By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Attorney General Pam Bondi attributed the seizure of over 22 million fentanyl pills and 3,400 kilos of fentanyl in President Trump’s first 100 days to saving 258 million lives. This calculation, provided by the DOJ, is based on the amount of fentanyl seized and its purity level, divided by a lethal dose. While the methodology has been questioned, the claim centers on the prevention of potentially fatal overdoses. Further investigation is needed to verify the accuracy and assumptions within the calculation.
Read the original article here
The claim that the Department of Justice attributes 258 million lives saved to the actions of a certain president is, to put it mildly, astonishing. The sheer magnitude of the number alone warrants a significant level of scrutiny, especially considering the context of claiming such a dramatic impact on global mortality within a relatively short timeframe.
The mathematical justification provided is based on fentanyl seizures, converting seized weight into potential lethal doses. However, this calculation fundamentally ignores numerous critical factors. The assumed purity level of the seized fentanyl is likely not consistent across all 3,400 kilograms, and the lethal dose varies drastically depending on individual factors like weight, tolerance, and the method of administration.
Furthermore, the assertion that this equates to saving 258 million lives implies a scenario where these lethal doses were somehow poised for imminent and widespread distribution to an equal number of individuals. This presupposes a logistical impossibility, an unseen, incredibly sophisticated network ready to distribute a sufficient quantity of fentanyl to cause 258 million deaths in just 100 days.
Even if we were to grant the accuracy of the calculation, the claim still suffers from a profound logical flaw. Globally, the average daily mortality rate is far less than the number needed to support this claim. To “save” 258 million lives over 100 days would require preventing a number of deaths that is significantly greater than the normal global death toll during that period. This sheer magnitude makes the claim statistically and practically improbable.
The leap from seized drugs to lives saved suggests a significant disconnect between the reality of drug trafficking and its impact on mortality. While drug seizures are undoubtedly a positive step in combating the opioid crisis, they cannot realistically be extrapolated to such an outlandishly high number of lives saved, as if some immense, imminent disaster has been averted.
The claim is further complicated by an earlier, smaller figure (“119 million lives saved”) that mysteriously increased. The explanation offered – that the initial figure excluded FBI data – lacks transparency. Without thorough accounting and corroborating evidence from independent sources, the claim is simply unsustainable.
Some individuals have attempted to find humor in the absurdity of the claim, using sarcasm and exaggeration to highlight its incredulity. Others express disbelief and express frustration at the apparent disregard for logical consistency and factual accuracy. It’s undeniable that such a claim will elicit a reaction ranging from bewilderment to outright outrage, particularly when juxtaposed against more realistic mortality statistics.
The claim’s absurdity extends beyond just numbers; it reflects a pattern of unsubstantiated assertions and a tendency towards hyperbole. The use of such a significantly inflated claim erodes public trust and undermines attempts to engage in meaningful discourse around important issues, like fentanyl trafficking and the opioid crisis.
Ultimately, the assertion that 258 million lives were saved is not merely inaccurate, it’s demonstrably nonsensical. The attempt to justify this claim with a flawed calculation only serves to amplify the concern regarding the transparency and integrity of the information being presented. The magnitude of the discrepancy between the claim and reality undermines the credibility of the source and the context in which it’s made.