• Study: Lockdowns Did Little to Combat Covid Mortality

    From Michael Ejercito@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 2 20:13:13 2022
    XPost: alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.israel

    http://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/02/study-lockdowns-did-little-to-combat-covid-mortality


    Study: Lockdowns Did Little to Combat Covid Mortality


    A new study from Johns Hopkins University found that the lockdowns in
    2020 did little to combat Covid-19 mortality. Given the huge economic
    and personal costs of these lockdowns, the study obviously raises
    questions about the basis for these extreme measures. However, as will
    come as no surprise to anyone on this blog, I view the study as much a statement against the censorship of commentators and researchers who
    were banned or attacked for questioning the lockdowns. Once again, it
    would have been better for public health to have this debate than to
    shut down any opposing views in the name of science.


    The researchers declared “We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable
    effect on COVID-19 mortality.”

    The study refutes the claim of researchers at the Imperial College
    London, for example, who predicted that such steps could reduce death
    rates by up to 98%.

    They did find that “closing nonessential businesses seems to have had
    some effect (reducing COVID-19 mortality by 10.6%), which is likely to
    be related to the closure of bars.”

    The most striking aspect of this study is that is part of a discussion
    that we never really had. Social media companies were banning or tagging
    anyone expressing doubts over such measures.

    We have seen various journalistic and scientific figures banned for
    expressing skepticism over pandemic claims from the origins of the virus
    to the efficacy of certain treatments. For example, when many people
    raised the possibility that the virus may have been released from the
    nearby Chinese virology lab (rather than the “wet market” theory), they were denounced as virtually a lunatic fringe. Even objections to the
    bias of authors of a report dismissing the lab theory were ridiculed.
    The New York Times reporter covering the area called it “racist” and implausible. Now, even W.H.O. admits that the lab theory is possible
    and Biden officials are admitting that it is indeed plausible.

    The same is true with the debate over the efficacy of masks. For over a
    year, some argued that the commonly used masks are ineffective to
    protect against the virus. Now, the CDC is warning that the masks do not
    appear to block these variants and even CNN’s experts are calling the
    cloth masks “little more than facial decorations.”

    Yet, the W.H.O. head is now embracing censorship as a means of combating
    the “infodemic.” There are also calls, including from the White House,
    for Spotify to ban or curtail Joe Rogan’s show for allowing dissenting
    views to be aired on Covid or its treatment.

    If there had not been such extensive censorship of dissenting
    viewpoints, there might have been more discussion on the costs and
    science behind the lockdowns. Instead, there was a chilling effect on
    such dissenting voices and anyone expressing doubts were labeled
    extremists or conspiracy theorists. Recently, for example, scientists
    have come forward to admit that they also suspected the Wuhan lab was
    the origin of virus but were silenced by the backlash at the CDC and universities.

    I do not know what the data will show on these issues and I readily
    recognize that, in the early days, many wanted to take the most
    protective course. However, we could have taken that course without
    actively seeking to censor or silence those who had doubts on these
    measures.

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Susan Cohen@21:1/5 to Michael Ejercito on Wed Feb 2 23:38:11 2022
    XPost: alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.israel

    On 2/2/2022 11:13 PM, Michael Ejercito wrote:
    http://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/02/study-lockdowns-did-little-to-combat-covid-mortality



    Study: Lockdowns Did Little to Combat Covid Mortality


    A new study from Johns Hopkins University found that the lockdowns in
    2020 did little to combat Covid-19 mortality.  Given the huge economic
    and personal costs of these lockdowns, the study obviously raises
    questions about the basis for these extreme measures. However, as will
    come as no surprise to anyone on this blog, I view the study as much a statement against the censorship of commentators and researchers who
    were banned or attacked for questioning the lockdowns. Once again, it
    would have been better for public health to have this debate than to
    shut down any opposing views in the name of science.


    The researchers declared “We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality.”

    The study refutes the claim of researchers at the Imperial College
    London, for example, who predicted that such steps could reduce death
    rates by up to 98%.

    They did find that “closing nonessential businesses seems to have had
    some effect (reducing COVID-19 mortality by 10.6%), which is likely to
    be related to the closure of bars.”

    The most striking aspect of this study is that is part of a discussion
    that we never really had. Social media companies were banning or tagging anyone expressing doubts over such measures.

    We have seen various journalistic and scientific figures banned for expressing skepticism over pandemic claims from the origins of the virus
    to the efficacy of certain treatments. For example, when many people
    raised the possibility that the virus may have been released from the
    nearby Chinese virology lab (rather than the “wet market” theory), they were denounced as virtually a lunatic fringe. Even objections to the
    bias of authors of a report dismissing the lab theory were ridiculed.
    The New York Times reporter covering the area called it “racist” and implausible.  Now, even W.H.O. admits that the lab theory is possible
    and Biden officials are admitting that it is indeed plausible.

    The same is true with the debate over the efficacy of masks. For over a
    year, some argued that the commonly used masks are ineffective to
    protect against the virus. Now, the CDC is warning that the masks do not appear to block these variants and even CNN’s experts are calling the
    cloth masks “little more than facial decorations.”

    Yet, the W.H.O. head is now embracing censorship as a means of combating
    the “infodemic.” There are also calls, including from the White House, for Spotify to ban or curtail Joe Rogan’s show for allowing dissenting views to be aired on Covid or its treatment.

    If there had not been such extensive censorship of dissenting
    viewpoints, there might have been more discussion on the costs and
    science behind the lockdowns. Instead, there was a chilling effect on
    such dissenting voices and anyone expressing doubts were labeled
    extremists or conspiracy theorists. Recently, for example, scientists
    have come forward to admit that they also suspected the Wuhan lab was
    the origin of virus but were silenced by the backlash at the CDC and universities.

    I do not know what the data will show on these issues and I readily
    recognize that, in the early days, many wanted to take the most
    protective course. However, we could have taken that course without
    actively seeking to censor or silence those who had doubts on these
    measures.


    You are one gullible asshole LOL!IQ!!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael Ejercito@21:1/5 to danny burstein on Wed Feb 2 20:48:51 2022
    XPost: alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.israel

    danny burstein wrote:
    In <stfkp0$7pi$1@dont-email.me> Michael Ejercito <MEjercit@HotMail.com> writes:

    http://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/02/study-lockdowns-did-little-to-combat-covid-mortality

    [stupid #deathcult shit deleted]

    Pathetic and sad

    Which death cult would that be?


    Michael

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From danny burstein@21:1/5 to Michael Ejercito on Thu Feb 3 04:32:10 2022
    XPost: alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.israel

    In <stfkp0$7pi$1@dont-email.me> Michael Ejercito <MEjercit@HotMail.com> writes:

    http://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/02/study-lockdowns-did-little-to-combat-covid-mortality

    [stupid #deathcult shit deleted]

    Pathetic and sad

    --
    _____________________________________________________
    Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
    dannyb@panix.com
    [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From HeartDoc Andrew@21:1/5 to Michael Ejercito on Thu Feb 3 03:01:36 2022
    XPost: alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.israel
    XPost: talk.politics.guns

    Michael Ejercito wrote:
    http://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/02/study-lockdowns-did-little-to-combat-covid-mortality


    Study: Lockdowns Did Little to Combat Covid Mortality


    A new study from Johns Hopkins University found that the lockdowns in
    2020 did little to combat Covid-19 mortality. Given the huge economic
    and personal costs of these lockdowns, the study obviously raises
    questions about the basis for these extreme measures. However, as will
    come as no surprise to anyone on this blog, I view the study as much a statement against the censorship of commentators and researchers who
    were banned or attacked for questioning the lockdowns. Once again, it
    would have been better for public health to have this debate than to
    shut down any opposing views in the name of science.


    The researchers declared “We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality.”

    The study refutes the claim of researchers at the Imperial College
    London, for example, who predicted that such steps could reduce death
    rates by up to 98%.

    They did find that “closing nonessential businesses seems to have had
    some effect (reducing COVID-19 mortality by 10.6%), which is likely to
    be related to the closure of bars.”

    The most striking aspect of this study is that is part of a discussion
    that we never really had. Social media companies were banning or tagging anyone expressing doubts over such measures.

    We have seen various journalistic and scientific figures banned for expressing skepticism over pandemic claims from the origins of the virus
    to the efficacy of certain treatments. For example, when many people
    raised the possibility that the virus may have been released from the
    nearby Chinese virology lab (rather than the “wet market” theory), they were denounced as virtually a lunatic fringe. Even objections to the
    bias of authors of a report dismissing the lab theory were ridiculed.
    The New York Times reporter covering the area called it “racist” and implausible. Now, even W.H.O. admits that the lab theory is possible
    and Biden officials are admitting that it is indeed plausible.

    The same is true with the debate over the efficacy of masks. For over a
    year, some argued that the commonly used masks are ineffective to
    protect against the virus. Now, the CDC is warning that the masks do not appear to block these variants and even CNN’s experts are calling the
    cloth masks “little more than facial decorations.”

    Yet, the W.H.O. head is now embracing censorship as a means of combating
    the “infodemic.” There are also calls, including from the White House, for Spotify to ban or curtail Joe Rogan’s show for allowing dissenting views to be aired on Covid or its treatment.

    If there had not been such extensive censorship of dissenting
    viewpoints, there might have been more discussion on the costs and
    science behind the lockdowns. Instead, there was a chilling effect on
    such dissenting voices and anyone expressing doubts were labeled
    extremists or conspiracy theorists. Recently, for example, scientists
    have come forward to admit that they also suspected the Wuhan lab was
    the origin of virus but were silenced by the backlash at the CDC and universities.

    I do not know what the data will show on these issues and I readily
    recognize that, in the early days, many wanted to take the most
    protective course. However, we could have taken that course without
    actively seeking to censor or silence those who had doubts on these
    measures.

    The only *healthy* way to stop the pandemic, thereby saving lives, in
    the U.S. & elsewhere is by rapidly ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 )
    finding out at any given moment, including even while on-line, who
    among us are unwittingly contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or
    asymptomatic) in order to http://bit.ly/convince_it_forward (John
    15:12) for them to call their doctor and self-quarantine per their
    doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic. Thus, we're hoping for the
    best while preparing for the worse-case scenario of the Alpha lineage
    mutations and others like the Omicron, Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota,
    Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations combining via
    slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids that render current COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no longer effective.

    Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTest
    ) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.

    So how are you ?









    ...because we mindfully choose to openly care with our heart,

    HeartDoc Andrew <><
    --
    Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Cardiologist with an http://bit.ly/EternalMedicalLicense
    2024 & upwards non-partisan candidate for U.S. President: http://WonderfullyHungry.org
    and author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
    http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrewCare
    which is the only **healthy** cure for the U.S. healthcare crisis

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael Ejercito@21:1/5 to HeartDoc Andrew on Sun Feb 6 21:41:57 2022
    XPost: alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.israel
    XPost: talk.politics.guns

    HeartDoc Andrew wrote:
    Michael Ejercito wrote:
    http://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/02/study-lockdowns-did-little-to-combat-covid-mortality


    Study: Lockdowns Did Little to Combat Covid Mortality


    A new study from Johns Hopkins University found that the lockdowns in
    2020 did little to combat Covid-19 mortality. Given the huge economic
    and personal costs of these lockdowns, the study obviously raises
    questions about the basis for these extreme measures. However, as will
    come as no surprise to anyone on this blog, I view the study as much a
    statement against the censorship of commentators and researchers who
    were banned or attacked for questioning the lockdowns. Once again, it
    would have been better for public health to have this debate than to
    shut down any opposing views in the name of science.


    The researchers declared “We find no evidence that lockdowns, school
    closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable
    effect on COVID-19 mortality.”

    The study refutes the claim of researchers at the Imperial College
    London, for example, who predicted that such steps could reduce death
    rates by up to 98%.

    They did find that “closing nonessential businesses seems to have had
    some effect (reducing COVID-19 mortality by 10.6%), which is likely to
    be related to the closure of bars.”

    The most striking aspect of this study is that is part of a discussion
    that we never really had. Social media companies were banning or tagging
    anyone expressing doubts over such measures.

    We have seen various journalistic and scientific figures banned for
    expressing skepticism over pandemic claims from the origins of the virus
    to the efficacy of certain treatments. For example, when many people
    raised the possibility that the virus may have been released from the
    nearby Chinese virology lab (rather than the “wet market” theory), they >> were denounced as virtually a lunatic fringe. Even objections to the
    bias of authors of a report dismissing the lab theory were ridiculed.
    The New York Times reporter covering the area called it “racist” and
    implausible. Now, even W.H.O. admits that the lab theory is possible
    and Biden officials are admitting that it is indeed plausible.

    The same is true with the debate over the efficacy of masks. For over a
    year, some argued that the commonly used masks are ineffective to
    protect against the virus. Now, the CDC is warning that the masks do not
    appear to block these variants and even CNN’s experts are calling the
    cloth masks “little more than facial decorations.”

    Yet, the W.H.O. head is now embracing censorship as a means of combating
    the “infodemic.” There are also calls, including from the White House, >> for Spotify to ban or curtail Joe Rogan’s show for allowing dissenting
    views to be aired on Covid or its treatment.

    If there had not been such extensive censorship of dissenting
    viewpoints, there might have been more discussion on the costs and
    science behind the lockdowns. Instead, there was a chilling effect on
    such dissenting voices and anyone expressing doubts were labeled
    extremists or conspiracy theorists. Recently, for example, scientists
    have come forward to admit that they also suspected the Wuhan lab was
    the origin of virus but were silenced by the backlash at the CDC and
    universities.

    I do not know what the data will show on these issues and I readily
    recognize that, in the early days, many wanted to take the most
    protective course. However, we could have taken that course without
    actively seeking to censor or silence those who had doubts on these
    measures.

    The only *healthy* way to stop the pandemic, thereby saving lives, in
    the U.S. & elsewhere is by rapidly ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 ) finding out at any given moment, including even while on-line, who
    among us are unwittingly contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or
    asymptomatic) in order to http://bit.ly/convince_it_forward (John
    15:12) for them to call their doctor and self-quarantine per their
    doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic. Thus, we're hoping for the
    best while preparing for the worse-case scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations and others like the Omicron, Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota,
    Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations combining via
    slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids that render current COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no longer effective.

    Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTest
    ) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.

    So how are you ?

    I am wonderfully hungry!


    Michael

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From HeartDoc Andrew@21:1/5 to Michael Ejercito on Mon Feb 7 03:15:49 2022
    XPost: alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.israel
    XPost: talk.politics.guns

    Michael Ejercito wrote:
    HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    Michael Ejercito wrote:
    http://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/02/study-lockdowns-did-little-to-combat-covid-mortality


    Study: Lockdowns Did Little to Combat Covid Mortality


    A new study from Johns Hopkins University found that the lockdowns in
    2020 did little to combat Covid-19 mortality. Given the huge economic
    and personal costs of these lockdowns, the study obviously raises
    questions about the basis for these extreme measures. However, as will
    come as no surprise to anyone on this blog, I view the study as much a
    statement against the censorship of commentators and researchers who
    were banned or attacked for questioning the lockdowns. Once again, it
    would have been better for public health to have this debate than to
    shut down any opposing views in the name of science.


    The researchers declared We find no evidence that lockdowns, school
    closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable >>> effect on COVID-19 mortality.

    The study refutes the claim of researchers at the Imperial College
    London, for example, who predicted that such steps could reduce death
    rates by up to 98%.

    They did find that closing nonessential businesses seems to have had
    some effect (reducing COVID-19 mortality by 10.6%), which is likely to
    be related to the closure of bars.

    The most striking aspect of this study is that is part of a discussion
    that we never really had. Social media companies were banning or tagging >>> anyone expressing doubts over such measures.

    We have seen various journalistic and scientific figures banned for
    expressing skepticism over pandemic claims from the origins of the virus >>> to the efficacy of certain treatments. For example, when many people
    raised the possibility that the virus may have been released from the
    nearby Chinese virology lab (rather than the wet market theory), they
    were denounced as virtually a lunatic fringe. Even objections to the
    bias of authors of a report dismissing the lab theory were ridiculed.
    The New York Times reporter covering the area called it racist and
    implausible. Now, even W.H.O. admits that the lab theory is possible
    and Biden officials are admitting that it is indeed plausible.

    The same is true with the debate over the efficacy of masks. For over a
    year, some argued that the commonly used masks are ineffective to
    protect against the virus. Now, the CDC is warning that the masks do not >>> appear to block these variants and even CNNs experts are calling the
    cloth masks little more than facial decorations.

    Yet, the W.H.O. head is now embracing censorship as a means of combating >>> the infodemic. There are also calls, including from the White House,
    for Spotify to ban or curtail Joe Rogans show for allowing dissenting
    views to be aired on Covid or its treatment.

    If there had not been such extensive censorship of dissenting
    viewpoints, there might have been more discussion on the costs and
    science behind the lockdowns. Instead, there was a chilling effect on
    such dissenting voices and anyone expressing doubts were labeled
    extremists or conspiracy theorists. Recently, for example, scientists
    have come forward to admit that they also suspected the Wuhan lab was
    the origin of virus but were silenced by the backlash at the CDC and
    universities.

    I do not know what the data will show on these issues and I readily
    recognize that, in the early days, many wanted to take the most
    protective course. However, we could have taken that course without
    actively seeking to censor or silence those who had doubts on these
    measures.

    The only *healthy* way to stop the pandemic, thereby saving lives, in
    the U.S. & elsewhere is by rapidly ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 )
    finding out at any given moment, including even while on-line, who
    among us are unwittingly contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or
    asymptomatic) in order to http://bit.ly/convince_it_forward (John
    15:12) for them to call their doctor and self-quarantine per their
    doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic. Thus, we're hoping for the
    best while preparing for the worse-case scenario of the Alpha lineage
    mutations and others like the Omicron, Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota,
    Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations combining via
    slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids that render current COVID
    vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no longer effective.

    Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTest
    ) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.

    So how are you ?

    I am wonderfully hungry!


    While wonderfully hungry in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy
    8:3) us to hunger, I note that you, Michael, are rapture ready (Luke
    17:37 means no COVID just as circling eagles don't have COVID) and
    pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that our Everlasting (Isaiah 9:6) Father in
    Heaven continues to give us "much more" (Luke 11:13) Holy Spirit
    (Galatians 5:22-23) so that we'd have much more of His Help to always
    say/write that we're "wonderfully hungry" in **all** ways including
    especially caring to http://tinyurl.com/ConvinceItForward (John 15:12
    as shown by http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 ) with all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD (aka HaShem, Elohim, Abba, DEO), in
    the name (John 16:23) of LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

    Laus DEO !

    Suggested further reading: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/5EWtT4CwCOg/m/QjNF57xRBAAJ

    Shorter link:
    http://bit.ly/StatCOVID-19Test

    Be hungrier, which really is wonderfully healthier especially for
    diabetics and other heart disease patients:

    http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrew touts hunger (Luke 6:21a) with all glory
    ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD, Who causes us to hunger
    (Deuteronomy 8:3) when He blesses us right now (Luke 6:21a) thereby
    removing the http://tinyurl.com/HeartVAT from around the heart

    ...because we mindfully choose to openly care with our heart,

    HeartDoc Andrew <><
    --
    Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Cardiologist with an http://bit.ly/EternalMedicalLicense
    2024 & upwards non-partisan candidate for U.S. President: http://WonderfullyHungry.org
    and author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
    http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrewCare
    which is the only **healthy** cure for the U.S. healthcare crisis

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)