New Hampshire Legislature Special Committee Issues Scathing Report That Eviscerates the Federal and State Covid Response

Source: Lew Rockwell | VIEW ORIGINAL POST ==>

Executive summary

The New Hampshire House of Representatives is about to publish a 38-page report created by a bipartisan committee of NH state legislators entitled, “Special Committee on Covid Response Efficacy: Report of Findings.”

I got an advance copy that I can share with you.

It’s glorious.

In this article I summarize the highlights.

In a nutshell:

1. If you worked for the state or federal government, everything was done right.
2. If you didn’t work for the government, everything was a disaster.

It was an interesting seeing how different people can view the same evidence in totally opposite ways.

Also, all the Republicans on the committee thought the response was a disaster.

All the Democrats saw nothing wrong. The Minority Report is the exact opposite of the Majority report.

You can’t make this stuff up. You really can’t.

The majority report

Here is the 38-page majority report.

The minority report

Here is the minority report. It’s only really one page (with a large attachment).

They basically disagreed, but didn’t cite any specific thing(s) wrong with how the majority report interpreted the testimony that was presented. They give us no clue as to how the Republicans misinterpreted the testimony.

So they are saying that they disagreed on everything? They think 6 foot rule worked? That masks worked? That the vaccines saved lives?

I just got off the phone with Stephen Petty who testified on masks. He said the Democrats were in the room, but mostly fiddling with their cell phones. They didn’t ask Petty a single question.

I also asked John Beaudoin about his testimony in front of the special committee. He told me also that NONE of the Democrats asked a single question. There were at most 2 Democrats in the room at any time.

Furthermore, the Democrats were allowed to call witnesses, but chose not to do so. This is stunning! Call no experts, ask no questions, and expect the public to believe you??

I suspect the reason they called no witnesses is that witnesses can be questioned by the committee and witnesses on this matter don’t like to answer any hard questions.

NH government link

Both majority and minority reports will be made publicly available soon on the official government site, likely on Nov. 18.

VSRF call Nov 21, 2024: BOTH sides are invited to appear

I have invited all the people on the committee to the Thursday VSRF call.

I want to talk about the data and how two groups of people can have completely different perceptions of the same data.

Press coverage of the report

I predict that there will be a worldwide media blackout of the report.

Key messages of the 38-page report

Here are some of the key messages in the Summary of Findings section.

I quote the key statement and then provide a handy English translation to make it easier for you to understand what they are saying.

My personal favorite is #12.

1. Page 5: “The first major goal identified by the committee was to halt the widespread transmission of the SARS-COV-2 virus. In other words, stop the virus from spreading amongst the population and prevent the virus from becoming endemic. This objective led to guidance and recommendations regarding the wearing of various forms of personal protective equipment, masking, and social distancing. At the state level, such guidance was provided by the state epidemiologist, though it appears that there was often a reliance on the guidance being offered by the federal agencies. In many cases, New Hampshire simply followed the federal guidance.Analysis on the efficacy of the response as it pertains to this goal must begin with the fact that despite all measures implemented the spread of the virus was not halted.”

   Translation: “Masks and social distancing didn’t do shit.”

2. Page 6: “Indeed, no testimony or documents were received by the committee indicating that the mitigation strategies were effective.”Translation: “All these measures didn’t do shit.”
3. Page 7: “However, statistical and graphical analysis of this R₀ value over time provided no obvious indication that the spread of SARS-COV-2 was mitigated at all by the cumulative measures implemented.”
   
   Translation: “All these measures didn’t do shit.”
4. Page 8: “It is nonetheless the case that the cumulative effects of the measures taken by the state to slow the spread of the SARS-COV-2 virus were ineffectual. It is nonetheless the case that the cumulative effects of the measures taken by the state to slow the spread of the SARS-COV-2 virus were ineffectual. Little evidence has been presented to this committee credibly indicating that there would have been any increase in morbidity and mortality, or any strain of the New Hampshire healthcare system beyond capacity, in the absence of these measures cumulatively.”Translation: “All these measures didn’t do shit.”
5. Page 8: “Because of the limited availability and the required conditions for treatment, it is unclear what, if any, positive or negative effect this treatment made.”Translation: “All these monoclonal treatments didn’t do shit, as far as we can tell.”
6. Page 8: “Vaccinations … were initially advertised by relevant authorities as preventing the spread of the SARS-COV-2 virus. Clearly, this was unsubstantiated by any clinical evidence and was proven demonstrably false under real-world conditions.”Translation: “The CDC lied; people died.”
7. Page 9: “Therefore, it is not known what role the vaccines and boosters had in the downward trend of the disease, but this committee has seen no evidence that it was effective in reducing incidence of documented cases. Multiple expert testimonies were received regarding both ineffectiveness and the prevalence of serious adverse reactions associated with vaccination.”
   
   Translation: “The vaccines didn’t do shit as far as we can tell; they made things worse.”
8. Page 9: “Most worrisome here is the substantial testimony and documentation indicating that the relevant federal agencies overseeing safety abandoned the established standards for safe use of such products in humans.”Translation: “Safety protocols were ignored. The focus was on lives saved, not how many died.”
9. Page 10: “Given that our state’s actions did not have any meaningful, demonstrable impact on the course of the pandemic, it is recommended for further study, and we call upon the private sectors and academia to study and innovate, in the field of mitigation of biological agents.”
   Translation: “It would be good to have a sane plan for the next pandemic because this one was a total failure.”
10. Page 25: “… when indoors, the spread of a highly contagious, airborne pathogen is unlikely to be successfully mitigated simply by maintaining a three or six foot personal bubble. This is true to such an extent that it is unlikely that any member of this committee would have, independently, recommended such a strange action in the absence of the guidance promulgated by the federal and state Executive branches.”Translation: “The recommendations from the State and Federal experts were comical.”

Read the Whole Article