Daily Archives: July 27, 2021

Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulGOP Rep. Cawthorn says he wants to 'prosecute' Fauci Writer: Fauci, Paul clash shouldn't distract from probe into COVID-19 origins S.E. Cupp: 'The politicization of science and health safety has inarguably cost lives' MORE (R-Ky.) on Tuesday escalated his ongoing feud with the nation's top infectious diseases doctor Anthony FauciAnthony FauciCNN: Every county in Florida, Arkansas rated 'high transmission' for community spread Rising case count reignites debate over COVID-19 restrictions Trump surgeon general: 'Pandemic is spiraling out of control' MORE about the role the National Institutes of Health (NIH) played in funding controversial research in Wuhan, China.

The two traded barbs during a tense exchange, triggering a shouting match in which Fauci accused Paul of lying in order to further his agenda.

During a Senate Health Committee hearing about the federal COVID-19 response, Paul said the NIH funded illegal gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which created a highly dangerous and transmissible virus able to infect humans. Gain-of-function is a controversialmethod where researchers make a pathogen more infectious, often to develop more effective treatments and vaccines.

Its an unsubstantiated accusation Paul has made before, and one Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has denied.

Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.

Dr. FauciAnthony FauciCNN: Every county in Florida, Arkansas rated 'high transmission' for community spread Rising case count reignites debate over COVID-19 restrictions Trump surgeon general: 'Pandemic is spiraling out of control' MORE after Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) accuses him of lying to Congress about gain-of-function research in Wuhan lab. pic.twitter.com/aGhn3ua9r0

In response to similar questioning during a hearing in May, Fauci said the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

It's not unusual for conservative Republicans and allies of former President TrumpDonald TrumpCuban embassy in Paris attacked by gasoline bombs Trump Jr. inches past DeSantis as most popular GOP figure in new poll: Axios Trump endorses Ken Paxton over George P. Bush in Texas attorney general race MORE to clash with Fauci during hearings; Paul has done so on numerous occasions, as has Rep. Jim JordanJames (Jim) Daniel JordanBritney Spears's new attorney files motion to remove her dad as conservator House rejects GOP effort to seat McCarthy's picks for Jan. 6 panel GOP brawls over Trump on eve of first Jan. 6 hearing MORE (R-Ohio).

In the past, Fauci has tried to remain relatively calm, if terse, even as he responds to personal attacks and accusations of a cover-up.

But on Tuesday, Paul stepped up his fight, implying that Fauci had lied to Congress, and that he was fully aware of what the Wuhan lab was doing with grant money that came from NIH.

He also suggested that Fauci and the NIH could be partly responsible for the pandemic and the deaths of 4 million people worldwide.

Paul cited an academic paper that purportedly shows the lab was conducting illegal research to create potential pandemic pathogens that exist only in the lab, not in nature, a claim Fauci denied in one of his angriest public exchanges to date.

Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about, and I want to say that officially, Fauci said.

How can you say that's not gain-of-function? It's a dance and you're dancing around this because you're trying to obscure responsibility for 4 million people dying around the world from a pandemic, Paul responded, cutting Fauci off.

If the point that you are making is that the grant that was funded as a subaward ... created SARS-COV-2, thats where you are getting, Fauci said, pointing two fingers at Paul before the senator cut him off again.

We don't know ... but all the evidence is pointing that it came from the lab and there will be responsibility for those that funded the lab, including yourself, Paul said.

I totally resent the lie you are now propagating, senator, Fauci said, adding that it is molecularly impossible that research funded by NIH was responsible for SARS-CoV-2.

Paul interjected again, talking over Fauci: You are obviously obfuscating the truth, to which Fauci replied, I'm not obfuscating the truth -- you are.

You are implying that what we did was responsible for the deaths of individuals. I totally resent that, Fauci said. And if anybody is lying here senator, it is you, he added, pointing a finger at Paul.

After Paul's time expired, Sen. Tina SmithTina Flint SmithFauci: Paul doesn't know what he's talking about Clean electricity standard should be a no brainer amid extreme climate impacts Overnight Energy: Democrats reach budget deal including climate priorities | Europe planning to cut emissions 55 percent by 2030 | Army Corps nominee pledges not to politicize DAPL environmental review MORE (D-Minn.) was the next lawmaker up, and with a sympathetic but bemused expression, she offered Fauci an opportunity to counteract these attacks on your integrity that we've all just witnessed.

I don't think I have anything further to say, Fauci said. This is a pattern that Sen. Paul has been doing now at multiple hearings based on no reality. He keeps talking about gain-of-function. This has been evaluated multiple times by qualified people to not fall under the gain-of-function definition.

He added: I have not lied before Congress. I have never lied, certainly not before Congress. Case closed.

This story was updated at 4:23 p.m.

Read more here:
Fauci: Paul doesn't know what he's talking about | TheHill - The Hill

Fifty years ago next month, with inflation rising and growing trade deficits, President Richard Nixon suspended the conversion of the U.S. dollar into gold. This decision effectively ended the Bretton Woods system the final attempt at an international gold standard and ushered in a new era of floating exchange rates between major currencies, rather than rates fixed by policymakers.

The end of gold-backed money and fixed exchange rates has been controversial, but it remains the right decision.

Ron Paul, a former U.S. congressman and presidential candidate, decided to first enter politics because of his disappointment with Nixons decision. Some commentators have argued that floating exchange rates are a major source of instability and seek a return to some sort of Bretton Woods-style arrangement. Many argue that as a rules-based monetary policy, a new gold standard would constrain central banks (including the Federal Reserve) from creating inflation, and fiscal policymakers (including Congress) from running unhealthy budget deficits.

While central banks should pursue a more accountable, rules-based approach to monetary policy, a new gold standard would do much more harm than good.

In 1944, representatives from the Allied powers developed Bretton Woods for the postwar era. Their goal was to create a regime that produced exchange rate stability in a tumultuous world, while also giving each nations central bank latitude to pursue their own policies.

The dollar was set at $35 per ounce of gold. Other currencies, such as the British pound and German mark, were pegged to the dollar, but these pegs could be adjusted. It took nearly 15 years to get the system running, and even then, it suffered from major flaws that gave it a short lifespan. For example, in 1967, the United Kingdom had difficulty maintaining its peg, so it devalued the pound. This boosted exports, but also raised inflation.

Challenges in the United States ultimately led to Bretton Woods demise. Large trade deficits with West Germany and Japan and large budget deficits under the Johnson and Nixon administrations led to more U.S. dollars held abroad. Eventually, there was not enough U.S. gold to redeem those dollars.

Recognizing this, speculators sold their dollars, causing runs on the currency and making it even more difficult for the United States to maintain its exchange rates with other countries. Nixon suspended the dollars conversion into gold, and although he announced that the suspension would be temporary, the system was never salvaged.

While one can argue that Bretton Woods used a poorly designed gold standard giving too much room to governments to pursue monetary and fiscal policies and creating tension within the system this does not mean we should return to another gold standard, even one like the relatively well-functioning pre-World War I classical gold standard.

The classical gold standard period was an era where central banks either did not exist or had much less discretion, where prices were more flexible, and where the public did not expect governments to provide modern social services. These conditions simply do not exist today.

In at least some respects, central banks are already taking steps toward a more rules-based monetary system. Beginning in the 1990s, many began targeting 2 percent inflation, and inflation since then has generally been low across the developed world (the recent uptick notwithstanding). Last year, the Fed modified this goal by targeting 2% inflation on average over time, which means making up for past misses of the target.

An even better goal would be to target total dollar spending in the economy, or nominal gross domestic product. Among the differences in this approach is that it allows inflation to rise temporarily in response to recessions. This reduces the severity of debt burdens and stimulates the economys recovery. It also allows inflation to fall during economic booms, helping consumers. Moreover, nominal gross domestic product targeting can be rules-based, making policy more predictable and constrained.

While a gold standard has appealing features in the abstract, implementing it is another story altogether. The Fed should instead focus on smoothing out business cycles here in the United States, and letting markets determine exchange rates.

David Beckworth is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and a former international economist at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Patrick Horan is the program manager for Mercatus monetary policy program.

Read more from the original source:
Should the US return to the gold standard? No - The Daily World

Fifty years ago next month, with inflation rising and growing trade deficits, President Richard Nixon suspended the conversion of the U.S. dollar into gold. This decision effectively ended the Bretton Woods system the final attempt at an international gold standard and ushered in a new era of floating exchange rates between major currencies, rather than rates fixed by policymakers.

The end of gold-backed money and fixed exchange rates has been controversial, but it remains the right decision.

Former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul decided to first enter politics because of his disappointment with Nixons decision. Some commentators have argued floating exchange rates are a major source of instability and seek a return to some sort of Bretton Woods-style arrangement. Many argue that as a rules-based monetary policy, a new gold standard would constrain central banks (including the Federal Reserve) from creating inflation, and fiscal policymakers (including Congress) from running unhealthy budget deficits.

While central banks should pursue a more accountable, rules-based approach to monetary policy, a new gold standard would do much more harm than good.

In 1944, representatives from the Allied powers developed Bretton Woods for the postwar era. Their goal was to create a regime that produced exchange rate stability in a tumultuous world, while also giving each nations central bank latitude to pursue its own policies.

The dollar was set at $35 per ounce of gold. Other currencies, such as the British pound and German mark, were pegged to the dollar, but these pegs could be adjusted. It took nearly 15 years to get the system running, and even then, it suffered from major flaws that gave it a short lifespan. For example, in 1967, the United Kingdom had difficulty maintaining its peg, so it devalued the pound. This boosted exports but also raised inflation.

Challenges in the United States ultimately led to Bretton Woods demise. Large trade deficits with West Germany and Japan and large budget deficits under the Johnson and Nixon administrations led to more U.S. dollars held abroad. Eventually, there was not enough U.S. gold to redeem those dollars. Recognizing this, speculators sold their dollars, causing runs on the currency and making it even more difficult for the United States to maintain its exchange rates with other countries. Nixon suspended the dollars conversion into gold, and although he announced that the suspension would be temporary, the system was never salvaged.

While one can argue that Bretton Woods used a poorly designed gold standard giving too much room to governments to pursue monetary and fiscal policies and creating tension within the system this does not mean we should return to another gold standard, even one like therelativelywell-functioning pre-World War I classical gold standard.

The classical gold standard period was an era where central banks either did not exist or had much less discretion, where prices were more flexible, and where the public did not expect governments to provide modern social services. These conditions simply do not exist today.

In at least some respects, central banks are already taking steps toward a more rules-based monetary system. Beginning in the 1990s, many began targeting 2 percent inflation, and inflation since then has generally been low across the developed world (therecent upticknotwithstanding). Last year, the Fed modified this goal by targeting 2 percent inflation on average over time, which means making up for past misses of the target.

An evenbetter goalwould be to target total dollar spending in the economy, or nominal gross domestic product. Among the differences in this approach is that it allows inflation to rise temporarily in response to recessions. This reduces the severity of debt burdens and stimulates the economys recovery. It also allows inflation to fall during economic booms, helping consumers. Moreover, nominal gross domestic product targeting can berules-based, making policy more predictable and constrained.

Original post:
Should the US Return to the Gold Standard? InsideSources - InsideSources

July 24, 2021Updated: July 24, 2021 3a.m.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has suggested Republicans take inspiration from Texas Democrats and walk out of the Senate.

After a week of adoring PR, the worm has finally turned for the Texas Democrats and their impromptu tour of the nations capital. Several have tested positive for COVID Wear a dang mask! Even on private jets! and after aids for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Biden tested positive after meeting with the gang, they appear to have lost any spot they might have had on the Oval Office calendar. They still have an appointment with destiny, as far as Gov. Greg Abbott is concerned. Hes still vowing to call as many special sessions as it takes to get Democrats to show up and provide quorum so Republicans can pass their voting bill. But chin up, Dems. Youve made quite an impression, it seems, on at least one unlikely admirer: U.S. Sen Lindsey Graham. The Republican from South Carolina has been so inspired by the Democrats gallant attempt at fugitive justice, he suggested this week that his GOP colleagues follow suit and hightail it out of town to stop a multi-trillion-dollar spending bill that Congressional Democrats are preparing to pass along party lines. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but this might be a case of mutual admiration. Maybe the Dems came up with this walkout stunt all on their own, and maybe they, too, were inspired by a muse: Graham himself and his Senate colleagues, who have for years formidably used the same guerrilla tactic to block legislation and judicial nominees they dont like. Only they call it the filibuster.

Graham wasnt the only DC pol to weigh in on Texas politics this week. Dr. Anthony Faucis BFF, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, announced Thursday that hes throwing his support behind Republican Don Huffines in his primary campaign to oust Gov. Abbott. On paper, its easy to see why Huffines and Paul are simpatico. Despite being a medical doctor who presumably took an oath to do no harm, Paul is one of the Senates leading COVID skeptics and vocal anti-vaxxers while Huffines entire campaign is tethered to an alternate reality in which Abbotts decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic went too far. Two peas in a pandemic pod. Between the senators endorsement of Huffines and his father former Texas congressman Ron Pauls blaming Abbott for the power grid failure in February, the governor isnt likely to make the Paul Christmas list this year. Just as well. One Lysol disinfectant wipe saved.

Thumbs isnt a Texas Longhorn although we have some friends who are, so youll have to forgive any ignorance about this whole Eyes of Texas brouhaha, but uh, paying $1.1 million for a consultant to conclude that the University of Texas fight song isnt racist doesnt strike us as a great return on investment. The university paid that hefty sum to Brad Deutser, a Houston consultant, to come up with a communication strategy on what it means to be a Longhorn. High drought tolerance, a taste for grass, and indiscreet bathroom habits whats so hard to understand? In the end, Deuster didnt settle much. The song committees work was completed last year the fight song will stay, despite continued questions about its minstrel show roots. UT essentially paid Deutser a million bucks to tell officials what they wanted to hear and to tick off some college students who want the song gone. Good work if you can get it all the livelong day.

Finally, its been a rough year for Houston. The Texans stunk. The Rockets jettisoned the face of the franchise to Brooklyn. The city literally froze for a week. Oh yeah and that whole global pandemic thing. But slotting the Bayou City behind the likes of Jacksonville and Green Bay on the best places to live list is just downright insulting. U.S. News & World Reports Best Places to Live list dropped Houston down 12 spots this year. Its bad enough that Houston wasnt even ranked the most desirable city in Texas the judges apparently think the most diverse, interesting and resilient city in the nation falls behind the Peoples Republic of Austin and that snooty town in North Texas whose name we cant recall right now. But the list of cities ranked higher across the country is a study in obscurity, stagnation and monolingual-ism. Sure, Houston may be a little hot and sticky, more swampy than lush green, more harried hurricane than tranquil lake, but once you know the secrets of the fire swamp and the most effective brands of mosquito repellent, you can live here quite comfortably. Its better than Spartanburg any day. Bury us in Houston.

Original post:
TEXAS Thumbs: Texas Dems in disarray and Houston gets snubbed HOUSTON CHRONICLE - Houston Chronicle

CLAIM

Post-vaccination deaths reported to VAERS are caused by the vaccine

DETAILS

Inadequate support: VAERS records adverse events occurring after vaccination. Because there is already a preexisting background or baseline rate of illnesses and deaths occurring even among unvaccinated people, VAERS reports alone dont demonstrate causal relationships between a vaccine and adverse events, as these events can simply be incidental illnesses and deaths unrelated to vaccination.

KEY TAKE AWAY

Reports in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System arent in themselves evidence that the vaccine was the cause of the adverse event. To date, more than 187 million people in the U.S. received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and more than 162 million are fully vaccinated. Comparing the number of deaths among vaccinated people to that of the background rate of death shows that vaccinated people arent more likely to die compared to unvaccinated people. The benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use outweigh their risks.

REVIEW On 21 July 2021, multiple social media posts drew attention to the website of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported a doubling of death reports made to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. The specific statement quoted by these posts is More than 338 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 19, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 12,313 reports of death (0.0036%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. Among the earliest posts was this tweet by Alex Berenson, who previously propagated health misinformation.

Some posts, like those by talk show host Steve Deace and former U.S. Representative Ron Paul, used language implying that VAERS reports are evidence that COVID-19 vaccines caused the deaths, for instance, by using the phrases deaths from Covid vaccines and Covid vaccine deaths. Both posts received more than 15,000 interactions on Facebook, including likes, views, and comments.

An article on TrialSiteNews used similar language, claiming that these VAERS reports showed deaths associated with COVID-19 vaccines and an unprecedented number of fatalities when compared to any other vaccination initiative over the past few decades given its only been available for just over half a year.

Political activist and radio talk show host Charlie Kirk also repeated this claim on his show, adding he was just asking questions. Just asking questions is a rhetorical technique which allows a person to ask leading questions and posit baseless or disproven hypotheses without having to provide evidence. He went even further to assert that 1.2 million people died after getting the vaccine with no evidence. And on top of this, he falsely claimed that vaccine companies cannot be sued, a claim previously covered by Health Feedback.

The social media posts and TrialSiteNews article propagate the common but misleading notion that VAERS reports alone provide evidence of safety problems, despite the fact that the CDC website itself states:

FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if its unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem.

And VAERS itself warns against using its data in this manner:

While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

Previous Health Feedback reviews covered iterations of this popular claim (see here, here, and here).

In brief, the problem with this claim is that it fails to account for the background rate of an adverse event like death. This is important because firstly, people have been dying even before the COVID-19 vaccines were available. Secondly, even unvaccinated people die. Indeed, on average, almost 8,000 people die in the U.S. everyday from various causes, based on Statista. To date, more than 187 million people in the U.S. received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and more than 162 million are fully vaccinated.

What Deace, Paul, Kirk, and TrialSiteNews failed to show is that deaths in vaccinated people are more likely to die compared to unvaccinated people, or that deaths among vaccinated people exceed that baseline or background rate of death. This is a critical first step in inferring a causal relationship between the vaccine and an adverse event like death. In any event, reviews of post-vaccination death reports by scientists didnt show an increase in the mortality rate of vaccinated people, as explained in an earlier Health Feedback review. Against the backdrop of the hundreds of millions who have been vaccinated in the U.S., the death reports on VAERS dont point to a significant safety concern.

Furthermore, TrialSiteNews comparison of reports related to COVID-19 vaccines and other vaccines is misleading. As explained in an earlier Health Feedback review, this is due to COVID-19 vaccines being under emergency use authorization, unlike approved vaccines. This difference in status means that healthcare providers are legally obliged to report any deaths occurring among people who received the COVID-19 vaccine, even if there is no indication that the vaccine is involved in the death.

Therefore, reports of deaths post-COVID-19 vaccination would be submitted more frequently than for other vaccines to date, and it wouldnt be unusual to find more reports for COVID-19 vaccines compared to other vaccines.

The CDC did state that it received 12,313 reports of death on 21 July 2021, the day that Deace, Paul, and others published their posts. However, at the time of this reviews writing, the CDC website stated that During this time, VAERS received 6,207 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. Its unclear what prompted the abrupt change in numbers within a few days. Health Feedback reached out to the CDC for clarification and will update this review if we hear back.

This Insight article explains methods for inferring causality between adverse events and vaccines.

Read more:
VAERS reports may initiate investigations into potential associations between a vaccine and adverse events, but on their own cannot prove causality -...

Bitcoin-only director Richard James documentary on the recent history of inflation, Hard Money, uses stock images and anonymous narrators to weave the film. One of them qualifies the tweaking of the money supply as the greatest con in human history. Another one compares the Fed to the Wizard of Oz. The voices are familiar. You feel like you heard some of these clips before. When the credits roll, you realize the narrators were the creme of the cream of the Bitcoin thinkers.

The Hard Money documentary could be considered a condensed version of the first few chapters from Saifedean Ammous The Bitcoin Standard. The first book were reading in the Bitcoinist Book Club. In the documentary, you can actually see Keynes celebrating the gold standards supposed collapse and saying that the public must not allow anyone to put them back in the gold cage. In contrast, you can read Ludvig Von Mises quote: The gold standard did not collapse. Governments abolished it in order to pave the way for inflation.

Related Reading | Buy Bitcoin: Rich Dad, Poor Dad Warns Of Worlds Biggest Crash

Watch the Hard Money documentary and youll be able to answer these questions: Why was gold chosen as the premier form of hard currency? What were golds severe flaws? What is inflation and how does the government hide it? How breaking the relationship between the Dollar and gold broke the relationship between the market and reality. What is low and high time preference? What does fractional reserve banking create? Why are the institutions that issue debt effectively printing new money?

Basically, money printing is a hidden tax and it has paid for wars and incompetency. However, hear Ron Pauls prediction, The Feds going to self-destruct eventually, anyway. As the credits roll, we realize that the previously anonymous narrator voices belong to the likes of Dan Sanchez, Robert Breedlove, Saifedean Ammous, Preston Pysh, Jimmy Song, Ben Prentice, Guy Swan, and several others.

Related Reading | Ethereum Founder Gets Involved In Documentary About Ethereum

However, who said The 20th Century was the Centutry of politicians and governments taking advantage of the printing press? Theres no way of knowing that. And maybe thats for the best.

View post:
Selected Quotes And Seven Lessons From The Hard Money Mini-Documentary - bitcoinist.com