​Excerpts from this article:

Click Here

…Here is what I've come up with. It's simply a hypothesis that fits the facts. Doesn't mean it's correct. But it does explain a lot.

Go back to January 2020 before COVID had reared its head. Trump was riding high. The economy was booming. Wages were up. The stock market was up. Unemployment was down. And the Democrats were in trouble.

They were looking at an almost certain Donald Trump win in November. They were going to have to deal with him for another four years. No American president in modern history has failed to be re-elected for a second term when the economy was good. And it wasn't just good. It was booming.

The Democrats didn't just dislike Trump or dislike his policies. They absolutely loathed him with an intensity I've never seen in my many years of political watching. (And not just a loathing for Trump, but an intense loathing for anyone who might not explicitly hate Trump or might even approve of some of the things he did.) Trump could say the sun was going to come up the next morning and the Democrats would say he had Putin's help when it did.

CNN/MSNBC were all anti-Trump, all the time. Even Fox, the network the aforementioned networks accused of being far right, had its own Trump haters: Shepard Smith, Neal Cavuto, Chris Wallace, Steve Hayes, Jonah Goldberg, to mention a handful. As far as I could tell, there were no pro-Trumpers on CNN/MSNBC. So, viewers got full-time anti-Trump reporting from CNN/MSNBC (and, really, all of the legacy media) and part time anti-Trump reporting or commentary from Fox.

In the early days of COVID, Trump canceled flights coming in from China. If you remember, Nancy Pelosi went to Chinatown in San Francisco and invited people to come for Chinese New Year. To ignore Trump, who, she assured us, was overreacting. Later on New York Mayor De Blasio--the same De Blasio who has initiated vaccine mandates, mask mandates, vaccine passports, lockdowns, school closures, and every over-the-top prohibition he can think of--said all Trump's fears of COVID were an overreaction and the St. Patrick's Day festivities would go on as scheduled. It was only the week before St. Paddy's Day that De Blasio finally canceled the parade because the death toll in NYC had risen too high.

So, at first Trump was taking steps to try to prevent a pandemic while the Dems were poo-poohing it.

…Almost overnight the Dems altered course. And their media arms at CNN and MSMBC fell into step as did Big Tech.I think it was CNN that started the death clicker, so that anytime you watched anything on CNN, you could see the number of COVID deaths clicking away right there before your eyes. There were reports of so many deaths that the corpses couldn't be dealt with and were stacked like logs in hospital corridors and refrigerated trucks.

And the terror began.

Any time anyone came out with an opposing viewpoint, they got canceled by YouTube and/or Twitter.

Trump, being Trump, did not help himself. Whereas he would overrule generals and all of his various Secretaries of this and that, for unfathomable reasons, he crumbled before Fauci, Birx, et al. According to Scott Atlas, Trump knew everything was going in the wrong direction, but by the time Atlas came on the scene, the election was looming and Team Trump didn't want to make any changes for fear of the media outrage it would cause. By this time CNN/MSNBC and the rest had anointed Fauci as "America's Doctor," and firing him--the Trump team feared--would negatively impact the coming election.

At the same time, the economy--due to the lockdowns, school closures, etc. driven by Fauci, Birx, et al--was had tanked and was struggling to recover. And the media had so scared the populace, all of whom looked to to government to fix the pandemic, that they were ready for a change.

Even the fast-tracking production of vaccines, which was Trump's one big COVID triumph, didn't get approved for an EUA until right after the election. I think the first shots were given in mid-December.

…Trump allowed himself to be victimized by throwing money at COVID. The hospitals got extra money for COVID patients, money was thrown into testing everyone, even those who were asymptomatic, and those who lost family members were promised $8000+ for burial expenses if their loved ones died with COVID on their death certificates.

Much of the testing that the government paid for, at the insistence of Birx and Fauci, went to test asymptomatic people. When these people tested positive, they had to quarantine. All their contacts had to be tested. The positive tests were counted as cases, which was totally inaccurate and the whole situation served to further frighten the populace. Even though many, many of the positive tests were done with PCR cranked to a higher turn rate.

…the vast majority of people who test positive are asymptomatic and remain that way. They don't spread the disease. And yet they are counted as 'cases', so the total goes up, and they are out of work.

I had measles as a kid, so I have lifetime immunity. The measles vaccine provides only ~96% immunity, but having the disease confers lifetime immunity. If I--with my full immunity--were put in a room filled with kids with measles, I would probably test positive with a PCR test.

Why?

Because I would breathe in the measles virus floating in the air. It would hit my nasal mucosa. But my immune system, which has been primed to jump all over the measles virus since I recovered from it at age 12, would attack and render it harmless. But I would still have dead viral particles and fragments of its genetic material in my nasal passages.

People who test positive for COVID and have no symptoms are the same way. They most likely have natural immunity from another closely similar coronavirus infection or may have even picked up covid, had mild symptoms, and recovered. But if they've been in contact with others who are infected, they may have viral remnants in their nasal mucosa that show positive when they've been amplified 40 times with a PCR test.

…Joe Biden, it would seem, took office at a propitious time. The highly-touted vaccines were finally available, and the powers that be had decided to crank down the number of PCR cycles, making more tests negative that would have been positive during Trump's time in office.

…more people have died since Biden's taking office than during Trump's tenure when there wasn't a vaccine.

…Once the panic got going, it wasn't that easy to stop.

Hospitals continued to report deaths from COVID due to programs that had been in place for months.

…Many, many people test positive with PCR [test] yet don't really have COVID. Yet it goes on their record. If they happen to die in the hospital, from something else entirely, then COVID is on their death certificate. And adds to the death toll from the disease, even thought it wasn't the disease that killed them.

Hospital administrators loved it because the hospitals got extra funds if a patient had COVID (read: tested positive). All these governmental programs couldn't just be turned off, so the numbers of so-categorized COVID deaths continued to mount.

And as the deaths mounted, the Biden administration along with states with Democratic governors promoted more and more draconian programs to try to stem the tide of the ever-mounting deaths from COVID. Biden had said of Trump that any president who allowed 200,000 people die under his administration didn't deserve to be president. All too soon, Biden found himself presiding over the deaths of 300,000 people with the toll continuing to mount. The pressure was intense to do something.

The vaccines that were supposed to end it all didn't seem to make a dent in the rapidly accumulating number of COVID deaths. So, what's a president to do under those circumstances? Especially with winter coming?
​

…The unvaccinated have become the scapegoats for the Biden administration.

This is from the CDC's latest report on deaths from COVID posted on Dec 19, 2021 [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm]

…there are around five percent of deaths attributed to COVID only. The other 95 percent of people who died had "an average" of four additional conditions. Let that sink in. It doesn't say up to four additional conditions. It says "an average" of four additional conditions. Which means some had one or two while others had five or six or more. Who knows if COVID killed them or if it was one of the other conditions.

Remember, since the start of COVID, everyone admitted to the hospital is tested. Since the vast majority of people who test positive for COVID are asymptomatic, then it is highly probable that it was one of the other four conditions on "average" that really killed them. But since they tested positive, they get entered as a COVID death. Which is good for the hospital and a small benefit, in the face of their loss, for the family, as ~$8000 of their funeral expenses get picked up by Uncle Sam. (And please understand, I'm not downplaying the real and painful losses that have occurred. Every loss of a loved one is heartbreaking.)

I'm sure there were many cases in which patients with "an average" of four co-morbidites were pushed over the edge by COVID. If, for example, folks with end-stage heart disease with bad congestive failure (along with maybe diabetes) do get COVID, the difficulty in breathing due to the virus may put them into total failure. Would this be a COVID death or a death from congestive failure. The people involved were going to ultimately die from congestive failure, but COVID hastened their death. Is this a true COVID death? It is on the death certificate.

See the issue? Given the incentives for the hospitals for caring for patients with COVID, it's easy to see why they would want COVID on death certificates. As would the families.

But it makes the statistics difficult to sort out. We do know 5 percent of those who allegedly died from COVID did so without any other diagnosis. But what about the rest? I'm sure many did die from COVID, but how many exactly? Tough to tell.

The most reliable data we have from any studies comes from placebo-controlled, doubly-blinded, randomized controlled trials. I'm sure most of you know what that means, but for those not up on study lingo, let me explain.

When patients come into a study, they are randomized into two groups. One is the control group; the other is the study group. The control group gets a placebo, i.e., an inert substance. The study group gets the real drug, or the real vaccine in the case of the COVID vaccine study we'll discuss.

The groups are randomized so they each have the same number of men and women. The subjects are roughly the same age. And, ideally, each group contains an equal number of people with any specific co-morbidity. Great effort is made to make each of the groups identical.

That's the randomization part.

The double blinding is done so that neither the patients or the people running the study know which of the subjects got what. In the case of the vaccines, each syringe is numbered, but neither the subjects getting the vaccine nor those giving the vaccine know whether it is really the vaccine or a placebo. Once the study is completed, and the analysis begins, the numbers are correlated with a master list, and the researchers can then tell who had the vaccine and who didn't.

For example, in the case of the Pfizer vaccine study, after a predetermined number of subjects (this number is set at the beginning of the study and is an amount high enough to make the study valid given the number of subjects involved) had come down with COVID, the codes were broken to determine how many of these people had been given the real vaccine and how many had received the placebo.

There were about 22,000 subjects in each group. Out of the control group, those who got a placebo vaccine, 162 developed COVID during the study period. Only 8 people out of the almost 22,000 in the group that got the actual vaccine developed COVID, which was undoubtedly great news for Pfizer.

…Usually studies like this one give those in the placebo group the choice to go ahead and take the study drug (assuming it has been shown to be effective) after the study has been completed. Most people are lured into being guinea pigs for a study in hopes they will get the study drug. When they find out they were in the placebo group, they are disappointed. Especially if the drug or treatment has proven effective.

So, often, the folks running the study will allow those in the placebo group to get the actual drug after. This is what happened in the Pfizer study. After the study was completed, those in the placebo group were given the opportunity to get the real vaccine if they wanted it. Many did.

And that's where it starts to get interesting.

As we all know, it takes forever for drugs (or vaccines, usually) to make it through the FDA approval process. There are three phases a human study needs to complete before any hope of getting a thumbs up from the FDA.

Phase One is done on a few people to determine dosage and to see if there are major side effects.

In Phase Two, usually several hundred patients get the dose determined in Phase One. This phase is mainly to see if side effects emerge in a larger number of subjects and to see if it actually treats or prevents the disease or symptoms it is designed to treat or prevent.

Finally in Phase Three, thousands of patients are evaluated in a double blind placebo controlled randomized fashion to look at efficacy.

In the case of the COVID vaccines--due to the alarm over the pandemic--the FDA allowed these phases to be carried out simultaneously. Pfizer continued to monitor the subjects after the efficacy part of the trial was over to see if there were any long term effects of the vaccines.

When they looked at the data six months later, they found that 15 people in the study group--those getting the vaccine--died while 14 in the control group--those getting the placebo--died. (Here is the link to the study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.supplementary-material.)

​

Some of the people in the placebo group decided to go ahead and take the real vaccine when Pfizer offered it to them. When this group was monitored over the six months, five of them died, making 20 deaths in the study group and 14 deaths in the control group.

Obviously, Pfizer didn't publicize this. In fact, it wasn't even in the published results of the six month evaluation. As I wrote above it was in the supplement.

When the FDA later evaluated the data for approval purposes the report showed 38 deaths total in the study: 21 in the vaccine group and 17 in the placebo group. The below is from page 23 of this report: https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download

Even though there were more deaths in the group taking the vaccine, the difference wasn't statistically significant. In other word, statistically speaking, there was no difference in death rates between the two groups.

This analysis, of course, was music to Pfizer's ears because it showed the vaccines didn't cause people to die. At least not when looked at in a group of ~44,000 subjects.

But I find these stats informative in a different way.

This is a tightly controlled, double-blinded study. It is the gold standard of studies. And it shows that just as many people died in the 22,000 who had been vaccinated as in the 22,000 who weren't.

Think about that for a minute.

How does that square with the ongoing barrage of reports we've so often seen telling us that the vast majority of people who are dying with COVID are the unvaccinated?

There were twenty times the number of people in the unvaccinated group who got COVID as compared to the vaccinated (162/8), yet there were the same number of deaths (statistically) in both groups of subjects.

What I find amazing is how these deaths statistics are so at odds with what we all hear daily about COVID deaths and the vaccine. How many times have we heard that the vaccines may not be as efficacious at preventing picking up COVID as we once hoped, but they did prevent serious illness and death?

I've heard that a million times. I'm sure you have, too.

But that doesn't square with what this tightly-controlled Pfizer study shows. All the reports of COVID deaths among the unvaccinated are anecdotal. We need a real study to confirm. And the one real study we do have is an anti-confirmer.

One thing we do know is that there have been a lot of excess deaths over the past 22 months. If not from COVID, then where did these come from?

That's a question that needs much more analysis than just saying they're all from COVID in the unvaccinated.

Many of these deaths, I'm sure, can be attributed to the lockdowns. Overdoses are at an all-time high. They are the largest cause of death in the 18-54 age group, vastly exceeding deaths from COVID. Many people did not do cancer treatment follow ups and cardiology follow ups, which doubtless led to more deaths. Even deaths from automobile accidents have surged since COVID. As Dr. Scott Atlas predicted, the lockdowns have not been without consequences.

How many of these excess deaths can be attributed to factors other than COVID, and how many can be attributed to the incentives for a diagnosis of COVID on death certificates will have to wait for an historical analysis.

I would be willing to bet that when all the political dust settles on this issue and real medical historians start digging into the data, we'll find vastly fewer people actually died from COVID as compared to with COVID.

A Little Good News

As I've mentioned in the last couple of issues, I think the Omicron variant is going to be godsend. It will probably provide natural immunity to those who are unvaccinated and haven't yet developed it. The fact that this variant attacks the vaccinated at such higher rates than the unvaccinated tells me that a high percentage of the unvaccinated already have natural immunity…

Fauci and others downplay the idea of natural immunity, but when a FOIA request went into the CDC asking for data showing that vaccines provided more protection than natural immunity, the CDC replied that they had no record of a case of COVID in a previously infected individual.

The best of all worlds would be a variant of SARS-CoV-2 that doesn't result in much of an illness, but provides great natural immunity in those who contract it. And it sounds like that's the case with Omicron.

Last statistics I saw showed that 73 percent of new cases in the US were of the Omicron variety, which means it's highly infectious. Unless I miss my bet--which is always possible--I think this variant will put an end to the COVID pandemic and let us all get back to normal…

Deaths not so much. Not at all, in fact, despite the impressive increase in cases. Deaths are a lagging indicator, but based on what we've seen in Denmark and South Africa, I believe the death rates won't climb much…

Michael R. Eades, M. D. -- https://www.proteinpower.com/about-us/