1/ What we are currently suffering, is a pandemic of the unelected.
There is no off-ramp for any of these restrictions—and they all know it.
Because the problem is political, the solution must also be. So I'm running for congress.
👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇
2/ This is my call to Team Reality. Politicians, the media, the only thing they pay attention to is $$. If they see $$ flooding an anti-mandate, pro-liberty candidate in Rochelle Walensky’s back yard, they WILL pay attention. emilyburns.vote
3/ No one believes this has cross-party appeal, that you can use it to capture the middle. They think it's a Twitter phenomenon. Like it or not, the ONLY way to show them it’s real, is with money. I’ve contributed $250K of my money to this. emilyburns.vote
4/ I put that $250K in, because it is imperative to me that we have this conversation NOW. If, after having had that conversation, we decide we are going to be a submissive, masked, permissions-based society, fine—I was wrong (woe to us then). emilyburns.vote
5/ But at least I will have known that I did all in my power to change that. I know many feel the urgency of this. I know you know that this is NOT manufactured crisis on Twitter, but the defining civil rights issue of our time--one we can't get wrong. emilyburns.vote
6/ Because I know you feel the urgency, I have no shame in asking you to support me financially. We are all in this fight together, and we must support the fight as we are able. emilyburns.vote
7/ Many of you over the course of the past year+ have asked how you could thank me for my research, support, analysis and advocacy. This is how you can thank me—and it has the added benefit of helping to support the exact cause you ALSO care about. emilyburns.vote
8/ The truth is, I am very well off (I couldn’t give $250K, if I were not). If elections in this country could be bought, I could afford it. But they can’t (not yet). emilyburns.vote
9/ Beyond that, I will tell you straight out, people will say that this is a vanity campaign, that I’m just a rich white woman who wants attention. And they will use those things to dismiss my message—OUR message. emilyburns.vote
10/ This is why I need YOUR financial support. Because if I have an army of small donors, this is not a message they can ignore. emilyburns.vote
11/ As I said, I’m well-off. My friends are well-off. But as will surprise no one here, there is very little appetite to push back on these policies among the well-heeled. My position is extremely unpopular--but we must have the conversation. emilyburns.vote
12/ When I first talked to the people who are helping me with my campaign, they ran some polls and showed me the results. I know they wanted me to back off talking about masks and mandates, because they look like losing issues in this district.
13/ But for me, we simply have to have this conversation. I am not piggy-backing on public opinion, I am going against it, trying to change, or perhaps to "liberate" it, from fear of censure. People don’t feel like they can push back on these policies. emilyburns.vote
14/ All public policy must be open to discussion, to free and robust debate. Again, I might be wrong. This may be what people in this district. But I don’t think we’ve really had enough open conversations now to say that.
15/ Many of you who follow me live outside of Massachusetts. You may think that you can ignore what happens here. But what happens here finds its way to Washington, and impacts YOUR kids, too. (Dr. Walensky, etc.)
16/ We are all in this fight together. And this is why I am asking you to support my campaign, wherever in the U.S. you are, however you can
I will continue to support this fight with research, analysis, and activism--in fact I am re-doubling my efforts emilyburns.vote
17/ If you can donate, THANK YOU!
If you can volunteer, THANK YOU!
If you can host an event, small or large, THANK YOU!
If you need help w/mandates or otherwise, DM me.
17/ This campaign is going to be very grass-roots, and very event-based, so I hope you will sign up on the campaign web site, so that you can be in the loop. I can’t wait to meet more of you in-person.
1/ Just looked @ CDC's AZ school-mask study. What a load of garbage. Here’s why:
-No info on actual # of cases, or # of kids in school
-No info on testing levels
-52% of schools WITH mask reqs were small (<850) vs. 13% in No-Mask Schools
-Case rates 2.4x in no-Mask Areas
2/ When numbers are missing, it tells you something. The key number here SHOULD be, number of cases/child. That they chose outbreaks instead is...fishy. That 52% of masked schools were small, vs. 13% of un-masked, is important. Fewer kids in schools = Outbreak less likely.
3/ It's kind of amazing they needed to do this. The CDC basically set its "close contact" rules for schools to "prove" masks work.
In situations where both kids are masked, a masked contact DOESN'T count as a contact, AND THUS DOESN'T NEED TO BE TESTED. cdc.gov/coronavirus/20…
3/ This applies to hospitalizations, too. And one must also remember than in May, the CDC told hospitals to stop testing fully-vaxed people, unless there explicitly FOR COVID.
3/ I do think that the mask mandates are being kept in place to ⬆️ child vax uptake. B/c cdc knows parents want kids unmasked, is this supposedly benign intervention to encourage a better future outcome causing them to be willfully blind to potential harms?
1/ The overall effects of this study are miniscule—0.07% absolute reduction in seroprevalence. But the topline finding is “We decreased seroprevalence by 10%!”
Technically true...
But even this finding is questionable. Let's explore.
2/2/
What the study ACTUALLY measures is the impact of mask promotion on symptom reporting. Only if a person reports symptoms, are they asked to participate in a serology study—and only 40% of those with symptoms chose to have their blood taken.
3/ Is it possible that that highly moralistic framing and monetary incentives given to village elders for compliance might dissuade a person from reporting symptoms representing individual and collective moral failure—one that could cost the village money? Maybe?
1/ Trying to mask the abject failure of blue state COVID responses, a new success metric has been rolled out: Vax levels. But whole pop. vax levels, mask much lower variance in at-risk groups. What's more, deaths in 65+ from Jan-Jun are NOT linked to vax levels.
2/
Some will say that the vaccination level of the population is important b/c those other vaccinations are shielding the at-risk further. But excess deaths since January are NOT tied to higher levels of whole population vaccination.
4/ The push to vax well beyond the at-risk represents another installment of “following the science” where sadly, fealty to “the science” does not produce any measurable result. This new metric—whole pop. Vax—is designed to wash away all the other failures docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…
1/ The proof (long-suspected) that the mRNA (like AZ DNA) vaxes do not offer sterilizing immunity is now being used to push wider vaccination among kids to acquire “herd immunity.” This makes no sense—it should be the opposite. wsj.com/articles/vacci…
2/ AZ is the only manufacturer that did weekly testing of trial participants to evaluate the efficacy of vaccines in stopping infection—not just disease. These results showed that the AZ standard dose had no impact on reducing asymptomatic infection.
3/ Neither Pfizer’s nor Moderna’s trials did this. Pfizer’s recorded 170 infections (162 control v. 8 vax) However, data in the FDA’s review showed an additional 3410 suspected cases—1816 control/1594 vax. This would reduce efficacy from 95% to 19%. blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04…