Connect with us


CDC Chief Confirms Justice Sotomayor Greatly Exaggerated Pediatric COVID Hospitalization Numbers



Screen Shot 2021 02 03 at 3.54.56 PM scaled

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention chief Dr. Rochelle Walensky on Sunday set the record straight against Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s false statement that 100,000 children are hospitalized in serious condition and “many” on ventilators, due to COVID-19.

“We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in…in serious condition and many on ventilators” Justice Sotomayor said Friday. Walensky appeared on “Fox News Sunday” where host Bret Baier asked her directly about the Justices comment, and asking her to clarify that numbers show there are fewer than 3,500 children currently being treated with COVID-19.

“Yeah” said Walensky. She quickly moved on to advocate for vaccination saying “but, you know, here’s what I can tell you about our pediatric hospitalizations now. First of all, the vast majority of children who are in the hospital are unvaccinated, and for those children who are not eligible for vaccination, we do know they are most likely to get sick with COVID if their family members aren’t vaccinated.”

Walensky’s statements closely follow the Biden administration’s rhetoric that it is the unvaccinated – of any age – that is “fueling” the pandemic. Baier asked Walensky if she felt responsibility to set the record straight on the exaggerated COVID-19 numbers being spread throughout the Biden administration, liberal media, and now a Supreme Court Justice.

Vehemently staying on message, Walensky responded, “Yeah, here’s what I’ll tell you. I’ll tell you that, right now, 17 — if you’re unvaccinated, you’re 17 times more likely to be in the hospital and 20 times more likely to die than if you’re boosted.”

“And so, what my responsibility is, is to provide guidance and recommendations to protect the American people. Those recommendations strongly recommend vaccination for our children above the age of 5 and boosting for everyone above the age of 18 if they’re eligible” she concluded.

You may like

Continue Reading


  1. Sandra McKeon

    January 11, 2022 at 9:54 am

    Not sure if the “yeah” was confirmation on Baier’s # of 3500 or if she just always starts her answers with a “yeah”

  2. Gennaro pupa

    January 11, 2022 at 10:01 am

    Does anyone believe that the FOUNDERS of our country would someday find a LIAR on the Supreme Court of the United States of America?
    Sotomajor……RESIGN NOW!

  3. KP1708

    January 12, 2022 at 9:21 am

    Why is a SCOTUS justice considering facts (right or wrong) NOT PRESENTED IN THE CASE?
    She is not being a judge, rather is acting like an activist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Prestigious Science Journals Confirm Censored Views: Masks at Best Don’t Reduce COVID Infection



Screen Shot 2021 05 18 at 12.58.58 PM scaled

Just The News reports that a prestigious science journal has confirmed what was highly censored among social media regarding the novel coronavirus pandemic: “the best-case scenario for one of the most common COVID-19 interventions may be that it has no measurable effect on infection.”

A systematic review of studies of mask mandates for children, published Saturday in the British Medical Journal‘s Archives of Disease in Childhood, found “no association” with infection or transmission in 16 of the 22 observational studies and “critical” or “serious” risk of bias in the six countervailing studies. It got the attention of Elon Musk, owner of X, formerly Twitter.

Emails turned over under public records requests show that National Institutes of Health officials were privately questioning the effectiveness of cloth masks and forthcoming vaccines just a month after then-NIH Director Francis Collins appeared to plot with colleagues to organize a “quick and devastating take down” of the anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration.

Self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher the more often people said they wore masks, according to a Norwegian study accepted for publication Nov. 13 in the Cambridge University Press journal Epidemiology and Infection.

An analysis published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Nov. 20 suggests that “scientific censorship is often driven by scientists” and not just “authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance,” as popularly believed.

The paper, co-authored by dozens of scholars known for challenging orthodoxies in their fields, cited “self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups” as motives for censorious scientists.

Heterodox COVID scholarship may suffer hard-to-prove “camouflaged censorship” by way of “double standards” applied to such research, the paper states.

The findings cast further doubt on the practice of not only public health authorities but scientists themselves in demonizing science-based skepticism of the effectiveness of COVID interventions, particularly in relation to their potential medical, mental and social harms.

“Masking recommendations appear to be entirely based on mechanistic and observational data,” they wrote, noting that a much broader systematic review of mask RCTs by the research collaborative Cochrane concluded masks make “little to no difference” against flu or COVID.

(Cochrane unilaterally reinterpreted the study to downplay its findings, over the authors’ objections, after facing media scrutiny.)

You may like

Continue Reading