Scamdemic - Corona Virus

Beware of the Lettuce!

3 Comments
by  Aaron Reich  via : The Jerusalem Post  Why Jerusalem Post?!
 
Governments would never sneak mRNA Franken-lettuce into a Franken-meal, right?

Injectable vaccines could be a thing of the past, with University of California Riverside (UCR) researchers investigating turning edible plants like lettuce into mRNA vaccine factories and make edible vaccines, which could have significant implications in combating COVID-19.

Backed by a $500,000 grant from the National Science Foundation, the project works by showing how DNA with mRNA vaccines can be delivered into plant cells in a way that lets them replicate. If this works, it could mean that plants could produce as much mRNA as a traditional vaccine injection.

“Ideally, a single plant would produce enough mRNA to vaccinate a single person,” UNCR’s Department of Botany and Plant Science’s Prof. Juan Pablo Giraldo said in a statement.

“We are testing this approach with spinach and lettuce and have long-term goals of people growing it in their own gardens,” added Giraldo, who is leading the research and working in collaboration with researchers from UC San Diego and Carnegie Mellon University. “Farmers could also eventually grow entire fields of it.”

Perfect with your Klaus Schwab-approved monthly allowance of dietary roaches

But how do mRNA vaccines replicate inside plants?

The key, it turns out, are chloroplasts. These small organelles exist exclusively in plant cells, and cannot be found in non-plant life forms, save for the amoeboid known as Paulinella chromatophora.

The amount of chloroplasts per cell varies heavily depending on the plant. Inside the cell, they behave dynamically and serve a wide variety of functions such as synthesizing fatty acids, amino acids and helping the plant’s immune response.

But its most famous and crucial function is to conduct photosynthesis, where chlorophyll captures energy from the light of the Sun and turning it into energy stored in ATP and NADPH molecules. This process allows it to free oxygen from water in the cells. It also then conducts what is known as the Calvin cycle, using ATP and NADPH to convert carbon dioxide into glucose.

These processes are vital to maintaining the life of a plant, as well as maintaining life on Earth. This is because through photosynthesis, plants essentially “breathe” carbon dioxide while releasing oxygen as a waste product, which is not only the opposite of most life forms, which breathe oxygen and release carbon dioxide, but is also responsible for producing and maintaining Earth’s oxygen as a whole.

But the ability of chloroplasts to convert sunlight and carbon dioxide into glucose and other molecules has other implications, with Giraldo saying that they are an “untapped source for making desirable molecules.”

And he has evidence to back this up. His prior research has shown that chloroplasts can express genes not naturally part of the plant if foreign genetic material is properly sent into the plant cell. Of course, this could only be done if the material was encased in the proper protective material, and figuring out which material would be used can be especially tricky. However, it is exactly this that Giraldo’s laboratory specializes in.

But to get it in, one needs nanotechnology. That is why Giraldo has partnered with UC San Diego nanoengineering specialist Prof. Nicole Steinmetz to deliver the mRNA material into the chloroplasts.

“Our idea is to repurpose naturally occurring nanoparticles, namely plant viruses, for gene delivery to plants,” Steinmetz said. “Some engineering goes into this to make the nanoparticles go to the chloroplasts and also to render them non-infectious toward the plants.”

If successful, these findings could revolutionize how vaccines are administered into the human body. This is especially relevant, as vaccine hesitancy is strong in many places throughout the world [yeah I don’t think Frankenstein lettuce is going to help with that], something that in the COVID-19 pandemic, the most widely-used vaccines for which are mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, can contribute to rising cases.

But this method could see vaccine hesitancy take a significant cut. This is because a significant amount of all vaccine hesitancy isn’t simply rooted in doubts over the vaccine’s effectiveness or misunderstandings about the virus and the vaccine’s properties, but due to a simple fear of needles. [LOL. Absurd.]

This was revealed in a study released in June 2021 by the University of Oxford, which suggested that treating fear of needles could reduce vaccine hesitancy by over 10%.

This may be a small number, but as noted by Oxford’s Department of Psychiatry’s Prof. Daniel Freeman, “When it comes to controlling COVID-19, every vaccination counts.

Scamdemic - Corona Virus

BOMBSHELL: FDA Allows Whistleblower Testimony, Yes, COVID VaXxs Are Killing and Harming People!

4 Comments

by Brian Shilhavy via  Health Impact News

The FDA held a Vaccine Advisory Committee meeting yesterday (September 17, 2021) to discuss authorizing a third Pfizer COVID-19 “booster shot.”

There were signs heading into the meeting this week that there could be some fireworks at this hearing, as two top vaccine research scientists at the FDA, Dr. Marion Gruber and Dr. Phillip Kause, the Director and Deputy Director of the Office of Vaccines Research, recently resigned.

This followed a report published in The Lancet from 18 officials at the FDA opposing the Biden Administration’s plan to start distributing Pfizer “booster shots” later this month (September, 2021) before the FDA had even approved them.

To say that there were fireworks at the Vaccine Advisory Committee meeting yesterday might be a gross understatement. The 18 member committee voted 16 to 2 AGAINST approving the booster shots, although later they did give their endorsement on approving them for people 65 and older.

During the “open session” part of the meeting, dissenting doctors questioning the Pfizer shots were given a chance to address the public with their concerns, and they presented to the public REAL data about the shots that up until now has been heavily censored.

Dr. Joseph Fraiman, an emergency room physician from New Orleans who did his studies at Cornell Medical School, stated that there are no trials large enough yet to prove that the COVID-19 vaccines reduce hospitalization without causing serious harm.

He lamented the fact that the “vaccine hesitant” coming into his emergency room were more educated on the risks of the COVID-19 vaccine than those vaccinated.

 I know many think that vaccine hesitants are dumb, or just misinformed. That’s not at all what I’ve seen.

In fact typically, independent of education level, the vaccine hesitant I’ve met in the ER are more familiar with vaccine studies, and more aware of their own COVID risks than the vaccinated.

For example, many of my nurses have refused the vaccine despite seeing COVID-19 cause more death and devastation than most people have.

I ask them why refuse the vaccine?

They tell me while they’ve seen the first hand dangers of COVID, the elderly, the obese, diabetics; they think their risk is low.

They’re not wrong. A 30-year-old female has about a 1 in 7000 chance of catching COVID and being hospitalized over it.

He pointed out that a recent study showed that the risk of vaccine-induced Myocarditis (heart disease) in young males is higher than their risk from hospitalization from COVID.

He called for larger studies to be conducted.

We the medical establishment cannot confidently call out anti-COVID-19 activists who publicly claim the vaccines harm more than they save, especially in the young and healthy, the fact that we do not have the clinical evidence to say these activists are wrong, should terrify us all.

Steve Kirsch, the Executive Director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, also gave testimony, and he began his comments with:

I am going to focus my remarks today with the elephant in the room that nobody likes to talk about, that the vaccines kill more people than they save.

He presented data to prove that the belief that these vaccines are “safe” simply isn’t true. He gives several facts to show this, most all of which we have previously covered here at Health Impact News.

For example, people have 71 times more risk of heart attack following COVID-19 vaccines than any other vaccine.

Kirsch claims that expert analysis of existing data, including the 6-month Pfizer trials and VAERS data, prove that the shots kill more people than they allegedly save.

About 411 deaths per million doses. That translates into about 150,000 people have died (from the Pfizer shots).

He then presented some data from the Israel Ministry of Health.

The real numbers confirm that we kill more than we save. And I would love to look at the Israel ministry of health data on the 90+ year olds where we went from a 94.4% vaccinated group to 82.9% vaccinated in the last 4 months.

In the most optimistic scenario it means that 50% of the vaccinated people died and 0% of unvaccinated people died. Unless you can explain that to the public you cannot approve the boosters.

Dr. Jessica Rose, PhD, MSc, BSc, whom we have featured previously here on Health Impact News and has done extensive studies on the VAERS data, also gave a presentation where she showed that we have had a 1000% percent increase in adverse events following COVID vaccines, as compared to all previous vaccines in prior years, something we have covered extensively here at Health Impact News.

Listen to the presentations of these three doctors. This is from our Bitchute channel, and it is also on our Rumble channel.

Will the FDA and Biden Administration Approve the 3rd Pfizer COVID-19 “Booster shots”?

It is important to understand that this was an “Advisory” committee meeting, and they do not set policy. The FDA could still approve the 3rd Pfizer COVID-19 shot against the recommendation of the Advisory Committee.

Also, these three doctors who shared the truth about the data are not part of that committee, but testified during the “open comments” section of the meeting.

But the fact that the FDA allowed their comments is very significant, as they are now in the public record.

There is obviously some infighting going on at the FDA regarding the Pfizer COVID-19 shots. What could be the reasons for this?

I see two potential reasons why this could be happening.

First, this could be a “drug war,” where Pfizer’s competitors are upset that Pfizer is getting so much of the market share on the COVID-19 vaccines, and they are applying pressure through their contacts at the FDA to start discrediting Pfizer and slow down their rapid race to dominate this market.

Or, secondly, people are starting to abandon ship on the Biden Administration as the current COVID-19 vaccine narrative is now falling apart very quickly, as hundreds of thousands of people are now screaming to have their voices heard regarding their negative experiences with the COVID-19 shots, and the FDA and others are trying to cover their butts in the event that there is a regime change and people start getting arrested for crimes against humanity.

I hope for the second scenario, but fear it is probably the first one.

If the Biden Administration and their handlers on Wall Street believe they are still firmly in control of this mass vaccination campaign that is really an act of genocide and crimes against humanity, then they will just go ahead and approve Pfizer’s third shot anyway, without the approval of this committee.

They will basically tell the American people and their business rivals that they know we are on to them, and that they don’t care because they believe that nobody is going to do anything to stop them.

We know what side the corporate media is on, as they continue to publish the lies that the unvaccinated are filling up hospitals and responsible for spreading COVID-19 variants, and of course they gave no press coverage to the dissenting doctors who testified at the Committee meeting yesterday (at least I did not find anything after doing a corporate media news search.)

Will America do what is necessary to fight these medical tyrants, who are the minority and could be easily overpowered if enough people resisted, or will the nation continue to stand aside and let them press on with their mass eugenics program to reduce the world’s population?

This is most certainly a turning point in human history, not just for the United States, but for the entire world.

Scamdemic - Corona Virus

Debunking Biden’s Claim We Must “Protect The Vaccinated From The Unvaccinated”

Leave a comment

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

The official line on vaccines is that they are extremely effective at protecting against serious illness. And yet, these same people are also claiming that the unvaccinated are a major threat to the vaccinated.

More specifically, President Biden claimed on September 10 that vaccine mandates were to “protect the vaccinated workers from unvaccinated workers.”

In other words, it is claimed that vaccines are remarkably effective, and that the vaccinated must also be protected from the unvaccinated. How can both claims be true at the same time? They can’t. The idea that vaccinated people are being frequently harmed by the unvaccinated is a complete fabrication, based on the pro-mandate crowd’s own mainstream data.

As Robert Fellner points out, according to the official data,

The odds of a vaccinated person dying from COVID are 1 in 137,000.

The fatality rate for seasonal flu, meanwhile, is at least 100 times greater than that. The chance of dying in an automobile accident is over 1,000 times greater. Dog attacks, bee stings, sunstroke, cataclysmic storms, and a variety of other background risks we accept as a normal part of life are all more deadly than the risk COVID poses to the vaccinated.

Moreover, the risk of death to vaccinated people is similar to the risk of having an adverse side effect to the vaccine. And as the spokesmen for Big Pharma and the regime never tire of telling us, you shouldn’t care about having an adverse reaction, because it is so very rare and inconsequential.

So by that reasoning, vaccinated people shouldn’t worry about getting very ill from covid. Those cases are just as rare as the so, so rare cases of adverse reaction.

And yet, even after all of this, the backers of vaccine mandates are trying to whip up hysteria about how we must “protect the vaccinated” who are in grave danger thanks to the unvaccinated.

The level of mental and logical incoherence necessary to come to this conclusion is quite a feat.

It Doesn’t Stop the Spread

It must also be remembered that vaccination does not stop the spread of covid.

Fellner continues:

But as [the CDC’s] Dr. Walensky explained last month, while the COVID vaccines remain incredibly effective at preventing serious illness and death, “what they cannot do anymore is prevent transmission.” This reflects the official position of the agency as well, which is why the CDC now requires vaccinated people to mask indoors and follow the same type of social distancing practices as unvaccinated people.

The official confirmation that COVID is endemic, and vaccination cannot stop transmission and thereby eliminate it in the way it could for things like polio and smallpox, makes mandates intolerable to a free society. The entire argument for mandatory vaccination originally rested on the claim that the vaccines could reliably stop transmission.

Moreover, those who are vaccinated often experience a mild form of covid when they are re-infected, which means they often spread the disease without even knowing they have it. The vaccinated also carry the same viral load as the unvaccinated, as noted last month by the UK’s Evening Standard:

While evidence demonstrates that vaccines significantly reduce hospitalisations and deaths, scientists now believe those infected by the Delta variant can still harbour similar levels of virus to those who are unvaccinated.

Previous thinking was that vaccinations would stop the spread, but now,

[T]his has been thrown into doubt and raises questions about vaccine passports … which work on the assumption that double-jabbed people are less likely to spread the virus.

Yet again, we see the notion that the vaccinated are being endangered by the unvaccinated is a fantasy of the mandate activists.

At least the CDC is being logical when it says the vaccinated should keep wearing masks. Indeed, every time we hear this from the CDC we should remind ourselves: vaccination does not stop the spread.

They’re Filling Up the Hospitals!

There is a secondary fallback position the mandate pushers also use: that the unvaccinated are taking up all the intensive care beds and therefore denying people with other conditions the hospital beds that are allegedly more deserved by others.

As I pointed out here, this is also an inconsistent argument since this arguments rests on the idea that people who make unhealthy choices (like not taking a vaccine) ought to be treated as pariahs.

This only applies to one single “unhealthy choice.” These mandate pushers are apparently perfectly fine with drug abusers, smokers, and morbidly obese victims of Type-2 diabetes—the numbers of whom have been multiplying— filling up all the ICU beds. No, those people deserve their hospital beds even though they made the choice to destroy their own health. In fact if one suggests people lay off the meth pipe, the Big Gulps, or the Marlboros—in an effort to improve health—one is an intolerable “fat shamer” or someone who blames the victims.

In any case, recent data has also emerged questioning whether or not the data on hospitalizations is very useful in identifying the load imposed on ICUs by covid patients.

A recent study showed that nearly half (i.e., 48 percent) of covid hospitalizations in 2020 were mild cases. According to The Atlantic (not exactly a hotbed of anti-vaccine rhetoric):

The study found that from March 2020 through early January 2021—before vaccination was widespread, and before the Delta variant had arrived—the proportion of patients with mild or asymptomatic disease was 36 percent. From mid-January through the end of June 2021, however, that number rose to 48 percent. In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease.

And why are there fewer severe cases now? It may be because “unvaccinated patients in the vaccine era tend to be a younger cohort who are less vulnerable to COVID and may be more likely to have been infected in the past.”

Get Vaccinated Even If You Already Had Covid!

But no matter! All that matters is getting people vaccinated, and it’s all for your own good, and governments ought to be able to force medications on you. The cynical refrain of the pro-abortion Left, “get your laws off my body” only applies to one single case. In every other case, the state owns you.

This drive for vaccination no matter what can also be seen in the effort to vaccinate even those who have already recovered from covid. The claim here is that those who natural immunity should get jabbed because they have a higher incidence of reinfection—although it is admitted cases of reinfection tend to be far milder than the initial case.

Specifically, those pushing vaccination in this case may point to a study suggesting the unvaccinated are 2.34 times more likely to be reinfected than the vaccinated.

Yet, according to the pro-mandate crowd, this is 2.34 times larger than an extremely small number. After all, we’re frequently told that cases of reinfection for the vaccinated are “extremely rare” and inconsequential. So, that means for the unvaccinated, the odds of reinfection are a little more than double an inconsequential number. Now, I don’t have a degree in mathematics, but I have taken enough calculus and statistics classes to know that 2.3 times “basically zero” is also “basically zero.”

But that is the math being used by those who insist that the risk of reinfection for the vaccinated is negligible, while the risk of reinfection for the already-recovered is an enormous public health crisis.

According to the mandate pushers’ own data, the drive to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated makes no sense at all. But I suspect they’ll stick with the slogan, or even double down on it.

On the Road to Serfdom ?

Closed Borders Over a Virus That is Everywhere

3 Comments

by  Jeffrey A. Tucker via : Brownstone Institute

On matters epidemiological, I’m a dedicated follower of Professor Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University, scientist and novelist. It was she who granted me a broad understanding of the relationship between society, freedom, and infectious disease.

She explained the urgency to get this right lest we recreate and institutionalize a caste system that delineates one group from another based on perceived cleanliness and thus harms everyone while setting back human rights and freedoms.

Looking at data only gets one so far. We all need deeper understanding. She gave me that.

Also, she is a wonderful person.

So of course I wanted to bring Sunetra to the United States for a Brownstone Institute event. She is a hero among many in the United States, and people deserve to meet her and get her thoughts. She lives in London. It’s a nice flight from there to here. Why not?

It cannot happen, at least not now. Since March 2020, UK citizens cannot travel to the US unless they have some special exemption granted by the US government. I’m not even sure I would know how to obtain that. I’m guessing that the Biden administration is not likely to grant an exception for her.

So we are stuck. She is stuck. Here is the map of the world from the point of view of UK travelers. Only Mexico and Columbia are fully open. The states in orange are restricted. The states in red are closed.

Hundreds of millions of people are stuck. Billions. We are all prisoners at some level and in some ways. We cannot have guests visit us from Europe. In retaliation, Europe is mostly closed to the US. The US has loosened restrictions for Australians but Australians are not allowed out. Or have a look at Sweden, one of the few states in the world that did not lock down. They are not allowed to travel much at all outside their own borders due to restrictions from other nations. 

Why some nations are open, and others are not, is a mystery. There does not seem to be any rational reason except for vague claims of the need to be safe from Covid. Our governments did this to us. They intervened in a world of happy world travelers and smashed it, in the name of controlling a virus that is absolutely everywhere and has been for two years. 

There is no precedent in modern history for such restrictions. There is also very little debate about this, which is shocking. The world spent decades in outrage about the closures between East and West Germany. Tear down this wall! When the Berlin Wall fell, the whole world celebrated. Now the world is filled with walls, not just to migration (though it’s bizarre that the US actually has huge immigration inflows from the Southern border) but even to normal travelers.

Much of this began January 31, 2020, when Trump banned travel for non-US citizens from China. It was a controversial decision within the administration, even among public-health experts, because it had long been conventional wisdom that such travel bans are harmful.

The virus was already here and spreading, though in those days the US had very little testing and so Trump believed that he could perhaps keep the virus out. He was wrong about that. Even so, I recall some people on the left objecting but the travel ban connected with many people’s intuition that the way to deal with a virus is to force some kind of separation.

That travel ban unleashed two habits of thought that ended up driving the rest of the lockdowns. 

The first habit was to believe that the virus is over there but not here. It doesn’t matter where the “there” and the “here” is; it’s just a reflection of a primitive belief that “they” are dirty and “we” are clean, or that the virus is some kind of miasmic fog floating somewhere where we are not. If you live in the miasmic zone, some of the bad air might stick to you. This later came to be the driving impulse behind state-level quarantines and restrictions.

You probably noticed this yourself. No matter where you live, the people there always imagined that they were in some kind of disease-free bubble that could be easily penetrated by invaders. This attitude still persists. In the Northeast of the US, vast numbers of people are somehow convinced that Texas and the South are full of disease, such that if you travel there and come back, you are likely carrying this virus. And this isn’t just about the vaccination rates; this habit of mind was there from the beginning.

That connects directly with the second habit of mind: the belief that the way to control the virus was via human separation. One you start to think this way, the logic becomes unstoppable. It’s not just about the Chinese. It’s about everyone outside the border. Outside the state. Outside the county. Outside the neighborhood. Outside the home. Outside this room. 

The implications of this view are profound. It impacts directly on the possibility of human freedom itself.

On March 12, 2020, Trump announced the next step, which shocked me but should not have. He blocked all travel from Europe. He said this would reduce the threat and ultimately defeat the virus – a statement that embodies his highly confused views on this matter from the beginning. He also garbled a sentence that ended up having a devastating economic result. He meant to say that the ban would exempt goods. Instead he said the following: “These prohibitions will not only apply to the tremendous amount of trade and cargo, but various other things as we get approval. Anything coming from Europe to the United States is what we are discussing.” The stock market immediately tanked.

I had no idea that the US president even had such power. I certainly never imagined he would use it. On the other hand, it made sense in a crazy way. If he could stop travel from China to keep the virus out, he could stop travel from anywhere. As a result of one man’s decision, world travel and vast amounts of normal commerce came to a halt. 

The virus circulated anyway, not only in the US but everywhere in the world.These days the world makes fun of places like Australia and New Zealand where they imagined that they could somehow keep the virus out by controlling people’s movements in and out of the country. But that is precisely what Trump was doing too! 

As a result of his edict, millions of Americans living abroad desperately bought tickets to get back to the US before the ban went into effect. They arrived at international airports that were wildly crowded at all the immigration and customs chokepoints. The waits in Los Angeles and Chicago were many hours, even up to 8 hours, standing shoulder to shoulder with people who had flown in from all over the world. This was happening the same day that Drs. Fauci and Birx were lecturing Americans to “socially distance” and stay away from other people in order to control the virus. The whole scene was emblematic of two years of policy chaos, with leaders ordering people around in ways that made the chaos worse rather than better.

During the remainder of the Trump term, between March and January, people inside the administration were trying their best to stop these preposterous rules. But there was always a problem. The danger was that opening up travel again could somehow be associated with increased cases and deaths from Covid, and that contract tracing would be deployed to show it. In that case, whomever was responsible for reopening would catch the blame. No one inside the Trump administration was willing to take the risk. So everything stayed shut. 

The Biden administration could have opened also but the same problem presented itself. The borders were shut to the world, and no one wanted to take the risk of reopening, even though the virus was already here, there, and everywhere. Opening would not have made any difference. Would it have increased the “spread” of the virus or its prevalence? Not any more than was already the case.

Further, we know for sure that being exposed to the virus is the best means to obtain immunities from it, from which we get the counterintuitive conclusion that it would actually be safer for everyone to have people travel here from countries that had already dealt with the virus. After the vaccine came along, one might have supposed that there would be opening at least to those who took the jab, but there was another problem: the gradual realization that the vaccine doesn’t actually stop infection or spread. Thus are the borders still closed to this day. 

There was no consensus in public health for the travel bans. On March 2, 2020, 800 public health experts signed a letter that recommended against them. “Travel restrictions also cause known harms, such as the disruption of supply chains for essential commodities,” they wrote, while citing a piece in Science Daily that reviewed thousands of studies on travel bans that was unable to come up with any conclusive evidence that they accomplish anything in terms of disease containment.

Already back in 2006, Donald Henderson had echoed the conventional wisdom, not only of his colleagues but also of the World Health Organization. 

Travel restrictions, such as closing airports and screening travelers at borders, have historically been ineffective. The World Health Organization Writing Group concluded that “screening and quarantining entering travelers at international borders did not substantially delay virus introduction in past pandemics . . . and will likely be even less effective in the modern era.”

Similar conclusions were reached by public health authorities involved in the international efforts to control SARS. Canadian health authorities report that “available screening measures for SARS were limited in their effectiveness in detecting SARS among inbound or outbound passengers from SARS-affected areas.” A review by a WHO Working Group on SARS also concluded that “entry screening of travelers through health declarations or thermal scanning at international borders had little documented effect on detecting SARS cases.”…

It is reasonable to assume that the economic costs of shutting down air or train travel would be very high, and the societal costs involved in interrupting all air or train travel would be extreme.

The longer these restrictions exist to travelers from other countries, the more resentment that foreign nations feel. They are retaliating. Indeed, states all over Europe have removed the US from the list of countries to which it is considered safe to travel. Even Sweden is in on the act, banning nonessential travelers from the US. The restrictions are getting worse, not better. 

The US could end this escalation of restrictions that have shut down the beautiful world of travel simply by reopening to the world, same as was true before the Trump administration embarked on this wild experiment. The emergence of global travel in the 20th century – its universal availability and practice – was one of the great triumphs of liberalism and modernity. 

We rejected the isolation, parochialism, and local stagnation of the past and sought out knowledge and adventures all over the globe. We encountered new people, new places, new experiences. The world became open to all, thanks to commercialized flight. This also generated an incredible positive externality for public health. More exposure to the world improved immune systems for individuals the world over – a point first made to me by Professor Gupta.

Then in an instant it was closed. International tourist arrivals are down by 85% from 2019. A third of the world’s borders are shut. There seems to be no movement in the direction of reversing this disaster and reinstituting the wonderful world of 2019. In fact, there seems to be very little awareness that this has happened to us much less of the terrible consequences. Forget the freedom of movement; the Biden administration has only promised to open up “when it is safe to do so.”

Why is there so little controversy about this and no real political pressure from anyone to do something about it other than a handful of business lobbyists? It’s like many other aspects of lockdowns. Both parties and ideologies are implicated in them. If everyone’s hands are dirty, there is no one available to clean up.

Sunetra Gupta is one person among billions who cannot come to the United States by virtue of having the wrong citizenship identity and passport. She is locked out, in the name of virus control. There should be outrage, and would be if the restrictions on travel did not compete with so many other policies worthy of outrage. 

 

Scamdemic - Corona Virus

Local Detroit TV – Over 180K Vaccinated, Injured or Dead

3 Comments

by Brian Shilhavy via Health impact News

Source.

The corporate media narrative that unvaccinated people are filling up the hospitals and dying from COVID is quickly falling apart, perhaps faster than they even expected.

WXYZ TV Channel 7 in Detroit asked their viewers on their Facebook Page last Friday to direct message them if they lost a loved one due to COVID-19 if they refused to get one of the COVID-19 vaccines.

This is a clear indication that they are getting desperate to find these stories, and are having a difficult time finding them.

I don’t know if they got any such stories through direct messaging, but the post on their Facebook Page, as of the time of publication today, had received over 182,000 comments, and they seem to be all comments of those who have lost loved ones after receiving a COVID shot, and comments asking them why they are not covering that story.

I paged through many dozens of the comments, and did not see a single one stating that they lost someone to COVID after refusing a COVID-19 shot.

People who have been silenced and censored on Facebook and other Big Tech platforms took advantage of the opportunity to share their stories instead. It is amazing that Facebook left these up, but after so many had commented, it would probably have been an even bigger story if they had taken down the post and comments.

I wonder what WXYZ will do now? Will they do what most corporate media companies do, fueled by almost unlimited resources from their billionaire Wall Street owners who are almost all connected to the pharmaceutical industry, and just go out and hire actors instead to do the story and make them up?

Here are a few screen shots of the comments that are representative of what people are posting, in case they do take this down.

Scamdemic - Corona Virus

FDA Resignations Mean the Hour or Reckoning Is Coming

4 Comments

by Jeffrey A. Tucker via: The Brownstone Institue

How significant is it that the two top FDA officials responsible for vaccine research resigned last week and this week signed a letter in The Lancet that strongly warns against vaccine boosters? This is a remarkable sign that the project of government-managed virus mitigation is in the final stages before falling apart.

The booster has already been promoted by top lockdown advocates Neil Ferguson of Imperial College and Anthony Fauci of NIH, even in the face of rising public incredulity toward their “expert” advice. For these two FDA officials to go on record with grave doubts– and their perspective is certainly backed by the unimpressive booster experience in Israel – introduces a major break in the narrative that the experts in charge deserve our trust and deference.

What’s at stake here? It’s about more than the boosters. It’s about the whole experience of taking away the control of health management from individuals and medical professionals and handing it over to modelers and government officials with coercive power.

From the first week of March 2020, the US embarked on a wild experiment in virus mitigation, deploying a series of measures with a sweep and scope that had never previously been attempted, not in modern times and not even in ancient times. The litany of controls and tactics is long. Many of these measures survive in most parts of the US. The retail landscape is still filled with plexiglass. We are still invited to sanitize ourselves when going indoors. People still mask up in proximity to others. The “Karens” of the world are still actively shaming and denouncing anyone suspected of non-compliance.

The vaccine push has been particularly divisive, with President Biden actively encouraging “anger” at those who don’t get the jab, even as he refuses to acknowledge the existence of infection-induced immunities. In several cities, people who refuse vaccines are being denied active participation in civic life, and a populist movement is rising up that scapegoats the refuseniks as the only reason that the virus continues to be a problem.

All these measures were deployed in waves of controls. It all began with event cancellations and school closures. It continued with travel bans, most of which are still in place. Sanitization and plexiglass were next. Masks were rolled out and then mandated. The principle of forced human separation governed social interactions. Capacity limits indoors were a common feature. The US example inspired many governments around the world to adopt these NPIs (non-pharmaceutical interventions) and take away the liberties of the people.

At each stage of control, there were new claims that we’ve finally found the answer, the key technique that would finally slow and stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Nothing worked, as the virus seemed to follow its own course regardless of all these measures. Indeed there was no observable difference anywhere in the world based on whether and to what extent any of these measures were deployed.

Finally came the pharmaceutical interventions, voluntary at first but gradually mandatory,just as with each previous protocol began as a recommendation until it was mandated.

At no point in these 19 months have we seen a clear admission of failure on the part of government officials. Indeed, it’s mostly been the opposite, as the agencies double down, claiming effectiveness while citing no data or studies, while social media companies backed it all by taking down contrarian posts and brazenly deleting accounts of people who dare cite dissenting science.

The vaccine was the biggest gamble of all simply because the program was so expensive, so personal, and so wildly oversold. Even those of us who opposed every other mandate had hopes that the vaccines would finally end the public panic and provide governments a way to back out of all the other strategies that had failed.

That did not happen.

Most people believed that the vaccine would work like many others before them to block infection and spread. In this, people were merely believing what the head of the CDC said. “Our data from the C.D.C. today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick,” Rochelle Walinsky told Rachel Maddow. “And that it’s not just in the clinical trials, it’s also in real-world data.”

“You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations,”President Biden said, reflecting what was the common view in the summer of 2021.

That of course turned out not to be the case. The vaccines appear to have been helpful in mitigating against some severe outcomes but it did not achieve victory over the virus. Israel’s surge in infections in August was among the fully vaccinated. The same happened in the UK and Scotland, and that precise result began to hit the US in September. Indeed, we all have vaccinated friends who caught the virus and were sick for days. Meanwhile, team natural immunity has received a huge boost from a large study in Israel that demonstrated that recovered Covid cases gain far more protection than is conferred by the vaccine.

The fallback position then became the booster. Surely this is the answer! Israel was first to mandate them. Here again, the problems began to show, as yet another magic bullet of disease mitigation failed. Then the inevitable headline came: Israel preparing for possible fourth COVID vaccine dose. So think about this because there is a sense in which the vaccines rank among the biggest failures: in a matter of a few short months, we’ve gone from the claim that they fully protect to they are pretty okay provided you get regularly scheduled boosters forever.

Now to the striking resignation of two top officials at the FDA who were in charge of vaccine safety and administration. It was the Director and Deputy Director of the Office of Vaccines Research, Marion Gruber and Phillip Kause. They gave no reason for their departure, which is scheduled for October and November.

The case is fascinating because 1) people rarely resign cushy government jobs unless a higher-paying, higher-prestige job in the private sector awaits, or 2) they are being pushed out. It’s rare for anyone in a position like to to resign over a principled matter of science. When I first read that they were going, I figured something else was up.

These days, extremely weird things are going on within the Biden administration. Even though his approval ratings are sinking, the president has to pretend that he has all the answers, that the science behind his mandates and virus war is universally settled, that anyone who disagrees with him is really just a political enemy. He has gone so far as to denounce, demonize, and legally threaten red-state governors who disagree with him.

This is a deep problem for actual scientists working within the bureaucracy because they know for sure that all of this is a pretense and that the government cannot win this war on the virus. They simply cannot preside over more false promises, especially when the whole of their professional training is about assessing the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

So what can they do? In this case, it appears they had to get away before they dropped a bombshell.

The bombshell is called “Considerations in boosting COVID-19 vaccine immune responses.” It appears in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet. The two top officials are among the authors. The article recommends against the Covid booster shot that the Biden administration, following Fauci’s advice, is suggesting as the key to making the vaccines work better and finally fulfill their promise.

Fauci and company are pushing boosters because they know what is coming. Essentially we are going the way of Israel: most everyone is vaccinated but the virus itself is not being controlled. More and more among those hospitalized and dying are vaccinated. This same trend is coming to the US. The boosters are a means by which government can save face, or so many believe.

The trouble now is that the top scientists at the FDA disagree. Further, they think that the push for boosters is courting problems. They think the current regime of one or two shots is working as well as one can expect. Nothing is gained on net from a booster, they say. There just isn’t enough evidence to take the risk of another booster, and another and another.

The authors knew this article was appearing. They knew that signing it under the FDA affiliation would lead to a push for their resignations. Life would get very difficult for both of them. They got ahead of the messaging and resigned before it came out. Very smart.

The signed article goes even further to warn of possible downsides. They point out that boosters might seem necessary because “variants expressing new antigens have evolved to the point at which immune responses to the original vaccine antigens no longer protect adequately against currently circulating viruses.” At the same time, there are possible side effects that could discredit all vaccines for a generation or more. “There could be risks,” they write, “if boosters are widely introduced too soon, or too frequently, especially with vaccines that can have immune-mediated side-effects (such as myocarditis, which is more common after the second dose of some mRNA vaccines, or Guillain-Barre syndrome, which has been associated with adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccines.”)

Bringing up such side effects is essentially a taboo topic. That this was written by two top FDA officials is nothing short of remarkable, especially because it comes at a time when the Biden administration is going all in on vaccine mandates. Meanwhile, studies are showing that for teenage boys, the vaccine poses a greater risk to them than Covid itself. “For boys 16-17 without medical comorbidities, the rate of CAE is currently 2.1 to 3.5 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk, and 1.5 to 2.5 times higher at times of high weekly COVID-19 hospitalization.”

From the beginning of these lockdowns – along with all the masks, restrictions, bogus health advice from plexiglass to sanitizer to universal vaccine mandates and so on – it was clear that there would someday be hell to pay. They wrecked rights and liberties, crashed economies, traumatized a whole generation of children and other students, ran roughshod over religious freedom, and for what? There is zero evidence that any of this has made any difference. We are surrounded by the carnage they created.

The appearance of The Lancet article by two top FDA vaccine scientists is truly devastating and revealing because it undermines the last plausible tool to save the whole machinery of government disease management that has been deployed at such enormous social, cultural, and economic cost for 19 months.

Not in our lifetimes has a policy failed so badly. The intellectual and political implications here are monumental. It means that the real Covid crisis – the task of assigning responsibility for all the collateral damage – has just begun.

In 2006, during the early years of the birth of lockdown ideology, the great epidemiologist Donald Henderson warned that if any of these restrictive measures were deployed for a pandemic, the result would be a “loss of trust in government” and “a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.” Catastrophe is exactly what has happened. The current regime wants to point the finger toward the noncompliant. That is no longer believable.They cannot delay the inevitable for much longer: responsibility for this catastrophe belongs to those who embarked on this political experiment in the first place.

 

 

Cultural/Ideological Divide

Seven Signs of the Woke Mind Virus

14 Comments

by Brett Sinclair Author, artist, historian, op-ed writer and blogger who has worked for several national magazines in Canada and international media.

LGBTQ Pride march in Paris © AP

Covid is not the only virus sweeping the West, obsessively woke politics is running rampant with the most virulent variants emerging in newsrooms and colleges. As an acquaintance of mine slowly succumbed, here’s what I observed.

There are certain traits that appear to be extremely common among people who are ‘woke’. Woke being now a common term for those among us who become righteously incensed with progressive social justice issues (typical of mainstream Western media imbibers or recent university graduates). Often, we can see this obsession manifesting in the form of aggressive protest activism – not just as a hobby, but at every social, private, and professional level of their lives. That is a ‘woke’ personality.

While there are well-known physical markers indicating a woke person (blue or purple hair, obesity, androgyny, wispy beards in men, annoying spectacles) I have for some time been a curious student of their habits and psychological mannerisms, which I have also noted, along with the physical traits, to have universal qualities.

I had until recently assumed that these universal personality traits were evidence of a condition existing in the person first (i.e smug over-confidence) which left them susceptible to ‘woke ideas’. But more and more anecdotal experience is teaching me that becoming woke, or contracting the ‘woke virus’, creates its own type of human psyche in the unsuspecting host, which is recognizable across many observable cases. It is my opinion that this psyche is the result of the mind-virus, and not necessarily a pre-existing quality. Thus, if true, this means wokeness itself reshapes the mind.

These qualities are:

  1. Smugness. An absolute, unwavering, and arrogantly condescending attitude toward all non-woke opinions. While a trait in itself, it is related to number 2.
  2. Lack of introspection. No trace of self-questioning or apparent inner monologue. No sense of fairness or understanding of relative opinion.
  3. Quickness to anger. Willingness to not only voice their opinion on any occasion, with anyone, even when outnumbered, but to do so angrily. A willingness to cut off any friend or family member who won’t comply with woke belief.
  4. Nihilist atheism. They will rant a lot about science, while at the same time ignoring science that doesn’t comply with their beliefs. They tend to assume you are dogmatically religious if you don’t agree with them. They will cling to a strongly negative nihilism believing that everything is ultimately hopeless, and that it is sardonic hubris to do or believe in anything (which ties into number 6).
  5. Dishonesty. They are willing to be openly dishonest to further their viral ideas. If they lose a point in an argument, they move on to a new point, never acknowledging or acquiescing that a point was lost. When all attack points are used, personal attacks begin. The past is a blank slate open to revision.
  6. Self-absorbed. This one took me a while to notice, but it seems a give-away idiosyncrasy that you are dealing with a woke-infection if the person has become abnormally self-centered, and in conversation, does not so much reciprocate, as talk about themselves, always positive or self-aggrandizing, often unrealistically. They may also insert self-pity, it seems to generally exacerbate a need for attention-seeking.
  7. Depression, low self-worth, anxiety. This one I also only noticed recently, it is likely the subconscious result of numbers 4 and 6 in particular. Any genuine personal questioning of the subject usually reveals deep worries and angst, and often mental health issues.

A recent experience with an acquaintance, a middle-aged woman who, through a new circle of friends, went from normal and apolitical to fully woke, permitted me to study changes (with a detached horror) as they occurred. Firstly, she began to exhibit extreme self-centeredness, as this new social peer group became important to her (I believe it was a ‘book club’). It began with her seemingly becoming incapable of talking about anything but herself. I had noticed that quality in other woke friends, and in many I could recall they were not previously like that, but this was the first adult person to transition slowly before my eyes, so I got out my clipboard and took notes.

She became somewhat manic, high-anxiety, more worrisome, and less healthy-seeming. Along with this came casual smug political remarks in polite conversation. It goes without saying there were constant, needy Facebook posts about woke politics, or herself, or the ideal combination: posts about herself woke-crusading. Now none of this was part of her personality previously, at all, despite woke politics being with us many years now. It began for her with a new circle of peers that she obviously wished to impress and is culminating currently in her friends and family seriously considering an intervention of psychological help, not because of the constant virtue-signaling, but for the other more self-destructive personality changes.

It reminds me of the science of psychopathy. I was very interested to learn in my youth, not just that psychopaths essentially have little or no emotional feeling, and certainly no empathy, but that they exist among us in high numbers. They don’t all become serial killers, but there are people you know who are psychopaths that you would never have guessed because they learn to mimic human behavior. Severe trauma in youth can appear to create psychopathy, so it can be an environmental condition.

I’m not saying woke people are psychos (though they both share the narcissism), I am saying psychological conditions can be created, and that the modern world, with its rampant materialist consumerism, dogmatic atheism and self-hating education system, is perhaps manufacturing a new human psyche, one both frail and fraught and in its own perverse way, merciless.

Watch as the virus spreads, watch and study and hope you have immunity.

Scamdemic - Corona Virus

CDC Quietly Changes the Definition of Vaccination

Leave a comment

by A Political Junkie  via : Viable Opposition

Like many other things during the pandemic, even the most basic premises of science find themselves undergoing what can only be described as the “cancel culture.”

Thanks to the Wayback Machine, let’s look at how the CDC defined “vaccination” prior to September 1, 2021:

Note that prior to September 1, 2021 vaccinations were introduced to “produce immunity”.

Here is the newly minted CDC definition of vaccinations which became effective on September 1, 2021:

Now, vaccinations are introduced to “provide protection”.

Undoubtedly, there seem to be a lot of “coincidences” during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Here is another one that also just happened to take place on September 1, 2021:

As you can see and as I posted here, Israelis who received the two-dose Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine regimen and who had not previously suffered from COVID-19 (i.e. are SARS-CoV-2 naive) have a far greater chance of experiencing a breakthrough infection with the Delta variant than those who had been infected previously and had not been vaccinated.

This study shows that natural immunity provides a longer-lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of the SARS-CoV-2 variant than those who had two doses of Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine.

Isn’t it interesting to see how the CDC has changed the definition of vaccination to fit the limitations of at least one of the COVID-19 vaccines?  There’s nothing like cancelling what doesn’t fit the mainstream pandemic .

Uncategorized

The US Economy: Fantasies are Nice, but Reality is Far More Demanding

Leave a comment

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

A great many essential components in America are on ‘indefinite back order’, including the lifestyle of endless globally sourced goodies at low, low prices.

Setting aside the “transitory inflation” parlor game for a moment, let’s look at what happens when critical parts are unavailable for whatever reason, for example, they’re on back order or indefinite back order, i.e. the supplier has no visibility on when the parts will be available.

If the part that blew out is 0.1% of the entire machine, and the other 99.9% still works perfectly, the entire machine is still dead in the water without that critical component. That is a pretty good definition of systemic vulnerability and fragility, a fragility that becomes much, much worse if there are two or three components which are on indefinite back order.

This is the problem with shipping much of your supply chain overseas: you create extreme systemic vulnerability and fragility even as you rake in big profits from reducing costs. Speaking of costs, let’s look at the costs of having a large, costly, complex mechanism sitting idle in a non-functioning state due to some broken element for which there is no substitute available. Whatever productive capacity the mechanism, process, etc. had is now stuck at zero.

Buying a new replacement is extremely costly, and that’s not always available for all the same reasons that parts and components aren’t available. Finding someone to fabricate a new component is not easy due to the wholesale transfer of manufacturing moxie and capability overseas.

You might be able to find someone to weld a replacement strut, but try finding someone to fab a new bicycle derailleur or better yet, a multilayer semiconductor chip. What about 3-D fabrication? Doesn’t that solve this problem? If the part can be “printed,” yes, but there are limits on what can be 3-D fabbed. You can’t 3-D fab a complex thermostat or controller, for example. You can’t 3-D fab a rubber gasket, either, or a great many other bits of petrochemical-based manufacturing.

Scarcities are not limited to parts and components; skilled people can be scarce, too. For example, there is a limited supply of ICU doctors and nurses. The training required to work in an ICU is specialized and experiential; throwing someone with minimal training in is not a substitution that’s going to work. You can’t order an ICU staff from China or print one digitally the way the Federal Reserve creates currency out of thin air. It takes many years to train the staff to function at a high level in ICU.

A great many such labor scarcities exist for skilled workers who cannot be replaced except by someone with the same training and years of experience. This is one reason ICUs can break down: there is no replacement staff available, and no way to “print more.”

It turns out there’s also a scarcity of people willing to do the dirty-work jobs America needs done for wages that haven’t kept up with inflation. As I have explained here, the $1.65 minimum wage I earned in 1970, if factored for real-world inflation, is around $18 per hour, and arguably closer to $20 per hour.

The solution is to raise the pay to levels that attract workers, but then this requires raising prices on the good and services to the point that customers can no longer afford them.

But wait, can’t we automate all work and deliver full-gee-whiz free-money, no-work communism to everyone? I invite everyone who reckons this is in the realm of the do-able to design, program and manufacture an automated robot that can trundle out to the laundry room, pop open a broken clothes dryer, diagnose the problem, manage to find a new controller board, fit it correctly and properly reconnect all the little wiring bits, close it up, test it, lift the dryer back on the washing machine and do all that for the relatively modest cost of a human repairperson. When you accomplish fabricating and programming that robot to do all the work without instruction or oversight, by all means let us all know how much it cost to design, program and manufacture, what the payback of the development and manufacturing process will cost amortized over the (short) life of the robot and how reliable it is in the real world.

The point is, fantasies are nice but reality is far more demanding.

There can also be scarcities of competence. There may be replacements who claim competence, but when reality intrudes on the shuck-and-jive, their competence was illusory, and the net result is the entire institution can be described by President G.W. Bush’s memorable phrase, this sucker’s going down.

There can also be scarcities of institutional infrastructure and capacity. Once the institution, enterprise, state agency, etc. has been stripmined of redundancy, institutional memory and competence, then the first scarcity that cannot be replaced is the first domino that topples all the other dominoes of systemic vulnerability and fragility.

The Federal Reserve can print trillions of dollars and the federal government can borrow and blow trillions of dollars, but neither can print or borrow supply chains, scarce skills, institutional depth or competence. That nice shiny new semiconductor fab you reckon will resolve the chip shortage? You can print the billions of dollars needed in an instant, but the machinery, expertise and time can’t be conjured quite so easily. That fab is years away from completion no matter how many freshly conjured dollars you throw into the air.

When Critical Parts Are On “Indefinite Back Order,” the Machine Grinds to a Halt: that’s the U.S. economy in a nutshell.

A great many essential components in America are on indefinite back order, including the lifestyle of endless globally sourced goodies at low, low prices.

That lifestyle is out of stock and cannot be replaced with financialization fakery.

Hey, Federal Reserve, can you conjure up a non-corrupt financial system, a domestic supply chain, and an economy of open competition, transparency, accountability and competence? If not, you are even more worthless than we feared.

Scamdemic - Corona Virus

Breaking News! Federal Judge Blocks New York State Health Care Worker Vaccination Mandate

1 Comment

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge on Tuesday granted an emergency injunction blocking the state of New York from enforcing a new virus vaccine mandate for healthcare workers.

Seventeen medical health professionals had asked the court to enjoin enforcement of New York’s mandate that then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced on Aug. 16. The mandate required staff at hospitals and long-term care facilities such as nursing homes, adult care facilities, and other congregate care settings, be vaccinated for COVID-19 to continue to be employed.

The plaintiffs, including doctors, nurses, a medical technician, and a physician’s liaison, were facing termination, loss of hospital admitting privileges, and the destruction of their careers unless they consent to be vaccinated with vaccines in contradiction of their religious beliefs, the lawsuit argued.

Their religious beliefs compelled the plaintiffs “to refuse vaccination with the available COVID-19 vaccines, all of which employ aborted fetus cell lines in their testing, development, or production,” according to court documents.

The health care employees argued that the vaccine mandate would nullify protections for sincere religious beliefs under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, even though the prior state health order in effect just days earlier had afforded the same protections.

“What New York is attempting to do is slam shut an escape hatch from an unconstitutional vaccine mandate,” attorney Christopher Ferrara, Thomas More Society special counsel, said in a statement before the injunction was granted.

“And they are doing this while knowing that many people have sincere religious objections to vaccines that were tested, developed, or produced with cell lines derived from aborted children.”

Judge David Hurd of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, a Bill Clinton appointee, granted a temporary restraining order the morning of Sept. 14 in the case. The lawsuit was brought against New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D).

“The vaccine mandate is suspended” and the New York Department of Health “is barred from taking any action, disciplinary or otherwise, against the licensure, certification, residency, admitting privileges or other professional status or qualification of any of the plaintiffs on account of their seeking or having obtained a religious exemption from mandatory COVID-19 vaccination,” Hurd’s order states.

Ferrara learned the court injunction was granted while he was being interviewed over the telephone by The Epoch Times.

Asked if he was pleased by the ruling, Ferrara laughed, “Are you kidding me?”