The
New Hampshire House of Representatives is about to publish a 38-page
report created by a bipartisan committee of NH state legislators
entitled, "Special Committee on Covid Response Efficacy: Report of
Findings.”
I got an advance copy that I can share with you.
It’s glorious.
In this article I summarize the highlights.
It was an interesting seeing how different people can view the same evidence in totally opposite ways.
Also, all the Republicans on the committee thought the response was a disaster.
All the Democrats saw nothing wrong. The Minority Report is the exact opposite of
the Majority report.
You can’t make this stuff up. You really can’t.
Note:
It does NOT include a copy of the minority report that the Democrats
authored. In the view of the Democrats, everything is fine and dandy.
It’s the complete opposite of what the Republicans wrote.
Isn’t it stunning how two groups of people have completely different perceptions of reality?
I predict that there will be a worldwide media blackout of the report.
Here are some of the key messages in the Summary of Findings section.
I
quote the key statement and then provide a handy English translation to
make it easier for you to understand what they are saying.
My personal favorite is #12.
Page
5: “The first major goal identified by the committee was to halt the
widespread transmission of the SARS-COV-2 virus. In other words, stop
the virus from spreading amongst the population and prevent the virus
from becoming endemic. This objective led to guidance and
recommendations regarding the wearing of various forms of personal
protective equipment, masking, and social distancing. At the state
level, such guidance was provided by the state epidemiologist, though it
appears that there was often a reliance on the guidance being offered
by the federal agencies. In many cases, New Hampshire simply followed
the federal guidance.
Analysis
on the efficacy of the response as it pertains to this goal must begin
with the fact that despite all measures implemented the spread of the
virus was not halted.”
Translation: “Masks and social distancing didn’t do shit.”
Page
6: “Indeed, no testimony or documents were received by the committee
indicating that the mitigation strategies were effective.”
Translation: “All these measures didn’t do shit.”
Page 7: “However, statistical and graphical analysis of this R0
value over time provided no obvious indication that the spread of
SARS-COV-2 was mitigated at all by the cumulative measures implemented.”
Translation: “All these measures didn’t do shit.”
Page
8: “It is nonetheless the case that the cumulative effects of the
measures taken by the state to slow the spread of the SARS-COV-2 virus
were ineffectual. It is nonetheless the case that the cumulative effects
of the measures taken by the state to slow the spread of the SARS-COV-2
virus were ineffectual. Little evidence has been presented to this
committee credibly indicating that there would have been any increase in
morbidity and mortality, or any strain of the New Hampshire healthcare
system beyond capacity, in the absence of these measures cumulatively.”
Translation: “All these measures didn’t do shit.”
Page
8: “Because of the limited availability and the required conditions for
treatment, it is unclear what, if any, positive or negative effect this
treatment made.”
Translation: “All these monoclonal treatments didn’t do shit, as far as we can tell.”
Page
8: “Vaccinations … were initially advertised by relevant authorities as
preventing the spread of the SARS-COV-2 virus. Clearly, this was
unsubstantiated by any clinical evidence and was proven demonstrably false under real-world conditions.”
Translation: “The CDC lied; people died.”
Page
9: “Therefore, it is not known what role the vaccines and boosters had
in the downward trend of the disease, but this committee has seen no
evidence that it was effective in reducing incidence of documented
cases. Multiple expert testimonies were received regarding both
ineffectiveness and the prevalence of serious adverse reactions
associated with vaccination.”
Translation: “The vaccines didn’t do shit as far as we can tell; they made things worse.”
Page
9: “Most worrisome here is the substantial testimony and documentation
indicating that the relevant federal agencies overseeing safety
abandoned the established standards for safe use of such products in
humans.”
Translation: “Safety protocols were ignored. The focus was on lives saved, not how many died.”
Page
10: “Given that our state’s actions did not have any meaningful,
demonstrable impact on the course of the pandemic, it is recommended for
further study, and we call upon the private sectors and academia to
study and innovate, in the field of mitigation of biological agents.”
Translation: “It would be good to have a sane plan for the next pandemic because this one was a total failure.”
Page
25: “… when indoors, the spread of a highly contagious, airborne
pathogen is unlikely to be successfully mitigated simply by maintaining a
three or six foot personal bubble. This is true to such an extent that
it is unlikely that any member of this committee would have,
independently, recommended such a strange action in the absence of the
guidance promulgated by the federal and state Executive branches.”
Translation: “The recommendations from the State and Federal experts were comical.”
Page
27: “It would be difficult for the committee to identify a more
thoroughly publicly detested measure taken by either governmental or
private-sector actors during the pandemic than the mandates requiring
the wearing of face masks. This committee received significant testimony
to precisely this sentiment, as well as considerable expert testimony
regarding the apparent inefficacy of masks for mitigating an airborne
pathogen.”
Translation: “Masking is detested and they didn’t do shit.”
Page
31: “This committee received voluminous testimony and records relating
to the utilization of vaccines and mRNA technology relating to the
COVID-19 pandemic. This includes expert testimony from epidemiologists,
attorneys, and testimony from lay people, as well as testimony from
state authorities. Except for those state authorities, the overwhelming
thrust of the testimony received concerning the vaccines was negative.”
Translation: "Testimony
from State officials was that the COVID response was superb. Testimony
from everyone else was that the COVID response was a fricken disaster.”
Page
31: “It is therefore the recommendation of this committee that such
excesses of authority, the claiming of police powers to divide the
population, order healthy persons’ liberty severely restricted, order
houses of worship and private businesses shuttered, and the like should
never again be pursued by this government.”
Translation: “Coercing
people to do stupid things that made things worse is a dumb idea. We
shouldn’t repeat the same mistake. Let people decide for themselves.
People aren’t stupid.”
Page
31: “It is known that, by the criteria settled upon prior to vaccine
rollout, the threshold for “safety signal” was exceeded for multiple,
serious medical conditions, including myocarditis, autoimmune
dysfunction, and neurological injury within a very short time after
initial vaccine rollout. It is known that the CDC then chose to abandon
their previously established methodology for evaluating ongoing safety
data for the vaccines. It is, however, not known why the CDC chose to do
this, nor is it known why the public was not made aware of this “safety
signal” data or the change in methodology.”
Translation: “The
CDC was tone deaf to all the safety alarms going off. Their mission was
to push drug products regardless of how many people were killed by the
drugs.”
Page
32: “From the gathered testimony of New Hampshire officials, it does
not appear that these authorities within our state were aware of these
safety issues at the time that the CDC had this data. Federal
authorities developed a narrative of “safe and effective” that was
knowingly not supported by data. At the time, the State of New Hampshire
authorities adopted this narrative uncritically and implemented it as
policy in state guidance. It appears that the official narrative and
conclusions of federal authorities and select public-private
partnerships, such as some of those overseeing vaccine safety and
efficacy, were readily adopted by relevant New Hampshire authorities
without any circumspect and critical review. Indeed, the state
epidemiologist testified that at no point did the state generate any of
our own guidance around vaccines, but rather merely adopted federal
guidance.”
Translation: “The CDC lied and the NH health officials just did whatever the CDC recommended without question. The blind leading the blind.”
Page
33: “Lastly, “propaganda” is defined by the Miriam-Webster dictionary
as “ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's
cause or to damage an opposing cause.” As such, any time an official
position or narrative is adopted by the state, and official speech or
media is undertaken to advance that position or narrative publicly, the
state is, definitionally, engaged in propaganda. This is the case
regardless of the truth or falsity of the position, narrative, or
propaganda being engaged in. The State of New Hampshire adopted and
forwarded narratives and engaged in fear-based marketing during the
pandemic around such items as “stay at home,” vaccination of various
demographics including children (i.e. “our shot to get back to normal”),
the safety and efficacy of vaccines and treatments, and more. These
items were directly related to federal funding as well.”
Translation: “The
State simply repeated the bullshit coming down from the CDC with a goal
of gaslighting people into believing that they knew what they were
talking about.”
Page
33: “Further, censorship is now known to have occurred at the behest of
federal authorities as well as private-sector actors (often acting in
concert with federal authorities). Quashing citizens’ speech that
represented undesirable narratives must too have had an impact on the
authorities of this state who, to the best of this committee’s
knowledge, did not know of or partake in these censorious activities.
The absence of the skeptical voices of these citizens may well have
played a role in the decisions made by authorities within this state.”
Translation: “Biden’s embracing of censorship led to nonsensical state policies because the State authorities thought there was no dissent.”
Page
34: “This is an unacceptable circumstance and represents precisely the
sort of actions the founders meant to frustrate when they enumerated the
entire set of First Amendment rights within the Bill of Rights. This
censorship was both an affront to these rights of citizens and to the
relationship of the federal government to this state. Censorship efforts
included suppression of treatments and information around potential
treatments for COVID-19 that may have steered policy.”
Translation: “Those wielding the club of censorship are violating the First Amendment. They are not serving the public interest.”
Page 36: “During
this testimony it became apparent that such large-scale engineering
controls, as so many professionals and experts recommended to this
committee as first-line defense against airborne pathogens, were deemed
outside the scope of Public Health measures that could be readily
deployed with available funding. Further testimony seemed to suggest
hurdles to funding such measures were prohibitive of considering them
under the rubric of Public Health.
This
appears to have been an unfortunate conclusion, as it, in hindsight, is
abundantly clear that the totality of measures taken, and economic
losses incurred by not taking such engineering measures early on, far
exceeded the costs of implementing these measures in the first place in
every conceivable
dimension.”
Translation: “The
public health officials would have done better making policy decisions
with a dart board; at least that way, they would have gotten it right
half the time. In this case, they screwed up again in rejecting the most
cost-effective way to keep people safe.”
This
Thursday, we’ll feature several members from the New Hampshire
legislature who worked on the report so you can talk to them first-hand
and get their insights.
I applaud the work done by this committee and encourage other legislatures to do the same.
Live
Free or Die" is the state motto of New Hampshire. It reflects the
state's historic emphasis on individual liberty and self-governance,
echoing the deep-rooted American values of freedom and independence. The
phrase originated from a toast written by General John Stark, New
Hampshire's most famous Revolutionary War hero, in 1809: “Live free or
die: Death is not the worst of evils.”
These
courageous legislators are truly walking the talk and serving the
public interest and setting a model for others to follow.
Bravo.
No comments:
Post a Comment