8 Search results

For the term "Greatness".

Masks, Vaccines, and Government Lies

The cover-up of information, and the dissembling we’ve seen over the past year on vaccines and masks is serious, not only for health reasons but also for reasons of public trust in institutions.

Trust in government and government-sponsored edicts is fast declining because of federal, state, and local pronouncements on the Chinese flu, vaccines, masks, and lockdowns. The federal government has been as stubborn as an ox against telling the truth—and 2021 was, perhaps appropriately, the year of the ox in China. 

We have a good idea by now that masks are essentially useless. But masks are nevertheless being recommended, and in many cases required, by the feds, the military, and states and cities across the country.

The federal government at first said that masks were not useful, but it turned out that that announcement was for the purpose of limiting public purchases in order to ensure that there would be an adequate supply of masks for healthcare workers—which is to say, the government deliberately deceived the public. Then the feds sang a different tune, that masks were beneficial. Now in many cases—on airplanes, and in public places in many cities—they are required. 

In a Wall Street Journal column, Phillip W. Magness and Peter C. Earle pointed out that in January 2020, Anthony Fauci questioned harsh China lockdowns: “Historically, when you shut things down, it doesn’t have a major effect.”And federal authorities have been wildly inconsistent about what businesses are “essential,” who should get vaccinated and when, and how long sick people should quarantine.

It is reasonable to conclude that the behavior of the government is driven not by science but by politics. Mask mandates have been particularly offensive, especially when the most preachy pols have been photographed not wearing them or fleeing to saner jurisdictions where masks are not required. 

A reader who disagreed with my conclusion in November that masks were not, in fact, beneficial, wrote that he could easily lay his hands on a study that said masks were effective, and shortly afterward forwarded such a study. 

The study has two problems. The first is that it’s old: it was published in January 2021; which leads to the second: it was not based on randomized controlled trials (the gold standard) dealing with the Chinese flu. It even concedes that point, saying early on: “. . . we should not generally expect to be able to find controlled trials, due to logistical and ethical reasons, and should therefore instead seek a wider evidence base.” In other words, the study is just their opinion; it’s not really “science.” 

“Overall,” it says, “direct evidence of the efficacy of mask use is supportive, but inconclusive.” 

And then later on, the study offers this statement, which parents, especially, should read: 

The impact of using masks to control transmission in the workplace has not been well studied. One issue that impacts both school and work usage is that, over a full day’s use, masks may become wet, or dirty. [Ew, yuck!] A study of mask use in health care settings found that ‘respiratory pathogens on the outer surface of the used medical masks may result in self-contamination,’ and noted that ‘the risk is higher with longer duration of mask use (>6h) and with higher rates of clinical contact.’ Further research is needed to clarify these issues. In the meantime, most health bodies recommend replacing dirty or wet masks with clean ones.

Right. So what are parents supposed to do? Send their children to school with five masks and tell them to be sure to change them every two hours? 

People who are seriously interested in the effectiveness of masks should read Jeffrey Anderson’s definitive pieces in City Journal and American Greatness. The key point he makes is that only randomized controlled trials (“RCTs”) are worth considering. It is a fair conclusion, therefore, that masks are not useful because the RCTs that have been conducted don’t prove they are. 

Recently, two members of the COVID-19 advisory board for the Biden-Harris transition team seemed to agree, at least in part. Michael Osterholm and Ezekiel Emanuel wrote in the Washington Post: “masks can be helpful, but only if they are high-quality and used routinely. This means non-fraudulent N95, KN95, or KF94 respirators, all of which have satisfactory filtration efficiency. Cotton or surgical masks are more for show than effective protection, especially against omicron.” 

OK . . . maybe. But even assuming they are correct—and the aforementioned Anderson pieces indicate they are not—how many people actually wear N95 or KN95 masks? At the moment, certainly, there are no government edicts that require N95 or KN95 masks.

How many people do wear N95 or KN95 masks? We don’t know. One survey says that 72 percent of U.S. adults always wear a mask when they go out, but it doesn’t say what kind. You can do your own research: look at the first 20 people you see outside and count those who are wearing N95 or KN95 masks. It will, on a guess, probably be no higher than three, which is only 15 percent of your control group. That suggests that most people are not wearing either the N95 or KN95 masks—and we really don’t have much reason (i.e., RCTs) to think even those are effective. 

Masks mandates are just government overreach—but overreach seems to be standard operating procedure for government these days. 

But there’s more bad news, and it suggests more dissembling by the government. An Indiana life insurance CEO has said that deaths are up 40 percent among working-age people (ages 18 to 64) who are employees of businesses with group life insurance policies.

OneAmerica CEO Scott Davison said the increase in deaths represents “huge, huge numbers.” A key point to remember is that death rates (mortality tables) rarely change at all. Another point is that these deaths are not caused by the Chinese flu: those death rates are actually down. A likely culprit is vaccinations. Why haven’t the feds told us about that? When will we read about that in the mainstream media?

And finally, to start the new year with some critical thinking, see the report from the Canadian Covid Care Alliance which claims that Pfizer’s COVID-19 inoculations cause more illness than they prevent and provides an overview of the Pfizer trial flaws in both design and execution. Did you hear about that from the White House or from Fauci, or read about it in the New York Times or the Washington Post?

The cover-up of this information, and the dissembling we’ve seen over the past year on vaccines and masks is serious, not only for health reasons but also for reasons of public trust in institutions. That trust, a necessity for a functioning democracy, is now fast disappearing—assuming there’s any left.

In China, 2022 is the year of the tiger. Maybe in the United States, it will be the year of truth.

Published:

January 6, 2022
American Greatness

Whom Does Harvard Thank at Thanksgiving?

With its atheist chaplain, Harvard is engaged in killing the culture—the culture that midwifed to us this civilization, including Harvard.

When Americans gather together on Thanksgiving Day to ask the Lord’s blessing, what will they do at Harvard?

In a body blow aimed at Western civilization, Harvard University has appointed an atheist to be its chaplain. The mind reels.

Harvard faced obvious self-imposed constraints in making the selection of Greg Epstein. The person had to be a Democrat (check: during the 2020 election Epstein served as the national chair of the organization “Humanists for Biden”); had to have written a book (check: Good Without God); and had to (how to put it delicately) fit in: a Harvard professor faced a serious backlash recently for refusing to use the term “pregnant people” and insisting on using the terms “male” and “female.” Harvard has no truck with that kind of obstinacy—though what the head of Harvard’s biology department thinks about the ability of men to have babies is information not readily available. So, Epstein seems to check the boxes.

But an atheist?

Apparently, Epstein is a humanist. Humanism is a philosophy, reports the Harvard Crimson, “that centers around the goodness of humanity.” How the Taliban and the Nazis fit into that thinking is not clear.

According to the Crimson, Epstein said [deep breath]:

There’s just so much great work that goes on in any given year with all these different religious and spiritual and ethical communities, where each of the communities is very much independent and does not rely on any other community or on any official like myself.

A Crimson survey showed that 21 percent of the class of 2019 were agnostics and 17 percent called themselves atheists. Those numbers appear to be somewhat higher than the national numbers. A Pew Research Center poll found that 20 percent of Americans identify as atheist, agnostic, or nonreligious.

The same Crimson poll found that two-thirds of surveyed freshmen identified as “somewhat or very liberal”; only 12 percent said they were “somewhat conservative.” Where’s the diversity officer when Harvard needs . . . him? How long before Harvard starts discriminating against Catholics? We know Harvard currently discriminates against Asians and used to discriminate against Jews.

Epstein apparently sees his role as a coordinator or facilitator—or something like that. Perhaps just an interfaith “facilitatorer,” not exactly in charge of, but responsible for administering—or is it administrating, or perhaps “administratoring” and coordinating, or “coordinatering” da-dah, da-dah, da-dah . . . .

Perhaps that’s the good news in this otherwise depressing story: he’s just a bureaucrat.

But what if he isn’t?

How do you define good without (reference to) God? And whose god, anyway? Yours? Mine? The Taliban’s?

Joe Biden favors mandatory vaccinations for COVID-19. He approves of abortions. How far is it from approving of abortions to requiring them? Less than 100 years ago, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. approved requiring forced sterilizations. If, in Holmes’s memorable formulation, “three generations of imbeciles are enough,” how many generations of welfare-sponging, illegitimate children (70 percent of black babies are illegitimate) might be viewed by today’s vaccine-enforcing Democrats as enough to justify forced abortions? Racism anyone?

Democrats love abortion. Today’s Democrats have returned to the thrilling racial segregation days of yesteryear, with “diversity, equity, and inclusion” and critical race theory justified by the New Woke Times’ own “1619 Project.” The modern racist Democrats are simply following Woodrow Wilson, the father of the modern bureaucratic state, who brought segregation back to Washington. Is that a good? Is that a good without God?

John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” William F. Buckley Jr. said, “The Beatitudes remain the essential statement of the Western code.

God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply. But a member of the Harvard class of 1961 recently wrote: “Having one less child, especially in the developed world, does far more to reduce an individual’s impact on the rate of climate change, depletion of natural resources, loss of biodiversity, and extinctions than reducing our direct consumption.”

We all know, because our public solons have told us, incessantly and relentlessly, that climate change is the “existential” threat of our time—more threatening, obviously, than the Wuhan Flu. If government officials can lock us out of our offices and public spaces, ruining our businesses and depriving our children of an education because of the relatively minor threat posed by the flu, think what they will claim they can do to avoid the “existential threat” of climate change. Limiting couples to one child is a no-brainer. To Hell with God and his fruitful multiplying nonsense. He just didn’t understand the danger of carbon emissions.

Harvard is engaged, and surely knowingly, in killing the culture, the culture that midwifed to us this civilization, including Harvard. Harvard is engaged in culturecide of the West. But if Harvard and its followers can be talked into following the one-child policy, they will disappear . . . eventually. Call it suicide of the woke. And pray, to God, that it happens soon.

Then will the wicked oppressing us cease from distressing us, and the name of the Lord be ever praised.

O Lord, make us free!

Published:

November 24, 2021
American Greatness