Some -berg wrote yet another story for The Atlantic about how Drumpf is Literally Hitler. That's not really remarkable, they've been doing that for a decade. This one's way worse though. Here's the story in case you want to lose some braincells:
Inside this bloviating article (ever notice how -bergs always write like that? It's like they're addicted to the sound of their metaphorical voice), the -berg claims that Trump promised to pay for the funeral expenses in public, and then later declined to do so in private and referred to the victim (Army soldier murdered by another soldier - yes, black) as "a fucking Mexican".
Trump became angry. “It doesn’t cost 60,000 bucks to bury a fucking Mexican!” He turned to his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and issued an order: “Don’t pay it!” Later that day, he was still agitated. “Can you believe it?” he said, according to a witness. “Fucking people, trying to rip me off.”
Not only is this an obvious hitpiece, because the story takes place in 2020 and the article has been published on Oct 22, 2024, two weeks before the election. It's also completely fabricated, according to basically everyone, including the victim's family.
Here's the woman's sister's reaction: https://files.catbox.moe/046zv3.png (https://ghostarchive.org/archive/ULjFG)
Here's the reaction of the family's attorney: https://files.catbox.moe/ndvsyf.png (https://ghostarchive.org/archive/LSidL)
Another lawyer: https://files.catbox.moe/un33pm.png (https://ghostarchive.org/archive/TtGaQ)
And here's the translator that was present when Trump was talking to the family: https://files.catbox.moe/x7rt6l.png (https://ghostarchive.org/archive/vDeJU)
You don't hate journalists enough. You might think you do, but you don't.
No, not the disease itself. Despite media's renewed attempts to scaremonger about it, just don't go to any piss orgies and don't have sex with black crackwhores and you're fine.
Plenty of us remember how it went the last time. A new infectious disease starts spreading almost solely among homosexual men, media try to whip up a new frenzy like with the coof, people notice it's a gay disease that spreads exactly like GRIDS, then a couple of small children adopted by gays get infected, then a dog, and then the whole thing disappears from media like someone flipped a switch.
That was two years ago, which might as well been in the Pleistocene as far as the normie is concerned, and it's an election year in the US, so it's time for round two. Mpox cases are far outpacing last year's numbers, CDC reports.
Here's the thing, though - It wasn't just a couple children infected, as people tend to remember based on news report from the last time, it was dozens:
During May 17–December 31, 2022, 125 probable or confirmed U.S. monkeypox (mpox)† cases were reported among patients aged <18 years, including 45 (36%) in children aged ≤12 years. Eighty-three cases in persons aged <18 years diagnosed during May 17–September 24, 2022 were previously described (1); 28 (34%) of these were in children aged ≤12 years, 29% of whom did not have reported information on exposure. Among 20 (71%) of 28 patients with documented information on exposure, most were exposed by a household contact.
During September 25–December 31, 2022, 17 children aged ≤12 years with probable or confirmed mpox were identified through national surveillance. CDC provided a questionnaire to state and local health departments for collection of the child’s history of exposure to any person with mpox§ during the previous 3 weeks, exposure settings, types of contact (e.g., skin-to-skin, being held or cuddled, diaper change, or toilet use), and precautions taken by the person with mpox (e.g., practiced isolation or covered lesions). This activity was reviewed by CDC and was conducted consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy.¶
Three of the 17 pediatric patients were aged ≤7 days and had likely perinatal exposures; all three neonates were non-Hispanic Black or African American (Black). Two of these three mpox cases in neonates were previously reported (2). Ten of the remaining children were aged 0–4 years, and four children were aged 5–12 years. Nine patients were boys, and five were girls; nine were Black, two were Hispanic or Latino, and three were non-Hispanic White. Seven of the children aged 0–4 years, and two of those aged 5–12 years had known exposure to a person with mpox (Table); in five cases, the exposure source was unknown. Six of the seven children aged 0–4 years and both children aged 5–12 years known to be exposed to mpox were exposed by a caregiver or a household contact. Five of nine children with known exposure to a person with mpox were reported to have had close physical contact; notably, four of five children aged 0–4 years had skin-to-skin contact. Five of the nine children were exposed to a person with mpox who reported taking at least one precaution, including four persons who reported isolating. Two of these household contacts reported sharing a bed, bedroom, or bathroom with the child.
During the study period, 1.3% (1,118/84,614) of confirmed mpox cases globally were in patients <18 years of age. Most (61.8%, 691) were from the WHO Region of the Americas, followed by the African Region (30.3%, 339), the European Region (7.5%, 84), the Eastern Mediterranean Region, (<1%, 3), and the Western Pacific Region (<1%, 1) (Figure 1). No cases in patients <18 years of age were reported from the South-East Asia Region.
Data on self-reported sexual behavior were limited for mpox case-patients <18 years of age. However, 37/166 (22.3%) of case-patients 13–17 years of age self-identified as men who have sex with men (MSM) (Table 1). Eleven cases involved persons living with HIV, 1 of whom was immunosuppressed. Another 6 case-patients reported immunosuppression, as defined by their care providers, that was caused by undisclosed medical conditions. Overall, 67/293 (22.9%) of cases with information provided had a stated epidemiologic link to a known mpox case.
The CDC and the NIH obviously can't be expected to do any kind of analysis that might potentially produce politically incorrect results, so there's nothing in there about homosexuality at all, but that's not surprising. I just thought I'd add some horrifying details about the whole thing since I saw it mentioned last night in a comment, and I saw these citations on Kiwifarms earlier.