This and That---December 26, 2025 Edition

A few random observations, charts and factoids to provide some context on what is going on in the world.

Gasoline Prices

The so-called media mavens who inhabit New York City, LA and Washington, D.C. scoff at President Trump claims about cheaper gasoline prices. Trump has even alluded to $2 per gallon gasoline in some places. They laugh and call him crazy.

Meanwhile, here are the real facts.

They apparently need to get out of the blue bubble that they live in.

Gasoline prices nationally are the lowest they have been since March, 2021 during the pandemic.

Source: https://www.gasbuddy.com/charts

Average prices in the state of Oklahoma are around $2.25 per gallon.

Source: https://www.gasbuddy.com/charts

Prices below $1.90 per gallon could be found in the suburbs of Dallas, TX on Christmas Eve according to GasBuddy.com.

Source: https://www.gasbuddy.com/gasprices/texas/dallas

$2.00 gas can also be found in my home state of Ohio.

Source: https://www.gasbuddy.com/gasprices/ohio

I saw prices as low as $2.11 the last few days in Cincinnati.

When it is also considered that median household incomes today are about 20% higher than they were four years ago, gasoline prices are taking a smaller share of household income than they were a decade ago.

Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N

It does not help that home prices and health care costs are through the roof but a key factor that contributed to the increase in most other consumer prices over the last four years has been gasoline and energy costs. 

The fact that gas prices are heading down, even though the media does not want to believe it, is positive news looking to 2026.

Obamacare Subsidies

Congress adjourned for the year without taking any action on extending the additional Covid-era Obamacare subsidies that will expire on December 31.

These additional subsidies were enacted by the Democrats in 2021 as a temporary Covid relief measure.

Although the Democrats set the expiration date in the original legislation they are now blaming Trump and the Republicans for refusing to extend the subsidies beyond 2025.

When Obamacare first went into effect, the federal government (taxpayers) subsidized two-thirds of the healthcare plan costs for those who enrolled. This was a great deal as these people either had to pay 100% of the cost previously or were uninsured.

However, at the same time, the coverage requirements of Obamacare immediately increased the costs of these health plans for individuals.

By 2020, as coverage costs rose the subsidy level had increased to about a 75% subsidy.

The additional Covid-era subsidies that are set to expire on December 31 increased that subsidy to 93% in 2025 meaning that the enrollee only paid 7% of the cost and taxpayers picked up the other 93%.

Expiration of the extra subsidy would reduce the subsidy to an estimated 80% of the full cost.

This is the same subsidy amount provided by the federal government for Medicare Part B premiums and is in line with the 75%-80% cost that most employers subsidize employer provided healthcare.

This raises the question as why the taxpayers should be subsidizing healthcare costs for those on Obamacare plans at a higher level than is being done for those on Medicare and those covered by employer plans?

Source: Paragon Health Institute

Compare the increase in the subsidy levels over time in the chart above by the Pargaon Health Institute.

Billions more have been spent on Obamacare subsidies over the last decade to cover up the true costs to enrollees.

Total Obamacare subsidies were $18 billion in 2014. They were $138 billion in 2025 (an increase of 8x).

The expiration of the additional Covid-era subsidies would still leave almost $110 billion in subsidies for those on Obamacare (an increase of 6x since 2014).

The reality is that the subsidies are just papering over the utter failure of Obamacare and delaying the real reform of healthcare that is necessary.

Demography is Destiny

I often write that demography is destiny.

That was a big focus in my recent blog post on Africa.

Here is another factoid that adds more context to what is going on in the world right now with birth rates.

Only 3% of all births in the world are in North America and 5% in Europe.

85% are in Asia and Africa.

And a lot of those in Asia and Africa (not to mention South America) want to come to North America and Europe.

Warren Buffett likes to say that is you are born in the United States you won the birth lottery.

These numbers prove it.

These numbers also suggest why it makes sense to have a secure border and a sensible (and enforced) immigration policy in the United States.

Demography is Destiny---Part 2

Demography is also destiny in the United States.

An interesting graphic on changes in child population in red states vs. blue states since 2000.

This graph from The Wall Street Journal adds some additional context.

Credit: The Wall Street Journal

There is a 76% chance today that a liberal woman between the ages of 18-35 is childless.

The odds of that happening with a conservative woman of the same age is only about 35%.

What is really astounding is the extent to which that gap has widened over the last 10 years.

Is there a Trump effect in all of this wherein liberal women refuse to date or marry men who are Trump supporters?

Can anyone project where this ends?

Presidential Approval

This is another fact that you undoubtedly did not see in the mainstream media recently.

As of mid-December, Donald Trump had a higher approval rating than either Barack Obama or George W. Bush at the same point in their second terms. This is based on an average of all polls compiled by RealClearPolitics.com.

I hope everyone had a very Merry Christmas!

Misleading Myths of Medicare for All--Part 2

As we head into 2026 the one thing I am confident about is that you are going to hear more and more Democrats saying they support "Medicare for All".

This woman is the former Co-Chair of the Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign for President.

Bernie Sanders popularized the concept and name in his Presidential campaigns in 2016 and 2020.

In my last blog post, "The Misleading Myths of Medicare For All" I wrote about how misleading the political rhetoric about the idea is.

Simply stated, those who promote the idea are akin to snake oil salesmen from yesteryear who sold false promises to an unsuspecting audience.

It is no different today when it comes to the promises being made about Medicare for All to the American people.

Let's dismantle another couple of myths about Medicare for All in this blog post.

The biggest claim made is that Medicare for All is going to produce gigantic savings by removing private health insurance companies from the process.

I put this claim in context in my last blog post.

Even if you removed all of the claimed "profits" and administrative costs of the private health insurers it would amount to only about 10% of what is now spent on healthcare in the United States. 

That is equal to just the increase in health care expenditures in the U.S. in the last year.

Advocates of Medicare for All claim that taking the "profit motive" out of healthcare is going to make it less expensive and more efficient.

However, that theory fails when tested against the real world of healthcare.

We already can compare costs between "For-Profit" and "Non-Profit" hospitals.

You would think Non-Profit hospitals would have lower costs. There is no profit that needs to be accounted for in pricing. Taxes don't have to be paid. The total focus should be on providing quality care at the lowest cost.

However, that is not the case.

Here are the latest average costs per inpatient day for hospitals based on ownership according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Non-Profit hospitals have higher costs per inpatient day (as do state/local government hospitals) than For-Profit hospitals.

Costs per day in Non-Profit hospitals are actually 30% higher than in For-Profit hospitals

Hospital Expenses per Adjusted Inpatient Day by Ownership Type

Source: https://www.kff.org/health-costs/state-indicator/expenses-per-inpatient-day-by-ownership/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

Why?

While Liberals love to demean and demonize the "profit motive" and capitalism in general, the reality is that accountability is increased and the chances for fraud, waste and abuse are substantially diminished when someone has "skin in the game."

That is a fundamental problem with all government programs.

There is no real incentive to control costs from people who are not stakeholders.

We have just seen it in spades in Minnesota with the recent disclosure by the U.S. Attorney of a massive "industrial-scale" Medicaid fraud in that state.

Source: https://www.newsweek.com/minnesota-medicaid-fraud-billions-tim-walz-11239997

Some $9 billion in Medicaid claims paid out in Minnesota since 2018 may be fraudulent, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson, a federal prosecutor involved with the probe, said Thursday, calling it "staggering, industrial-scale fraud," per the Associated Press.

Fraud, waste and abuse can be found anywhere but odds are much higher that bad actors will take advantage of government programs where there is less accountability and no one has skin in the game.

There is also less accountability in non-profit organizations than in for-profit entities for the same reason.

The best answer as to why there are higher inpatient costs with non-profit hospitals is this lack of accountability. 

Non-Profits are not accountable to tax collectors, shareholders, and most particularly patients, due to our third party payment system where it is rare that the bill is paid by the person receiving the treatment.

A "profit-motive" is not necessarily the evil it is portrayed as. It is an important foundational element of accountability and protection against waste, fraud and abuse

The comparison of the cost structure of Profit vs, Non-Profit hospitals should not provide much comfort that Medicare for All is going to produce lower costs and a more efficient healthcare delivery system in the United States.

The other big claim of Medicare for All advocates is that it would eliminate out of pocket costs, deductibles, copays and coinsurance for Americans.

This has become a popular talking point as more Americans are now covered by high deductible health plans.

However, the fact is that only 10.4% of all health care expenditures in the United States are out of pocket expenses.

That number was almost 33% in 1970.

For context, out of pocket expenditures were actually slightly more (10.5%) in 2017 than they are currently when there were fewer high deductible plans.

High deductible plans have not resulted in an increased share of total health costs in the United States being borne by individuals despite the popular narrative.

What is also interesting is that despite the fact that Medicare for All advocates argue that such a plan would result in no out of pocket costs for individuals (no deductibles, copays, coinsurance or medical debt) the reality is that the countries that they point to as models for socialized medicine ( such as Australia, Austria, Canada, Israel, Germany, South Korea, Sweden) actually have higher out of pocket costs as a percent of current health expenditures than the United States does.

Compare the amount of out of pocket costs for the citizenry in those selected countries compared to total healthcare expenditures..

How much better can it get on this score? 

Out of pocket expenditures in the United States are already a lower percentage of total national health expenditures than it is in all these countries that are touted as having "free" universal health care.

The situation is even worse for citizens in countries that embrace the socialist ideals most fervently such as in Cuba, China, Russia and Venezuela.

It is even worse in Mexico where the current President is a leftist socialist who is a proponent of a social democrat welfare state.

Is it any wonder millions have crossed the border from Mexico over the years for free emergency department care in the United States?

You can count on Democrats making Medicare for All a big issue heading into the 2026 mid-term elections.

A big reason for this is a recent poll they commissioned that showed 65% support a Medicare for All system for the United States.

Yes, it all sounds great until you start looking at the facts as I have detailed above and in my blog post of last week.

However, doesn't sound quite as good when you find out that the proposed legislation that Bernie Sanders and other Democrats are touting. That legislation would eliminate private health insurance completely, it would require most people to pay more in taxes, it might threaten current Medicare for seniors and would undoubtedly result in delays in getting medical tests and treatments.

What can be done to control healthcare costs?

Attempts to control costs are akin to trying to change course heading into a Category 5 hurricane.

There is no easy answer despite what glib politicians might tell you. In fact, as I have written before in a post from 2017 "Why Is Health Care So Expensive", everything suggests that the problem will get even worse no matter what the policymakers do. 

Every factor today is trending against controlling health care costs.

More and more expensive medical technology becomes available each year. 

Americans have rebelled against every attempt to limit choice in selecting doctors, hospitals, etc.

Americans are getting older and healthcare costs go up with age. 

Americans are not getting any healthier and the United States still has more money to spend on healthcare than any other country. 

How could health care costs take a smaller bite of our economy and household budgets?

There are only three options.

1. Hospitals, doctors and other providers have to make less money.

2. Patients need to see their care rationed or limited in some way.

3. We all need to get a lot healthier.

The bottom line is this.

There will be no gains in controlling healthcare costs without a lot of pain on someone...and most likely, everyone.

Don't let any politician convince you otherwise.

If you want to actually consider a system of healthcare that might work at controlling costs, while serving the American people better, read another blog post I also wrote in 2017  titled "Revolutionary Replacement".

A revolutionary plan along the lines I am describing has some elements that both Republicans and Democrats should like. There are also elements that both would dislike. That tells me that it is probably a sensible replacement approach.

My suggestion for a broad-based tax to finance the cost of the catastrophic coverage would include using tariff revenues or a border tax. If we are going to allow imports access to our market it is reasonable that they should help bear some of our social costs. This also has the advantage of aligning with President Trump's economic policies.

The Misleading Myths of Medicare For All

As health care costs continue to rise, we hear more and more calls for "Medicare for All".

Here is an example from a woman who is Executive Director of the "Campaign for New York Health" which is fighting to have universal, single-payer healthcare in the United States.

Advocates for Medicare for All seem to be under the delusion that there would be no premiums, deductibles and copays and medical dcbt should not exist under such a system

They claim that removing the insurance industry from the healthcare market would reduce administrative costs and industry profits would result in $650 billion in savings.

Let's take a look at some of these statements by looking at how Medicare actually works right now for senior citizens. 

When you understand how the current Medicare program works I hope you can see how misleading all of this "Medicare for All" talk is.

The Funding of Medicare

Medicare was originally established as a program to cover Hospital costs (Part A) and non-Hospital costs (Part B) such as doctors visits, diagnostic tests, etc. 

A 1.45% payroll tax is levied as part of the FICA taxes on payrolls to fund Part A. This tax applies to both employees and employers so it amounts to 2.9% on all payrolls in the United States. It is a flat tax so it applies to everyone. This base amount is not a progressive tax like the income tax. However, those with incomes above $200,000 ($250,000 joint income) are subject to an additional 0.9% tax on wages. 

Part B is paid for with 80% federal dollars (paid with general revenues) and 20% by those on Medicare through a monthly premium. The premium is $202.90 per month in 2026. There is no subsidy or reduction for those on low incomes. Everyone has to pay it to have Part B coverage for non-hospital costs. Those with annual incomes above $109,000 ($218,000 joint) pay more.

Prescription drug coverage was not a part of original Medicare. A big reason is that very few drugs were used in treatments in 1965 when Medicare was enacted. Drugs are now covered under Part D of Medicare but that requires an additional premium for coverage and there are also separate deductibles and coinsurance with that program as well. These plans are totally run by private insurers. The average premium is around $40/month and an annual deductible of of up to $615 is required.

Keep in mind the current Medicare FICA tax is to just pay for those currently on Medicare. How much higher would taxes have to be to also cover those under age 65 today? How high would the monthly Part B premium be under Medicare for All? What about the premium for drug coverage?


Medicare Does Not Pay Everything

Medicare as it exists today has fairly substantial deductibles and coinsurance amounts in addition to the monthly premiums and payroll taxes in effect.

There is a $1,736 annual deductible under Part A in 2026. That means the first $1,736 in hospital costs are paid by the individual. If you are in the hospital for more than 60 days there is a $434 coinsurance payment required for each day up to the 90th day. That goes up to $868 per day for days 91-150.

Under Part B there is an annual deductible of $288 and you also have to pay a 20% coinsurance amount on every bill.

As you can see, there are fairly substantial out of pockets deductibles and coinsurance under Medicare. The deductibles are also adjusted upwards each year with inflation.

While private insurance typically covers you for foreign travel, there is no coverage under Medicare.

How would anyone believe that "Medicare for All" would have no premiums or out of pocket costs when Medicare today charges monthly premiums and extensive deductibles and coinsurance?

In order for seniors to protect themselves against high deductibles and coinsurance amounts and to have coverage if they travel outside the country, most obtain private supplemental coverage.

For context, the average senior couple on traditional Medicare is paying the following per year and still may have some out of pocket costs on top of this.

Medicare Part B premium.                      $4.870

Medicare Part D premium.                           960

Medigap Premium (see below)                  4,800

Total Annual Cost                                  $10,630

Some are paying much more.

Does this look like it is "free"?

Private Insurance

Due to the fact that Medicare does not pay for everything a robust private supplemental insurance market has been developed by private insurance companies to cover the gaps in coverage.

About 80% of those on Medicare have some type of private insurance to supplement Medicare. These "Medigap" plans, as they are popularly known, have different core plans with varying costs based on how much of the "gap" they cover, the age and gender of the individual, where they live and whether they smoke. 

Here is an sampling of rates for a 65-year old woman who does not smoke. This would be  be the lowest cost coverage a senior could receive under a Medigap plan. Many would pay more based on age, gender and where they live. Plan G is the most popular plan at $180/month.

Source: https://www.valuepenguin.com/best-medicare-supplement-plans

About 50% of those on Medicare rely on Medicare Advantage plans that are totally administered by private insurance companies. These are plans that Medicare enrollees can elect to participate in and forego traditional Medicare. The private insurance companies receive a flat amount from Medicare and the private companies assume all the risks and costs for the coverage of the individual.

These plans have proven popular as enrollees in these private plans typically can get better coverage with lower premiums than with traditional Medicare. However, they operate as managed care plans that mean you are limited to in-network hospitals and doctors.

As you can see, private insurance companies have a significant presence and role in Medicare. Is it realistic that we would completely eliminate private insurers from the healthcare landscape considering the presence they have in Medicare right now?

Administrative Costs

Advocates for Medicare for All argue that under such a system there would be enormous cost savings because all of the private insurance company costs and profits would be removed from the system.

However, as I have pointed out in a previous blog post, if you removed all of the costs of the insurance companies out of all the health expenditures in the United States you will still have 93% of the costs remaining.

I don't know where the Medicare for All advocate above concludes that $650 billion would be saved if private insurers would be removed from the system. Profits in the industry were a reported $71 billion. I assume the rest might be assumed administrative costs.

Let's assume her numbers are correct. Consider the fact almost $6 trillion will be spent tin 2026 in total healthcare expenditures in the United States. That means insurance company profits make up only about 1% of total healthcare costs. How much difference is that going to make in reducing costs?

Even is you take out all of the administrative costs (an impossibility) you still have only moved overall costs down by about 10%. That alone is equal to the annual increase in Medicare Part B premiums looking to 2026.

In other words, the health insurance companies are good targets for political  rhetoric but eliminating them from the system will have almost no impact on total costs.


Medicare Reimbursements

What is likely to occur if we were to convert to a "Medicare for All" system is that countless numbers of hospitals would be forced out of business and we would surely see many doctors retire or quit the practice of medicine.

Why?

The truth about Medicare is that, on average, it only pays healthcare providers at a level that is about 80%-85%% of their actual costs. In other words, many hospitals would have to drastically cut services and/or costs in a Medicare for All world or they would quickly go bankrupt.

Source: https://www.aha.org/2024-01-10-infographic-medicare-significantly-underpays-hospitals-cost-patient-care

The current system only works today because private insurers and payers pay providers at about 2x-3x the rates that Medicare and Medicaid pays. In effect, the private sector is subsidizing the costs of public sector programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Source: https://hospitalmedicaldirector.com/improving-physician-commercial-health-insurance-rates/

If Medicare reimbursement rates were universal doctors and hospitals would see their revenues and incomes drop drastically. 

Since almost 50% of doctors in the United States are 55 years of age or older, it is not hard to predict that many would choose to retire rather than to continue operating their practices. What incentive would they have to continue practicing?

How do we not see substantial cutback in services if the revenues of healthcare providers are reduced to the level of Medicare reimbursements?

How do doctors, nurses and others who provide healthcare services not see their compensation reduced if the government is the only payer?

This would be the reality of a Medicare for All system. 

Conclusion

Don't believe what you are being told about Medicare for All.

Most of the arguments in favor of it are misleading myths.

Medicare as we know it is going bankrupt as it is. The current payroll taxes are insufficient for the long-term needs of the system.

Medicare would already be bankrupt without the enormous amount of subsidies the private sector is providing to the health care system which simply could not function with current Medicare reimbursement rates.

Medicare is not free and it has extensive deductibles and coinsurance amounts in place.

Medicare relies heavily on private insurance companies to cover gaps in coverage.

You can take all of the costs and profits of private insurers and drug companies and you would barely put a dent in the nation's total healthcare expenditures.

Medicare for All is simply not workable without massive tax increases on every American and/or substantial reductions or cutbacks in the access to care that they are used to. There is no other way around the math wherein we are projected to spend almost $6 trillion on health care in the United States in 2026.

 Anyone who tells you anything differently is simply not being honest with you.

They are merely telling you misleading myths about Medicare For All.

Measles Misinformation

Mainstream media has recently been playing up measles outbreaks in the United States.

Almost 2,000 confirmed measles cases have been confirmed across the United States this year with the largest current outbreaks centered in upstate South Carolina and West Texas.

Measles Cases in U.S. as of 12/10/25
https://www.cdc.gov/measles/data-research/index.html

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/measles/data-research/index.html

Of course, the popular media and Big Medicine narrative is that this is the fault of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. or President Trump.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-15380649/RFK-Jr-US-measles-status-outbreak-surge.html

What is not being reported is that Canada has had 5,329 measles cases this year despite having only 12% of the population of the United States.

In fact, the province of Ontario alone has had more cases than the entire United States.

Source: https://health-infobase.canada.ca/measles-rubella/

Therefore, on a per capita basis, Canada has had 20 times the number of measles cases as the United States this year.

I wasn't aware that RFK, Jr had so much influence in Canada?

What is also not being reported is that the CDC recommendation for vaccination for measles is for children to have their first dose between the ages of 12-15 months.  A second dose is recommended between the ages of 4-6 before school entry.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/hcp/recommendations.html

If you do the math, RFK, Jr. and Donald Trump did not have any authority or influence 12-15 months ago when any parents of children might not have followed the CDC recommendation on the measles vaccine.

If you go back 4-5 years can you think of any reasons that children did not get vaccinated at that time?

Could it have been because children could not get normal appointments to see the doctor because of Covid hysteria?

Could we also be seeing the harmful effects of l the loss of faith in vaccines generally because of the questionable Covid vaccines? This has undoubtedly fueled vaccine hesitancy because of the lack of trust in public health authorities in numerous decisions during the Covid pandemic.

What is also not being reported is the likelihood that the measles outbreak in both Canada and the United States have been fueled by high levels of immigration in the last few years.

Consider the huge surge of immigrants into Canada in the last several years.

Source: https://www.edwardconard.com/macro-roundup/canada-added-1-3mm-immigrants-last-year-equivalent-to-the-us-adding-more-than-10mm-immigrants-in-a-year-pkedrosky-notes-that-the-resultant-rise-in-real-estate-prices-and-other-impacts-will-likely-c/?view=detail

It is hardly a far-fetched notion that importing this many people in such a short period of time could have had an impact on why measles cases have exploded in Canada.

The same could also be true in the United States as we are all too familiar with the surge of migrants into the country during the Biden years.

Source: https://cis.org/Camarota/Overview-Immigration-Numbers

West Texas has a large population of migrants from Central and South America. So do other states in the Southwest that have seen increased cases of measles this year.

A number of cases in the South Carolina outbreak have been traced to a Slavic church in Spartanburg, SC that has a large number of Russian and Ukrainian immigrants.

Source: https://www.goupstate.com/story/news/local/2025/12/11/spartanburg-sc-measles-outbreak-dynamics/87704863007/

Way of Truth Church is a Slavic language congregation with a large contingent of immigrants from Ukraine, said Fedotov, who was born in the neighboring country of Moldova and moved to the United States at the age of 13.

One of the first two schools to have measles cases early in the outbreak was Global Academy of South Carolina, a K-8 charter school that is popular among Ukrainian families.

About 70 percent of its students come from a home in which a Slavic language is spoken, a school official said.

The measles vaccine was credited with the official elimination of this disease in the United States in 2000.

The CDC itself admits that since 2000 any new cases found in the United States would be from a foreign source.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/measles/data-research/index.html

All of this should show you how misleading the media is on the measles outbreak.

It is easy to put the blame on RFK, Jr. and Trump.

It is not as easy to point the finger and loss of trust in the public health authorities during Covid and the masses of immigrants who have come to the United States and Canada the last several years.

Doing that would simply be outside the bounds of political correctness and be contrary to the popular media narrative.

All of this should also be a reminder that nothing is ever as black and white as many as the medical authorities want to portray things.

There is a lot of evidence that the measles vaccine is effective.

However, like any medical intervention, it is not risk-free. 

The recently revealed longitudinal study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children at Henry Ford Hospital of over 18,000 children that were born at that hospital between 2000 and 2016 showed significant differences in the long-term health effects of the two groups.

In fact, in all 22 chronic health conditions that were monitored in the study, vaccinated children were worse off.

Source: https://expose-news.com/2025/12/13/reanalysis-of-the-henry-ford-study/

In absolute terms, the risks of developing cancer or autism in vaccinated children is still small.

For example, only 1% of vaccinated children developed cancer compared to 0.66% for those unvaccinated.

Neurodevelopmental disorders were only observed in about 6% of vaccinated children in the study compared to less than 1% in the unvaccinated.

Most children do just fine with the vaccines.

However, most children also do just fine if they contract the measles.

Before the introduction of the measles vaccine, the death rate from measles in the United States was about 1 in 10,000 (.0125%).  That was 400-500 deaths per year.

There is a cost/benefit trade off with the vaccines as there is with every other medical intervention.

Is the benefit of the vaccine against the measles worth the cost or an increased risk of cancer, autism or another condition?

Most health care professionals say yes.

However, as more parents become aware that the vaccination decision is not risk-free to their child, more have decided that the potential cost is potentially higher than the benefit.

That is what informed consent is supposed to be about.

Having access to all of the information on both sides of the issue so as to properly balance benefits and costs.

The only reason it has not been that way in the past is that childhood vaccines have too often been promoted as "all benefit" and "no cost".

Too often the medical community has decided they know better than anyone else.

"We can't give people all the information because they then may not make the RIGHT decision."

 

Of course, the only decision that is right is what they have decided is right.

And not being providing all of the information to make an informed decision is the worst misinformation you can have.

Africa---An Outsized Future

Africa has a huge land mass. 

However, the most common map used, called the Mercator projection, makes Africa appear smaller than it actually is.

Source: https://www.worldatlas.com/geography/world-map-mercator-projection.html

Africa is way bigger than you think.

Look at the usual flat map of the world and it appears that Greenland is nearly as big as Africa. But it’s not even close. Africa is 14 times larger. Flat maps significantly distort the sizes of countries and continents, the result of converting a spherical surface to a handy rectangle. The area of landmasses becomes increasingly exaggerated toward the poles.

As a result, we tend to underestimate the size of countries close to the equator, and substantially overestimate the size of countries closer to the poles. On our actual planet, Africa is bigger than China, India, the contiguous U.S. and most of Europe—combined! 

Source: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-many-countries-fit-in-africa-visualizing-the-continents-true-size/

Africa is comprised of 54 countries.

Africa has a current population of 1.5 billion people.

However, that population is not evenly distributed across the continent,

Consider this graphic.

That red area is centered around Nigeria.

Nigeria has a population of almost 240 million by itself.

Ethiopia, on the other side of the continent, is second in population size with 135 million people.

Egypt is third with 118 million.

For context, the European Union has about 450 million people and there are 340 million currently in the United States.

However, if we look at annual births it is a completely different story.

Despite having a much larger population than the United States, the EU will have fewer births than the United States this year.

This low fertility rate, combined with the mass of migrants that have entered Europe, are primary reasons that I believe Europe will no longer be Europe in a generation or two.

In fact, that view is shared in a recent National Security Strategy assessment that was recently released by the Trump administration that said this about Europe.

“Should present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less. As such, it is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies.” 

“Many of these nations are currently doubling down on their present path. We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence.”

However, let's compare births in Europe and the United States to Nigeria and Ethiopia. 

Nigeria (7.5 million) has more births than the United States (3.7) and the European Union (3.6) COMBINED! 

This is despite the United States and Europe having a combined population that is over 3 times that of Nigeria.

Ethiopia is seeing more births (4.1 million) than both Europe (3.7) and the United States (3.6) individually. This is despite the fact the population of Ethiopia is only 30% of the size of Europe and 40% of the U.S.

Take a look at the population pyramid of Nigeria.

Nigeria's 240 million of population is distributed this way

It is an actual pyramid and a steep one at that.

Nigeria Population Pyramid

52% of the population of Nigeria is 19 years of age or younger. That is 125 million people.

41% are 14 or younger. 98 million people.

Compare Nigeria to the population pyramid of the United States.

It isn't even a pyramid in the U.S. anymore.

There are more people in the United States between the ages of 65-69 than between the ages of 0-4.

There are more people age 70 and over than there are children under the age of 10.

United State Population Pyramid

Nigeria has 40 million more children between the ages of 0-14 than the United States has.

There are 98 million children of that age in Nigeria compared to 58 million in the United States.

If we are concerned about how we can feed, sustain and educate 58 million children in the U.S., how is it going to be done in Nigeria?

In the meantime, there are complaints in the United States that it is a violation of human rights to exclude soft drinks and candy from food stamp eligibility?

We have 82 million people under the age of 20 in the United States.

If we are questioning where the jobs are going to come from in an AI world for these 82 million, how do all of the 125 million children of that age in Nigeria become gainfully employed in the future?

For perspective, the United States today has 20 times the GDP per capita of Nigeria.

While we are also concerned about where the power is going to come from for AI, in sub-Saharan Africa they barely have enough power for each person to turn on a 50 watt light bulb .

The entire country of Nigeria generates less electricity than Wyoming which is the least populated state in the U.S.

Grok provides actual data comparing Nigeria and Wyoming.

Nigeria's average generation hovers around 4 GW amid frequent blackouts, compared to Wyoming's 10 GW capacity, per IEA and U.S. Energy Information Administration data, underscoring chronic underinvestment in grids.

There is no chance for prosperity without power. Where is it going to come from in Africa? 

Europe's population pyramid is even more distorted.

Europe has essentially the same number of people age 0-19 (20.7% of the population) as it has of those age 65 and older (20.2%). 

It is likely to soon get even worse as births continue to fall.

How are all of those pensions in Europe going to be paid?

       

Europe Population Pyramid

One final interesting factoid involving Africa is that of the estimated 1.2 billion ethnic Blacks in the world (15% of the world's population), 85% live in Africa.

However, 1/3 of the entire population of Blacks in the world reside in just three countries ---Nigeria, Ethiopia and the United States.

The size and growing populations in Africa will impact the world in many ways in the coming decades.

We are already seeing it in migration patterns.

The largely untapped natural resource potential of Africa will also undoubtedly impact the future.

Africa may look smaller than it really is on a flat map.

However, it will be of outsized importance in what happens in the world over the remainder of this century.

It remains to be seen whether Africa will see the leadership it needs for its people to prosper on that continent or internal failures lead to ramifications in other parts of the world.

Figures and Liars

It has been said that "figures don't lie but liars figure".

Mark Twain is also known for this quote about statistics.

The sentiment expressed in these quotes is popular because the fact is that most people have a difficult time with numbers.

Therefore, numbers and statistics can be used to manipulate people to further an agenda or narrative.

This was in evidence in the campaign of Zohran Mandami in New York City who told voters he is going to provide them with city owned grocery stores for lower prices, free public transportation, universal child care and lower housing costs.

When the question was put to him how all of this was going to be paid for he casually answered it can all be done by just taxing millionaires an extra 2%.

Let unsaid is that there are just 38,000 people that have that type of annual income in New York City out of a population of 8 million 

What he does not say is that extra 2% in tax rate actually will amount to a 52% increase in the income taxes paid by that small millionaire class.

The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 1% would increase from 40% of the total to 61%!

Source: https://www.empirecenter.org/publications/parsing-the-impact-of-mamdanis-tax-hike-plans/

Of course, all of this assumes that those high earners stay in New York City and do not move to New Jersey, Connecticut, Texas, Florida or somewhere else.

Mandami uses the absolute 2% tax rate to make the financial cost seem small when the reality is that the relative cost of the tax increase is very high.

Numbers don't lie. However, liars can make numbers misleading.

There is no area in which absolute risk and relative risk is used more deceptively than in the healthcare sector.

This was particularly true with Covid and the vaccines.

You are probably familiar with the claim that the vaccine trials were said to be 95% effective in reducing the risk of serious illness from Covid.

Bear in mind that the 95% claim was quickly conflated so that people believed the vaccine was 95% effective in preventing you from catching or transmitting Covid.

How did people get this idea?

People who were in positions of trust told them that.

The CDC Director said this at one time.

“We’re vaccinating so very fast, our data from the CDC today suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick, and that it’s not just in the clinical trials but it’s also in real world data,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said.

President Joe Biden said this to the American people.

“You’re not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci claimed that the vaccines created a dead end for the virus.

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/553773-fauci-vaccinated-people-become-dead-ends-for-the-coronavirus/

None of these statements were true. 

Is this an example of how liars figure?

Or are these just examples of simple misinformation for purposes of "the greater good"?

The ability of the vaccines to prevent Covid or transmission of the virus was not even evaluated in the clinical trials or proven in the clinical trials. The vaccine was only evaluated on its ability to prevent SERIOUS illness. 

In fact, I pointed all of this out in October, 2020 (two months before the vaccines were first rolled out) in a blog post titled "What You Should Know About The Covid Vaccine".

Prevention of infection is the normal critical end point goal for any vaccine trial. The vaccine should be effective at preventing infection and stopping the spread of the virus. This is particularly important at this time when we have a virus that has caused a pandemic.

However, that is not the stated goal of the Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson vaccines that are currently in late stage trials with the expectation they will be ready for widespread distribution within several months.

The vaccines are to be considered a success merely if they reduce the severity of the symptoms of someone who is infected with Covid.

In effect, the clinical trials were designed to be a success merely because the bar was set so low.

However, even then, that result was framed as relative risk.

Absolute risk involves raw numbers.

It tells you the actual risk that something will happen.

The Pfizer Covid vaccine trial had 21,700 subjects in each clinical test arm.

In the vaccine arm, 8 of the 21,700 got seriously ill with Covid.

In the placebo arm, 162 out of 21,700 had the same result.

Even without the vaccine, 99.3% did not get seriously ill with Covid.

The absolute risk of catching a serious case of Covid without the vaccine was a mere 0.7% higher compared to those taking the vaccine.

However, the vaccines were marketed claiming there was a 95% risk reduction by comparing the 8 and 162.

How many people took the vaccines believing they were reducing their risk of catching Covid by 95% when the actual absolute risk reduction of serious illness was less than 1%?

It was the same with the Moderna vaccine.

It was marketed with the claim that it reduced the risk with Covid of 94%. That was relative risk.

The absolute risk reduction was only 1.2%.

How many parents vaccinated their children believing they were protecting them and others in their families from catching Covid when the actual risk reduction was effectively zero?

How many schools mandated Covid vaccination in order to attend classes when the actual risk reduction of serious illness was almost a rounding error?

This takes on added significance with the recent disclosure by the FDA's vaccine chief who stated in an internal memo that they have determined at least 10 children died as a direct result of the Covid vaccines. He also stated that the actual number is likely higher.

 

You can read the entire memo here.

I wrote this in April, 2021 (six months before the FDA gave the approval to vaccinate children).

The younger someone is the more they probably need to be concerned about any unknown longer term side effects of the vaccines since the accelerated preliminary clinical trials had no way of investigating these possible effects.

Considering the risks of Covid are practically zero for children (the chances of dying in an accident are almost 50x* more likely), and longer-term side effects of the vaccine are unknown, in my view there is no justification whatsoever for vaccinating this population.

In October, 2021, right after the decision of the FDA was made to approve the use of the Covid vaccine on children age 5-12, I wrote another blog post on the subject titled "The Biggest of Bets".

Why did I say that?

It was because the vaccines had seen very limited testing on children and the risks seemed to far outweigh any benefit. It had been known for a long time that children were at almost no risk of death or hospitalization from the virus in the first place.

What was the point of giving a vaccine to children with limited testing (especially on possible long-term effects) to prevent serious illness that we already knew from the data that they had almost no risk from?

It was the biggest of bets on something where there was essentially no upside.

All potential costs. No potential benefit. That is a really bad bet especially when it comes to children who have their whole life ahead of them.

Medical professionals directing the Covid response seemed to forget the foundational rule of medicine.

First, do no harm. 

My assessment also included looking at the relative and absolute risk that was reported in the clinical trials.

Sadly, it looks as if I was correct in everything I wrote about involving my concerns about vaccinating children and most everything else about the Covid vaccines.

In fact, former CDC Director Robert Redfield who was at the helm at the CDC when the pandemic began, and the vaccines were being developed, stated this week that the mRNA vaccines for Covid should be phased out and removed from the market because of their risk profile.

Link: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/former-cdc-director-calls-for-removal-of-mrna/id1471411980?i=1000740521213

Whether it involves raising taxes in New York City or hyping vaccines, you can see how absolute and relative numbers can be used to mislead and obscure the truth of any situation.

Anytime someone starts throwing numbers around take a step back and consider whether they are talking about absolute or relative numbers.

It is also wise to also put any numbers in context.

After all, as I often say in these pages, context is everything when assessing anything!

If you want to view a good video explaining the difference between absolute and relative risk I recommend you view the following video that will only take 2.5 minutes of your time.

Link: https://x.com/redpilldispensr/status/1986056439492657330

Now you can go figure all you want.