We Knew All The Time
The admissions by the media and government insiders just keep on coming. We've had:
- We knew all the time that COVID likely was a Wuhan lab-leak
- We knew all the time that the vaccine did not stop transmission
- We knew all the time that Biden was increasingly frail and senile
- We knew all the time that the inflation-reduction act infrastructure spending was burdened by unwieldly bureaucratic rules
Each and every one of which was not only vociferously denied at the time but contemporaneous critics pointing out the obvious truths were labelled as conspiracy theorists and targeted for censorship. Now to these we can add:
- We knew all the time we were risking nuclear escalation with our actions in Ukraine
- We knew all the time we were really engaging in a proxy war with Russia as much as a defense of Ukraine
The linked article above -- Matt Taibbi reacting to reporting from the NY Times -- is just infuriating for those of us who -- while greatly disliking Russia and its aggression -- were skeptical about our role. A couple of examples since the article is paywalled (Taibbi in regular font, NY Times quoted in italics)
To many watching from afar, it seemed like simple common sense that using American weapons and American support personnel to attack Russians in Russia risked drawing this country into a shooting war with a nuclear enemy at any moment. Those of us who said these things were dismissed as alarmist, Putin-loving fellow-travelers. Now we have Entous describing American officials feeling the same after the opening of “ops box” attack....
In some ways, Ukraine was, on a wider canvas, a rematch in a long history of U.S.-Russia proxy wars — Vietnam in the 1960s, Afghanistan in the 1980s, Syria three decades later… It was also a grand experiment in war fighting, one that would not only help the Ukrainians but reward the Americans with lessons for any future war....
If you’re counting, that means we were lied to about the risk of World War, the chance of “victory,” the desire for negotiations, the success of last year’s counteroffensive, the solidity of our relationship with Ukraine, and the significance of U.S.-backed incursions into Russia. This was before Democrats lost the election last November, after which Biden crossed one more line:
Mr. Trump won, and the fear came rushing in… In his last, lame-duck weeks, Mr. Biden made a flurry of moves to stay the course, at least for the moment, and shore up his Ukraine project… He crossed his final red line — expanding the ops box to allow ATACMS and British Storm Shadow strikes into Russia — after North Korea sent thousands of troops to help the Russians dislodge the Ukrainians from Kursk… The administration also authorized Wiesbaden and the C.I.A. to support long-range missile and drone strikes into a section of southern Russia used as a staging area for the assault on Pokrovsk, and allowed the military advisers to leave Kyiv for command posts closer to the fighting....
There are a hundred details in this “Secret History” that serve as stark warnings to anyone who thinks protection from Armageddon is secure in the hands of career military and intelligence officials. Not only did we allow ourselves to be “blackmailed” into escalating a conflict with a nuclear power, the management of the “partnership” broke down because of a Heathers-style spat between the key brass twits, Ukrainian general Valery Zaluhniy and Mark Milley.
When Milley second-guessed Zaluhniy, the latter would respond with teen-like silence, or by avoiding Milley’s next call. Underscoring: the country to which we were giving hundreds of billions in aid didn’t feel a need to pick up the phone. Entous describes the general lack of communication via a moment of levity: “Biden administration officials would joke bitterly that they knew more about what the Russians were planning by spying on them than about what their Ukrainian partners were planning.”
Aggravating from first to last. The news briefly made a big deal about supposed releases of Epstein Clients and JFK Shooting Documents. But these have little interest to me when compared to what we are finding out about the secrets the government has kept these last 5 years. I will end with what I have written before on Ukraine:
The biggest question is -- what is the alternative? The implication is that there is somehow a hope to get the territory under Russian occupation back by military force. But I just don't see it. The Ukrainians have certainly been scrappy and creative and did a better job beating back the Russian thrusts at Kiev in the early days of the war than I would have guessed they would. They are now, though, fighting a static war of attrition with a county 4x its size. So what, at this point after 3 years, is the alternate plan that preserves territory? If that plan is to send a million American soldiers to Ukraine and risk escalation of the war, a nuclear exchange, and possibly a Chinese attack on Taiwan while our back is turned, then I am not going to agree.
Again, I would be happy to see Russia lose, but short of sending the American military into the line of fire, what is the plan? Perhaps Russia's will collapses before Ukraine's, but no one has presented me any evidence of that. That would be a sort of WWI outcome, where one side was eventually exhausted (though only after the intervention of US troops). As an aside, I wonder sometimes, would peace in 1915 perhaps with Germany retaining control of Alsace and Lorraine have been worse than all the deaths that followed, not to mention the platform the war built for the later rise of Hitler and the Nazi party?
As I said before, I am amazed that our ex-peace-protesting-hippies of the Left who would 100% retroactively say that the US should never have escalated in Vietnam after 1964 are in the lead of those who want us to fight in the Ukraine to the very end. Someone needs to tell me what's different, and I have not heard a good answer yet.
It is known.
• We knew all the time that COVID likely was a Wuhan lab-leak: That is not certain by any means. While intelligence agencies point to a leak because of China's secrecy around the issue, there is scientific evidence that points to a natural origin. The leak theory is often conflated with the virus having been engineered, of which there is scant evidence.
• We knew all the time that the vaccine did not stop transmission: Even before the virus mutated, protection was at best 95%, about the same as two doses of the polio vaccine.
• We knew all the time that Biden was increasingly frail and senile: Everyone knew that Biden was slowing down, but he showed significant ability to accomplish his policy goals—and he was far better than the alternative. (Biden should have bowed out gracefully after one term.)
• We knew all the time that the inflation-reduction act infrastructure spending was burdened by unwieldy bureaucratic rules: Well, that's fairly typical in the modern age. However, many of the projects were set up on ten-year timelines. Of course, then the opposition complains when they aren't completed in five. Meanwhile, just as digs for rural fiber optic cables are starting (after all the bureaucratic brouhaha), the Trump administration has paused the project to throw some business to Musk's Starlink.
• We knew all the time we were risking nuclear escalation with our actions in Ukraine: Of course, and it was widely discussed. That's why Biden was cautious about providing certain weapon systems, especially those that could strike deep inside Russia.
• We knew all the time we were really engaging in a proxy war with Russia as much as a defense of Ukraine: Degrading the Russian military was important both for Ukrainian independence and to deter future aggression against Ukraine and Europe.
Coyote: I am amazed that our ex-peace-protesting-hippies of the Left who would 100% retroactively say that the US should never have escalated in Vietnam after 1964 are in the lead of those who want us to fight in the Ukraine to the very end.
They are not necessarily the same people, and people do change their positions. There are similarities, however.
Coyote: Someone needs to tell me what's different, and I have not heard a good answer yet.
Vietnam had been promised elections leading to unification in the Geneva Conference of 1954, an agreement which the United States then reneged. The Vietnam War was consider by most Vietnamese as just more imperialism: the French, the Japanese, the French again, the Americans, then the Chinese. The Vietnamese people were committed to expelling the invaders.
Ukraine was an imperialist invasion of a sovereign nation, and the breaking of promises, akin to Munich and Geneva. The Ukrainian people have been committed to expelling the invaders.
The similarity hinges on that, in the former, the United States was the foreign invader, while in the latter, the Russia is the foreign invader. Hope that helps.
In response to Zachriel.
that covid was a likely lab leak was in fact extremely well known.
There were email exchanges in October 2020 between pfizer and brix(?) that the vax would not stop infection since the mechanism in the vax would take 2-3 days to kick. Those emails were in OCTOBER of 2020.
Joe K: that covid was a likely lab leak was in fact extremely well known.
That it could be a lab leak was considered possible, but not consistent with considerable scientific evidence. See, for instance, Crits-Christoph et al., Genetic tracing of market wildlife and viruses at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic, Cell 2024; which analyzes the genetics of possible intermediate hosts.
Joe K: There were email exchanges in October 2020 between pfizer and brix(?) that the vax would not stop infection since the mechanism in the vax would take 2-3 days to kick.
Have no idea what that means. If you mean it takes time for the vaccine have an effect, that's how all vaccines work. Can you provide the emails in question?
Zach's comment - "That it could be a lab leak was considered possible, but not consistent with considerable scientific evidence. See, for instance, Crits-Christoph et al., Genetic tracing of market wildlife and viruses at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic, Cell 2024; which analyzes the genetics of possible intermediate hosts."
Your explanation was a talking point which has been discredited, surprising that it continues in the left's echo chamber.
Zach's original comment " We knew all the time that the vaccine did not stop transmission: Even before the virus mutated, protection was at best 95%, about the same as two doses of the polio vaccine."
My response Joe K: There were email exchanges in October 2020 between pfizer and brix(?) that the vax would not stop infection since the mechanism in the vax would take 2-3 days to kick.
Zach's response to my comment - "Have no idea what that means. "
Its obvious you have no idea what that means. If you did have any idea, then you would understand how incredibly wrong your original comment was.
Joe K: Its obvious you have no idea what that means.
Our original comment pointed out that other vaccines do not always "stop transmission". For instance, after measles vaccination, people can not only transmit measles, but can get sick with it.
We hazarded a guess as to what you were saying, as "to kick" is not a medical term. If your meaning isn't clear, it is polite to explain your point, even if only for the benefit of others who may be reading the thread.
Zach - kick was a typo
meant to say "kick in"
That doesnt change the point I made which directly rebutted your original comment. It also directly rebutted the CDC and other health authorities claim that vax stopped infection and stopped tranmission.
• We knew all the time that the vaccine did not stop transmission: Even before the virus mutated, protection was at best 95%,
Its not surprising that a leftist would stll believe the talking points that have long since been discredited.
Zachriel
1 day ago
It is known.
• We knew all the time that COVID likely was a Wuhan lab-leak: That is not certain by any means. While intelligence agencies point to a leak because of China's secrecy around the issue, there is scientific evidence that points to a natural origin. The leak theory is often conflated with the virus having been engineered, of which there is scant evidence.
Zach - Not only are you too ignorant to grasp the facts but actively promoting the health authorities lie
Joe K: Not only are you too ignorant to grasp the facts but actively promoting the health authorities lie
We provided a recent study that provided an analysis of the genetic data. While the study could certainly be in error, it is a stronger argument than "Is not," or even "IS NOT!" To address the study, you would have to look at the data and analysis in the study.
Zachriel
2 hours ago
Joe K: Not only are you too ignorant to grasp the facts but actively promoting the health authorities lie
We provided a recent study that provided an analysis of the genetic data. While the study could certainly be in error, it is a stronger argument than "Is not," or even "IS NOT!" To address the study, you would have to look at the data and analysis in the study.
Yes there are several studies reaching similar conclusions
However, I have reviewed the raw data, and the computations. The advertised reduction in deats among the vaxed vs the unvaxed simply to hold up. The math simply doesnt work.
Go back and look at the link you provided. Compare and constrast the death rates of the unvaxed pre and post the introduction of the vax. Then compare and contrast the deaths in the 65+ age group. There simply wasnt enough unvaxed individuals to have the total reported deaths.
Joe K: Yes there are several studies reaching similar conclusions
The cited study uses the latest available data.
Joe K: However, I have reviewed the raw data, and the computations...
Good for you.
Joe K: The math simply doesnt work.
This is where you might provide the maths.
Zachriel - I'd modify Warren's wording of the second point to "we never had strong confidence that the vaccine did stop transmission".
From Pfizer's press release: "The primary efficacy endpoints evaluated confirmed COVID-19 cases occurring 7 days or more after the second dose. The primary analysis also included, with the approval of the FDA, secondary endpoints evaluating efficacy based on COVID-19 cases occurring 14 days after the second dose." https://www.pfizer.com/science/coronavirus/vaccine/about-our-landmark-trial
And I can provide details of how that trial was conducted, because I was a Phase III clinical trial subject for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. I was provided a phone app where I was supposed to self-report symptoms. The app also had a weekly reminder to answer an in-app symptom questionnaire. (As an incentive, I was paid a small amount each week for completing that questionnaire.) I was provided a COVID test kit, which I would have been told to use to swab myself and then return by mail if I reported symptoms. I never used said test kit because I never reported any symptoms.
So the Pfizer Phase III wasn't designed to pick up if a trial subject might be asymptomatic, but PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2. Nor would I have expected the trial to do a robust job of picking up trial subjects who had very mild symptoms. As trial subjects, we absolutely were *not* being regularly tested to see if we'd register as SARS-CoV-2 positive.
The trial design was for an efficacy endpoint of "confirmed COVID-19 cases", meaning illness. With testing for those cases conducted only if a trial subject reported symptoms.
There's also the short time span of the data gathered in the trial. Under the circumstances, it was completely understandable to issue an EUA and start administering the vaccine; however, any claims about durability of immunity - especially against mild but transmissible infection - were speculative.
Statements from officials such as Fauci and Walensky about the vaccine's impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission went well beyond what the Pfizer Phase III actually demonstrated.
Dave T: So the Pfizer Phase III wasn't designed to pick up if a trial subject might be asymptomatic, but PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2.
That's correct. And asymptomatic transmission is not uncommon with contagious diseases, such as with polio. However, asymptomatic transmission is less common than symptomatic transmission with lower amounts of virus being shed. It's not negligible however.
As with polio, a single vaccinated person doesn't confer perfect protection even to that person. It requires widespread immunity to lower the rate of transmission sufficiently. Polio requires about 80% coverage to provide herd immunity (higher in countries with poor sanitation); but measles requires 97% coverage to provide herd immunity. COVID requires >90% coverage.
Millions of lives were saved through COVID vaccination.
• We knew all the time that the vaccine did not stop transmission: Even before the virus mutated, protection was at best 95%, about the same as two doses of the polio vaccine.
Above from Zachriel.
I am not sure what you are suggesting here. The discussion was about transmission. Your response (the 95%) is about protection from symptomatic infection over ~ 2 months in the clinical trial.
Edward Brown: I am not sure what you are suggesting here.
If vaccination provides 95% protection from symptomatic COVID, then there is a 5% chance of a vaccinated person getting symptomatic COVID; and consequently, there is at least a 5% chance that someone who has been vaccinated will become contagious. (If a vaccinated person does get COVID, it is more likely to be mild or even asymptomatic, with less shedding of viral particles over a shorter period of time, so less likely to be transmitted.) Like with many other contagious diseases, population protection comes from widespread immunity.
Once R0, the effective reproduction number, drops below 1, transmission in the population will wane. Humans are reactive, so when infections mount, people take actions to reduce their exposure, then relax when the wave of infections pass, so R0 will vary up and down considerably until most people have immunity, either through vaccination or by having contracted the virus, at which point the pandemic will end.
The virus may continue to mutate in isolated populations, resulting in outbreaks. But COVID-19 is no longer a novel virus to the human species, so nearly everyone has some level of immunity.
Zach - not surprising someone who relies on talking points would repeat the 95% effectivenss of the vax
the vax effectiveness was never even remotely close to 95% and well below 50% after only 6 months.
Joe K: not surprising someone who relies on talking points would repeat the 95% effectivenss of the vax ... the vax effectiveness was never even remotely close to 95% and well below 50% after only 6 months.
Phase 3 trials, which showed 95% effectiveness, are not "talking points", and are a stronger argument than "Is not." You are correct that the effectiveness did wane over time as the virus mutated. However, the cell-mediated immune response persisted, which meant the body no longer treated COVID as a novel virus, but could quickly mount a response to mutated strains of the virus. That meant disease, when it occurred, was generally milder and shorter lasting.
Zach's comment - Phase 3 trials, which showed 95% effectiveness, are not "talking points", and are a stronger argument than "Is not."
So what if the trial phase showed 95% effectiveness. - It never got anywhere close to that in the real world, and it fell well below 50% after 6 months. Even worse effectiveness for the repeat doses.
4 years later - you still clinging to the discredited talking points. Virtually everything you have been told to belief has been proven wrong.
Joe K: So what if the trial phase showed 95% effectiveness. - It never got anywhere close to that in the real world, and it fell well below 50% after 6 months.
Phase 3 trials are in the real world. Even after being provided evidence that directly contradicts your claim, you keep saying the evidence is out there somewhere. Over there somewhere. Let us know when you are willing to support your claims.
Zach - did you flunk elementary school math
A - phase 3 trials are not real world
B - do you any concept of the mathematical computation of how the 95% effectiveness is computed? apparently not
C - Are you unaware of the approx 150million to 200million people in the US who caught covid after being vaxed.
Tell us what data that contradicts any of my prior statements.
Zach -
Are you still stuck on the 95% effectiveness of the covid vax?
That has been known to have been fully discredited by most everyone by the summer of 2021.
Joe K: A - phase 3 trials are not real world
Phase 3 are thousands of real people, living in the real world. Some are given the vaccine (experimental group), and some are given the placebo (control group)
Joe K: B - how the 95% effectiveness is computed?
P is those infected when given placebo.
V is those infected when given vaccine.
E is the effectiveness.
E = (P-V) / P
So, if 0.74% of the control group become infected, and 0.04% of the experimental group become infected, then the effectiveness is calculated as (0.74-0.04)/0.74 ≈ 95%. And that is what was observed.
Joe K: C - Are you unaware of the approx 150million to 200million people in the US who caught covid after being vaxed.
Again, you throw out numbers without foundation. And it's like you keep forgetting what was already discussed, such as that vaccines became less effective at preventing infection as the virus evolved, but they still reduced the severity and duration of the disease.
Joe K: B - how the 95% effectiveness is computed?
Now, how are the confidence intervals calculated? Given 43,000 study participants.
Zach
Its now the spring of 2025
Seems everyone but you knows the 95% effectiveness of the vaccine has been proven to be untrue
Seems everyone but you knows that over 150million of americans caught covid AFTER being vaxed.
Its difficult to argue that the vax was 95% effective when 50% of the US population became infected after they received the vax.
Joe K: Seems everyone but you knows ...
This is where you provide evidence. You keep saying the evidence is out there somewhere. Over there somewhere, as you wave your hands. Let us know when you are willing to support your claims.