Sunday, January 17, 2021

Saturday, January 16, 2021

There is no evidence that masks or lockdowns work to reduce Covid-19 deaths

From the New York Times, January 16, 2021.  California's Covid-19 death by date chart.  The results of their vicious hard lockdown. 

Saturday, November 14, 2020


In theory, a randomized controlled study would test the spread of the virus among people wearing masks versus people not wearing masks and possibly scientifically demonstrate the effectiveness of wearing one.

But Fauci balked at the idea.

“I would not want to do a randomized controlled study because that would mean having people not wear masks and see if they do better,” he said.

Fauci suggested he would never ask an individual to participate in a study that would involve not wearing a mask.

“I think that to do the study would be kind of difficult to do because then you’d have to tell people not to wear masks, and I’m not about to tell them that,” he said.

Tuesday, October 20, 2020


  • US physicians reported an 84% decrease in hospitalizations, a 50% decrease in mortality among already hospitalized patients (if treated early), and an improvement in the condition of patients within 8 to 12 hours based on Zinc/HCQ/AZ early treatment.
  • Italian hospital doctors reported a decrease in deaths of 66% based on HCQ treatment.
  • A Spanish study found that low plasma zinc levels (below 50mcg/dl) increased the risk of in-hospital death of covid patients by 130%.
  • US physicians moreover reported a 45% reduction in mortality of hospitalized patients by adding zinc to HCQ and azithromycin.
  • Another US study reported a rapid resolution (within hours) of Covid symptoms, such as shortness of breath, based on early outpatient treatment with high-dose zinc.
  • A Dutch study on HCQ published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases found a 53% risk reduction in terms of ICU admission and ventilation of covid patients.
  • Australian Professor Thomas Borody reported an improvement in the condition of covid patients often within hours after treatment with zinc, ivermectin and azithromycin.
  • *************************
  • April 29, 2020:  Remdesivir shows promising results for coronavirus, Fauci says
  • O WHOOPS!!

    OCTOBER 16, 2020  Remdesivir has 'little or no effect' on Covid-19 mortality: WHO study

    The antiviral drug remdesivir, considered one of the most promising Covid-19 treatments, turns out to do little to prevent deaths from the disease, according to a WHO-backed study

Sunday, October 11, 2020


In theory, a randomized controlled study would test the spread of the virus among people wearing masks versus people not wearing masks and possibly scientifically demonstrate the effectiveness of wearing one.

But Fauci balked at the idea.

“I would not want to do a randomized controlled study because that would mean having people not wear masks and see if they do better,” he said.

Fauci suggested he would never ask an individual to participate in a study that would involve not wearing a mask.

“I think that to do the study would be kind of difficult to do because then you’d have to tell people not to wear masks, and I’m not about to tell them that,” he said.

Friday, October 2, 2020


Alas, the Donald had no time for policy. Never has.

His modus operandi is to attack, belittle, insult and smear. Yet even in that modality, he did manage to do a solid for the public good. That is, he smoked out the systemic, relentless and shameless mendacity by which the ruling elites deny and expurgate any an all efforts to expose their malign misdeeds.

In this case, it was with respect to the documented $3.5 million wire transfer from the wife of the ex-Mayor of Moscow and Russia’s richest woman, Elena Baturina, to Hunter Biden. As the Senate committee recently revealed based on actual intercepts from Fedwire:

On Feb. 14, 2014, Baturina wired $3.5 million to a Rosemont Seneca Thornton LLC bank account for a “Consultancy Agreement DD12.02.2014.”

Separately, between May 6, 2015 and Dec. 8, 2015, Baturina also sent 11 wires in the amount of $391,968.21 to a bank account belonging to BAK USA LLC (BAK USA). Nine of the 11 transactions, totaling $241,797.14 were sent from Baturina’s accounts to a Rosemont Seneca Thornton bank account, which then transferred to the money to BAK USA.

As it happened, Hunter Biden was no more of a qualified investment manager than he was an expert on Ukrainian gas production, but he was intimately connected to an apparent Dem schmear. In the case of the above mentioned transfers to BAK USA, it had involved none other than Governor Andrew Cuomo (D., N.Y.), who had recently announced in a press release the grand opening of BAK USA’s new global headquarters, proclaiming,

BAK’s decision to locate its global headquarters in Buffalo is another success story for this city and for START-UP NY….the expansion of the global headquarters, one of the first American firms to produce its own-branded electronic tablets, is complete…

Buffalo has become a leader in high-tech manufacturing and Bak USA’s newly completed expansion in the heart of the city means new jobs, more economic activity and more momentum for a region already on the move. Bak USA’s successful expansion in Western New York is yet another example of companies coming to New York and staying here to grow their businesses in our state.”

Alas, a year or two latter BAK USA was defunct. As Stephen Watson of the Buffalo News reported in 2019, “The company’s recent filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation shows Bak USA has $39.4 million in debts and just $147,000 in assets.”

Quite a hole, that. Or the residue of plunder, as the case may be.

Yet when the Donald brought up this smelly chain of events, Sleepy Joe just stiffly swatted it away as a matter completely untrue and fully debunked.

Well, yes, the recipient of the funds was not Hunter Biden’s personal checking account, but a Rosemont Seneca Thornton LLC bank account and that’s where the Dem spin machine attempted a “gotcha”. It seems that Hunter Biden was indeed a co-founding partner along with Devon Archer, a former staff to John Kerry, and Chris Heinz, the latter’s stepson and billionaire heir to the Ketchup fortune, in a firm called Rosemont Seneca sans the “Thornton LLC” bit.

So according to the Dem spinmeister: Mistaken identity, Fedwire tracking number an all!

Actually not at all. It seems that the Rosemont trio had reached out to a top-drawer partner to extend their global reach. That happened to be a Massachusetts-based consultancy called the Thornton Group, hence the added name on the checking account which received the Moscow wires. Yet that did not stop the Biden spokesman from insisting that Hunter was not a co-founder of Rosemont Seneca Thornton LLC, even though his firm, Rosemont Seneca, was just one lawyer’s document removed.

As it further happened, the Thornton piece of the Russian-money receiving LLC was controlled by one James Bulger. The latter was the son of former Massachusetts state senator and Dem bagman, Billy Bulger, who, in turn, was the brother of the notorious mob hitman James “Whitey” Bulger.

The latter, of course, had famously been a Boston crime lord who turned FBI informant and had been run by none other than, well, Bobby “three sticks” Mueller. That was back in the day when Mueller was perfecting the art of squeezing his targets as he moved up the food chain of purported miscreants.

In any event, James Bulger’s firm had a Chinese counterpart called Solebury Thornton (Beijing) Consulting Co., Ltd. Together Thornton LCC and Solebury Thornton claimed to function as a cross-border capital intermediary whose purpose was to facilitate the strategic vision of its clients by providing advisory services and deal structuring expertise.

Moreover, Bulger’s partner in the China side of the enterprise was Michael Lin, who was also the principle behind BAK USA!

Truly, you can’t make this stuff up.

So it should not be surprising that the Thornton LLC and Solebury Thornton combo positioned itself as a “bridge” between the East and the West by “combining its Western business experience with its unique Chinese local market insight and network.”

Sure thing. But stay tuned for Part 2. The moral of the story is the modern Democratic Party is anchored in this kind of sleaze and grift (think the Clinton Foundation), yet has the audacity to dismiss any and all attempts to expose the truth as unworthy skullduggery based on nothing other than right-wing conspiracy theories.

Hopefully, during the next debate there will be a moderator who doesn’t keep giving Sleepy Joe a hall pass whenever the Donald is asleep at the switch, as he clearly was in this case when after landing the punch he failed to dispatch his opponent.


Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Thursday, September 24, 2020


This in the very rural Hocking Hills area of Ohio, not in some suburb full of Neurotic Karen Democrat Women. 

Wednesday, September 23, 2020

Judge Amy Coney Barrett Recently Approved Democrat COVID-19 Lockdown Policies -- Her decision should raise some eyebrows.

ShaneTrejo writes:

Barrett’s record is troubling on many issues, with a ruling that gives Democrats in Illinois blanket authority to shut down society based on COVID-19 mass hysteria standing out as particularly heinous.

Barrett concurred with the majority in Illinois Republican Party et al. v. J.B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois to keep the illegal lockdown in place and allow Democrats to rip up the Constitution under the guise of safety. She hid behind the precedent of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts (1905) in an attempt to avoid culpability for her decision.***

While Barrett rolls over to the far left and allows Democrats to rip up the Constitution, other judges are actually living up to their oath, such as the Trump-appointed District Judge in Pennsylvania, William S. Stickman.

In his ruling, Stickman refused to hide behind precedent to allow the constitution to be destroyed by Democrats. He effectively deep-sixed Pennsylvania’s lockdown and obliterated the abominable Jacobson decision.

He wrote: “Jacobson was decided over a century ago. Since that time, there has been substantial development of federal constitutional law in the area of civil liberties… That century of development has seen the creation of tiered levels of scrutiny for constitutional claims. They did not exist when Jacobson was decided. […]”

Patriotic attorney Robert Barnes has levied additional criticism against Barrett for her unwillingness to stand up to Democrat overreach.

“For example, Barrett, I would oppose her nomination personally. So I would do whatever I can to see her nomination fail. I have no interest in seeing someone like that on the bench,” Barnes explained during an interview on the Viva Frei YouTube channel.

“She comes from the old money corporate South, a world I’m familiar with and the kind of people I’d never want to see in positions of power… That’s the world she comes from. Her dad was a big Shell oil corporate lawyer,” he continued.

Barnes explained how Barrett’s history working as a Clerk for deceased former Justice Antonin Scalia is giving the false impression that she shares his staunch originalist beliefs when that is not in fact the case. He explained that her rise is similar to that of Chief Justice John Roberts, whose record of extreme cowardice on the bench has harmed the nation immeasurably.

“This is how Justice Roberts got on the bench. You do two things if you’re on the Republican side of the aisle: You let people know that you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned even if you don’t believe that… And you play the corporate side of the equation,” he said.

“But most importantly, you get that Justice and his extended intellectual heavyweights to lobby for you to be appointed to the judicial bench down the road… That’s why people are pushing Barrett,” Barnes added.

Barnes highlighted some of Barrett’s worst decisions in a blistering Twitter thread.




U.S. District Judge in Pennsylvania denies the state's motion to stay (postpone) the impact of his ruling declaring most of the lockdown illegal

This proves my contention that the lawyers in all the previous losing lockdown cases were incompetent weenies. THEY NEEDED TO FIRMLY PLEAD that that virus was treatable and that the government was suppressing information about the successful treatments.  They needed to firmly plead that young people were at almost no risk from the virus, treatments or no treatments. And they needed to demand a trial or evidentiary hearing with witnesses to demonstrate that the state had NO FACTS and no argument in support of the lockdowns.  The lawyers for these plaintiffs did not get involved with treatments or preventatives.  But by having the evil doers testify, they showed that they were shooting with blanks with no understanding whatsoever of the original source materials regarding the virus.  

Hon. William S. Stickman IV, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-677: 

First, it is important to note that the Court's judgment did not arise out of proceedings on a temporary restraining order or even a preliminary injunction, but rather, the parties had the opportunity to develop a full evidentiary record under Rule 57. Despite this opportunity, Defendants did not proffer any specific evidence to differentiate between the danger allegedly posed by gatherings governed by specific numeric limitations and gatherings governed by occupancy limitations. The appellate court will be bound by the same record upon which the Court premised its decision. Despite Defendants having every opportunity to make a record, there is simply no evidence that would justify, from a constitutional perspective, the disparate treatment of gatherings.

Defendants' Brief in Support of Stay cites to several newspaper and magazine articles that purport to show the justification for limitations on gatherings. Some of these articles predate the evidentiary hearing in this case, but they were neither discussed nor used as exhibits. Defendants never moved to supplement the record to submit the articles to the Court (as Plaintiffs did on multiple occasions). These articles are not part of the record. Defendants cannot rely upon them to buttress or supplement the record that was properly before the Court and which will be before the Third Circuit on appeal.

Indeed, despite having an opportunity to adduce testimony and exhibits in support of their position, Defendants did not adduce any evidence that would explain and justify treating social, cultural, political and other similar gatherings differently from the commercial gatherings covered by a percentage of occupancy-based limitation. Mr. Robinson testified that there was concern about large gatherings, like conventions, causing "mega spreading events." (ECF No. 75, pp. 55- 56).           But neither Mr. Robinson nor any other witness proffered by Defendants explained the specific need to limit size of some gatherings by a numeric cap, rather than a limitation on occupancy. For example, nobody explained why hundreds may gather indoors to shop (the larger the facility, the more people permitted), dozens may dine in a restaurant (again, the larger the restaurant, the more will be permitted), but no more than twenty-five may attend an indoor lecture, a speech or a wedding.  Defendants failed to adduce evidence that would explain why they made distinctions  between  gatherings  limited  by  number  and  those limited by occupancy.          

Their suggestion of irreparable harm because of the inability to impose set-number restrictions is not supported by the evidentiary record. They did not demonstrate why their limits on some activities by occupancy is reasonably safe but will pose irreparable and imminent danger for other activities. From a different perspective, not only does the record not support the suggestion of immediate and irreparable harm if Defendants may not impose numeric limitations on certain gatherings, but their actions actually show the opposite-that they do not believe that gatherings exceeding their numeric caps will necessarily cause such harm. For example, to avoid litigation in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, Defendants entered a Confidential Settlement Agreement permitting a large event to take place in Carlisle, Cumberland County-Spring Carlisle, a large gathering featuring an automotive flea market and auction. (ECF No. 64-1).6 Defendants agreed to allow the event to proceed with an indoor occupancy of "the lesser of 250 individuals or 50% of the maximum building occupancy." (ECF No. 64-1, Section 2a). This limit is ten-times higher than the 25-person cap on gatherings imposed by Defendants' July 15, 2020 Order. Defendants imposed an outdoor limitation on the event of "no more than 20,000 individuals, which is 50% of its capacity." (ECF No. 64-1, Section 2b) (emphasis added).  This is nearly 100 times the permissible outdoor gathering limit of 250. The Confidential Agreement also required the event's sponsor to "enforce all applicable social distancing, masking, area cleaning and hygiene requirements." (ECF No. 64-1, Section 2c).

The protests that swept across the Commonwealth throughout the summer are another example of where the record dispels Defendants' suggestion of immediate and irreparable harm if they cannot impose specific numeric limitations. While the plain language of Defendants' orders makes no allowance for protests, Defendants' own actions and the statements of their witnesses show that they do not view that type of gathering as posing a risk of immediate and irreparable harm. Governor Wolf, for example, personally participated in a large protest. The photo of that protest does not indicate that social distancing requirements were honored or enforced. (ECF No. 42-100). Ms. Boateng averred that there have been gatherings that exceeded the numeric caps in Defendants' orders and that "no official action was taken in regard to public entities holding board meetings, town hall meetings, public protests or public rallies that exceeded these numbers." (ECF No. 37, 113). " Rather, individuals attending such events were encouraged to wear a face covering and practice social distancing."

 When pressed for details, Mr. Robinson was unable to offer any actual examples of mega spreading events that occurred at any of the activities limited by numeric caps. He was asked, for example about weddings: "[d]o you know of the existence of a single wedding reception or wedding celebration, a single one in Pennsylvania, that can be identified as a source of the spread of either COVID or the virus, of the SARS virus?" (ECF No. 75, p. 55). He responded "I am not aware. But again, that would be a question that might be better answered by my colleagues in the Department of Health." (ECF No. 75, p. 55). Ms. Boateng, who testified for the Department of Health, did not offer any more details.


 AND NOW, this 22nd day of September 2020, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants' Motion to Stay (ECF No. 84).



UPDATE:  Attorney Viva Frei from Montreal just LOVES THESE DECISIONS.  He points out that they are different from the other dumb ass rulings BECAUSE THEY HAD A HEARING WITH ACTUAL WITNESSES, including the lying government numbnuts.