Trying To Survive Corona? You’re on Your Own – Government Busy Studying Why Minorities Hardest Hit…
Dr. Marty Makary: NIH Funded 257 Grants on Social Disparities with COVID, Only 4 on How It Spreads
Dr. Marty Makary, a medical doctor and researcher at Johns Hopkins, said the NIH funded “257 grants on social disparities” related to COVID-19 “but only four” on the coronavirus’s spread.
Makary joined Drs. Peter Attia and Zubin Damania on the former’s podcast, The Drive, published on Monday, in which he said:
We just did this study of NIH research funding last year. Less than five percent went to COVID research. Three months into the pandemic, 0.05 percent of the NIH’s budget went to COVID research. The average time for them to give a grant was five months to fund a research team to then start the research.
He added, “Two-fifty-seven grants on social disparities with COVID — an important topic — but only four on how it spreads, and one on masks which hasn’t even read out yet. So the most basic questions doctors needed evidence for, that was not being conducted.”
[YouTube:]
The Biden administration regularly frame “equity” between demographic groups along ethnic and racial lines as a political priority.
Makary said the NIH failed to promptly investigate basic questions about COVID-19. He said:
We were all getting the questions — How does it spread? Do masks work? How long are you contagious for? Can you spread it pre-symptomatic? – All the basic questions of COVID, we did not have answers, because our gigantic $4.2 trillion dollar healthcare system could not do the basic bedside clinical research. I remember Peter [Attia] was even doing a quick video about, ‘Somebody please do this study.’ We were all saying the same thing. Labs were mostly closed because there was no PPE.
The NIH was unable to pivot their $42 billion dollars to answer these questions quickly. … We had a vacuum of scientific research, and all the doctors were on the front lines without any data to really answer these questions, and that’s when the groupthink began, and guess what ended up filling that vacuum? Political opinions.
The NIH is not investigating natural immunity to COVID-19 as part of its broader strategy, Makary held:
Why has the NIH not done a study on natural immunity? It keeps saying, ‘We don’t know.’ They’re ignoring the 141 studies that have been documented by the Brownstone Institute. It’s not that hard. Go to New York, where people had the infection, interview them, test their blood. Why is my research team doing this without NIH funding? Because the NIH is not only not funding it, they’re not doing it, and they’re relying on two really flawed studies that the CDC put out. This is the distortion of science itself, shutting down scientific discussion and that should be our greatest lesson.”
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical adviser to the president, said in September of 2020 that he had no “firm answer” when asked by CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta about advocacy for vaccination among those who recovered from COVID-19.
Makary stated, “The data on natural immunity being 27 times more protective [than vaccination is] not mentioned once – ever — by public health officials.” He urged:
Martin Kuldorff — who has the Harvard professor, now he’s at Brownstone Institute — has summarized the 141 studies on natural immunity, and so, when Fauci gets on the TV and says, ‘We just don’t know about natural immunity,’ well, do the study. How hard is it? This is not the riddle of the sphinx. You can figure out how many people have been reinfected from the original days of New York and had severe illness.
The “greatest lesson” of the COVID-19 spread, he concluded, is how a “corruption of science” and “distortion of science” leads to “shutting down scientific discussion.”
קול החינוך גליון 149#
יו”ל ע”י ‘ועד הורים’ – בהכוונת גדולי התורה שליט”א
[קול החינוך עוסק במלחמת מדינת ישראל בחינוך יהודי עצמאי.]
* למסירת מידע ומשלוח מסמכים בס”ד 03-691-5752, טלפקס: 6915752@okmail.co.il
Reprinted with permission.
Some Friendly Tips for the Israeli Secret Police (With Stories Found Online)
First and foremost, keep your men happy and “inspired”.
After the Iron Curtain came down there were stories of secret police who had switched sides long ago, to spy for the dissidents. In one case, a Czechoslovakian spy-master was secretly running messages from the dissidents and underground chooches to the west, and ensuring the replies got through by using his own government-paid border couriers.
I know, it’s hard. Reality has a way of undermining certain doctrines (eventually).
“Consent of the Governed” has its limits
When the Chernobyl nuclear plant exploded, thousands rounded on the nearest government agent or informant saying “You should investigate those guys” indicating negligent party bosses and similar risk takers. Not only did the secret police realize everyone knew who they were but with the threat of imminent death from radiation, no one was afraid of them. People were begging to be sent to Siberia where the was no threat of radiation. They were thrown out of shops, refused services, and came home to find their locks glued up. The Party was beaten and they knew it.
Keep your enemies close. And always look both ways before crossing the street
There was a dissident in the 1980’s who was being regularly tracked by the secret police. One day he noticed he lost his tail. He doubled back to find that the spy had jaywalked to catch up and had been run over by a car. The dissident got the man to the hospital, paid a bribe for proper care, and contacted his family (since he knew the man’s name). The two men are the best of friends today.
Some dissidents manage to influence even the secret police
In Hungary after the fall of communism one dissident announced a ran for government office. Fifty people showed up the first day to help. Most were former secret police assigned to watch him over the years. They all wanted to help. Some could quote his secret samizdat newsletters by heart!
Obvious, but easy to forget
The greatest thing a dictator must fear is his own men. Once they switch sides it’s all over.
Beware Therapy Dangers!
Some pointers, excerpted from Sarah Rivkah Kohn on Mishpacha:
That referral you got from your cousin may be a great one, but run it by someone who does many referrals. They can tell you if there have been any red flags in the past that your cousin may not know about from one experience.
Ask the question: What are you licensed as? Then look it up. For the fields of social work, mental health counseling, or marriage and family therapy, you want to have an L before the licensure. That tells you the clinician passed the licensing exam.
When you’re seeing a PhD, you want it to be in clinical psychology, psychology, or psychiatry. A doctor of philosophy also has a PhD but should not be practicing therapy.
Look up the licensing. It’s all public information. You will see the year the license was given. If you can’t find it, it’s possible the clinician is practicing under their legal name (e.g., Joseph instead of Yossi as you know him on the street) or it could be a woman has her license under her maiden name. All this is easy enough to clear up really quickly.
When sessions run erratically — sometimes they’re 30 minutes, sometimes two hours — that’s a red flag right there. Therapy sessions typically run 45–60 minutes for individual therapy and 60–90 minutes for couples or family therapy to give everyone a chance to talk. Some working with very young children will run 30-minute sessions if they feel that’s all the child can do.
Whatever the number is, for the most part that’s where it should stay. I’m not talking about the one-time crisis where a double session is planned for and needed. I’m talking about a session that doesn’t end when it should end. I’m talking about erratic timings.
This is often very appealing to people in a vulnerable state. It emits the I-will-be-here-for-you-as-long-as-you-need vibe. Good therapy, however, is built around boundaries. Healthy boundaries include a safe and consistent start and end time. If a therapist is not sticking to that core ethical value, I’d wonder and worry what other ethics are off.
Torah is true no matter the career choice. Firstly, know that some rabbanim feel that one shouldn’t see a clinician of the opposite gender at all. If, for whatever reason, you feel that you must nevertheless see a therapist of the opposite gender, ask how hilchos yichud are observed in their setting. Some use cameras pointed just at the clinician. Some have waiting rooms, windows facing outward, other shared offices — there are many options.
Obviously, the answer itself is important, but what’s more important is the immediate response and the tone in which it’s delivered. Is it one of genuine surprise, as though they’ve never thought of this before? Is it one of frustration and defensiveness? Or is it an open and confident, “Sure, here’s how I do it”? Listen carefully. Ask a sh’eilah if need be. But if you sense any frustration with you for asking the question, run the other way.
See the rest of it here (under the author’s name on the page)…