Interview: Casey vs Elkhart, IN Mayor Rod Roberson And All The Facts To Back Up What I Said

Interview: , And All Facts To Up I Said

by | Dec 16, 2020 | Blog, Conspiracy, Fake News, Featured, Idiocracy, Media Bias, Podcast, Science

Casey and Mayor Roberson have a contentious about and mask fines in Elkhart, IN.

Fact-dump below.

Remember this?

New virus cases decline in U.S. and experts credit masks – AP, August 25

Indiana governor: ‘Masks are working’ to slow COVID-19 – Indianapolis Star, Sep 17, 2020

Holcomb was so committed to getting his message across Wednesday that even when Indiana Department of Transportation Commissioner Joe McGinnis delivered a report that focused on roadways with no discussion of facial coverings, Holcomb responded with this line: “You did say masks are working. I just want to get that in there for the third time.”

 

Welcome new people.

The two articles and corresponding charts above already prove my point. Those results are duplicated globally.

Let me put a couple of things to bed right away since I already know how some of you will react.

  • I’m not anti-mask. I’m pro-science.
  • I wear my mask all the time to put people at ease, not because it’s effective.
  • COVID is real and no one is actually denying its existence beyond a few online. This is a childish red herring argument used when you are desperate.
  • My goal has always been to inform my audience of the actual clinical facts so they can protect themselves. There is no other motivation.
  • I started regular coverage of the virus in December 2019.
  • I started daily coverage on January 14, 2020. This is long before anyone in US media I’m aware of (for daily coverage), and far sooner than almost any politician considered COVID a threat.
  • I promoted the masks early on before we knew the virus was airborne while reminding everyone to only use their mask once.
  • I’ve been reminding everyone about the single-use of the mask from the very beginning. Reusing a contaminated mask defeats the purpose and can spread infection.
  • My opinions about masks or mask fines don’t come from my politics or my ideology. They come from peer-reviewed clinical research, not preliminary lab results with problematic methodology, which have never been considered scientifically valid in any scientific field. As well as real-world data.
  • Everything I said in this interview is backed up with scientific research and real-world data. None of it is baseless opinion. None of it is taken from unsubstantiated posts from social media, or some conspiracy website yapping about Bill Gates.
  • While many of you may be new here, I’ve already addressed the issues you’ll likely post … many, many times. I simply don’t have time to go over 12 months of work I’ve done on this in a single interview or post.
  • The reality … officials are in a tough spot. They don’t have any answers. They can’t stop the virus. It’s career suicide to say that out loud so they must come up with, what I call, ‘busy work’ to make it seem like they are trying. Often, as is the case with fines, this busy work pushes the blame on an innocent population in order to pass the buck and buy time.

The experts went from correctly telling you a mask was your last hail mary to prevent infection but wasn’t all that effective. Every other step is more important in prevention but the mask is the least effective tool in your tool chest. Now, they’ve all but abandoned those other steps in favor of indoctrinating people into the Cult of Mask with a form of religious dogma that masks are the most important and effective tool you have. Cases continue to spike and they keep neglecting to tell people to only use their mask once.

Consider this … everywhere mask mandates have been in effect, where COVID is an , has now been hit by a new spike in cases. This includes places with universal compliance like Japan. If masks worked the way the dogma currently dictates, the spike would be impossible.

Everywhere that installed mask mandate fines on businesses and/or individuals hasn’t reduced their number of cases. The policy is ineffective and causes unnecessary tension, strife, and hardship with zero tangible results. It’s just throwing matches on a powder keg.

We had lockdowns because the Imperial College released a study showing hundreds of millions might die. Oxford proved their study wrong and the IC retracted it, but lockdowns remained.

We have mask mandates because we the virus was spread through alone and asymptomatic people were superspreaders. We now know it’s airborne and all of the research shows asymptomatic spread, while possible, is not a major source of infections.

Please listen to a previous podcast I did: Why Can’t We Listen To The Experts Who Disagree With Politicians?

I’ve included just a few links to get you started on your journey if you really want to dive in.

Prior to the pandemic, there was a mountain of research showing masks of all kinds don’t prevent aerosol spread. This research has now been completely abandoned and ignored in favor of preliminary lab results that are never considered scientifically acceptable to draw conclusions from. I can’t include all of the links to those studies but some are mixed in below.

Authors Retract Study Showing Efficacy of Mask Mandates After Surge In New Cases

“The authors have withdrawn this manuscript because there are increased rates of SARS-CoV-2 cases in the areas that we originally analyzed…”

Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data

Dr. Brosseau is a national expert on respiratory protection and infectious diseases and (retired), University of Illinois at Chicago.
Dr. Sietsema is also an expert on respiratory protection and an assistant professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

“The evidence from…laboratory filtration studies suggests that such fabric masks may reduce the transmission of larger respiratory droplets. There is little evidence regarding the transmission of small aerosolized particulates of the size potentially exhaled by asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals with COVID-19.”

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures – CDC Meta Analysis

We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility (Figure 2). However, as with hand hygiene, face masks might be able to reduce the transmission of other infections and therefore have value in an influenza pandemic when healthcare resources are stretched.

Masking lack of evidence with politics

Tom Jefferson is a senior associate tutor and honorary research fellow, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford. Disclosure statement is here

Carl Heneghan is Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford, Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and Editor in Chief of BMJ EBM

In 2010, at the end of the last influenza pandemic, there were six published randomised controlled trials with 4,147 participants focusing on the benefits of different types of masks. 2 Two were done in healthcare workers and four in family or student clusters. The face mask trials for influenza-like illness (ILI) reported poor compliance, rarely reported harms and revealed the pressing need for trials.

Despite the clear requirement to carry out further large, pragmatic trials a decade later, only six had been published: five in healthcare workers and one in pilgrims. 3 This recent crop of trials added 9,112 participants to the total randomised denominator of 13,259 and showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.

Even a Military-Enforced Quarantine Can’t Stop the Virus, Study Reveals

A study conducted by Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in cooperation with the Naval Medical Research Center sought to test lockdowns along with testing and isolation.

What were the results? The virus still spread, though 90% of those tested positive were without symptoms. Incredibly, 2% of the CHARM recruits still contracted the virus, even if all but one remained asymptomatic. “Our study showed that in a group of predominantly young male military recruits, approximately 2% became positive for SARS-CoV-2, as determined by qPCR assay, during a 2-week, strictly enforced quarantine.”

The study actually suggests the quarantine may increase the spread of the virus.

Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China

A total of 1174 close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases were traced, and they all tested negative for the COVID-19.

EPIDEMIOLOGIST: IS THERE HARD EVIDENCE THAT MASKS ARE EFFECTIVE IN STOPPING COVID? – July 2020

“At the moment, there is no hard evidence to back this up.”

Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers

Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon. Yet, the findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting.

Dr. Matteo Bassetti, director of Infectious Diseases at the San Martino Hospital in Genoa

The use of masks only makes sense in confined places, where it is not possible to have certainty and guarantee necessary physical distancing or outdoors when physical distancing is not possible. I tried to look for scientific evidence on the use of open air mask and potential benefits of virus transmission, but I couldn’t find any.

Making the mask mandatory across Italy outdoors without any distinction between the higher and lower endemic circulation areas is wrong.

A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers

Conclusions: This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs (Health Care Workers), particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.

Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 – 419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002

N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.

Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review,” Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic- review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05

None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H).

bin-Reza et al. (2012) “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence,” Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x

“There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”

Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” CMAJ Mar 2016 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

“We identified six clinical studies … . In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”

Contrary to popular opinion on social media, in our tribalist political arena, news media, or local officials … Americans actually wear masks and comply with mask mandates much higher than much of the world. Over 80% wear their mask now. The latest spike in the U.S. started September 14 when 77% of Americans were adhering to the mask mandates. That number is exactly the same as July 31 when U.S. COVID cases began to decline drastically and before the AP and Gov. Holcomb credited masks for the decline in cases.

In other words … the same percentage of Americans who wore masks during the big decline in COVID cases over the summer were also wearing masks at the beginning of the latest surge in cases. There was no change, no fluctuation at all in the number of Americans wearing masks during a decline and a surge in COVID cases. The number of people wearing masks had no effect on the number of cases of the virus.

I said the same thing three times, three different ways so everyone understands the actual data on mask-wearing. Sorry about being redundant.

I know you all just came here to listen to the interview with Mayor Roberson. You weren’t expecting all this to be thrown at you. However, it’s important that you know what I said during that interview is factually correct. While I can appreciate the Mayor is just taking the advice of his advisors, those advisors have no actual data backing up their policies. I do.

The mandates we are being given by public officials are unscientific and, dare I say, emotional.

  • Lockdowns didn’t work and the preponderance of research says they are ineffective and actually worse for people long-term.
  • Mask mandates simply don’t work.

Blaming innocent people for those two failed policies with fines simply because you’ve run out of ideas and are trying to hold on until the vaccine/herd immunity happens is not a legitimate way to govern. It’s tyrannical. While Mayor Roberson may not be seeking to be tyrannical, the end product is just that.

Bob Costas, Pasty Guy Offended By Word Native ‘t Offended By

by | Oct 14, 2013 | Blog

#Bob Costas, a PC libtard, reared his ugly smugness on Sunday.  He decided to school everyone isn’t offended by the #name ‘#Redskins‘ on why they are wrong … including Native .

After starting off telling everyone that the vast majority of Native Americans ‘t offended by the name ‘Redskins’ (and they aren’t), he went on to say that their opinion doesn’t matter, and that ‘Redskins’ is actually highly #offensive.  Apparently, Costas thinks Native Americans are dumb and naive that they need him to protect their fragile psyche.  So he’s stepping up to be offended for them.

The only survey done on the subject that specifically asked Native Americans how they felt showed 90% didn’t think the name ‘Redskins’ was offensive.  As I illustrated recently, everyone except Native Americans are offended by this name.  Most notably, pasty white do-gooders like Costas.

I’ve also pointed that in my many discussions on this topic, Native Americans believe that people like Costas are attempting to erase Native Americans from our culture, and they think it’s motivated by racial discrimination.

It’s hard to argue the claim that people like Costas are #racist against Native Americans when he goes on national television and tells them that they are wrong for not being offended by something that only they have the authority to decide is offensive.

Black (not so funny) comedian W. Kamau Bell recently said that white people ‘can’t say what’s racist or not’ when it comes to blacks being offended.  Ok, if that’s the case, then whites, blacks, asians, etc. can’t say what’s racist or not when it comes to Native Americans. So … shut up about it.

Costas’ logic to support his argument was to make the point that if we go back in (that would be the 1600’s btw), ‘Redskin’ was a derogatory term used to describe Native Americans.

So what?

Hoosier was a derogatory term used to describe people from Indiana, and now we wear that moniker with pride.  Retard and retarded are perfectly legitimate mechanical terms that society foolishly decided was offensive only recently.  Can we go back to just 10 years ago and retard’s legitimate definition like Costas is suggesting with Redskin?

How about if we reclaim the definition of faggot and fag while we are at it.  It originally had nothing to do with homosexuals, and isn’t used primarily to disparage them now anyway.  Yet we can’t call someone a fag without being accused of being a homophobe.  Even though the word is rarely used to describe homosexuals.

South Park explained all of this perfectly:

 

 

The professionally offended are destroying our society, culture, and language while stoking bigotry none exist. It’s time to hold their feet to the fire.

 

UPDATE:

Mofo Politics has a petition to demand Costas change his offensive name.

 

 

The 45 Goals

by | Jun 14, 2013 | Blog, Conspiracy

I’ve been talking about Cleon Skousen’s 45 Communist Goals for nearly a decade on the radio now.  Many hosts are just getting around to it.

Albert Herong, Jr., entered The Communist Goals into the Congressional Record, as follows: “… At Mrs. Nordman’s request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen:

45 COMMUNIST GOALS

  1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
  2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
  3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
  4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
  5. Extension of long-term to Russia and Soviet satellites.
  6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
  7. Grant recognition of Red . Admission of Red China to the U.N.
  8. Set up East and West as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free under supervision of the U.N.
  9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
  10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
  11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
  12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
  13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
  14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
  15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
  16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
  17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
  18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
  19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
  20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
  21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
  22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
  23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
  24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free and free press.
  25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
  26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
  27. Infiltrate the and replace revealed with “social” religion. Discredit the and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
  28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of and state.”
  29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
  30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
  31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
  32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
  33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
  34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
  35. Discredit and eventually dismantle .
  36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
  37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
  38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
  39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
  40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
  41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
  42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use “united force” to solve economic, political or social problems.
  43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self- government.
  44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
  45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.
Al-Awlaki Killing Was Perfectly Legal

Al- Was Perfectly Legal

by | Oct 4, 2011 | Blog, Conspiracy, Featured

The debate has raged for some days now … was the killing of illegal?

Rep. Paul says it was, but he says everything is illegal.

There are two primary arguments alleging the illegality of al-Awlaki’s killing.

First, he was a US citizen, and as such, was due a trial.

Second, the US violated international law by assassinating him in Yemen.

Neither argument holds up, both morally or legally.

First I’ll address international law.

Neither the Hague Convention of 1899, or the Protocol Addition to the Geneva Convention of 1949 forbid al-Awlaki’s killing by international law.  Right off the get go, proponents of this argument are off to a bad start.  In , the international law community has often taken the stance that killing an adversary can often fall within the confines of international law.

Harvard Law addressed the issue a few years back.

The clauses that traditionally have been construed as prohibiting “targeted killings” are far from clear prohibitions. In the Hague Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land (29 July 1899), Article 23b states that it is prohibited “to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army.” Treachery is not explicitly defined, and it can be argued that using missiles to attack a car in which a target is traveling, while brutal and having a high probability of injuring bystanders, does not fall within the purview of treachery. Similarly, targeted killings can be argued to fall outside the Protocol I Article 37 prohibition on killing, injuring, or capturing “an adversary by resort to perfidy”—described as “acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence.” Article 37 gives examples of perfidy including “the feigning of an intent to under a flag of truce or surrender” and “the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status.”

Basically, you ‘assassinate’ under false-flag circumstances.  No such circumstance existed with the al-Awlaki killing.  It should be noted that this provision addresses someone belonging to a hostile nation OR army. While al-Awlaki did not belong to a hostile nation, he did belong to a hostile army.  This is important later when I argue the relevance of his US citizenship.

In addition to this international law, the US has NO LAW forbidding foreign assassinations.  We do, however, have a policy of not undertaking assassinations.  Policy does not equal law.

The second component to this operation is that Yemen fully approved, and supported the killing of al-Awlaki. So no argument can be made that we violated the sovereignty of a foreign nation.

The other argument making its way around is that al-Awlaki’s killing was illegal because he was a US citizen. As such, an assassination order by the President of the United States would violate his constitutional right of due process.  It should also be noted that al-Awlaki was not the only American killed in the attack.

Al-Awlaki’s ties to terrorism are not in dispute, his actual influence is.  So can the president order his killing, or not?

8 U.S.C. § 1481 addresses the of US citizenship in situations like this.

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality –

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen
years;

The law also addresses taking up arms against the United States in section . Considering al-Awlaki’s Yemeni citizenship, which does not recognize dual-citizenship, and his taking up arms against the US, it would appear that he renounced his US citizenship long ago.

Section 7 automatically revokes his citizenship because of his terrorist activities, but requires capture and tribunal. Since he was in Yemen, we revert to international law which permits his killing in order to prevent a further loss of life.  More relevant is local Yemen law.  Again, they assisted in the killing of al-Awlaki.

Is his killing a gray area?  Only in the perpetually unrefined laws of US citizenship.  Laws that most Americans agree need to be revamped, but the law nonetheless.

The only component missing to classify al-Awlaki as a non-citizen appears to be a mere formality of choreographed theater that would only serve to satisfy the selfish needs of third party citizens, not the parties directly involved.  It’s pretty clear that al-Awlaki, the US, and Yemen were all on the same page.

Both al-Alwaki and Yemen agree that he is a citizen of Yemen.  The US agrees that he revoked his citizenship. Who are you to swoop in and negate those facts?

The only sources of outcry appear to come from the ignorant, and those with a vested interest in ideological pacifism.  Not from a position of morality or legality.

Ultimately, this is a debate that will fall upon opinion.  If you think al-Awlaki’s killing was illegal, you’ll likely never change your mind.  Same goes for those who think it was legally justified.  Each individual will have to decide for themselves if international law, US law, or Yemeni law should reign supreme.

Of course, you can always consider al-Awlaki’s wishes too.

Related articles