Daily Archives: November 23, 2021

This is an excerpt from the authors new book, A Plague Upon Our House, which releases December 7 and is available now for preorder.

[CDC Director Robert] Redfields congressional testimony on September 23 immediately caught my attention. I watched in disbelief as Redfield told Congress that more than 90 percent of the populationmore than three hundred million people in the USremains susceptible to the illness.

The statement was based on incomplete and outdated data, as well as an apparent lack of understanding of the literature, and it struck me as one of the most erroneous and fear-inducing proclamations of any public health official to that moment. Approximately two hundred thousand Americans had already died from COVID; the last thing the public needed was an exaggeration of the future risks, implying to some that ten times that number could still die.

First of all, the numbers didnt add up. At that point, confirmed cases in the US already totaled approximately seven million, and the CDC itself had estimated that approximately ten times the number of confirmed cases, a very conservative estimate, were likely to have had the infection. A Stanford seropositivity study back in April had shown that confirmed cases underestimated the total infections by a factor of approximately forty times. It made no sense that only 9 percent, or thirty million Americans, had been infected.

Second, the 9 percent calculation was blatantly wrong. That number came from antibody testing by the states. I looked at the CDC website myself, and sure enough, the data was based on antiquated testing from several states.

Some antibody totals were pulled from several months earlier, before many of those states had experienced a significant number of cases. It therefore grossly underestimated the number of cases that had already occurred. The data was simply not valid, but you needed to pay attention to the details.

More importantly, Redfields basic claim was fundamentally flawed. The conclusion that serum antibody testing revealed the entire population of those protected from COVID was counter to an entire body of published literature and contrary to fundamental knowledge of immunology, including other coronavirus infections.

It was well known that antibody tests showed one cross-section in timethey were transienteven though immune protection can last. From studies on SARS-2 and most other viruses, antibody levels change over a span of months. They typically appear in the first couple of weeks, peak in a few months, and then decrease over a span of several months.

The literature on COVID had already shown these patterns. A month before this press conference, a Nature Reviews Immunology study on COVID-19 explicitly stated, The absence of specific antibodies in the serum does not necessarily mean an absence of immune memory, and explained, memory B-cells and T-cells may be maintained even if there are not measurable levels of serum antibodies.

Japans study demonstrated this dramatically. In their study, antibody levels increased from 5.8 percent to 46.8 percent over the course of the summer. The most dramatic increase occurred in late June and early July, paralleling the rise in daily confirmed cases within Tokyo, which peaked on August 4.

Out of the 350 individuals who completed both offered tests, 21.4 percent of those who tested negative became positive, and 12.2 percent of initially positive participants became negative for antibodies. A striking 81.1 percent of IgM-antibody-positive cases at first testing became negative in only one month. They stated that [antibody tests] may significantly underestimate previous COVID-19 infections. It had also been widely reported in several major scientific journals that antibody responses are not necessarily detectable in all COVID patients, especially those with less severe forms.

But the flaws in Redfields estimate extended deeper. Even those familiar with first-year college biology know that other components of the immune system, memory B-cell and T-cells, provide protection from virus infections. Some T-cells kill the virus, and they also help antibodies form. T-cells develop and provide protection that lasts far longer, even after antibodies disappearsometimes for years in other SARS viruses.

T-cells for this virus had already been documented, even in people unexposed to SARS-2, meaning that in these cases, cross-protection was present from T-cells originating in response to other coronaviruses. T-cells had also been found in individuals with completely asymptomatic SARS-2 infections.

NIH Director Francis Collins had highlighted that very data in his Directors Blog a few weeks earlier, writing, In fact, immune cells known as memory T cells also play an important role in the ability of our immune systems to protect us against many viral infections, includingit now appearsCOVID-19.

Scientists from some of the top research institutions in the world, like Swedens Karolinska Institute, San Diegos La Jolla Institute, Duke University, Berlin, and others had published this evidence. Karolinska demonstrated T-cell immunity in both asymptomatic and mild cases of COVIDeven if antibody-negative.

Singapore researchers had noted robust T-cell responses to this virus, SARS2, from seventeen-year-old SARS1 samples. Since T-cells are obviously not discovered by antibody tests, those individuals were not included in Redfields count. Yet he apparently had not considered this essential, indeed fundamental, point as he testified to Congress and made headlines.

After watching this debacle on TV, I knew full well what was coming later that day. The media would latch on to this and create even more public panic. I also knew that the responsibility for clarifying this grossly erroneous statement would be mine. There was no question it would come up at the presidents press conference, and even if it did not, it still needed to be explained.

I rushed over to Derek Lyonss office to update him and to make sure we would alert the president beforehand. A few others in the West Wing were there, so I summarized to them what had been said to Congress.

The mood ranged from amazement to dejection to frustration. An advisor to the president on legal matters warned me, with a smile on his face, Scott, dont just bluntly say, Redfield is wrong! Say something softer, like He misstated things.

I nodded, knowing that I needed to restrain my words, even though this was the same man who had tried to destroy me in the national press a few days earlier. But this wasnt personal at all. Clarifying the facts about the pandemic and countering the unending barrage of misinformation and pseudoscience about it, in this case coming from within the administration itself, was one of my most important roles in this national crisis.

During the pre-brief in the Oval Office a few hours later, I outlined the issue to the president. It was decided, as expected, that I would answer the question when it came up. And so it did.

A reporter from ABC News directly asked me if Redfields statement that more than 90 percent of Americans remained susceptible to the disease was true. I took the friendly advice I had received earlier in the day.

I think that Dr. Redfield misstated something there, I said, and then did my best to calmly explain the problems with outdated information and the contribution of cross-reactive T-cells and T-cell protection that would not have been included in his data. I correctly stated what was widely known and factualthat the protection from the virus is not solely determined by the percent of people who have antibodies. During my answer, as I fended off interruptions, I tried to explain in understandable language as best I could.

I also made a serious effort to be somewhat delicate, because I felt extremely uncomfortable about having to correct the director of the CDC on the national stage.

Unfortunately, my disgust with the confrontational mood in that press room prevented me from being more diplomatic when that reporter asked, Who are we to believe? My reflexive answer was Youre supposed to believe in the science, and I am telling you the science. Then I referred him to several expert scientists by name. However, I had the strong sense that he was not really interested in the facts at all. Rather, it was another attempt to amplify discord.

After exiting the press room, I walked alongside the president. He briefly stopped to check the news coverage on the set of TV monitors outside the briefing room, as he typically chose to do. After some banter between the president and the staff standing in the area, we began walking back toward the Oval Office.

President Trump turned to me on his right, smiling wryly but with a genuinely puzzled look on his face. Is Redfield political or just stupid? he asked, subtly shaking his head. I looked right back at the president and hesitated. The answer was obvious to both of us.

Needless to say, the media immediately played up the disagreement between me and Redfield. It fed into their narrative of conflict between me and the other Task Force doctors, one that Redfield personally caused with his offensive and unwarranted remark that everything I said was false.

Later, Dr. Fauci appeared on TV and criticized my straightforward attempt to clarify important information as extraordinarily inappropriate. I wondered if he was more concerned with protecting his bureaucrat colleagues reputation and undermining mine than ensuring that correct information was being told to the American public.

Martin Kulldorff, the world-renowned Harvard epidemiologist, posted his reaction on Twitter: Scott Atlas stated the simple fact that immunity is higher than those with antibodies, whereupon Dr. Fauci criticizes him without contradicting what was actually said. Stating a simple scientific fact is not extraordinarily inappropriate. What is going on?

Scott William Atlas is a senior fellow in health care policy at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a former member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force. From 1998 to 2012 he was a professor and chief of neuroradiology at the Stanford University Medical Center.

Photo President Donald J. Trump talks with Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany and Dr. Scott Atlas Thursday, Sept. 10, 2020, in the West Wing of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

Continued here:

Atlas: The Nation's 'Top Scientists' Lied About COVID And Got Away With It - The Federalist

For the hard left, this is only the start of the battle, not its end. When the rules work out badly for the left, they dont start playing by them. They try to change the rules.

Watch the video for my monologue, followed by an interview with Power The Futures Daniel Turner on the broad campaign to punish and censor dissent.

Kyle Rittenhouse got acquitted last week. Theres no need to go into the details of that one; you already know them.

The news was fantastic; Rittenhouse deserved vindication. But its important to pause and think about the many, many people whose ending isnt as happy as his.

The McCloskeys had to plead guilty for defending their own home from a braying mob.

Jake Gardner, a man very much like Rittenhouse, who protected his bar from a group of rioters and shot one, lost his business, was charged with murder, and finally committed suicide. A Democrat in the state legislature celebrated his death.

And then, of course, there are all the people like David Dorn in St. Louis or Chris Beaty in Indianapolis. They both tried protecting their communities during riots, and their efforts only ended with their own murder. That could easily have been Kyles fate.

Rittenhouse saw that rioters were about to destroy his community, so he went out armed and prepared to defend businesses and people. Was it smart for him to do that? No, but it was the courageous thing to do.

Its easy to be a keyboard warrior, saying that Kyle should have cowered in his home like everybody else, waiting for the storm to pass by him. Thats the safe thing to do, but its not what a hero does.

Whatever else you can say about him that he was dumb, or nave, or shouldnt have been there heres the truth: Kyle Rittenhouse was a hero. Millions of conservative men like to boast about what theyd do if things really hit the fan; they talk about how theyd be out there fighting the mob. Well, he actually did it and God bless him.

Thats why there was so much of a frenzy to destroy him: Because if Kyle Rittenhouse, slayer of pedophiles and defender of his community, is allowed to go free, then others might see him as a model rather than a warning to cower.

Think about how much effort went into destroying this young man. Rep. Cori Bush, Rep. Ayanna Pressley, and President Joe Biden denounced him as a white supremacist domestic terrorist, all without evidence.

CNN and MSNBC presented him like a white supremacist terrorist too, but Monday morning were a lot more circumspect about the man who ran over the Waukesha Christmas parade (despite his Facebook page bragging about hurting old white people).

GoFundMe took down fundraisers to support his defense, so backers had to raise money at GiveSendGo.com instead. Then, hackers stole data from GiveSendGo, and a journalist at The Guardian named Jason Wilson took that data and doxed the people named on it. A cop in Norfolk, Virginia lost his job for donating $25. A TV reporter named Jason Nguyen went and harassed at the mans home a paramedic who donated $10.

You know this case isnt a one-off. Its why the McCloskeys were hit with felony charges for standing, armed, outside the front door of the home they painstakingly restored when a mob crashed into their gated community and milled menacingly outside.

Know this, too: For the hard left, this is only the start of the battle, not its end. When the rules work out badly for the left, they dont start playing by them. They try to change the rules.

The morning of Nov. 19, before the final verdict was even delivered, University of Wisconsin law professor John Gross wrote that the law on self-defense must change in America to make sure people like Rittenhouse are no longer protected by it.

Grosss proposed changes would, in short, create a legal obligation to let Antifa destroy your community and burn down your home, while you are legally powerless to stop them, or even protect yourself. He wants to, deny the right to act in self-defense to people who are in a place where they are not allowed to be.

Got that? Rittenhouse broke curfew; that means Antifa has the right to execute him, with no distinction necessary between who is defending civilization and who is trying to burn it down.

Gross argues that states should make it illegal to claim self-defense if a person tries to steal a gun from you: If you carry a gun to protect yourself and a psycho tries to seize it, its your duty to wait until he takes it to defend yourself in any way.

He also suggests that, We could also restore the requirement that before someone has the right to use deadly force, they have a duty to retreat, [and] we could make self-defense an affirmative defense that must be proven by the defense by clear and convincing evidence, not disproven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

Understand? Even in your home or your places of business, your duty is to flee from your attackers rather than defend yourself. And if you do defend yourself, then you are guilty until proven innocent.

The presumption of innocence has been with us since the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius, almost 1,900 years ago, but progressives want it dumped to make sure their enemies go to prison. Not gangsters, not Antifa killers, not fentanyl smugglers people like Rittenhouse, whose crime is wanting to defend their community from a mob.

Last years murderous riots werent just some aberration an aside to the hard lefts agenda for America they were central. Tear down history, kill cops, threaten communities, expel feds, redefine justice, and let the rest of the country know theyd better take it.

Men like Chairman Mao desecrated the family home and grave of Chinas most revered historical figure, Confucius, not because of anything Confucius had done to him or the Communist Party, but to let everyone in China know if they could do this to Confucius, they could do anything they want to you.

They can come after executives like Brendan Eich; policemen like Bill Kelly; actors like Gina Carano; gym teachers like Tanner Cross; students like Nick Sandmann; bakers like the Gibson family; parents like Scott Smith and Tara McNeally, professors like Dorian Abbot and Mike Adams.

Here in America, whether its a statue of George Washington, the bones of St. Junipero Serra, or a teenager standing up for his community, the message is the same: Cower, or fall.

The iconoclasm, the violence, the cancel culture and legal intimidation: These things work in concert, and theyre not about hurt feelings theyre about control.

Here is the original post:

Effort To Punish Rittenhouse Is Also About Punishing Anyone Who Resists - The Federalist