Maternal Morbidity with Premature Rupture of Membranes <24 Weeks

Because of the  recent  Supreme Court ruling, Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, that overturned Roe v. Wade, misinformation has been spreading online and in public forums about the risk of maternal morbidity and mortality to mothers after premature rupture of membranes at less than 24 weeks or in the second trimester, which occurs in 0.3% to 0.4% of all pregnancies. The  misinformation infllates the risk and usually tells of doctors’ hesitancy to treat due to fears of legal consequences.

In April, 2022, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (AJOG) published an article,  “Maternal morbidity after preterm premature rupture of membranes at <24 weeks’ gestation,” by Sklar A, Sheeder J, Davis AR, et al.

On average,  there’s a greater risk in watch & wait. A day or 2 of careful conservative observation is much different than 14 days.

If you’re interested, here’s my review of the article Free! It costs $39 to read this whole thing, if not a subscriber.

We knew the risk difference for later gestations from past research. There have been a few studies describing the risks of maternal morbidity from premature spontaneous rupture of membranes (PROM) before 24 weeks, but the  numbers were small  & excluded women who chose termination of pregnancy. 

In this retrospective cohort study – a chart review – from 2011 to 2018 at 3 hospitals, the review of 350 charts were randomly selected from an original  6747 potential cases to include. Of that 350, 208 were eligible, with women who spontaneously delivered within 24 hours excluded from the study, along with women  with chorioamnionitis on initial presentation, fetal abnormalities, or PPROM after an invasive uterine procedure like amniocentesis.

Women who chose exprctant management (EM) but later decided to terminate the pregnancy were counted with the EM group. 

Both induction of labor and  d&e were included in the termination of pregnancy (TOP) cohort. Although the article describes the difference in the  possibility of fetal survival, the outcomes were combined. This was noted as a weaknes in the article. 

[My note: The prep for the induction is either a 1-2 day outpatient process for the d&e (with symptoms much like early labor), or an emergency manual dilation in the OR (with shorter preps having more risk to the integrity of the cervix).]

51.9%, 108 women, chose EM & those tended to be farther along in their pregnancies (mean gestational age 21 6/7 weeks vs 18 6/7).

2/3 of the TOP were labor induction & 1/3 d&e.

42 babies, 38%, of the 108 EM, survived to discharge. 15% of these mothers had no maternal morbidity,  37% of the group had both fetal demise & maternal morbidity. Composite morbidity was 60%.

All of the 100 TOP fetuses died. Maternal morbidity was 33%.

Counterintuitive abortion report

Legalize arbitrary homicide to decrease  arbitrary homicide? Talk about  counterintuitive!

I enjoy debating bioethics and politics online because it encourages me to think, research and tighten my arguments. I spend at least part of each day explaining and advocating for the protection of human rights, especially the right to life, or the right not to be killed. I’m not only trying to convince the people engaged in the conversation, but the “lurkers” who read but don’t post.

I endeavor to read and evaluate as many as possible of the sources and references that are used to counter my arguments. I learn and hope to be a better debater that way.

During an one such debate, I was referred to a 2020 article in the journal Lancet, “Unintended pregnancy and abortion by income, region, and the legal status of abortion: estimates from a comprehensive model for 1990–2019,” that supposedly gave proof that abortion restrictions result in higher rates of abortion.

The report proves that statistics can be manipulated based on estimates which are actually Wild-Assed Guesses. Working from an estimated 73.3 million abortions per year worldwide, the authors admit that virtually all of the data are “estimates” rather than actual numbers. 

But, to strengthen their model, they threw out 62% of women at reproductive age because data from China & India,  where abortion is broadly legal,  “skewed” their numbers.

Besides the fact that it would be useful to know how they determine the number of illegal abortions in a country, the “findings” are reported by region & broad income. (And in a cluttered pdf at https://www.thelancet.com/cms/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30315-6/attachment/d4652ad7-9ace-425e-b907-7060ff71982f/mmc1.pdf )

Look at the Caribbean countries where countries with just about every possible combination of restrictions & income level are lumped together. ( And Cuba is reported as upper middle income.)

Which might or might not explain,  

…..

“Among middle-income and low-income countries, there was not a clear relationship between legal restrictions and abortion rates, or the proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion.”

And,

“2015–19, low-income countries had the highest unintended pregnancy rate and the lowest proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion.”

If we accept the WAG numbers that the authors admit are higher than those of other researchers, there is an indication that lower income regions have more pregnancies the authors categorize as “unintended.” And, if a country starts out at an abortion rate of 30,  increasing to 39 gives a higher percentage change than countries that start at 61 & go to 70.

At least the headings in the Summary are semi-truthful: “findings” & “Interpretation.” But the data doesn’t indicate that restrictions result in more abortions.

Paris at Café de la Paix

A beautiful evening and enjoyable dinner at La Café de la Paix in Paris, at the Place de l’Opera.

The Intercontinental cocktail,  the onion soup & a beef filet, what could be better?

Larry’s scallops were almost as good as my filet. And the  “house rosé” by the glass is Whispering Angel, a long favorite.

Our server, Monica from Ecuador,  was definitely a plus! A little Spanish,  a (very) little  French, and her excellent English. Merci, Monica!

My only complaint was the  advice that the restaurant would be a “nice, easy walk.” Not in heels! But we  made it both ways.

Political, purposeful lies (Francis Collins & Anthony Fauci)

I’m still researching , but so far, I’m disappointed by what I’m finding. It’s enough to make me, a conspiracy-denier, to begin to suspect that there really were multiple conspiracies, at least to control the public conversation.

The shame of Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the NIH, & his emails to Dr. Anthony Fauci about the Great Barrington Declaration, as reported in the Wall Street Journal:

““This proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists . . . seems to be getting a lot of attention – and even a co-signature from Nobel Prize winner Mike Leavitt at Stanford. There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises,” Dr. Collins wrote. “Is it underway?””

This is politics, not science.

Remember how the community seroprevalence/infection rates were disputed? Or the mandates that forced long term care facities – nursing homes – to accept infected patients, even though everyone knew that the facilities weren’t able to isolate the vulnerable or even protect staff?

Don’t expect anyone to be held accountable. Neither the US Department of Justice nor State prosecutors, at least in New York, appear set to continue investigation, much less charge those responsible.

I don’t expect much fallout about the US CDC’s sponsorship of – and Fauci’s dishonesty in testimony to Congress about – viral “gain of function” that quite possibly led to the creation and escape of the “novel Coronavirus” from the lab in Wuhan, China. Instead, the debate is used to divide the political Left and Right, not to discover the truth.

For a comprehensive discussion about the debate and the science, I recommend a video podcast from Lex Fridman, an MIT Ph.D., in conversation with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya – one of the original three “fringe” epidemiologists. Dr Fridman also interviewed Dr. Collins, but that was before the “takedown” emails were revealed.

Comprehensive review of Texas’ Heartbeat Act

Excellent, thorough, and true! Since I could never do better and can’t imagine editing, I’ve been given permission to copy & paste. Please give it your time and attention!

(The group is an excellent source & great to follow on Twitter, @secularprolife)

Secular Pro-Life Perspectives

Wednesday, September 29, 2021

The Texas Heartbeat Act: Answers to 11 Frequently-Asked Questions

Today’s guest post is by Daniel Gump.

After passage of the Texas Heartbeat Act (Senate Bill 8), numerous misinformation campaigns have led to confusion among the general public as to what the legislation covers and how violations are handled.  Because of this, I have encountered several of the same questions and inaccurate statements repeated on social media over the past couple months.  The following responses address some of these questions.

1. What is excluded from the definition of “abortion”?

Health and Safety Code already defines abortions under Sec. 245.002, and the Act did not amend them. Subsection (1) states:

(1) “Abortion” means the act of using or prescribing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant.  The term does not include birth control devices or oral contraceptives.  An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to:

(A) save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child;

(B) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion; or

(C) remove an ectopic pregnancy.

This definition is similar to those across the entire United States, as treatment for ectopic pregnancies and post-miscarriage treatment are not criminal acts in any jurisdiction.  The laws solely address intentional acts of feticide.

2. How are medical emergencies handled?

The legislation declares for Health and Safety Code §171.203-§171.205 that abortions performed or induced for legitimate medical emergencies are exempted from prosecution.  They must be logged in the woman’s medical records and retained in the physician’s own practice records.  

The existing Sec. 171.002 defines what would be considered a medical emergency:

(3)  “Medical emergency” means a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.

3. How are fetal anomalies addressed?

The Texas Heartbeat Act is silent on fetal anomalies of any type, so an unborn child with Down syndrome, spina bifida, hydrocephalus, or other conditions is protected from abortion, unless the pregnant woman’s life is in danger.

4. Could women be sued for procuring abortions in Texas?

No, Section 3 of the Act adds Sec. 171.206 to the Health and Safety Code.  This includes the text:

(b) This subchapter may not be construed to:

(1) authorize the initiation of a cause of action against or the prosecution of a woman on whom an abortion is performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter;

(2) wholly or partly repeal, either expressly or by implication, any other statute that regulates or prohibits abortion, including Chapter 6-1/2, Title 71, Revised Statutes;

Several other statutes already protect women from criminal abortion liability. Examples within the same code Chapter 171 include: 

Sec. 171.064.  ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY.

(b) A penalty may not be assessed under this section against a pregnant woman who receives a medical abortion.

Sec. 171.106.  APPLICABILITY.

A woman on whom a partial-birth abortion is performed or attempted in violation of this subchapter may not be prosecuted under this subchapter or for conspiracy to commit a violation of this subchapter.

Sec. 171.152.  DISMEMBERMENT ABORTIONS PROHIBITED.

(b) A woman on whom a dismemberment abortion is performed, an employee or agent acting under the direction of a physician who performs a dismemberment abortion, or a person who fills a prescription or provides equipment used in a dismemberment abortion does not violate Subsection (a).

Sec. 171.154.  CONSTRUCTION OF SUBCHAPTER.

(d) This subchapter may not be construed to:

(1) authorize the prosecution of or a cause of action to be brought against a woman on whom an abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subchapter;

5. Could women be sued or held liable for leaving Texas to procure abortions in another state or country?

There would be no civil or criminal liabilities within Texas for women receiving abortions, so any such liabilities would fall under the jurisdictions where the abortions take place.  Holding women liable for abortions is very rare in any nations following English common law (as the US does when no statutory law exists to the contrary).

Of all 50 states, the only ones that explicitly allow for women to be criminally liable for abortions are:

• Delaware (11 Del. Code §652) – Class A misdemeanor (past viability)
• Nevada (Nev. Rev. Stat. §200.220) – Manslaughter (past 24wk)
• Oklahoma (21 Okla. Stat. Cit. §652(E), §691(D), §713(C)) – Manslaughter (if during commission of another crime)
• Utah (Utah Code §76-5-201) – Women only exempted from homicide laws in regards to legal abortions or unintentional actions.

6. Could taxi drivers and rideshare drivers be liable for transporting women to receive abortions?

This would take a very liberal interpretation of the new Sec. 171.208(a) to include drivers under “any person who…”

1. performs or induces an abortion in violation of this subchapter;
2. knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subchapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter
3. intends to engage in the conduct described by Subdivision (1) or (2).

Drivers are multiple degrees separated from (2) aiding or abetting “performance or inducement” of abortions, and they are not (3) intending such action by transporting customers between locations.

The claim that drivers would be liable was little more than a publicity stunt by Lyft to inject themselves into discussion on the legislation.  In their press release, they were very careful to avoid use of the word “abortion” and repeatedly hid behind euphemisns like “healthcare they need,” “healthcare appointment,” “healthcare access,” etc.  This made the Texas Heartbeat Act seem like its purpose was to block women from seeing their OB/GYNs or other healthcare practitioners.

Lyft also made it clear that drivers and riders should follow a don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy for any illegal activities.  The press release closed out with an announcement of a legal defense fund for drivers ferrying women in violation of the Texas Heartbeat Act, a $1 million donation to Planned Parenthood, and a link (with tracking parameters in the URL) for individuals to further donate to Planned Parenthood.

7. Could the rapist of a woman receiving an abortion sue the physician or anyone else involved for $10,000?

No, Section 3 of the Act adds Sec. 171.208(j) to the Health and Safety Code that states:

Notwithstanding any other law, a civil action under this section may not be brought by a person who impregnated the abortion patient through an act of rape, sexual assault, incest, or any other act prohibited by Sections 22.011, 22.021, or 25.02, Penal Code.

The Penal Code sections referenced address “Sexual Assault,” “Aggravated Sexual Assault,” and “Prohibited Sexual Conduct,” respectively.

8. Can anyone claim “bounty” after an abortion is performed?

What makes the Texas Heartbeat Act unique among fetal heartbeat legislation is that it declares any non-government individual to have standing to sue.  The claims of open bounty on abortion clinics are exaggerated, as generally only those close enough to the acts would have enough evidence to merit lawsuits.  Presumably, those close enough would include the women who had the abortions, the father of the unborn children, any relatives or guardians of either, and possibly those within their inner circles.

A random individual would have difficulty presenting a strong case, particularly with HIPAA laws and Texas’ own privacy laws concerning abortion reporting under Chapter 171 of the Health and Safety Codes.  Any individual performing or inducing abortions who provides enough details to the general public about specific violations would likely be in violation of several other laws, as well.

Any lawsuit would also have to follow established legal procedures in the state under the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, and any other applicable areas of the Revised Statutes.  A state-wide free-for-all to claim $10,000 per violation is not likely, as a claimant would have to pay court fees and attorney fees on a lawsuit with dubious chance of actually succeeding.  Plus, an award is only available once per violation (Sec. 171.208(c)).

On September 18, 2021, abortionist Alan Braid wrote an article for The Washington Post in which he admitted to violating the law.  He was careful to avoid publicly disclosing specific details, but two individuals residing out of state (Oscar Stilley and Felipe N Gomez), nevertheless, filed lawsuits against him to test the law.  As these cases are still pending, their merits are difficult to determine.

9. What method must be used to determine the fetal heartbeat?

Section 3 of the Act adds Sec. 171.203 to the Health and Safety Code, which describes the means as being “standard medical practice”:

(a) For the purposes of determining the presence of a fetal heartbeat under this section, “standard medical practice” includes employing the appropriate means of detecting the heartbeat based on the estimated gestational age of the unborn child and the condition of the woman and her pregnancy.

(b) Except as provided by Section 171.205, a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman unless the physician has determined, in accordance with this section, whether the woman’s unborn child has a detectable fetal heartbeat.

(c) In making a determination under Subsection (b), the physician must use a test that is:

(1) consistent with the physician’s good faith and reasonable understanding of standard medical practice; and

(2) appropriate for the estimated gestational age of the unborn child and the condition of the pregnant woman and her pregnancy.

Any specific requirements for methods fall outside the scope of the legislation and within any medical licensing boards of medical associations.

10. How far into pregnancy does the abortion ban take effect?

Based upon the definitions in the new Health and Safety Code Sec. 171.201, there is no specific time period, as the ban is based upon the ability to detect a fetal heartbeat, using “standard medical practice.”  From subsection 1:

“Fetal heartbeat” specifically means cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac.

Even though the term used is “fetal heartbeat,” the scope of the law includes embryos, based on subsection 7:

“Unborn child” means a human fetus or embryo in any stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.

The actual method of detecting the heartbeat of the embryo or fetus relies on the discretion of the one conducting the test.

Johns Hopkins Medicine states that a transvaginal ultrasound can detect the heartbeat by 5-6 weeks, and an abdominal ultrasound can detect one by 7-8 weeks.  These are just estimates that can depend on a number of circumstances, like quality of equipment and training of the individual.

Sec. 171.203 requires a physician to record the method of detecting the fetal heartbeat and the estimated gestational age.  Presumably, this would reduce purposeful attempts of deceit to circumvent the law.

11. Did the Texas legislature increase funding to social programs within the Texas Heartbeat Act?

Though not part of the same legislation, the state’s budget increased several social programs for the year.

The “Alternatives to Abortion” program under the Texas Health and Human Services has seen a budget increase every two years since its inception. For the 2022-2023 biennial budget earlier this year, there was a 25% increase from $80 million to $100 million.  This program addresses financial and material needs of pregnant women and parents.  The website lists examples of services:

• Counseling, mentoring, educational information and classes on pregnancy, parenting, adoption, life skills and employment readiness.
• Material assistance, such as car seats, clothing, diapers and formula.
• Care coordination through referrals to government assistance programs and other social services programs.
• Call center for information and appointment scheduling.
• Housing and support services through maternity homes.

Additionally, the budget increased the following:

• $135.5 million for various mental health programs
• $10.2 million for women’s health programs
• $123.5 million for rural hospitals
• $164.2 million relating to foster care
• $57.6 million for combatting human trafficking

Photo by Matt Walsh from Unsplash

›HomeView web version

Powered by Blogger.

Biden to Ask OSHA to Mandate Vaccines at Businesses With 100 or More Workers

A primary tenant of Western medicine is that people have the right to refuse medical treatment. President Joe Biden has ignored this tradition, the First Principle of Medical ethics (“First, do no harm”) and the Constitution of the United States.

In medicine, there’s a huge ethical difference between forbidding intervention and not only forcing individuals to comply, but forcing third parties like employers and medical personnel and administrators to intervene by mandating the involuntary breaching of bodily integrity.

The rare cases in contradiction are treatment of tuberculosis and psychosis where it’s proven that patients are an imminent danger to others, not just themselves. This infection can not rise to that level of threat.

There is a history consistent with quarantines – but only of the contagious or suspected contagious.

It’s an egregious violation of human rights to force invasive medical treatment on the unwilling except in emergent, extreme circumstances.

https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiECEzQBy-2BVvgoYNVQlwMKUqFwgEKg8IACoHCAowjuuKAzCWrzww9oAY?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

Long Post Reviewing COVID19 Myths

I’m often asked to comment on medical issues by friends. I’ve been having a Messaging conversation with a libertarian friend about what I consider myths. Here’s a loooong post, based on that conversation. I’m not linking to his reference videos, but you can search for them (or ask on my Facebook page) if you really want to give them the “clicks.” Comments should also be made on Facebook. (Keeping comments more public as well as trying to avoid “blog-pimping.”)

The problem I’ve seen is mixing criticism about policy (politics) errors from the actual science. It’s important to separate the science myths from the evidence for science facts. This “ZDoggMD” (Zubin Damania, MD) video is a good place to start for an overview. https://youtu.be/v8RpPeXCySw

As is this one, between Dr. Damania and Dr. Mike (Mikhail Varshavski, DO) who, in another useful (and easy to watch) conversation,
https://youtu.be/XVjLT3pinW0
point out that it’s not wrong to be skeptical and question data. While reviewing the science and the scientific method, they discuss the harm from tribalism and politicization. Also, at 59 minutes, there’s an explanation about how the variants arise.

However, the skeptics are wrong to dismiss all data from formal regulatory and research sources. The scientific literature is best evaluated over time and in proportion with the number of supporting reports. As in the case of the Wuhan doctors who stood against their government to call the world’s attention to the outbreak in the first place, minority reports should be considered. The valid reports will stand the test of time, public scrutiny, and real world observation. In contrast, as in the case of the (infamous) retracted papers in Lancet and JAMA, questionable data will be disproven.

If we can’t agree on the above paragraph, there’s no common ground for discussion.

As for the questions I often receive about my personal sources (in reality, my integrity): I use as many sites as possible. I certainly do not refer to only one silo of information. And, yes, I have watched all of the videos people share – at least until last night, when my friend linked to ten. I have worked through over half of them, and watched the first part of all of those.

I prefer to evaluate the myths themselves, rarely discussing the validity of the sources, except to point out those falsehoods or to point out obvious pre-existing biases based on the statements of the speakers themselves.

For instance, there are repeated referrals to Robert F Kennedy, Jr., who isn’t a good source. He has made inaccurate claims about vaccines for years, shifting from blaming measles vaccines to aluminum and mercury & he makes money from his anti-vaccine advocacy.

The doctor at the school board meeting loses validity right from the first by flatly stating that masks cannot protect from any virus. Surgical masks and N95s work. https://www.aerzteblatt.de/int/archive/article/217467

He repeatedly talks about “the vaccine,” when there are at least four, developed by different companies, tested in different sites. Are all the nurses and other personnel involved going along with some conspiracy(ies) promulgated by corrupt doctors and companies?

He is absolutely mistaken about enhancement by the vaccines – as Dr. Zubin Damania pointed out in the first video above, real world observation on the sheer numbers of vaccinated disprove this myth.

The event he referenced about in Barnstable, Massachusetts is an anomaly, due to large indoor gatherings.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm

The pdf of the actual report is here https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7031e2-H.pdf

In fact, Barnstable answers the doctor’s question about why we’re seeing a surge in summer: people who were previously “socially distanced” are now gathering with fewer precautions. (Add the fact that the biggest breakouts are occurring in areas where close spaces and air conditioning are predominant.)

In the rest of the world, the vaccinated are less likely to get infected at all. At least 1/3 less likely, perhaps closer to 90%.

(This is pre-peer-reviewed data.)
https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/90800
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.28.21259420v2?ijkey=43686632fd3918a950438cfefd8a2fc06e73b0ac&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

In one video recommended, Geert Vanden Bossche, DMV, PhD, who is a frequently referred to, emphatically states that there is a virus, that it is highly infectious and it is deadly and that the vaccines are “excellent” & prevent disease – meaning the severe effects of infection. However, since they do prevent infection, I believe he is wrong about using vaccines in the middle of the pandemic.

The largest number of people becoming infected, and by corollary, becoming infectious, symptomatic, requiring hospitalization and dying, are unvaccinated. What we are seeing is that the vaccinated who do get infected are less sick – even though they are older and have more comorbidities.

There may be a kernel of truth in what Bossche says (in spite of the decreased numbers infected), since the vaccines were authorized first for the elderly and sick, who were also most likely to have an incomplete immune response.

Vanden Bossche proposes that the variants come from patients with partial immunity in the same way that antibiotic resistance occurs when bacteria are exposed to antibiotics in already infected patients. As pointed out in the Dr Z and Dr. Mike explanation about how viruses mutate, the variants occur after thousands or millions of replications in infected people. The viruses first have to infect, then they have to survive and be infectious.

The vaccinated are much less likely to get infected in the first place so the numbers of infections that are necessary to happen for the event of mutations and spread to others occur in the unvaccinated. So fewer infections mean less chances to mutate.

Vanden Bossche doesn’t answer the question: “What do we do?” The alternative was to let them get sick and risk death, a risk which is much greater in this population than in younger people who likely have a stronger immune response.

Mike Yeadon, Ph.D. is another “expert ” that is frequently referenced because he once was a head researcher and CEO at Pfizer. He was one members of the team that did early mRNA vaccine research. Even he notes that he repeats that government shouldn’t be trusted. Included in contradictory statements, he claims that there’s no virus, after saying older and sicker people should probably choose to be vaccinated. What infection is Bossche talking about if Yeadon is right?

There’s an emotional video at the “A Warrior” vlog that has too many distractions to be useful in fighting for sane policy, with its emphasis on 9-11 and pedophile truthers. But I’ll cover some of the obvious errors:

Dr Sam Smith is wrong about the SARS-1 animal experiments. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2A22UW

Il repeat: Do you believe that any group is powerful enough to suppress the observation of the effects of 500,000,000 doses of different vaccines all over the world – 350 million in the US, alone? – by the hundreds of thousands of doctors & even more nurses and other professionals who are involved and would need to be complicit?

Smith’s major objection is the regulation of treatments and what he believes is a politically motivated exaggerated risk of COVID. However, I know several people who have been hospitalized with the infection, and several friends have lost relatively young loved ones to it. I’m sure you have the same experience.

An August 26, 2021 “McCullough Report” podcast begins with a major myth: that there are 90% false positives in asymptomatic testing. That number might actually be 2-3% for saliva tests. But is closer to 1%. Confirmatory tests are recommended for any positive test.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34238663/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34223865/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34116245/

(McCullough does quote the correct percentage of hospitalized cases which are vaccinated in the UK and Israel: 40%. This number should be evaluated in relation to the percentageof vaccinatedin the community and who is getting sick. Both countries have a majority of elderly, who are likely to have less immunity efficacy, and were the first eligible for vaccination roll outs. These are also the people who are getting sick.)

BTW, going to integrity and trust, Zubin Damania has been active for years in fighting the politicization and socialization of medicine in the US, as have I. Google his conversations with Dr. Atlas, and two of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration (which I also signed), Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. Sunetra Gupta. We are all secure in supporting vaccination, opposed to blanket lockdowns, draconian enforcement, and politicization of treatments by physicians.

Afghanistan: Read this

This is the best, most comprehensive article I’ve read about the events in Afghanistan.

“Calls for air support went unheeded, because America had pulled the maintenance capability of the very aircraft that would have responded. There was no help coming.” (Emphasis mine, BBN)

The US not only withdrew our 2500 troops from Bagram Air Base, the Biden Administration banned non-military contractors from providing technical support – repairs as well as routine maintenance – for the aircraft that the Afghanistan military needed.

Conversation with January 6 protester

“Not one person charged with  insurrection!” (January 6) Kash Kelly

While it’s up, Live stream phone call with one of the men in the DC jail, held without bond, after being arrested after January 6, joined by the “Lego guy.”

Kash asks about the magnetic locks on the  Capitol.
Tells about the  threats of increased charges if he won’t plead guilty.
Points out that the guillotine was erected,  recorded, then dismantled before Kash left the Capitol.

The contemporeneous videos have been removed from the day of January 6, but the ones I saw that day supported what is being said here.

Edited to add supporting evidence:

The model of the Capitol that the “Lego man” owned was loose, still in the box, not fully constructed as originally reported by the FBI. https://nypost.com/2021/07/12/capitol-lego-set-seized-from-rioter-in-box-unassembled/

Video made by Kash Kelly and the Change makers just before January 6th, discussing plans for trip to Washington, DC. (Some profanity.)

Discussion about false stories about Mr. Kelly.

Discordant (“The Cellist” by Daniel Silva)

“He had a story to tell, and he was going to pay it out slowly, with each plot element revealed in its proper sequence and with appropriate detail given to each character and setting. It was not necessarily a story with mass appeal.” (p. 206, “The Cellist“)

• 

Unfortunately, author Daniel Silva composes this tale without nuance, an off-key denouement that pounds away on a single repetitive discordant note.

As I have every summer for years, I looked forward to the latest novel in the 21 book Gabriel Allon series about an Israeli intelligence operative whose avocation is the restoration of old masters and whose mission is often revenge. Gabriel usually makes the world a safer, more beautiful place.

The Cellist does function as an epilogue to the Gabriel Allon novels, interwoven with a review of Allon’s life and the history of Israeli intelligence as pertaining to the characters of the Barak task force – as well as the many (women) he exploited in his schemes. There are only two small cameo appearances by his mentor, Ari Shamron.

The Acknowledgement informs us that he rewrote much of the novel after January 6, 2021, assisted by his wife and proofreader, CNN correspondent Jamie Gangel. After twenty-plus years of convincing us that all national Intelligence Communities lie and deceive, the current version mocks an unnamed outgoing Republican President – and his readers – for believing that lies and deception exist.

Without the slightest reference to the background of “the Resistance,” the fraudulent investigation beginning in 2015 of everything Trump by the previous Administration, or the escalating but unpunished violence from the Left, including 2020 attacks on the very same Washington, DC law enforcement to whom he dedicates his book, Silva perpetuates the politics of division at least as well as his Russian antagonists. 

Worse, he portrays the incoming Democrat President as competent and in charge. Allon would likely be disappointed in the new Administration’s weak and inconsistent sanctions against Russia.

Although put off by the author’s comments on US politics, as a doctor I’m more surprised that Mr. Silva portrays Allon as someone so ignorant about the facts Israeli intelligence must have known about the Coronavirus Pandemic, even in mid-2020.

Imagine if Allon had confronted the politics and hacks of the actual government and non-government organizations behind the cover-up of the origin and the spread of this novel virus.

I wonder if Mr. Silva has actually met many of his devoted fans. I don’t believe he understands who we are or that we’re more observant than he gives us credit for.

(I don’t profit at all from this blog or review. )

Candace Owen’s rant

I usually agree with Candace, but this video that’s circulating is propaganda and over the top. I won’t embed the video but you can go waste 30 minutes if you want, at this Facebook page.

I listened to 27 minutes. She gets to employer’s around 20 minutes in.
She has some things right, others very wrong.

Right:

A. Yes, social media is wrong to censor doctors.
B. Yes, vaccines should be voluntary.

Wrong:

2. She’s conflating an acute asthma attack with a prophylactic vaccine for healthy people.
3. Where’s the evidence that the US government is even telling, much less pressuring private employers? (*That* would be “communism,” or socialism, if government controls business.)
4. There’s approval by the FDA. It’s emergency approval, but approval, just the same.
5. Well over half of the US – 55% – has had at least one shot. 49% fully vaccinated over the age of 12. 59% of those over the age of 18. 200 million people in the US alone is a significant trial. We’re way beyond the “experimental” stage, with millions of life-years of evidence.
6. And, for my British Virgin Island friends, The BVI isn’t the US.

Now, as to the employers…

Do business owners have no say in who they employ or the conditions of employment? Does the government own the business, so can make company policy? Do business owners answer to customers or their employees?

I don’t agree with mandatory vaccination if government does the forcing. And employers should use their policies wisely and carefully, only requiring legal, safe, and ethical acts from their employees.

The vaccine is legal, safe, and ethical.

Unlike government mandates, a business owner doesn’t use threats of guns and prisons. He sets company policy. If employees don’t like it, they aren’t slaves or indentured servants who must stay & follow the rules. They can leave.

No one owns their job. No one owes them a job.

Arguments?

James Baldwin debates William F. Buckley, Jr., 1965

James Baldwin is still pointed used as an example in efforts  to accuse the current US of subjugation of Black Americans and other minority groups. This happened to me just last  week on Twitter – for some reason,  in support of elective abortion on demand.

So, I’ve done some research.

This debate took place at Cambridge University in the UK, in 1965. In the US, the March on Selma, and the arrest of Martin Luther King, has just occurred. Dr. King was still imprisoned. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was slowly taking effect.

In contrast to  Mr. Baldwin’s dismissive comments, a Black man was elected President of the US in 2008. We’ve not eliminated prejudice, but our progress against discrimination has more closely mirrored the predictions of Robert Kennedy than those of Mr. Baldwin. 

No, I don’t believe that the American dream has been at the expense of the American Negro and I don’t believe that race discrimination in 2021 can  be  compared to  Mr. Baldwin’s (or Martin Luther King’s) 1965.

Debunking COVID Vaccine myths (mRNA)

Vaccines work to decrease infection &/or severity of infection. All vaccines have failure rates, dependent on the immune status of the patient and the mutations of the virus or bacteria.

Half of the Covid vaccines types used in the US (Moderna & Pfizer) are MRNA vaccines that stimulate production of an antigen protein for a short period, certainly not in every cell in the body, nor do they cause the disease or induce even a mild form of the disease – as the measles, smallpox, and the oral polio vaccines do.

Most current vaccines use either an attenuated virus, a killed virus, or an antigen protein produced by recombinant DNA in bacteria or yeast. These last have never been part of a virus or bacteria. And, in fact, recombinant DNA is used to produce the human insulin to treat diabetes.

The mRNA in the Maderna & Pfizer Covid vaccines aren’t continously replicated by the vaccinated person and isn’t incorporated into the DNA. They are present in the human body about 2-3 days, mostly in the local muscle tissue and lymph system, with some in the spleen, more rarely in the liver.

Yes, you more than likely had an attenuated form of those infections when you were vaccinated. Current measles vaccines can cause infection that can be spread to immune compromised contacts. One way polio was all but eradicated was because people who came into contact with the babies who received the oral vaccine feces would also be infected – effectively receiving a booster unknowingly. We stopped using the oral polio vaccine in the 90s because 1 in 20 million children got a polio like disease after the 1st ( only the 1st) dose. We warn families to avoid contact with immune compromised people for a time after a child gets the measles vaccine.

The process was used years ago in the vaccine against ebola, so there’s history for use in humans.

For more, https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-recommends-covid-19-vaccine-moderna-authorisation-eu

Newly created artificial wombs in mice raise concerns among abortion supporters

https://righttolife.org.uk/news/newly-created-artificial-wombs-in-mice-raise-concerns-among-abortion-supporters

Shouldn’t everyone should be concerned that anyone could object to saving the life of a human,  at any stage of life? How telling that  the  major  concern here seems to be. “Any unborn child could be considered to have a right to life”.

The eugenic and social  implications  go further than  the right to life, alone, according to thid op-ed from the  UK Guardian,

“”Many tech and media companies, including Apple, Google, Facebook, VICE and Buzzfeed, already offer to cover the cost of freezing their employees’ eggs so they don’t have to worry about dwindling fertility during the most productive years for their careers. Gestating a baby in an artificial womb may one day be a choice open to elite women whose companies will pay for it, or who can afford to cover the cost themselves. “Natural” pregnancy could be seen as a sign of poverty, of unplanned pregnancy, or a chaotic lifestyle.””

I sincerely doubt that there would be a stigma attached to natural,  in utero, gestation. Couldn’t the decision to gestate be seen as a mark of wealth and leisure? Or rebellion against technology as breast feeding and natural birth were, back in the  mid- to late- 1900’s?

Science fiction authors have addressed these issues. Yes, there are potential ethics problems in any future technology that allows human gestation outside of the mother’s body. However, validation of the right to life should not be a “concern.”

Normal & reality: a proposed definition for discussion

On one of the Facebook groups I follow, the conversation about the recent Arkansas law protecting conscience was diverted from the law itself by a sensational headline that reflected only the worst accusations of opponents & the reactions of group members to that headline. 

During the  conversation,  I was questioned about my use of the term “normal” for healthy bodily functions.  At the least, “normal” is that which doesn’t itself injure tissues & organs and doesn’t require technological intervention to produce or to prevent morbidity & mortality.

We are hearing & reading about demands that legitimate research results should be suppressed,  watching physicians and scientists who express heterodox opinions be censored. Then we’re told that there’s a “consensus,”  since none of the “objectionable” research is published, much less popularized, and the outliers are demonetized and covered with warning boxes.

Science  isn’t a “consensus.” In science, true hypotheses are testable,  with valid results capable of being confirmed by different observers under similar conditions in different labs. 

That’s also a good definition of reality or “normal.” One that  could be applicable to medical subjects like COVID or vaccines, as well as social and legal  matters.

We’re  being manipulated for reasons that have nothing to do with actual health, physical or mental.  I can’t fathom a reasonable explanation. It looks like an exertion of power – social, financial, then legal.

Patients won’t be helped at all by forcing moral injury by requiring medical professionals to act against their conscience and we all lose when rational discussion is suppressed in the  public sphere.

Planned Parenthood’s “Watchlist,” false report about pro-life activists to local police

LiveAction reports that Planned Parenthood sent “watchlist” to Lubbock police before the January March for Life, including photos and
date if birth, other personal informatiion, and designating some of the men and women as “aggressive.”

Apparently, some”central” office of PP made up the list, which makes is wonder how many other local police departments received such lists & what they’ve done with them.

What did PP hope to achieve? Threats against activists by police? Before a pro-life event?

Reporting people who have not committed crimes to the police goes beyond “cancel culture.” Isn’t there a law against false reporting in Texas?

Healing Spinal Cord Injuries By Reprogramming Cells | Worldhealth.net Anti-Aging News

“[W]e may not need to transplant cells from the outside.” 

Good news from Texas medical researchers!

It appears that specific stimulating factors may prove more useful in harnessing the body’s own ability to heal and regenerate than stem cells, whether from my the patient or someone else. This research into regeneration of nerve cells mirrors the use of epogen and nupogen long used to induce blood cell production.

https://www.worldhealth.net/news/healing-spinal-cord-injuries-reprogramming-cells

EDITED TO ADD:

Here’s a longer online article from “EurekaAlert!,” from the American Assocation for the Advancement of Science, publishers of the journal, Science.

South Africa COVID Variant and the AstraZeneca Vaccine

CNN & NYT  coverage of events in South Africa concerning the AstraZeneca vaccine that’s being given in the British Virgin Islands are very poor.

The new study doesn’t come out until today, so the “news” reports are based only on press releases. 

ONE variant. ONE country.

And the actual data isn’t even available yet, even as preliminary information…

From what is available information in these reports about South Africa: About 1500 young people, average age 31,  were studied in South Africa, half received the vaccine, half a placebo. This study only evaluated one strain, and only mild to moderate infections, because this age group doesn’t tend to get sick.

All we really know is that in the South Africa study, similar numbers became infected with that particular strain and the serum from their blood didn’t do a good job of neutralizing that strain in the lab.

From the BBC news reports:
“Data from the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine team suggests their vaccine protects just as well against the new UK variant, but offers less protection against the South Africa variant – although it should still protect against severe Covid-19 illness.”

The vaccine *does* have high efficacy protection for the older strains & the UK variant. Not only that, but if vaccinated, the infectious period is shorter for these varieties.

There’s evidently no safety concern about the AstraZeneca vaccine from either study.

Beverly B Nuckols, MD

Time Magazine article about the election conspiracy

Time Magazine published their attempt at re-writing history,  pure one-sided propaganda, admitting to a conspiracy on the Left, beginning in 2019.

Not a word about the illegal changes in voting procedures by non-legislative, unconstitutional means, the doxxing of Michigan Republicans on Detroit’s certification boards.  I nstead there are unproven accusations that poll watchers who were placed behind barriers at the Detroit vote counting center were “crowding” poll workers.


The conspiracy held meetings about the possibility of Trump having illegal meetings.




The author is obviously a conspirator – and proud of it. He couldn’t resist noting that the “Architect” of the conspiracy texted him on the morning of 6 January.

Quotes from the opinion piece, focusing on the efforts of Trump, the “autocratically inclined President”

: 

“…the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy.””

“”…saw Trump as a dangerous dictator.. “_

“” “It took pushing, urging, conversations, brainstorming, all of that to get to a place where we ended up with more rigorous rules and enforcement,” says Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, who attended the dinner and also met with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and others. (Gupta has been nominated for Associate Attorney General by President Biden.)”

“[ “Protect the Results” coalition ]The group’s now defunct website had a map listing 400 planned postelection demonstrations, to be activated via text message as soon as Nov. 4. To stop the coup they feared, the left was ready to flood the streets.”

Jordan B Peterson makes a mistake (Times article)

Dr. Jordan B Peterson has a new blog up in response to the publication of a hit piece disguised as an interview in the UK’s Sunday Times.

I’m a big fan of Peterson, as is my husband. I first noticed his online videos of his college lectures on philosophy & psychology, then became aware of his activism and, finally, his “Rules for Life” which became the base of his book of the same name. Larry and I were lucky enough to attend Dr. Peterson’s conversation with Sam Harris, moderated by Douglas Murray, in London a couple of years ago.

The Times‘ recent published interview is even worse than Peterson describes, with gratuitous remarks about toxic masculinity & unflattering, skewed and unexplicable comparisons to Donald Trump.

He’s posted the audio of the entire unedited interview on YouTube and has links in this blog post to the article published 31 January, 2021.
Here are a few of the hostile remarks by the author, Decca Aitkenson, from that article:

“I don’t know if this is a story about drug dependency, or doctors, or Peterson family dynamics — or a parable about toxic masculinity. Whatever else it is, it’s very strange.”

…

“After 80 minutes on Zoom, the one thing of which I’m certain is that, were I as close to death as she assures me her father repeatedly was, this is not the person I would entrust with saving my life.”

…

“The more he talks, though, the more I wonder whether toxic masculinity might have been a culprit, too. His family history of depression might tell us something about the price to be paid for his bootstrap philosophy; that when life became excruciatingly stressful, Peterson’s stand up, man up, suck it up mentality didn’t work.”

And, finally,

“Parallels with Donald Trump come to mind; another unhappy man closed off from his emotions, projecting strong man mythology while hunkered down in a bunker with his family against the world.”

If there’s anything I’m certain about Dr. Peterson it’s that he isn’t “closed off from his emotions.” Aitkenson is delusional or a biased liar. She’s no “reporter.”

Life, art, sureal (“Divided We Fall”)

Sureal to see the Tweets by Andy Ngo after just finishing “Divided We Fall, ” which is available for free to those subscribed to Kindle Unlimited.

The Baen Books Publishing anthology features short stories by Sarah A. Hoyt, Brad Torgersen, and Jon Del Arroz, among others. We’re told by the authors that Science Fiction writers aren’t popular with the new Powers That Be. Although there’s been a lot of “woke” SF in the last few years, there’s also a long tradition of military and libertarianism. Then, there’s the [T]Ruth and [S]cience problem, not to mention that the scion of Sci-Fi, John W. Campbell, called the genre, “future history.” Campbell wasn’t sufficiently prescient and has himself been cancelled by the “woke.”

Prescient? Although mistaken about an early concession by President Trump, “Divided We Fall,”  makes quite a few accurate predictions, at least up to the point I’m living in: the 2020 election and, to a lesser extent, through the inauguration and first week of the Biden (or what the White House news releases call the “Biden-Harris” administration). The early stories could have been reports from the last two months.

Not bad for a book that was published the week before the election, on October 31, 2020.

I hope and pray it’s not as accurate about the year(s) after.

The excellent story tellers – many with a military background – outline a dystopia that reads like the news from tomorrow if the French and Russian revolutions are to be repeated in the post-2020 election period. With a heavy dose of Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution.

Rather than the Great Leap Forward, rural life is suspicious, too independent of the Federal government. Politically conservative or libertarian, gun owning, religious citizens are suddenly and mysteriously “disappeared” or publicly killed. Any dissent results in being fired, at least. Imagine convicted felons, terrorists, and antifa activists released from prison, with the latter put in charge of emptying libraries of “problematic” books (including most science fiction), or the military forced to assist with gun confiscation, beginning with Marines, but rapidly shifting to the other branches.

(A couple of stories point out that the Navy and Marines, aren’t covered by the Posse Comitatus Act.)

The characters all live in the same universe, with the same basic timeline and major events.

If the “Resistance” from the Right not only becomes necessary, imagine the the different ways people from all sorts of backgrounds find themselves managing to stand strong against chaos like what we’re seeing in Seattle. Portland, and, now, Tacoma.

Am I going to be disappeared for having read and liked this book?

Inauguration

“Buckle up, it’s going to be a bumpy ride!”




President Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States, said ” See you later,” rather than goodbye, but he (peacefully) left the White House and Washington, DC this morning – “for the last time”, according to headline after headline. Number 46 will be sworn in at noon.






While I’m certain that Donald Trump absolutely wanted to bring about changes in the Federal government, especially in regulations and the “unfair” deals with other nations, I think he might have been just as surprised as Hillary that he won. (My husband hates it when I compare the Trump victory to “The Mouse That Roared.”)

I was a “Never-Trumper’ through the 2016 Republican National Convention. After the Democrats chose Hillary Clinton, I knew there was no chance I wouldn’t vote against her.
While at first simply being ABC (Anybody But Clinton), the more I fact-checked and explained the misconceptions about Republicans and Trump, I first became anti-anti-Trump, then okay with him, to a supporter. I’m definitely in support of his policies, if not of his behavior.





Before noon four years ago today, the “Resistance” started breaking laws as well as windows. Every day, someone, somewhere in the US, burned a car or business or vandalized a building. A minority went beyond destroying property,  mobbing and harassing anyone associated with the Trump Administration. The media published leaked documents, transcripts and quotes from anonymous sources about the President and it was nearly impossible to find any positive coverage of anything Trump.

 Then, there was legal challenge after legal challenge. The heads of the Democratic Party, chairs of Congressional Committees, the FBI and CIA publicly distorted and – I believe – lied to the public and sometimes, to Congress.





Things are going to change under the new Administration. 

Our whistleblowers will be vilified, anyone who dares leak will be prosecuted as a spy, media will cooperate with the Powers That Be , as Social Media has in China. They’re already championing the turning in of family members & friends. 
But (using a few more metaphors and in spite of January 6) this time, the barbarians are within the gates. Outside, are those of us who believe in the rule of law, the Judeo-Greco-Christian legacy. Rather than topple statues and pain disfiguring and profane graffiti on monuments. We understand that we stand on the shoulders of giants, even as we recognize and acknowledge that virtually all of our predecessors were human, with human flaws. I hope we remember history, and try to learn from it, reform, rather than revolution. 
I believe that Conservatives will prevail.






As President Trump implied in his speech this morning, we’ll be back! 

Impeachment or instigation?

Well, the House voted to impeach President Trump. Again. 7 days before Inauguration Day. Ten Republicans joined every Democrat.

I watched bits & pieces of the House debate about impeachment, often turning it off when the rhetoric became especially inflammatory. Calls to “Fight like hell?” Repeated accusations of racism? How is that not the exact thing the Democrats claim the President is accused of?

The move to impeach is wrong in my opinion, and there’s certainly no evidence that would stand up in a just Court.

Unfortunately, the House (& possibly, the Senate) isn’t a just deliberative body.

We are forced to depend on essentially the same body whose leaders repeatedly claimed to have evidence of collusion and obstruction, evidence that couldn’t be supported by years of investigation by a several investigators who were assisted by people that we’ve since learned bent policy and withheld evidence. Some actually – broke laws, like FBI lawyer Klinesmith and several who lied under oath to Congress. So far, only Klinesmith has been charged.

Frustration built among even non-supporters of President Trump for nearly a year as we watched riots, assaults on Federal buildings, as well as violence and deadly attacks on law enforcement officers & private citizens and businesses. Several times, guillotines were used to decapitate stuffed animals and effigies of the the President, fires were set outside the White House and the President was mocked for the actions of the Secret Service.

Democrat legislators, even House Chairpersons like Maxine Waters, gave speeches and Tweeted encouraging personal attacks and harassment. Last August, 2020, Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the President the “Enemy of the State.” The future Vice President, Kamala Harris, helped raise funds for bail for the “fiery, but mostly peaceful, protests.” No one censured, much less impeached or moved to expell, any of these people.

Many deaths resulted from the earlier violence, many more injuries and undetermined amounts of property destroyed. Yet, when did we witness nearly the horror and recount of events in the news or on the part of Democrats that we’ve seen this week? A Google news search only yields conflicting reports of numbers. The on-the-ground videographers like Andy Ngo were just about the only reports we have and they have been ignored by the mainstream media and suppressed by social media tech. We were emphatically told that we objected to “a myth,” “an ideology, ” and were called “conspiracy theorists” for calling it violence.

There were documented irregularities in the election, with eye witnesses swearing out affidavits. Again, even some who admit to the irregularities, tell us that the numbers of votes weren’t enough to change the outcome, then accuse us of not thinking, of blindly following some narrow line of media commentators or “conspiracy theories.”

I’m sorely disappointed in the lack of insight about the possibility of more unrest if Trump’s supporters perceive impeachment as further evidence of corruption. Author Michael Malice said it best: Trump wasn’t the river. Trump was the dam against reaction to DC corruption.

“No fly list,” Social Media purge, and personal witnesses of 6 January.

Two of the YouTube video bloggers I follow have posted interviews and first-hand descriptions of events at the Washington, DC Capitol building on 6 January, noting the consequences. It’s almost as though they describe three totally separate events.

Kash Kelly describes his experience, beginning about 39 minutes in. He says that his group left the Trump speech early to walk to the Capitol lawn in order to avoid the rush when everyone walked. They were standing still on the lawn, chanting “USA”when men in SWAT gear began firing  paintballs and flashbangs.

One older man evidently had a heart attack because of the effects of the flashbangs.

Eventually, the police ceased firing when the crowd moved back. Some of the officers waved them onto the exterior balconies, some fired mace at them, others waved them into the building and even directed them to the offices and legislative chambers.

Kash says there were three different areas of entry, where police were alternately waving them in, spraying mace and beating them. Before entering the building, When he witnessed another group banging on a window. The patriots he was with demanded that the vandalism stop. The violent men seemed to know where thhey intended to go, went through a window and began handing out what appeared to be batons and other weapons to others waiting outside the window.

Once inside, his group of patriots saw police laughing what he believes were antifa and decided to leave but we’re trapped. The police guided them outside through a window.

(Note: Kash calls the bad guys “angwifwa,” because he’s lost his Instagram page and believes he will soon lose his FB page because of calling them out.)
https://youtu.be/FSdwxnNbEKA

Dave Rubin interviewed 3 people, two who were at the DC rally and have had their FB accounts arbitrarily removed from FB and have learned that they’re on a “no fly” list simply for being present. 

One, a journalist named Elijah Schaeffer, is certified to work in the Capitol and works with The Blaze.  The other is a woman, Dr. Karlyn Borysenko, an organizational psychologist who works with the organization, “#Walk Away.”

Neither took part in the riots or protest. Schaeffer was reporting & recording with the cooperation of the Capitol police, and Borysenko said she arrived late, never went into the Capitol and never saw any violence at all.

Shaffer’s professional and private FB page and Instagram accounts have been removed. FB has “banned” Borysenko and the leaders of her entire organization have also been permanently removed, according to a Tweet by Brandon Straka.

Borysenko’s photos of the event were removed from Instagram:

“Instagram just deleted my pictures from the capital that show that people were peacefully there and threatened to delete my account.”

https://youtu.be/M2qmsW0haE8

Conservatives on Twitter are losing “Followers” by the thousands, making it obvious that the site is purging conservatives. Dave Rubin says that at least, we know who’s really in charge:

BTW, I’m @bnuckols on Parler as well as Twitter

Edited: to make the 1st paragraph clear & to fix the spelling of “angwifwa.” BBN

“Nightmare” over?

Never before have we had a media that is so unbalanced. The opinion pieces and editorials that are being published about the events in Washington, DC on 6 January, 2021 as though they are objective news have left least one of my long-time friends to claim that the newly elected US government “came from God to save us from this nightmare!”

Watch & see. I doubt much will change.

First, of course, remember that political, violent “nightmares” have happened before:

The beginning of yesterday’s events could be said to originate in 1990. Members of the Weaver family, including a mother & a 14 year old boy were murdered at Ruby Ridge by Federal agents. Two men, Weaver and Harris, charged with killing a Federal agent during the shoot out that resulted in the boy’s death, were aquited after agents testified that they fired first and that Weaver, at least, never shot at anyone. No charges were brought against the shooters or others involved in the cover-up that followed.

In 2000, we endured a solid month of hanging chad’s followed by the attempted obstruction of the counting of overseas military votes.

During the Obama Administration, there was Occupy Wall Street & its off-shoots, the Fast & Furious gun running. This, paralleled with the weaponization of the IRS against conservatives and pressure on banks to close accounts of gun retailers, resulted in findings of Contempt of Congress against the US Attorney General & the head of the IRS. The local DA and judges in DC had jurisdiction to enforce the Contempt charges, but refused to prosecute.

Obama’s Administration also actually spyed on journalists, even naming one an “unindicted co-conspirator.”

On 1 August, 2008, Pelosi ordered the lights & air conditioners turned off in the House of Representatives chamber, to prevent Republican Congressmen from giving speeches and speaking to the media. Capitol police ordered the Press to leave.

Contrast that last to the “sit in” by Democrats in June, 2016.

And, of course, the evidence is clear that Presidential candidate Trump & his Administration were investigated by the CIA & FBI. Kevin Clinesmith, an FBI lawyer, actually lied to obtain a FISA warrant against Carter Page.

Official documents exhonorating General Flynn are still being discovered, 3 years after his court case. Judge Sullivan is well known for censoring officials who withheld exculpatory evidence. Not this time.

Amazingly, future Vice President Kamala Harris, helped raise bail money for anarchist rioters last summer.

And, last night, the violence including weapons, fires, and attacks on police, in Portland continued.

So don’t expect that we all relax or that the “nightmare” is over. It’s certainly not the work of God. Just the opposite, I think.

Absence of evidence

I’ve been avoiding tackling a post to WingRight, waiting for the Georgia Senate runoffs to pass before ranting. As of now, at 6:30PM, Georgia time, 4 January, 2021, we don’t know the outcome – or when we will know the outcome – but my little blog definitely won’t make a difference, now.

The “news” is virtually all one-sided, claiming to “debunk” any complaints and dismissing any and all claims of fraud or cheating in the 3 November, 2020 election. Yet, I am absolutely convinced that something illegitimate happened in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Others point to possible manipulated votes in Arizona, Minnesota, and Nevada.

Yet, none of the suspicious activity has actually been laid out in Court. No one has ruled on the many sworn testimonies from witnesses who claim to have observed irregularities. There have been a couple of victories in Pennsylvania to but the rest of the lawsuits have been dismissed without trial or hearings involving those witnesses, all on technicalities.

The Republican challenges themselves have sometimes looked like the efforts of the Resistance. For instance, how to explain a lawyer who forgets to pay filing fees, or the case after case dismissed for lack of “standing.”

I’m afraid that even the planned objection by Republicans on January 6th is simply theater. It will be interesting, but has little chance of passing in either the House or the Senate. And, just what would be the result of Congress overturning the apparent vote?

I can’t think of anything that will prevent Joe Biden from being sworn in on 20 January. But, if I’ve learned anything from watching the results of the “Resistance,” the FBI, and the CIA over the last four years, it’s to anticipate a slow trickle of information about the validity of at least some of the suspected fraud.

Something to remember: absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.

Edit: the Republican Legislators from Pennsylvania sent this letter, today:

Threats to “deprogram” Trump voters

Perhaps the 79 Million should begin by not threatening the 75 with “deprogramming.” The fact that lists are being made, that there was at least one (now “inactive”) website dedicated to a “Trump Accountibility Project, & a DNC delegate, regional California Democrat Director published this idea is an autocratic threat worse than any “conspiracy theory” in circulation.

https://twitter.com/DavidOAtkins/status/1328898661569363969?s=09

“”No seriously…how do you deprogram 75 million people? Where do you start? Fox? Facebook?

““We have to start thinking in terms of post-WWII Germany or Japan. Or the failures of Reconstruction in the South.””

Why Georgia matters

Even failed “progressive” actions by US legislators are rarely, if ever, reversed. Often, they enable broader progressive changes.

As I write this, it’s nine days after the 2020 election and we still don’t know who will be inaugurated as President of the United States. In spite of the precipitous “calling” of the election by the AP an other media for Joe Biden, the actual result is not a given due to close votes in several States. Lawsuits and recounts will likely play out at least until the day of the Electoral College vote, December 14, 2020, if not beyond.

Georgia officials have announced that they will conduct a recount and audit of the vote in that State because the difference in the Presidential election votes is about 0.2%. There’s a chance that the State will determine who will be sworn in on January 20, 2021.

But the biggest impact for the State may be as a result of another election. (Or, technically, two elections.)

On January 5, 2021, the State of Georgia will hold a run off election to determine both of their Senators. Currently, it appears that both races can be handily won by the Republicans if they turn out as they did on November 3, 2020.

(Each race had several candidates and Georgia requires a majority to win. Republican John Purdue beat Democrat Jon Ossof 49.7% to 48%.

While Republican Kelly Loeffler only received 25.9% of the vote in the Special Election compared to the 39.2% won by Democrat Raphael Warnock, the other Republicans in the race bled off Loeffler’s votes have endorsed her, including Doug Collins, who had 19.9% of the vote.)

In the event that Joe Biden wins the Presidential election each of us, regardless of Party affiliation, should ask ourselves whether the current crop of Democrats can govern without turning our Nation over to the chaos that is the status quo in many of the cities they already govern.

In addition, it’s imperative to remember the consequences of compromises and the influence of the Left on policies of the future.

Take an example from my profession: 1993’s “HillaryCare” debacle. Hillary Clinton’s plan to centralize health care to impose universal, single-payer government financed health insurance failed due to closed door meetings and a chaotic lack of political planning. It still resulted in SCHIP, HIPAA, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that removed all privacy from medical records and forced utilization of mid-level medical personnel as employees of “providers,” the ridiculous idea that cutting numbers of physicians by restrictions on funding for residencies would save money for Medicare, and ultimately, ObamaCare.

The Republicans have already won 50 seats, at least, but that is no majority and ties would be settled by the vote of the “President of the Senate,” the Vice President of the United States. In the event that Biden is the final winner of the Presidency, those ties would go to Kamala Harris – or her VP after Joe resigns or is unseated.

It’s a cliché that we’re likely to hear slot in the next 2 months, but do keep Georgia on your mind.

Update on “Armed men” & fake ballots

CNN has corrected its headline and printed a corrected story in typical fashion: down at the bottom of the page, they note that they might have made a mistake.

“According to our information at this very early stage of investigation, it appears these individuals were operating under the belief that ‘fake ballots’ are being counted at the Convention Center — a completely unsupported claim — and that belief may have been what drew their attention to Philadelphia.” Roh told CNN in an emailed statement.

But it wasn’t their fault.

CNN affiliate KYW had earlier reported that the men were “coming to deliver a truck full of fake ballots” to the city, citing prosecutors.

Correction: A previous version of this story misstated the presumed motive for why Antonio LaMotta and Joshua Macias had come to the Philadelphia Convention Center armed with guns. They may have believed fake ballots were being counted there, according to Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office spokeswoman Jane Roh. The headline and story have been corrected.

So what apparently happened was the two men drove to Philadelphia to check out the counting of ballots while unaware that Pennsylvania doesn’t recognize any other State’s license to “keep and bear arms.” (Or the Constitution.)


None of the articles report that the men possessed any ballots – fake or otherwise.

They were arrested, their names and personal histories published, then arraigned on the possession charges. The judge ordered them held on $700,000 bond. Each.

If only they had chanted “Black Lives Matter” or “No Justice, No Peace” & thrown a few rocks. Then, they would have been released with no bond.

(Other than that, the story was accurate.)

CNN.

Sorry, @TheBabylonBee, even you aren’t this good!

(Update, here 7 PM AST)

Do you believe this one? It’s either a (dare I say “CIA?” “Deep State?”) Left-wing attempt to implicate “QAnon,” the result of a HUGE overdose of testosterone and anabolic steroids sufficient to cause psychosis, or a spoof.

I prefer the latter, but let’s face it: one guy worked for the City of Chesapeake, Virginia.

I’d arrest them on suspicion, based on displaying the flag, alone!

Reported by CNN, based on a local TV news story,

Investigators say Lamotta was wearing a Beretta handgun in plain view and Macias was concealing another.

“He had a Beretta .40 caliber pistol under his jacket and a Virginia conceal and carry permit. The state of Pennsylvania does not recognize handgun permits from Virginia, so he was also taken into custody,” Outlaw said.

The article hits every boogey-man Right-wing myth the Left tell their parents (Lord knows they don’t have kids to terrify) to justify antifa.

1. Guns
2. Silver Hummer
3. Guns!
4. US Flag attached to the Hummer
5. Guns and a flag!
6. “Heavily armed“
7. Guns!
8. Reporter quoted Philadelphia Police Commissioner “Outlaw“
9. Three (3) Guns!
10. QAnon hat found in Hummer
11. Guns!
12. QAnon sticker on rear window
13. More than one gun!
14. The Hummer is parked in front of “Big Brother!”
15. Handgun guns!
16. Attempted Delivery of Fake Ballots
17. “AR-type rifle” Gun!
18. Did I mention that the men were ” heavily” armed?

Twitter report here,

Evidence enough.

I love the BabylonBee, @TheBabylonBee, but even they can’t make stuff up that’s this good!