In an interview with the National Geographic, Tony Fauci made comments about “alternative views” of the origin of the coronavirus. But he was really talking about all unorthodox medical information:
“Anybody can claim to be an expert even when they have no idea what they’re talking about—and it’s very difficult for the general public to distinguish. So, make sure the study is coming from a reputable organization that generally gives you the truth—though even with some reputable organizations, you occasionally get an outlier who’s out there talking nonsense. If something is published in places like New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, Cell, or JAMA—you know, generally that is quite well peer-reviewed because the editors and the editorial staff of those journals really take things very seriously.”
Right you are, Tony.
So, Tony, here is a very serious statement from a former editor of one of those “places,” the New England Journal of Medicine:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)
And here is another one, from the editor-in-chief of the prestigious journal, The Lancet, founded in 1823:
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…”
“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”)
Why stop there? Let’s consult a late public-health expert whose shoes Fauci would have been lucky to shine: Dr. Barbara Starfield, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.
On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock, when Starfield revealed her findings on healthcare in America.
The Starfield review, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), came to the following conclusion, among others:
Every year in the US, correctly prescribed, FDA approved medical drugs kill 106,000 people. Thus, every decade, these drugs kill more than a MILLION people.
On the heels of Starfield’s astonishing findings, media reporting was perfunctory, and it soon dwindled. No major newspaper or television network mounted an ongoing “Medicalgate” investigation. Neither the US Department of Justice nor federal health agencies undertook prolonged remedial action.
All in all, those parties who could have made effective steps to correct this ongoing tragedy preferred to ignore it.
On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email. Here is an excerpt from that interview.
Q: What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?
A: The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.
Q: In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?
A: The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).
Q: Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?
A: NO.
Q: Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?
A: No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.
Q: Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?
A: It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!
—end of interview excerpt—
Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies. These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the heraldic published studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent. In other words, the medical literature is completely unreliable, and impenetrable.
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE TWO ESTEEMED MEDICAL EDITORS I QUOTED ABOVE—MARCIA ANGELL AND RICHARD HORTON—ARE SAYING.
If you know a doctor who enjoys sitting up on his high horse dispensing the final word on modern medicine, you might give him the quotes from Dr. Angell and Dr. Horton, instruct him to read them, and suggest he get in touch with Angell and Horton, in order to discover what has happened to his profession.
As in: DISASTER.
But please, continue to believe everything Fauci is saying. He must be right about the “pandemic.” After all, he has a very important position, and he’s on television.
So what if his policies have torpedoed the economy and devastated and destroyed lives across the country?
So what if he accepted, without more than a glance, that fraud Neil Ferguson’s computer projection of 500,000 deaths in the UK and two million in the US? In 2005, Ferguson said 200 million people could die from bird flu. The final official tally was a few hundred.
So what?
Fauci has an important position, and he’s on television.
CLICK HERE to watch our live feed that’s now streaming 24/7 on GETTR! Also, be sure to follow Alex Jones and Banned.video on GETTR for breaking news and exclusive information!
SparkToro, a software company that roots out fake “bot” accounts known as “spambots” from social media companies found that nearly half of Joe Biden’s 22.2 million Twitter followers are not real humans, Newsweek reported this week.
The audit conducted by SparkToro’s tool found that Biden, who reportedly received 81 million votes during the 2020 presidential election, has more fake followers than most accounts on Twitter — accounting for more than 49% of those following the official @POTUS account on the site.
The software company based their audit findings on an analysis of “location issues, default profile images, date of creation, and more,” reports state. If true, it would mean that Biden’s support on the big tech platform is artificially inflated. It may also mean more bumps in the road for Twitter, as billionaire Elon Musk continues to criticize the company for the presence of fake spambot accounts on the platform.
‘FAKE NEWS!’ A tool created by the software company SparkToro found that almost half of President Joe Biden’s 22.2 million Twitter followers were “spam bots.” https://t.co/APE7ttIyWjpic.twitter.com/GTn4mpnpwg
Tesla and Space X CEO Elon Musk was unimpressed with Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal’s lengthy explanation for how the big tech platform fights spam, with the South African billionaire responding with an unflattering emoji and a probing question about Twitter’s advertising practices.
Musk had previously expressed doubt in the company’s claim that only 5% of its users are bots and put his acquisition of the company on hold.
After Agrawal issued a 13-tweet thread about how his platform fights spam, Musk responded with a poop emoji, and would later comment “interesting” under a Twitter poll showing a majority of users believe Agrawal’s tweets about spam bots to be untruthful.
“We suspend over half a million spam accounts every day, usually before any of you even see them on Twitter. We also lock millions of accounts each week that we suspect may be spam, if they can’t pass human verification challenges (captchas, phone verification, etc),” Agrawal wrote.
“Unfortunately, we don’t believe that this specific estimation can be performed externally,” wrote Agrawal. “Externally, it’s not even possible to know which accounts are counted as” real users “on any given day.”
“So how do advertisers know what they’re getting for their money?” Musk tweeted, “This is fundamental to the financial health of Twitter.”
“20% fake/spam accounts, while 4 times what Twitter claims, could be *much* higher,” Musk said.
“My offer was based on Twitter’s SEC filings being accurate,” he continued. “Yesterday, Twitter’s CEO publicly refused to show proof of <5% (spam accounts). This deal cannot move forward until he does.”
The Department of Homeland Security is reportedly pausing the Disinformation Governance Board three weeks after its creation was challenged by Republicans.
The Washington Post’s Taylor Lorenz reports that the DHS decided to shut down the board on Monday and that its leader Nina Jankowicz had drafted a resignation letter in response to their decision.
The DHS has offered Jankowicz the chance to stay in the department, defending her in a statement to the Washington Post.
The Biden Administration is now trying to paint Jankowicz as a victim after journalists questioned her role citing a host of questionable positions on freedom of speech and government censorship as well as cringeworthy Tik-Tok videos.
“Nina Jankowicz has been subjected to unjustified and vile personal attacks and physical threats,” a DHS spokesperson said in a statement.
“These smears leveled by bad-faith, right-wing actors against a deeply qualified expert and against efforts to better combat human smuggling and domestic terrorism are disgusting,” deputy White House press secretary Andrew Bates said in a statement.
Jankowicz was told by DHS officials to stay silent about her role in the department after she tried to defend a statement she made on Twitter about Hunter Biden.
For those who believe this tweet is a key to all my views, it is simply a direct quote from both candidates during the final presidential debate. If you look at my timeline, you will see I was livetweeting that evening. https://t.co/nI7ZgBtTLChttps://t.co/4DjBl9bzt0
With Republicans likely to win the majority in one or both houses of Congress next term, Jankowicz would likely be subject to more questions and congressional testimony about her role on the disinformation board.
Behind the scenes, the DHS appeared to concede the fight to save Jankowicz was over but indicated they would look for other ways to combat misinformation.
“We’re going to need another Nina down the road,” a DHS staffer said anonymously to The Washington Post. “And anyone who takes that position is going to be vulnerable to a disinformation campaign or attack.”
The U.S. Soccer Federation announced Wednesday that it has agreed to a deal to pay the players on the U.S. Women’s National Team the same as it pays players on the U.S. Men’s National Team.
The collective bargaining contract will run through 2028 and includes “equalization” of World Cup prize money, according to NPR.
In a historic accomplishment, U.S. Soccer, @USMNT and @USWNT have come together to agree to new collective bargaining agreements that will run through 2028 and achieve true equal pay – including equalization of World Cup prize money.
The contract comes after several years of efforts by the USWNT to force the federation to deliver equal pay between the two teams. The agreement will also afford women players $22 million in back pay.
“We hope that this Agreement and its historic achievements in not only providing for equal pay but also in improving the training and playing environment for national team players will similarly serve as the foundation for continued growth of women’s soccer both in the United States and abroad,” said USWNT player Becky Sauerbrunn.
The pay scales between the two teams have “identical economic terms,” the federation reports, which includes equal pay for annual salaries and incentives and tournament play, including the two World Cups.
The agreements, which run through 2028, contain:
➖ Equalization of FIFA World Cup prize money ➖ Identical appearance fees and game bonuses ➖ Commercial revenue sharing for the first time ever
The teams will also have the same deals in revenue sharing on ticket sales.
“This is a truly historic moment,” U.S. Soccer President Cindy Parlow Cone said after the announcement. “These agreements have changed the game forever here in the United States and have the potential to change the game around the world.”
While the agreement is being called “equal pay,” the deal actually heavily favors the women. Women’s soccer has far fewer fans, both watching on TV and going to stadiums.
The 2019 Women’s World Cup, for instance, reached a record high of 1.12 billion viewers across the world. That may sound like a lot until you realize that the year before, the Men’s World Cup earned 3.572 billion viewers worldwide and earned $6 billion in profits.
The earning disparity is nothing new, either. For example, the 2010 Men’s World Cup earned $4 billion in revenue. But the Women’s World Cup that year earned only $73 million.
Men’s soccer reaches far more fans and earns far more money from ticket sales and sponsorship. But if women are now being paid the same as the male players, that means the women players reap greater rewards for bringing far less income into the league than their male counterparts.