Academic Whose Work Was Cited As Proof Of ‘Systemic Racism’ Is Fired For Falsifying Research.

A Florida State University professor whose work was foundational to perpetuating the false narrative that there is widespread “systemic racism” infecting American society has been fired for falsifying data in his academic research on the subject.

In a recently resurfaced report from last month, the New York Post revealed that Eric Stewart, an FSU criminology professor, had been fired by the university “on account of ‘extreme negligence’ in his research,” as well as “incompetence” and producing “false results” in his nearly 20 years of work.

“I do not see how you can teach our students to be ethical researchers or how the results of future research projects conducted by you could be deemed as trustworthy,” FSU Provost James Clark wrote in a July 13 letter formally notifying Stewart of his firing.

According to the Post, Stewart has had six studies published in major academic journals between 2003 and 2019 that were “fully retracted,” including a 2019 study claiming the historical legacy of lynchings “made whites perceive blacks as criminals, and that the problem was worse among conservatives.”

Stewart’s retracted research also included claims that racial disparities in criminal sentencing are racially motivated. In a 2015 study, for instance, Stewart suggested Americans supported tougher sentencing for Hispanics because they feared an increase in the U.S. Latino population and Latinos’ potential economic success.

Other retracted studies include a 2018 analysis which “suggested that white Americans view black and Latino people as ‘criminal threats,’ and suggested that perceived threat could lead to ‘state-sponsored social control,’” the Post added.

Clark indicated in his letter that Stewart’s other published works are “in doubt.”

Rather than own up to his actions, Stewart has since attempted to play the victim card and attacked Justin Pickett, a former FSU graduate student who reported Stewart for his unethical conduct. Following the launch of the investigation into his work in 2020, Stewart, who is black, claimed that by raising concerns about his faulty research, Pickett had “essentially lynched [him] and [his] academic character.”

In addition to his $190,000 annual salary at FSU, Stewart’s projects received millions in research grants from major groups and government agencies. According to the Post, the National Institute of Mental Health — which falls under the National Institute of Health — reportedly gave Stewart $3.2 million to research “how African Americans transition into adulthood.”

Stewart also reportedly received funds from the National Science Foundation, the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, and the National Institute of Justice, a subsidiary of the Department of Justice.

The discovery of Stewart’s falsified research and his subsequent firing is significant to understanding the left’s ongoing war on American police officers. As noted by Wilfred Reilly, an associate professor at Kentucky State University, Stewart is “[p]robably THE academic [figure] responsible” for the debunked narrative that so-called “systemic racism” plagues U.S. police departments throughout the country.

According to Google Scholar, for instance, Stewart’s questionable — and in several cases, categorically false — works have garnered more than 8,500 citations by other researchers. Stewart’s “research” has been used as a pretext by other academics, regime-approved media, and Democrat politicians to smear America’s on-the-ground law enforcement officers as inherently “racist” towards non-white Americans.

“The point [of this story] is that one of the [main] guys who built up the entire narrative of ‘wokeness’ just made it up,” Reilly told The Federalist. “Throughout the entire kind of racial reckoning, one of the things that I and others … have noticed is that these stories [about police brutality against black Americans] keep collapsing. The narrative of police genocide of African Americans turned out … to be complete nonsense.”

Reilly also referenced research conducted by the Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald, whose analyses of publicly available data have debunked leftists’ narrative that there is an epidemic of police killing unarmed black Americans. In a USA Today article published a few months after George Floyd’s death, for instance, Mac Donald noted how even data from The Washington Post’s database of fatal police shootings dispels such claims and predicted that “[r]educing police resources will ultimately result in poorer service to the law-abiding residents of high-crime areas.”

Mac Donald’s forecast ultimately came true. While the rise of Black Lives Matter and Democrat-generated attacks on police began under the Obama administration, it was Floyd’s death that ushered in a new era of the left’s war on America’s police. Democrat politicos and their legacy media allies quickly hijacked Floyd’s death to normalize street violence committed by their communist foot soldiers.

The left’s perpetuation of the false “systemic racism in policing” narrative and their subsequent actions not only killed people such as David Dorn, but countless others who suffered because their Democrat-run cities defunded local law enforcement.

Following Floyd’s death and the anti-police back it launched, there was a significant spike in overall murders, especially affecting black victims. According to Reilly, such statistics don’t interest groups like Black Lives Matter because “a focus on things that might actually correlate with a high loss of black life … [is] not what the movement was about.”

BLM “was about using outlier conflict between blacks and whites to get money,” Reilly said. “The whole idea was to take these very isolated, white cop or white vigilantes on black male cases and present them as normal. They did that for a while. It turned out not to be real and they’ve pulled back from the scene, now as the owners of some nice properties. And now we’re left to clean up the mess.”

Quote O’ The Day
If a foreign government had imposed this system of education on the United States, we would rightly consider it an act of war. – Glenn T. Seaborg


Math professors: Incoming students can’t even add fractions, subtract

Colleges add tutoring, remedial courses as freshmen struggle post-COVID lockdowns

Universities across the country are struggling to address incoming students’ poor math skills after many fell behind academically during the COVID-19 lockdowns.

More than ever before, professors say freshmen cannot answer basic high school mathematics problems such as subtracting a positive number from a negative number or adding two fractions, according to a recent report from the Associated Press.

“We’re talking about college-level pre-calculus and calculus classes, and students cannot even add one-half and one-third,” Maria Emelianenko, chair of the George Mason University math department, told the Associated Press.

Emelianenko said new students’ math deficiencies have become such a “huge issue” that her northern Virginia university recently began a Math Boot Camp, and approximately 100 students chose to attend the week-long remedial program over the summer.

Other colleges and universities are seeing the same problem. Many first-year college students spent their 10th grade year – when algebra or geometry is typically taught – at home due to widespread, months-long lockdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Schools switched to virtual classrooms instead, but growing research indicates many students struggled with online learning and now lag behind academically.

At Temple University in Philadelphia, Professor Jessica Babcock told the AP she began noticing the problem last year when grading STEM major students’ tests in her intermediate algebra course:

The quiz, a softball at the start of the fall semester, asked students to subtract eight from negative six.

“I graded a whole bunch of papers in a row. No two papers had the same answer, and none of them were correct,” she said. “It was a striking moment of, like, wow — this is significant and deep.”

Before the pandemic, about 800 students per semester were placed into that class, the equivalent of ninth grade math. By 2021, it swelled to nearly 1,400.

“It’s not just that they’re unprepared, they’re almost damaged,” said Brian Rider, Temple’s math chair. “I hate to use that term, but they’re so behind.”

Many universities are trying to be proactive, offering remedial summer programs, expanding tutoring services and providing more office hours with professors, according to AP. Math professors say they are thinking about new ways to teach the subject, too, including more hands-on, in-class instruction.

Continue reading “”

GloBull Warming………..

Greenland’s 2022-’23 Ice Coverage Well Above 1981-2010 Average Despite ‘Global Boiling’ Rhetoric.

Since the early 2000s there has been no net change in the Greenland ice sheet mean annual surface temperature, as well as no net change in melt extent percentage.

Greenland’s ice coverage was, for most of this year (September 1, 2022 to August 31, 2023), observed to be significantly above the long-term (1981-2010) climate average. The Greenland ice sheet didn’t even cooperate with the narrative during the “global boiling” melt months of July and August.

Image Source: PolarPortal

Greenland has been defying the narrative for decades now. After a brief, sharp warming from 1994 to the early 2000s, the mean annual land surface temperatures (LST) have been trendless since about 2003. Since 2012, Greenland has been cooling (Fang et al., 2023). Compare the colorized Greenland temperature trends lineup for 2007-2012 to the 2013-2020 period (bottom).

Image Source: Fang et al., 2023

A trendless temperature record also manifests as non-significant change in melt extent as a percentage of surface area as well as the the mass balance for the whole ice sheet, especially from about 2005 onwards.

Image Source: Fang et al., 2023

Other scientists have also reported Greenland warming “is not evident” (Matsumura et al., 2022) in recent decades. Instead, temperature stations document net cooling trends from 2001-2019 (Hanna et al., 2021).

Image Source: Matsumura et al., 2022
Image Source: Hanna et al., 2021

To be frank, our doctors did and were too.

In Wuhan, Doctors Knew The Truth. They Were Told To Keep Quiet.

In the first weeks of 2020, a radiologist at Xinhua Hospital in Wuhan, China, saw looming signs of trouble. He was a native of Wuhan and had 29 years of radiology experience. His job was to take computed tomography (CT) scans, looking at patients’ lungs for signs of infection.

And infections were everywhere. “I have never seen a virus that spreads so quickly,” he told a reporter for the investigative magazine Caixin. “This growth rate is too fast, and it is too scary.”

“The CT machines in the hospital were overloaded every day,” he added. “The machines are exhausted and often crash.”

But this tableau of chaos was hidden from the Chinese people — and the world — in early 2020. Chinese authorities had acknowledged on Dec. 31, 2019, that there were 27 cases of “pneumonia of unknown origin,” and 44 confirmed cases on Jan. 3, 2020. The Wuhan health commission reported 59 cases on Jan. 5, then abruptly reduced the number to 41 on Jan. 11, and claimed there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission or any signs of doctors getting sick.

That claim was a lie. The coronavirus was running rampant. Doctors at the radiologist’s hospital, and other hospitals, were getting sick. But China’s Communist Party leaders prize social stability above all else. They fear any sign of public panic or admission that the ruling party-state is not in control. The authorities in both Wuhan and Beijing kept the situation secret, especially because annual party political meetings were being held in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province, from Jan. 6 to Jan. 17.

Secrecy has long been a major tool of the governing Communist Party. It suppresses independent journalism, censors digital news and communications, and withholds vital information from its people. Doctors in Wuhan who knew the truth were afraid to speak out. China did not reveal human transmission of the virus until Jan. 22, and by then, the pandemic had been ignited. In 3½ years, covid-19 has taken nearly 7 million lives by official counts. The true death toll is probably twice or three times that number.

Continue reading “”

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.
Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet

A study of language in Science articles from 1997 through 2021 raises concerns about exaggerated claims.

Careful scientists know to acknowledge uncertainty in the findings and conclusions of their papers. But in one leading journal, the frequency of hedging words such as “might” and “probably” has fallen by about 40% over the past 2 decades, a study finds.

If this trend holds across the scientific literature, it suggests a worrisome rise of unreliable, exaggerated claims, some observers say. Hedging and avoiding overconfidence “are vital to communicating what one’s data can actually say and what it merely implies,” says Melissa Wheeler, a social psychologist at the Swinburne University of Technology who was not involved in the study. “If academic writing becomes more about the rhetoric … it will become more difficult for readers to decipher what is groundbreaking and truly novel.”

The new analysis, one of the largest of its kind, examined more than 2600 research articles published from 1997 to 2021 in Science, which the team chose because it publishes articles from multiple disciplines. (Science’s news team is independent from the editorial side.) The team searched the papers for about 50 terms such as “could,” “appear to,” “approximately,” and “seem.” The frequency of these hedging words dropped from 115.8 instances per 10,000 words in 1997 to 67.42 per 10,000 words in 2021.

Continue reading “”

 The Great COVID Ventilator Death Cover-up. 

Tens of thousands of Americans died after being placed on mechanical ventilators in spring 2020. It’s long past time we got real answers as to how many were killed this way.

It’s long been something of a mystery why there have been no major studies on how many COVID patients were killed by mechanical ventilators in spring 2020. Early data from China had suggested that ventilators would need to be used widely in the treatment of COVID patients, and this led to a major rush to procure ventilators on the part of politicians and hospital systems all over the world.

A small sample of the hundreds of headlines from that period features ones such as:

Cuomo refutes Trump, insists NY needs up to 40,000 ventilators,”

NY may need 24,000 more ventilators to fight COVID-19. Here’s how it could get them,”

Which coronavirus patients will get life-saving ventilators? Guidelines show how hospitals in NYC, US will decide,”

Amid Ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic, Governor Cuomo Announces 1,000 Ventilators Donated to New York State,”

A New York hospital is treating two patients on a device intended for one.”

However, it soon became clear that ventilators were being vastly overused, and the medical community gradually ceased this practice of mass intubation. Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell acted as an early whistleblower, sounding the alarm in a widely-shared video:

We are operating under a medical paradigm that is untrue… I fear that this misguided treatment will lead to a tremendous amount of harm to a great number of people in a very short time… This method being widely adopted at this very moment at every hospital in the country…is actually doing more harm than good.

In interviews with major media outlets, several practitioners later disclosed that patients had often been put on ventilators not for their own benefit, but in order to stop the virus from spreading. As one doctor later told the Wall Street Journal:

We were intubating sick patients very early. Not for the patients’ benefit, but in order to control the epidemic and to save other patients. That felt awful.

Continue reading “”

After 53 [now 54] Earth Days, Society Still Hasn’t Collapsed.

Cassandra in Greek mythology was the Trojan priestess who was cursed to utter true prophecies but never to be believed. Ideological environmentalism features a cohort of reverse Cassandras: They make false prophecies that are widely believed. Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich in his 1968 classic, The Population Bomb, prophesied, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” Ehrlich continues to predict imminent overpopulation doom.

Another reverse Cassandra was Rachel Carson who warned in her 1962 Silent Spring of impending cancer epidemics sparked by humanity’s heedless use of synthetic pesticides. In fact, even as pesticide use has risen, rates of cancer incidence and mortality have been falling for 30 years.

On the occasion of the 53rd Earth Day, let’s take a look at the prophecies of another reverse Cassandra, the Club of Rome’s 1972 The Limits to Growth report by Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and William Behrens. The book and its dire forecasts were introduced to the world at a March 1972 conference at the Smithsonian Institution. Let’s focus primarily on the report’s nonrenewable resource depletion calculations. The 1973 oil crisis was widely taken as confirming the book’s dire scenarios projecting imminent nonrenewable resource depletion.

Continue reading “”

I’ve seen similar in the past. When it looks, sounds and smells fraudulent, it usually is.

Biofire won’t send out guns to journalists for testing

Smart guns are a contentious topic, to say the least, but while many in the pro-gun camp have no use for them, it’s not because their existence is an infringement on the Second Amendment. Mandating them would be, but a company making them? No.

Biofire, however, says they have one and it’s on the market right now.

The guns aren’t in shooters’ hands as of yet, of course, but they’re coming and they’re taking deposits from those interested in the weapons.

Yet when a new gun comes to market, one of the first groups to get their hands on it are gun journalists. They get firearms for testing and evaluation, which involves a period of time where the writer basically puts the guns through their paces.

Guess what isn’t happening with Biofire?

But what you can’t do is shoot the thing before you plunk down your money, nor can nearly anyone else. Biofire is not allowing independent reviews of its new smart gun, at least not anytime soon.

“In the short term, we’re not doing that kind of thing yet. We’re trying to phase in our engagement with the public on this stuff,” Amy Jasper, Biofire’s communication director said Tuesday. “We’re hosting product demos on Zoom, interviews with the CEO, and then the next thing we’ll host are some onsite range days for folks in the firearm media – allowing folks to put a few rounds through it. After that, we’ll be able to send firearms out to do whatever you want with it. It’s a phased approach.”

Jasper said the company lacks the “capacity” to allow traditional firearm reviews, even though they’re already accepting downpayments for the pistol, which she said should start shipping during Q1 or Q2 of 2024.

For now, you have to take Biofire’s word that the smart gun’s “integrated fingerprint and 3D facial recognition systems” will work as advertised and unlock the pistol when it’s needed, especially in what Mas Ayoob called “the gravest extreme.”

And that’s troubling.

See, one of the biggest knocks on Biofire’s weapon is concern that it can’t be trusted to perform. Having an event where gun writers can squeeze off a few rounds isn’t the same as allowing them to test the guns through hundreds or thousands of rounds.

While they can learn how the trigger feels, how it feels during recoil, how it feels in the hand, and a number of other factors that would go into a buying decision, it won’t tell us anything about the technology’s reliability.

Remember that this is new, relatively unproven technology, and we’re supposed to just take their word that it works as advertised?

I’m sorry, but no.

I get their concern that they don’t have the capacity, but that’s also a matter of concern for me.

To me, it suggests that they haven’t really built more than a couple of the firearms already, which suggests they might not be capable of scaling up production so as to meet any demand.

Especially since sending out guns for testing with gun journalists is a longtime practice for pretty much any firearm company. It’s part of how a gun is marketed in the first place, for crying out loud. It’s where brands first start to develop trust with potential customers.

Biofire’s inability to do that isn’t the kind of thing that should give anyone a warm, fuzzy feeling.

At best, it’s evidence that Biofire doesn’t understand the industry it’s trying to get involved in. At worst, it’s evidence they made a crap product and are hoping no one figures it out until customers’ checks clear.

Name fits

Second Amendment Roundup: To Preserve Liberty, Not Slavery
Carl Bogus invented the fiction that the purpose of the Second Amendment was slave control.

Back in 1998—a decade before Heller—Prof. Carl Bogus claimed to have discovered a “hidden history” showing that the Second Amendment was adopted to ensure that militias could enforce slave control.  Since that theory crops up now and then, in 2021 I posted a comprehensive historical refutation in SSRN, which was subsequently published in Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy.

Bogus has now rehashed his 1998 theory in Madison’s Militia: The Hidden History of the Second Amendment (Oxford University Press, 2023), which adds nothing new on point.  He states up front that he will not address how legal scholars or the courts have interpreted the Amendment, except to assert, without any support, that James Madison and his colleagues “would have been astonished” at the Supreme Court’s holding that the Amendment “grants individuals a right to have guns….” (“Grants?”  No, confirms.)

Bogus failed to address or even mention my paper, which is the only comprehensive critique of his 1998 article, even though it was first published a year-and-a-half before his book.  Oxford University’s readers who vetted his manuscript were either asleep at the wheel or biased in favor of his argument.  This is good example of why courts today, when searching for historical analogues under Bruen, should rely on original historical sources and not skewed declarations by “historians.”

Bogus calls his tome “a mystery book” about “why James Madison decided to write the Second Amendment,” because “there is no direct evidence about what the Founders intended.”  But his agenda is clear: instead of “the Minuteman at Lexington, with a musket in his hands … the more accurate image [of the Second Amendment] is that of the musket in the hands of the militiaman on slave patrol in the South.”

Denigrating America’s patriots in order to infect the Second Amendment with racism makes it easier today to criminalize the right to keep and bear arms, and is consistent with other contemporary efforts, such as the 1619 Project, to demonize America and its founders.  Not surprisingly, Bogus served on the board of directors of Handgun Control Inc., the anti-gun lobby which morphed into the Brady Center.

Continue reading “”

We Now Have the Full Transcript of Fauci’s Deposition in Social-Media Collusion Case

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Louisiana AG Jeff Landry deposed Anthony Fauci last month in the states’ case accusing the Biden administration of “colluding with social media companies to censor speech” related to the Covid-19 pandemic. Today, they released the full transcript of that interview (you can read the entire document below).“Today, Louisiana and Missouri are releasing the full transcript for the deposition of Dr. Anthony Fauci, which was taken on November 23rd, 2022. The deposition was taken as part of Louisiana and Missouri’s landmark lawsuit against the federal government and the Biden Administration for colluding with social media companies to censor speech,” said Landry in a press release. “Fauci’s recent deposition only confirmed what we already knew: federal bureaucrats in collusion with social media companies want to control not only what you think, but especially what you say. During no time in human history was this more obvious than during the COVID-19 crisis where social engineering tactics were used against the American public, not to limit your exposure to a virus, but to limit your exposure to information that did not fit within a government sanctioned narrative.”“Missouri and Louisiana are leading the way in exposing how the federal government and the Biden Administration worked with social media to censor speech. In our deposition with Dr. Fauci, it became clear that when Dr. Fauci speaks, social media censors,” added Schmitt in his own press release. “I invite everyone to read the deposition transcript and see exactly how Dr. Fauci operates, and exactly how the COVID tyranny that ruined lives and destroyed businesses was born.”

In a Twitter thread, Schmitt noted that know-nothing Fauci blurted out, “I don’t recall,” 174 times during the deposition, “including when asked about emails that he sent, interviews that he gave, and other important information.”

Fauci did, however, “vaguely recall” telling former HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell in early 2020 not to wear a mask when traveling. “Just a couple months later, he was advocating for universal mask mandates,” Schmitt noted.

Also from Schmitt: “One of Fauci’s deputies joined a WHO delegation to China in February of 2020, and in talking to Fauci afterwards, was impressed with how the Chinese ‘were handling the isolation, the contact tracing, the building of facilities to take care of people.’”

Indeed, Fauci admitted that this American official told him the U.S. “may have to go to as extreme a degree of social distancing to help bring our outbreak under control.” But then Fauci clammed up and said he “didn’t recall” the individual discussing this with him when he returned home.”

This is a breaking story. We’ll have more details to report in an upcoming article. 

Full Redacted Fauci Transcript by PJ Media on Scribd

Global Warming? Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover At 56-Year High

The COP27 climate change conference wrapped up last month. World leaders flew in private jets to Egypt to discuss how fossil fuels were quickly heating the planet to the point of no return, as humanity was doomed if crucial climate change policies weren’t implemented. But while the climate alarmist leaders met in the desert, November’s snowfall across the Northern Hemisphere was running at rates exceeding a half-a-century average. NOAA and Rutgers University released new data that showed snow cover across the Northern Hemisphere reached the highest level since measurements began in 1967 and are currently above the 56-year mean.

Here’s the Rutgers Global Snow Lab snow coverage map across the Northern Hemisphere.

And another from NOAA with more resolution.

“Extensive snow extent early in the season is an indicator of persistent cold as we head into winter proper,” weather blog Severe Weather Europe said.

Most mainstream media outlets overlooked this data because it is an inconvenient truth for the climate change narrative they’re pushing.

A severe winter for the Northern Hemisphere might complicate power grids for western countries that are hellbent on disrupting energy flows by sanctioning Russia, forcing the world into the worst energy crisis in a generation. Since the US and Europe’s natural gas storage facilities have flipped into withdrawal season, the clock starts as storage levels could quickly wind down if temperatures stay below average, which would continue to boost energy prices.

Pfizer Executive: ‘No, Haha!’ We Didn’t Test If COVID Vaccine Stopped Transmission of Virus.

Pfizer executive Janine Small admitted to the European Parliament with a laugh that the company did not test if its COVID-19 vaccine stopped transmission of the virus before the vaccine was put on the market. Apparently knowing whether a vaccine works isn’t important before forcing everyone to get it?

Small made the admission in a video tweeted by Dutch Member of the European Parliament Rob Roos. The Netherlands instituted a COVID-19 vaccine passport in late 2021, and Roos emphasized in the video how much Small’s admission undermines the Dutch government’s justification for the passport.

“If you don’t get vaccinated, you’re anti-social. This is what the Dutch Prime Minister and Health Minister told us,” Roos said. “You don’t get vaccinated just for yourself, but also for others—you do it for all of society. That’s what they said.” But that argument no longer holds, Roos explained. “Today, this turns out to be complete nonsense. In a COVID hearing in the European Parliament, one of the Pfizer directors just admitted to me—at the time of introduction, the vaccine had never been tested on stopping the transmission of the virus.”

Roos emphasized the importance of this admission. “This removes the entire legal basis for the COVID passport, the COVID passport that led to massive institutional discrimination as people lost access to essential parts of society,” Roos said. “I find this to be shocking, even criminal.”

The video then showed a clip of Roos asking Small in the European Parliament, “Was the Pfizer COVID vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market? If not, please say it clearly. If yes, are you willing to share the data with this committee?” Roos said he was asking in English specifically to avoid any misunderstanding on Small’s part.

Small was clearly uncomfortable answering the question—and for good reason. “Regarding the question around, um, when we knew about stopping immunization before, um, it entered the market—no!” Small exclaimed, with a nervous laugh. Apparently giving millions of people an untested vaccine is amusing?

Small then attempted to justify Pfizer’s actions. “These, um, you know, we had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market.”

The speed of science or the speed of greed? Already, as of May 2021, Pfizer had made $3.5 billion of revenue on its COVID vaccine in just three months, almost a quarter of its total revenue, according to Yahoo News. Chinese Communist Party-owned Fosun Pharmaceuticals makes the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine in the U.S., according to Dr. Naomi Wolf.

Multiple studies recently have warned that the COVID-19 vaccines can cause serious injury and death. Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo just released an analysis showing the relative incidence of cardiac-related death increased 84 percent in men ages 18-39 within 28 days of mRNA vaccination. Ladapo recommended that young men not get the COVID vaccine.

Roos commented at the end of his video about Small’s admission, “This is scandalous. Millions of people worldwide felt forced to get vaccinated because of the myth that ‘you do it for others.’ Now, this turned out to be a cheap lie. This should be exposed.”

Here’s the Latest Climate Change Projection That Was Totally Wrong

As if this is shocking news, the global warming Armageddon peddlers were wrong again. How many times have we heard that we’re all going to die if we don’t sacrifice economic growth to reduce global temperatures by an indiscernible amount? Democrats had a full-blown meltdown over the haggling about the latest spending bill when it seemed as if it were on life support. If we don’t pass the inflation reduction act, which quickly became a climate change bill—civilization will end. The New York Times had an op-ed declaring that the Democrats’ spending bill just saved the world.

The latest doomsday scenario to be proven incorrect is related to this past summer’s temperature, which was 1.5 degrees warmer than the 50-year average. Yet, it was way off the 5.4-degree projection cast by Professor James Hansen, one of the godfathers of the global warming hysteria. Hansen is known for his series of congressional testimonies in the 1980s that created public awareness. Steve Milloy used The Washington Post’s tool regarding temperature changes this past summer to expose the shoddy projection.

It’s a pattern that cannot be ignored. The climate change prognosticators said in 2007 that the Artic Ice Cap would melt by 2013. In 2013, the ice cap was intact and had grown by 538,000 square miles. That same year, it was the calmest hurricane season in almost 20 years. It was also the quietest tornado season that year in nearly 60 years. To flashforward to the present, the 2022 hurricane season is now the most undisturbed in almost three decades.

In the 1970s, people who predicted the total annihilation of humanity over global warming thought that ‘global cooling’ would create a massive food crisis as the North American continent would undergo another period of glaciation. That didn’t happen either, but we must listen to them now and waste trillions in economic output and growth to avert disaster. If we don’t heed their warnings, we could all be dead in 12 years or something. In other news, we have another great weekend of football, college, and professional. That’s much more important than anything these green people say since they’ve been wrong about everything.

Dr. Deborah Birx: I knew shots would not prevent COVID infection

Defenders of federal officials, including President Biden, who declared one year ago that people who received the COVID-19 vaccines would not contract the disease argue “the science” changes over time.

But the White House coronavirus response coordinator at the time the vaccines were developed and rolled out said in an interview Friday she wasn’t surprised that people who were quadruple vaccinated, including Biden and Dr. Anthony Fauci, contracted the disease.

“I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection and I think we overplayed the vaccines,” Birx told the Fox News Channel’s Neil Cavuto.

Birx, who is promoting a new book in which she confesses she manipulated data and quietly altered CDC guidance without authorization, was responding to the question of what she would say to unvaccinated people who in light of the ineffectiveness of the vaccines in preventing COVID might ask why they should bother getting the shots.

Continue reading “”

Garen J. Wintemute. That name rang a bell.

Garen Wintemute’s Conclusions Aren’t Supported By His Own Data…But He Won’t Let That Stop Him
UC Davis’s Dr. Garen Wintemute runs something called the Violence Prevention Research Center. Translation: he’s a hoplophobic grifter with a university sinecure who sucks up millions of dollars to keep his anti-gun rights operation going thanks to the largesse of like-minded individuals, foundations and, of course, California tax payers.


BLUF
Additional authors of the study include Colette Smirniotis, Christopher McCort and Garen J. Wintemute from the VPRO and the California Firearm Violence Research Center.

Machine learning identifies gun purchasers at risk of suicide

A first-of-its-kind study from the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis shows an algorithm can forecast the likelihood of firearm suicide using handgun purchasing data.

A new study from the Violence Prevention Research Program (VPRP) at UC Davis suggests machine learning, a type of artificial intelligence, may help identify handgun purchasers who are at high risk of suicide. It also identified individual and community characteristics that are predictive of firearm suicide. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

Previous research has shown the risk of suicide is particularly high immediately after purchase, suggesting that acquisition itself is an indicator of elevated suicide risk.

Risk factors identified by the algorithm to be predictive of firearm suicide included:

older age
first-time firearm purchaser
white race
living in close proximity to the gun dealer
purchasing a revolver

Continue reading “”

Spoiler Alert: It’s All a Scam
This is war. We need to go on the offensive. It starts by describing the four corners of deceit, exposing them, and actually taking them back. It is late, but never too late.

Here is the hard-discovered truth.

The Left, which now controls all the centers of power and the commanding heights of the world economy, seeks to codify their ideology as science, and thereby make it irrefutable. You can’t disagree with it or you are a kook or insurrectionist. You are outside what Thomas Kuhn, called the “paradigm of normal science.”

Think about it. Everything these authorities tell you is true is, in fact, precisely the opposite of the truth.

Global warming is a hoax.

Universities are about indoctrination, not education.

Government is a form of manipulation with a two-tiered justice system.

The media is fake and journalism died long ago.

The financial system is a Ponzi scheme.

Trump did not collude with Russia.

The border is wide open.

Inflation is not transitory.

Defunding the police increases crime.

The pandemic did not originate in a wet market from pangolins.

Joe Biden is illegitimate.

Crackhead Hunter is not innocent.

Epstein didn’t kill himself.

Black Lives Matter and critical race theory are not about racial justice.

Women are not men and vice versa.

Virtue signaling isn’t about virtue.

Religion is not malevolent.

The late, great Rush Limbaugh was one of the first to visualize and expose the “four corners of deceit” in our culture that altogether combined, suffice to lie to students, citizens, and the American people.

The four corners of deceit are: government, academia, science, and the media. I had a hard time coming to this radical conclusion myself, as I wanted to believe otherwise, was not a conspiracist, and have attained all the laurels on offer from our current system. Just read my memoir, Davos, Aspen & Yale. I have been behind the elite curtain.

Like an Orwell novel, the clock is striking 13 in America. The farm animals on top know it and are so cynical they are laughing all the way to the bank and the voting booth. The populace, like lemmings, just goes along. What else can they do? As in the Thomas Hardy tale, Far From the Madding Crowd, the sheep, listless and unknowing, just fling themselves off the cliff, one after the other.

Continue reading “”

And how much of that sticks to the fingers of his cronies?


Secretary Buttigieg to Spend $1 Billion to Combat Racist Highways

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is on a mission. He’s looking for highways with a racist past and is aiming to “help reconnect cities and neighborhoods racially segregated or divided by road projects.” Buttigieg is examining interstate highways, built with federal dollars, “where a piece of infrastructure cuts off a neighborhood or a community because of how it was built,” said Buttigieg in a speech announcing the $1 billion “Reconnecting Communities” program.

“How it was built”? What does that mean? Does that statement refer to the racial makeup of businesses and residents? This is just more of the “disparate racial results” of government action, not because there was a racist intent behind it.

We’re told that these divisions deliberately targeted black neighborhoods because, well, racism, of course. States and communities will be able to “apply for the federal aid over five years to rectify harm caused by roadways that were built primarily through lower-income, Black communities after the 1950s creation of the interstate highway system.”

There are perhaps thousands of communities across the United States “harmed” by the building of the interstates. How many towns and cities that the Interstate Highway System bypassed withered and died on the vine because of an arbitrary decision by some soulless bureaucrat in Washington?

Associated Press:

“Transportation can connect us to jobs, services and loved ones, but we‘ve also seen countless cases around the country where a piece of infrastructure cuts off a neighborhood or a community because of how it was built,” said Buttigieg, who was announcing the pilot program later Thursday in Birmingham, Alabama. He described Reconnecting Communities as a broad department “principle” — not just a program — to address the issue with many efforts underway.

“This is a forward-looking vision,” Buttigieg said. “Our focus isn’t about assigning blame. It isn’t about getting caught up in guilt. It’s about fixing a problem. It’s about mending what has been broken, especially when the damage was done with taxpayer dollars.”

Does this sound like it’s going to “mend what’s broken”?

New projects could include rapid bus transit lines to link disadvantaged neighborhoods to jobs; caps built on top of highways featuring green spaces, bike lanes and pedestrian walkways to allow for safe crossings over the roadways; repurposing former rail lines; and partial removal of highways.

Is there a reason there are few “green spaces, bike lanes and pedestrian walkways” in these neighborhoods now? Just asking.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis called the program the “woke-ification” of federal policy, which isn’t entirely accurate. This is good old-fashioned government goodies going to a favored constituency. There’s nothing remotely “woke” about it.