?! In fact, given that many NFL games and practices are in large indoor facilities—and given that there was zero person-to-person transmission where rampant close contact was present—why would any mall, church, school, or Walmart, Lowes, Kroger, and the like mandate masks?

Why did the NFL mandate masks on its sidelines? If sweaty, bleeding players engaged in hand-to-hand battles did not spread the virus, why in the world would merely standing on a sideline be any more dangerous?! It’s almost as if the NFL wanted to aid the Democrat Party and perpetuate the lockdown narrative! 

This data from the NFL should again make it clear that, for the young and healthy, the Wuhan virus presents little to no danger. Along with the fact that a mountain of other data has shown that masks and mask mandates do not prevent the spread of the Wuhan virus, this data from the NFL should also put an end to the widespread masking of Americans. This is especially true for the young and any who are asymptomatic.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2021, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith and Reason.
www.TrevorGrantThomas.com 
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@TrevorGrantThomas.com

Recent Study Reveals Significant Health Disparities for Homosexual Teens

A recent (and first of its kind) study verifies again what many Christians have long warned about the homosexual lifestyle. Published in August of 2016 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the study—Sexual Identity, Sex of Sexual Contacts, and Health Related Behaviors Among Students in Grades 9-12—looked at a wide variety of risky behaviors among U.S. high school students.

The study monitored six categories of “priority health-related behaviors among youth and young adults: 1.) behaviors that contribute to unintentional injuries and violence; 2.) tobacco use; 3.) alcohol and other drug use; 4.) sexual behaviors related to unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections; 5.) unhealthy dietary behaviors; 6.) physical inactivity.”

The study used two questions to measure a student’s sexual status: “Which of the following best describes you?” The response options were, “heterosexual (straight),” “gay or lesbian,” “bisexual,” and “not sure.” The sexual activity of students surveyed was determined by asking: “During your life, with whom have you had sexual contact?” The response options were, “I have never had sexual contact,” “females,” “males,” and “females and males.” In analyzing the results, researchers grouped students who identified as “gay or lesbian” and “bisexual” into the same group (which I will describe here as: “teenagers (or students) engaging in homosexual activity”).

In almost every instance, the risky behavior measured—especially behaviors that are often linked to a moral decision—was much more prevalent among teenagers engaging in homosexual activity. In addition, and unsurprisingly, those students with the healthiest outcomes were those who refrained from sexual activity. In most of the risky behaviors measured, the outcomes are not even close.

For example, students engaging in homosexual activity were about three times more likely to feel “sad or hopeless” than students who had no sexual contact. In addition, students engaging in homosexual activity were nearly four times more likely to have seriously considered attempting suicide than students who had no sexual contact, and they were six-and-a-half times more likely to have actually attempted suicide.

Comparing the same two groups (students engaging in homosexual activity vs. students with no sexual contact), students engaging in homosexual activity were:

• Eight times more likely to smoke
• 47 times more likely to smoke frequently (20 or more cigarettes in the month prior to the survey)
• Nearly 3 times as likely to have tried alcohol prior to age 13
• Three-and-a-half times as likely to be currently using alcohol
• More than 11 times as likely to binge drink (10 or more drinks in a row)
• Nearly six times as likely to be currently using marijuana
• More than 16 times as likely ever to have used hallucinogenic drugs 
• More than 18 times as likely ever to have used cocaine 
• 30 times as likely ever to have used heroin
• And 23 times as likely ever to have used methamphetamines 

Likewise, compared to students who had no sexual contact, sexually active heterosexual students were:

• Five times more likely to smoke
• Nearly 17 times more likely to smoke frequently (20 or more cigarettes in the month prior to the survey)
• Nearly twice as likely to have tried alcohol prior to age 13
• Three times as likely to be currently using alcohol
• More than nine times as likely to binge drink (10 or more drinks in a row)
• More than four times as likely to be currently using marijuana
• Nearly nine times as likely ever to have used hallucinogenic drugs 
• Nine times as likely ever to have used cocaine 
• More than seven times as likely ever to have used heroin
• And seven times as likely ever to have used methamphetamines

In other words, the teenagers least likely to put their health and lives in danger (along with the health and lives of others) by engaging in risky behaviors are those who are choosing to follow the moral precepts of their Creator.

None of this should come as a surprise. As I implied at the beginning of this piece, the unhealthy and unsafe behaviors of those who have decided to go their own way sexually is well documented. Of course, it’s not the homosexuality or the fornication itself that leads to other immoral behavior, but the rebellious spirit that lies at the root of such behavior. As Dr. Jeffrey Satinover puts it, “[O]nce people begin to ‘walk on the wild side,’ they have effectively broken one of societies strongest taboos. Other taboos then fall away easily and rapidly.” This is especially true of men who engage in homosexual behavior.

Satinover notes in his seminal book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, homosexuality often (if not always) leads to:

• A 25- to 30-year decrease in life expectancy.
• Chronic, potentially fatal, liver disease—infectious hepatitis, which increases the risk of liver cancer.
• Inevitably fatal immune disease including associated cancers.
• Frequently fatal rectal cancer.
• Multiple bowel and other infectious diseases.
• A much higher than usual incidence of suicide.

Men having sex with men (MSM) account for the vast majority (over 75 percent in 2014) of all cases of syphilis. According to the CDC in 2014, MSM were much more likely to contract virtually every sexually transmitted disease (STD) known, including syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea.

The CDC reported last year that rates for sexually transmitted diseases have reached record highs in the U.S. In a news release, Dr. Jonathan Mermin, director of CDC's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, declared, “We have reached a decisive moment for the nation.” According to the report, those at greatest risk for STDs in the U.S. are young people ages 15-24, and homosexual men.

The CDC also reports that though they are only about 2 percent of the population, men engaging in homosexual behavior make up 55 percent of all people living with HIV in the U.S. In 2014, homosexual men made up more than two-thirds of all new HIV diagnoses in the United States.

Again, none of this is new information. For as long as there have been organizations willing and able to measure such data, or wherever common sense and sound morality reign, it has been well understood that those engaging in sexually immoral behavior—especially homosexuality—are much less healthy than the general population. Or, as Dr. Satinover put it, “The correlation between male homosexuality and disease has been recognized for at least two thousand years.” Of course, what is relatively new is the desire to ignore or deceive when it comes to one of the most significant health risks a culture could face.

In the name of “sexual freedom,” instead of talking about these behaviors in terms of the real problems that they are (and teaching people to avoid such behaviors), decades of liberal rot has led to meaningless and ineffective campaigns of “awareness, education, and tolerance.” Even the CDC itself—whose stated mission is to protect Americans from “health, safety, and security threats”—will say nothing to discourage homosexual behavior. All the while, as the science reveals again, American kids are suffering and dying.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the brand new book The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Some Inconvenient (and Uncomfortable) Truths on Homosexuality

Earlier this year, as Ezra Klein’s Vox.com was launched, when describing why another news and politics site was necessary, Klein remarked that Vox would be “as good at explaining the world as it is at reporting on it.” It seems that is not the case when it comes to homosexuality.

Recently Vox reported on a new study from the Centers for Disease Control which revealed that from 2001 to 2011, annual diagnoses of HIV among men who have sex with men (MSM)—in the 13 to 24 age group—increased 132.5%. This is a much larger increase than the one among older homosexuals, and enormous compared to the nearly 33% drop in HIV diagnoses among the general population.

Even more striking, and left out of the Vox report, is the fact that, though male homosexuals are only about 2% of the U.S. population, they account for over half (56%) of all HIV infections in the U.S. In 2011, homosexual men accounted for 79% of new HIV infections among men. Male homosexuals are 60 times more likely to contract HIV than other men. A 2008 study showed that 1 in 5 gay men in the U.S. has HIV.

The World Health Organization, which Vox also "conveniently" ignored, is so concerned about the “exploding epidemic” of HIV that it recently recommended that all homosexual men consider antiretroviral medications “to help prevent HIV infection.” However, even more likely to contract HIV than gay men are “transgender women” (who are, of course, biologically male). They are 50 times more likely to be infected than the general population and are among the most at-risk groups to contract HIV.

And it’s not just HIV. In May of this year WebMD reported that, “Syphilis has returned with a vengeance to the gay community.” According to the CDC, among homosexual men, cases of syphilis have more than doubled since the year 2000. The CDC also revealed that, in 2008 “men who have sex with men” accounted for 63% of all new syphilis cases.

Additionally, the CDC reports that homosexuals are 15 times more likely than the general population to get Hepatitis B and 17 times more likely to get anal cancer.

Speaking of the anal region, homosexual men who are on the “receiving end” of a penis (using their anus like a vagina), are over 17 times more likely to contract HIV than women who engage in sexual activity as it was meant to be. Although Vox referenced this, even including a graphic, they left out other important information. Such as the fact that the vast majority of gay men, 75% according to author Steven Gregory Underwood, engage in anal sex.  One researcher referred to it as the “sine qua non of sex for many gay men.”

Yet, as the previous link points out, and as Vox again leaves out, “human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an ‘exit-only’ passage.”

Anal intercourse, as Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, author of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, points out, traumatizes the soft tissues of the rectal lining. “These tissues are meant to accommodate the relatively soft fecal mass…and are nowhere near as sturdy as vaginal tissues. As a consequence, the lining of the rectum is almost always traumatized to some degree by any act of anal intercourse. Even in the absence of major trauma, minor or microscopic tears in the rectal lining allow for immediate contamination and the entry of germs into the bloodstream.”

Vox also reports that “compared to young men who have sex with women, those who have sex with men are nearly 10 times as likely to have ever injected illegal drugs.” In 2007 the Los Angeles Times reported the frequency of methamphetamine use is 20 times greater among MSM than in the general population.

Such information, though graphic and uncomfortable even to read, is very necessary and should be widely discussed given where we are in this nation when it comes to homosexuality. With same-sex marriage, homosexuality, and transgenderism being hailed as normal— even the American Psychological Association deceptively declares that “Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality”— and is now welcomed and celebrated by politicians and pundits, courts and corporations, Hollywood and high schools alike, more than ever the American public is in dire need of “the whole truth” on these matters.

The truth is that homosexual behavior, especially male homosexual behavior, is very dangerous and unhealthy. And it is certainly not something that governments or organizations of any type should promote. Those dealing with homosexual desires deserve understanding and compassion, but they also deserve the truth.

However, as Vox again demonstrates, the liberal media will never present the whole truth on homosexuality. (Sadly, we can’t even trust many churches on homosexuality!) If you do happen to report the facts on this matter, you are at least accused of perpetuating “false stereotypes” of homosexuals, or, at worst, labeled a bigot and a homophobe in need of being “stamped out...ruthlessly.” For the sake of our nation, more people better start telling the truth.

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com