PANDEMIC OF THE UNVACCINATED

         

        Back in mid-2021, after the mRNA vaccines had been approved for emergency use, the authorities (including the pharma companies), presented a number of arguments to boost acceptance of these products.  One was the claim that unvaccinated people in hospitals were more likely to die of COVID than vaccinated patients.  A friend recently asked me about this argument, and this was my response. 

         The claim that COVID deaths in hospitals were more likely to be unvaccinated people than vaccinated ones is no longer being made by anybody who has looked at what happened.  Even the pharma companies that are still pushing RNA vaccines seem to have abandoned this bogus claim.

         I remember the vaxxed death rate versus the unvaxxed death rate as part of the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” scare campaign.  This was when Biden and Walensky and Jimmy Kimmel and Rachel Maddow and all the news anchors were telling people that once you got the shot you would never get COVID, and that people like me should be fired from jobs and denied medical care and barred from restaurants and public transit.

 

         I don’t think there was ever a serious study on the death rate issue, and there was certainly nothing that was peer-reviewed.  The claims were mostly official-looking press releases from a hospital or a few hospitals, and they never withstood much scrutiny.  For one thing, the definition of “vaccinated” tended to differ among these varying reports.  Some of the “unvaccinated” COVID victims had actually been vaccinated but were not counted as vaccinated for a number of reasons (too recent, wrong vaccine, etc.).  It seemed clear early on that the death-rate argument was not based in any kind of science since the data supporting the various elements of it was so questionable.

 

         First, the largest number of COVID deaths occurred in 2020 when the virus was most lethal since it had not yet started to mutate.  Because there was not yet a vaccine, all those early deaths were among the unvaccinated.  Were all those people included in the so-called studies?  And if so, doesn’t that skew the results toward the unvaxxed-death side of the equation?

 

         But that’s a minor issue.  The real problem is that we have no idea how many people died of COVID from 2020 to 2023.  We are just now finding that out from studies of the official death data and studies of the autopsies done at the time and filed away without analysis.

 

         As you will recall, the practice was to declare that any death of a person with a “confirmed case” of COVID was a COVID death (in other words, caused by the virus), even if the person displayed no COVID symptoms, was 96 years old, and had congestive heart failure.  This was entirely driven by financial incentives from Medicare and the pharma companies.  Any death that could conceivably be called a COVID death was called a COVID death.

 

         There was almost nothing the public health authorities would not do to inflate the number of COVID deaths so pretty much everyone who died “with COVID” died “of COVID.”  One of the more famous instances occurred when a man who died in a motorcycle crash in Orlando Florida was listed as a COVID death.  A public health officer in Orange County, Dr. Raul Pino, justified the result, stating that one “could actually argue that it could have been the COVID-19 that caused him to crash.”

 

         Then there were the flu deaths, which are counted and reported every year by the CDC.  Here are the official flu death totals from 2018 to 2023:

 

2018-19               27,000

2019-20               25,000

2020-21                    700

2021-22                 4,900

2022-23               21,000

 

Are we really supposed to think old people stopped dying from the flu in the two flu seasons from 2020 to 2022?  Or could it be there were just as many flu deaths, but they were called COVID deaths instead because of the extra money attached?

 

         Now, years later, it will be impossible to unravel all the poor science and outright fraud that went into the designation of COVID deaths.  The only thing we really know is that there were not nearly as many COVID deaths as we were told there were.

 

         The problem of determining how many COVID deaths occurred in hospitals brings with it an additional set of difficulties.  This is because, during the pandemic, anyone admitted to a hospital was required to take a PCR test for COVID whether they showed any symptoms or not.  The hospitals then, following CDC and WHO guidelines, defined a “confirmed case” as a person with a positive test result.  No symptoms were ever required.  Once you were a “confirmed case,” you were a COVID case, and if you died, you were a COVID death.

 

         This was a fundamental error.

 

         The basic mathematical principle, which has been understood for decades, is that a diagnostic test like the PCR should never be used on a population where only a very small percentage of the test subjects have the disease.  In 2021, a letter from the FDA to healthcare providers explained the problem: “As disease prevalence decreases, the percent of test results that are false positives increase.”  But though warned not to test for a disease in a low-prevalence population, the CDC decided to do it anyway.

 

         Here’s the problem.  If 1% of the population tested has the disease, there will be one true positive in every 100 subjects.  So even if your test is 99% COVID-specific (i.e., accurate), it will judge 99 of your 100 subjects correctly and there will be one false positive.  This means that among your 100 people, the test will give you one true positive and one false positive.  Thus, if you test positive for COVID, there is only a 50-50 chance you actually have it.  It’s a coin flip, and the test is worthless, even though it is 99% accurate.

 

         But in fact, PCR tests were quite a bit less reliable than that.  First, the rate of active COVID infection at any one time among the general population was always less than 1% (it was actually about 0.5%).  This could mean there would be fewer than 1 true positive in every 100 hospital admissions.  But even if people entering the hospital were ten times as likely to have COVID as the general population, that would still mean only 5 out of 100 would be true COVID cases.

 

         The real problem is that PCR tests were never close to being as accurate as in the example above.  Instead of being 99% COVID-specific, the CDC found they were only about 70% COVID-specific, meaning they would produce 30% false positives.  If there were 5 true positives and 30 false positives in every 100 hospital admissions, the false positives would be 85% of the total. Whatever the actual numbers were, a large majority of the positive PCR results were false positives and most of the “confirmed cases” in hospitals did NOT have COVID.

 

         The stated justification for this universal testing protocol in hospital admissions was that it would reduce widespread outbreaks in hospitals, though it is hard to see how falsely identifying large numbers of patients as having COVID would have that effect.  But the clear result was there were an enormous number of patients who had no COVID symptoms and did not have COVID, but were deemed to be COVID cases.  And when they died, they became hospital COVID deaths.  Some of them were vaccinated and some of them were not, but none of them died of COVID.

 

         The sum total of all this bad science piled on top of itself is that nobody now has any realistic measure of how many COVID deaths there were in hospitals or anywhere else, or whether most of the people who died of COVID were vaccinated or not. 

Copyright2024MichaelKubacki

2024 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION UPDATE

          I’ve been saying for eighteen months the Democrats were going to swap out Biden.  That was the easy part to foresee.  He was never more than a figurehead for the third Obama term as president, he was quite clearly suffering from some form of dementia in 2020 when they nevertheless managed to drag him over the finish line with the help of a few strategically-place ballot dumps, and he could no longer be presented to the public as a realistic candidate for president.

 

         That’s why he was forced by Obama and the politburo to participate in the debate with Trump on June 27.  Such a debate, before either convention had taken place, was unprecedented.  Its only purpose was to demonstrate for Democrats that Biden could no longer function and had to be replaced.  Biden himself never suspected this was the purpose since his massive ego was the only aspect of his personality still functioning.  He still believed he was the same Joe who could talk in public for ninety minutes and appear to have a working brain.

 

         The debate ploy was rather cruel, of course, but one must suspect Joe had made it clear he would not step aside voluntarily so Obama probably had little choice but to expose him as non compos mentis in front of the nation.

 

         The only thing that truly surprises me about what happened is that Obama did not have more control of the aftermath.  He could not possibly have wanted Kamala to step in as the Democratic candidate, but when Joe dropped out and endorsed her, the eruption of smiles and puppy dogs around her occurred so quickly Obama was powerless to stop it.  I believe his plan was to orchestrate the new candidate’s nomination at the Democratic Convention, but he quickly had to abandon that and fall in behind her.

 

         Timing was the problem.  With a month to go before the convention started, the Democratic untermenchen were going to try to find somebody, and Kamala Harris was the only obvious next-in-line choice.  The Dems had, largely through lawfare and threats, prevented anyone (e.g., RFK Jr.), from running against Biden in the primaries, so there was no logical replacement except the sitting VP.

 

                                               *

 

I have also long taken the position that Trump can’t win in 2024.

 

First, there is a hard ceiling on the support he can ever hope to achieve.  Everyone who likes Trump, more or less, will vote for him, but the hatred is just as large as his support and the haters are not going away.  In 2016, Trump’s 45.9% of the vote nationwide was sufficient only because the Democrats assumed Hillary would romp and thus did not bother to mobilize (or cheat), on her behalf.  In this 2024 campaign, there has been no reason to think Trump could ever achieve the 50% of the vote that would be the minimum for him to win.  Because of the millions of non-citizens voting and the “ballots” that will show up for the Democrats, he might need to get 52% or 53% of the (real) votes cast to overcome what is now called the “margin of cheating.”

 

But with Kamala at the top of the ticket, a Trump win now must be considered a possibility. She has some serious flaws as a candidate.  She’s something of a disaster.

 

I don’t like her much so I’m trying to factor that out of my analysis, but it’s hard to ignore the fact that most other people don’t like her either. Americans tend not to have strong feelings about Vice Presidents, but they certainly disliked Kamala up until her elevation to the presidential nomination.  On January 1, 2024, for example, her numbers were 35.8 % favorable vs. 53.6% unfavorable, which is quite a bit worse than either Biden (40.4-54.9) or Trump (42.9-52.8).  Mike Pence was always in the mid-40s in favorability when he was VP.

 

What do such things mean?  Who knows?  But more concrete measures of her extreme unpleasantness as a human exist.  As Vice President, 92% of her initial staff quit their jobs, mostly during the first two years.  Only 4 of the initial 47 people are still with her, and some who left have not been complimentary, describing an “abusive environment” where “people feel treated like shit.”

 

The same was true of the staff during her run for the 2020 presidential nomination.  Dozens left, dozens more were fired, and Kamala’s campaign came to an abrupt and chaotic end two months before the first primary.  She also had reportedly blown through her $35 million in early funding without putting a single ad on TV.

 

Her failed primary run in 2020, where no one even had an opportunity to cast a vote for her, brings me to a significant dynamic flaw in her current run for President.

 

In 2016, Donald Trump got 62,984,828 votes for President.  Four years later, 74,223,975 people went into voting booths and checked the box next to his name.  These 137 million votes do not even include the primary voters in those years who left their homes, went to the local firehouse or school, and intentionally voted to make him the Republican nominee.

 

By contrast, no one has ever voted for Kamala Harris in a national election.  (And no, you can’t count her votes for VP in 2020---those people were voting for Biden.)

 

People become accustomed to voting for certain politicians, and once they do, those politicians have a significant edge in future elections.  It’s one of the major advantages of incumbency---the fact there are lots of ordinary people out there who will recognize your name and think, “Oh, yeah.  That guy.  He seems OK.  I voted for him before.”

 

We have a perfect example of this phenomenon in the 2024 race for US Senate in Pennsylvania.  The Democratic incumbent is named Bob Casey Jr., and he was elected to the US Senate in 2008 and reelected in 2016.  Before that, he was the elected Pennsylvania Treasurer from 2005 to 2007.  His dad was Bob Casey Sr., who served as Pennsylvania Governor from 1987 to 1995.

 

Casey is a very reliable vote for the Democrats in the Senate, and he is otherwise unknown.  Many people outside the state, asked to name our senators, would quickly come up with John Fetterman but would whiff on the other one.  Casey never has an idea or proposes a bill.  He’s never on the Sunday news shows.  Also, he has been married to the same woman for 39 years and has four children who have never been arrested.  Casey has never been accused of putting his hand on the wrong buttocks or of taking a bribe.  He’s the most boring guy in Washington.

 

It's almost impossible to beat a guy like this.  Pennsylvanians have seen “Casey” in voting booths for two generations and they’ve clicked that box many times with no regrets.  His eldest son will probably run for governor someday and get elected by acclamation without even having to show his drivers license.

 

His opponent is a substantial sort of guy named Dave McCormick, a billionaire and global capitalist who speaks well and has no felony convictions and knows a few things and who does not have a chance in hell of beating Casey.  

 

The Trump-Harris race is not analogous and I’m not saying it is.  But Trump has received 137 million votes in national elections and Harris has gotten zero.  In 2020, Trump got the second most votes for president in American history (or the most if you believe Biden’s total was a crock).  He will get 75 million or more this time from people who have voted for him before.  For Harris, the task is to get more than that from people who don’t know much about her except that maybe she worked the fry machine at McDonalds.

 

So I give him a chance now.

 

*

 

         And a caveat.

 

         When people like me get together with other people like me, the first question we ask each other is whether the election this time will be fair.  It won’t, of course, but the real question we are asking is whether the RNC and various state Republican party orgs are working to make sure they are ready for the shenanigans that will occur.  And I doubt it.

 

         The rap on the Pentagon is that they are always studying ways to win the previous war so they are never prepared for the next one.  I fear that is what is happening with the Republican preparations for November 5.

 

         There is nothing that can be done about the millions of non-citizens that have been registered and the smaller number who will actually vote.  In addition, nothing will be done about the “traditional” cheating that occurs in corrupt Democratic-controlled cities like Philly, Cleveland, Detroit and St. Louis, where poll workers cast votes for neighbors who died in 2008 or neighbors who moved to Panama in 2016.

 

         But what about the ballots of imaginary people, the ballots that turned up by the thousands at 3:00 AM on election night in 2020?  I’m not convinced the Republicans have thought this through and have a plan to deal with it.  Yes, there will be Republicans in the counting chambers at 3:00 AM watching for truckloads of ballots to show up, but that just means the cheaters will find a different way to get their dirty work done.  I would really like to think the Republicans have some master plan but I see no signs of it.  In Pennsylvania, the big election news at the moment is about court cases over what to do with mail-in ballots that have not been properly dated by the “voter.”  This issue, and the hoopla surrounding it, is pointless.  In this state, it might affect a few hundred or a thousand votes.  The fact that Republicans are wasting their time and resources on it is depressing to those of us who would someday like to see a fair election.

 

         I follow these anti-fraud efforts closely, though I’m not an insider.  But I sincerely doubt there has been any effort to effect one simple and obvious change to the counting process.  In every election since I was born, all the votes in rural (mostly Republican-leaning) counties in Pennsylvania are reported long before the votes from Philadelphia are.  Only when the tallies from Beaver County and Tioga County, and Union and Elk and Fayette come in do the Democrats in Philly understand how many votes they need to carry the state.  And they find them.  Somehow.  The exact same process happens in Georgia and Michigan and Arizona and Wisconsin.  For some reason, Atlanta and Detroit and Phoenix and Milwaukee are the last places to report in those states.

 

         All that is needed is for the RNC to instruct every Republican city or town or township or county in swing states to hold back their results until after the huge Democratic city in their state has reported.

 

         Not only would this protect the integrity of the election, but it would also expose the big-Democratic-city cheating that has been happening forever, especially when those cities start howling about the late returns from the boondocks.

 

Copyright2024MichaelKubacki