Claude Monet The sheltered path 1888
Reiner Fuellmich – scary if true… pic.twitter.com/pn5y0bCmXr
— Osler (@osler78) September 18, 2021
Singapore stats. Completely out of hand. Vaccines, is there still any doubt about this? 82% fully vaccinated. Yet Eric Topol, who calls himself a physician-scientist, says:
“Delta can be daunting to contain. The situation in Singapore with over 1,000 new cases today and yesterday, 80% of total population fully vaccinated, 1 of top 3 countries in the world, is an important indicator of the challenge.”
How blind can one be?
And here’s the health minister. The vaccines saved us!
See Us. Hear Us. Believe Us. Heal Us.
Vaccine Truth tweets: “Steve Kirsch’s last video on YouTube where he admits “Ivermectin doesn’t work” in order to satisfy YouTube policies. It’s hilarious. Let’s see how long it takes before YouTube removes it.”
Note: Kirsch was suspended by Twitter too.
STOP listening to the science! Whatever YouTube says is what you should believe. The science says that Ivermectin works. The science is wrong. What matters is what YouTube says, not science. Stop thinking for yourself and do whatever YouTube says. Otherwise, you will be banned, block, and demonitized.
Watch all my future content on Rumble.
FDA experts have unexpectedly voted against approving Covid-19 vaccination boosters for anyone over the age of 16 in the USA, citing a lack of long term data and stating that the risks do not outweigh any benefits because the Covid-19 vaccines are killing at least 2 people for every 1 life saved. In a live broadcast conducted on the 17th September the Food and Drug Administration vaccine advisory committee met to debate and vote on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to offer booster shots to the general public. The meeting lasted over 8 hours and contained some shocking revelations. Dr Joseph Fraiman, an emergency medicine physician in New Orleans, spoke for several minutes during the meeting and revealed that no clinical evidence exists to disprove claims that the Covid-109 vaccines are harming more people than they save.
“We need your help on the front lines, to stop vaccine hesitancy. Demand the booster trials are large enough to find a reduction in hospitalisations. “Without this data we the medical establishment cannot confidently call out anti-Covid-vaccine activists who publicly claim the vaccines harm more than they save especially in the young and healthy. “The fact we do not have the clinical evidence to say these activists are wrong should terrify us all”. Dr Joseph Fraiman was then followed by Steve Kirsch, Executive Director of the Covid-19 Early Treatment Fund, who revealed that the Covid-19 vaccines more people than they are saving. “I’m going to focus my remarks today on the elephant in the room that nobody likes to talk about, that the vaccines kill more than they save.
“We were led to believe that the vaccines were perfectly safe but this is simply not true, for example there are four times as many heart attacks in the treatment group in the Pfizer 6 month file report, that wasn’t just bad luck.VAERS shows heart attacks happen 71 times more often following these vaccines compared to any other vaccine,” Steve Kirsch then continued his presentation by showing a slide titled ‘Excess Death: Life ratio is UNACCEPTABLE’. The slide shows how many excess deaths were required following vaccination to save one life due to Covid-19. “Only the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) are statistically significant, but the other numbers are troubling.” said Steve Kirsch.
“Even if the vaccines have 100% protection, it still means we kill 2 people to save 1 life. “Four experts did analysis using completely different non US data sources and all of them came up with approximately the same number of excess vaccine related deaths, about 411 deaths per million doses. That translates into 115,000 people have died (due to the Covid-19 vaccines).”
“Oh, well that was a typo. They just got put in there by accident.”
As hindsight comes into clearer focus, we’re learning a lot about mistaken advice and policies amid the Covid-19 pandemic. One still murky and disputed area involves the death toll, now upwards of 640,000 in the U.S., according to CDC. Some insist the true count is much higher; others claim it’s lower. Today, we begin with the startling results of our investigation that found in some documented cases, news that Covid was the cause of death was greatly exaggerated. Grand County, Colorado, rural country a hundred miles outside of Denver. Thanksgiving 2020, Lucais Reilly shoots his wife Kristin in the head, then turns the gun on himself, committing suicide. They have alcohol and drugs in their system and a history of domestic troubles. Grand County coroner Brenda Bock explains how the small town tragedy is exposing serious questions about the way Covid deaths are counted.
Brenda Bock: I had a homicide-suicide the end of November, and the very next day it showed up on the state website as Covid deaths. And they were gunshot wounds. And I questioned that immediately because I had not even signed off the death certificates yet, and the state was already reporting them as Covid deaths. Bock says somebody, somewhere had apparently run the couple’s names through a database showing they’d tested positive for Covid within 28 days of their death. Then recorded them as Covid deaths even though they died of gunshots. Sharyl: If we look at the death certificates for the murder-suicide case, what will it say about Covid? Bock: Nothing, absolutely nothing. I paid a forensic pathologist to do the autopsies on those two cases. And nowhere is COVID mentioned on those death certificates. Nowhere.
Bock: This is a copy of the death certificate, and nowhere does it say COVID. So we have a homicide, suicide, nothing to do with COVID. Because there had been no Covid deaths within the geographic boundaries of Grand County in 2020, Bock was in a unique position to challenge the state’s accounting. In many cities and counties, the numbers are too big and the coroners would never know about discrepancies. Within a week of the murder-suicide, two more Grand County deaths popped up on the state’s Covid count. Bock investigated and found out why she had no record of them. Bock: Two of them were actually still alive, and yet they were counting them. Had I not called them on it and asked them who those were, where were they from, all the information about it and it’s like, “Oh, well that was a typo. They just got put in there by accident.”
“Despite the presence of antibodies sufficient to suppress a virus with an R0 of nearly 6, twice that of the original strain [..] we had a wild outbreak of disease anyway”
The recent JAMA article makes clear several things. First, likely as many as half of those who got a positive PCR test never had Covid-19 at all. The antibody counts they documented in that study do not square with the claimed infection rate nor the low-symptom prevalence where the person in question never sees a doctor and is never tested. Back in the fall of 2020 the folly of the so-called “tests” was laid bare on the table when Elon Musk took four in sequence on the same day and got two positive and two negative results — nothing better than a coin-toss. How many more people were labeled as “diseased” when they either had the flu, some other virus, or nothing? The data from JAMA strongly suggests the answer is “a huge percentage, likely roughly half of so-called positive tests, were in fact not from actual positive Covid-19 individuals.”
The danger of telling someone they had something when they didn’t is they have every reason to think they’re safe when they’re not and thus they are likely to put themselves at severe risk of getting hammered. That’s stupid and contrary to every principle of medicine, say much less ethical behavior. But antibody presence is dispositive. Pre-existing immunity is very, very hard to determine the presence of, since cross-reaction requires you know what you’re looking for — and we don’t. We didn’t do the work, beyond SARS. We didn’t want to do the work because discovering what it was (1) made possible a potential easy infection that would confer actual immunity (e.g. if it’s OC48 which usually causes colds, well, go get inoculated with it on purpose!) and (2) instantly deflates the fear porn, drive for vaccines and every single screaming idiot in the government, social media and on TV.
But then this summer something odd happened. Despite the presence of antibodies sufficient to suppress a virus with an R0 of nearly 6, twice that of the original strain and equal to that claimed for Delta, which I remind you is unsubstantiated and the data from the UK in fact suggests Delta is not materially more-infective than the original wild strain (it only has to be a bit more-so to out-compete, of course), we had a wild outbreak of disease anyway. Much worse is that in Britain it is impossible for there to be widespread communicable disease even for a a virus with an R0 worse than measles: “Based on antibody testing of blood donors, 97.7% of the adult population now have antibodies to COVID-19 from either infection or vaccination compared to 18.1% that have antibodies from infection alone.”
It is impossible for Britain to have any material Covid-19 infectious activity among adults given this level of prevalence unless the jabs are largely or entirely worthless, or much worse, enhance infection. It’s a hypothesis that fits the facts and you can bet not one single penny of government money will go toward proving or disproving it as if it was to be proved then what do you do with all the vaccine companies and every involved government at all levels, local, state and federal, who literally slaughtered their populations with their advocacy and even in some cases attempted mandates for these jabs. Do we have any independent medical science folks remaining, anywhere in the world, who will take this challenge on and prove it up? We’ll see.
But whether they do or not you can’t change facts and the facts are that either the jabs destroyed existing immunity, creating susceptible people out of resistant ones, or the virus has evolved to largely-evade the protection the jabs provided. Which it is doesn’t matter to the person who believed they were safe, and now learns — especially the hard way — that they are not.
You go girl.
Advocate Dipali Ojha of the Indian bar association and a team of young indian lawyers have issued a legal notice to the world health organization over their blatant campaign against any alternative treatments. Her legal action against WHO comes after the tweet from Soumya Swaminathan, WHO chief scientist, who issued tweet against Ivermectin backing it with a link, that was declaration from a private company. The team of indian lawyers seeks to make available all possible affordable options to the masses and hold the highest authorities accountable for their directives, and suspected submission to big pharma lobbying.
01:14 Interview Start
02:03 Dipali Ojha background
03:58 Why did Indian Bar association sue WHO ?
11:08 WHO Scientist Twitter statement against treatments
13:04 History of Iver-mectin & Big Pharma profit motive
16:30 Can 8 billion people get vaccine ? options for poor countries
20:19 Dipali Ohja explains indian Protocol & Lawsuit
23:44 Media blackout on Iver-mectin
24:20 role of fact checkers
25:20 AI bias in social media
26:40 Where was the lawsuit filed?
27:10 Dipahli ojha explains cause of 2nd legal notice
32:38 Effects of legal notice
34:50 Many solutions to the crisis
37:14 Diplai ojha explains the Public Interest Litigation
38:52 Rajiv explains the two lawsuits in one
40:54 Challenging Compulsory Vaccine & civil rights
42:28 Role of Gates Foundation , Fauci & Wuhan lab funding
46:50 Dipali Ohja explains WHO’s compromised investigations
48:40 Vaccine and complementary treatments
50:24 Role of AI in information bias
51:19 Closing statement of Diplai Ojha
“The vaccination pass is a mobilisation of state power, an extension of discipline and policing over the free life of civil society.”
The vital public health measure of vaccination is being transformed into a project of the extension of state control, with measures such as covid passports and mandatory vaccination. The Israeli minister of health was caught confiding to the minister of the interior that ‘there is no medical or epidemiological justification for the Covid passport, it is only intended to pressure the unvaccinated to vaccinate’. France – the European country with the harshest covid pass laws – shows how this ‘pressure to vaccinate’ is driven by a political rather than a medical impulse. The vaccination pass is a mobilisation of state power, an extension of discipline and policing over the free life of civil society. This rides roughshod over individual liberty, unions, scientific committees and medical logic alike.
Currently, all over-12s in France must present a vaccine passport (‘pass sanitaire’) in order to access restaurants, museums, long-distance trains, and outdoor and indoor sports facilities. All civil society bodies take on a policing function. Covid pass checks are installed at the entrance of open-air horse riding facilities, in bars, at the entrance of swimming pools. The sports instructor checks your covid pass at the start of every class or term. The riding school asks you to ‘prepare your health certificate’ before you are allowed to walk into the open field where the horses are held. The cafe asks you to scan your QR code before sitting down at a table.
The vaccinated person is treated as safe, and the unvaccinated person as risky. This distinction is made not on public health grounds, since vaccinated and unvaccinated transmit the delta variant at similar rates, but because the unvaccinated person stands as the figure that has resisted state authority. The unvaccinated becomes the dissident, the person who refused to roll over. A young French woman who tried to enter a shopping centre without a covid pass was set upon and beaten by a group of armed police. She was beaten not because she is a public health risk, but because she represents a threat to public order. The push for 100% vaccination has become a project of incorporating the whole population, whether it is in their interests to be vaccinated or not.
It is this political impulse that lies behind the hasty extension of vaccination to younger age groups, who stand to benefit little from the vaccine and could suffer from short-term or future side effects. Macron apparently made the decision to extend vaccines to 12-15 year olds suddenly one morning, when he was told by his scientific advisory committee that he had ‘free rein’ to decide whether to vaccinate the young, partly in order to ‘avoid the slowing down of vaccination’. A more reflective scientific ethics advisory committee complained that it has not been given time to make its recommendations, and criticised the ‘hasty’ decision; it judged that the benefits of the vaccine to adolescents were ‘very limited’ and the existing safety data to be too slim to judge its suitability for this age group. Yet now, this age group is forced to take the vaccine.
Statistician Mathew Crawford on the problem with the first 14 days after vaccination.
Suppose that tomorrow it is announced that in a Wuhan laboratory—located somewhere between the French-designed Wuhan Institute of Virology and the fabled wet market—that an NIH funded project results in highly valuable intellectual property in the form of the Morris Therapy. After rigorous mandatory testing of the Morris Therapy on Uyghurs, including the high risk elderly, pregnant women, and also children, the Morris Therapy demonstrates 100% efficacy in preventing COVID-19…after day 13. NIAID Princeling, Dr. Anthony Fauci quackly announces an EUA both for the Morris Therapy, and also swift approval of the as of yet unavailable COMorrisY Therapy. Nobody was reached at any governmental organization who could explain which of these has indemnity, and whether citizens pay for those liabilities by giving up their children as they drop them off at school where they are to be treated by swiftly trained gym teachers.
During the first two weeks, 80 million Americans jump at the opportunity to receive Morris Therapy. However, 79.2 million of those Americans seem to be…well…missing. With doctors and morgue owners tight lipped, the CDC reports that indeed, the Morris Therapy has resulted in 100% efficacy in preventing COVID-19 after the first 13 days. Scientists and other people who pay attention to things rush to post videos on YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook pointing out that there are nearly a million reports of death in the Highly Profitable Therapy Adverse Events Reporting System (HPTAERS). Fact checkers [just doing their job] point out that causality of those deaths HPTAERS hasn’t been proved, and censor all those reports. University faculty petitioned to silence, reprimand, or simply harass their colleagues who participated in those reports, labeling them with the pejorative “anti-Morrisers”. No autopsies are performed on the 79.2 million Americans who died during the first 13 days after a dose of Morris Therapy.
What happened is that 99% of the people who received the Morris Therapy dropped dead during the first few days. Even worse, many were taken to the hospital, entered into a database as non-Morrised, and as hospital beds filled up, media outlets declared a “pandemic of the un-Morrised”. All the social pressure makes it hard to talk about the problem. Meanwhile, nobody does autopsies on the bodies that might reveal clues to the deaths, such as the presence of spike-Morris protein in organs all over the body. All the 79.2 million deaths are presumed to be COVID-19 deaths, and the media dedicates itself to a 48 hour marathon of fear porn, lamenting that poorer nations are not receiving their equitable share of limited supplies of Morris Therapy.
Meanwhile, health officials and all those devoted to the success of the Morris Therapy as the final solution to the COVID-19 pandemic…”correctly” point out none of the 800,000 survivors of the Morris Therapy have COVID-19 (though nobody really wants to talk about disease etiology as it might link Morris Therapy as a Type II COVID-19). In the end, the entire population of the SARS-CoV-2 virus decided as a “species” (if we can call a virus a species), that invading the U.S. just wasn’t worth it at all, deciding instead to go live amongst the flies, minks, bats, and pangolins.
Have they apologized yet?
The Lancet medical journal has bowed to pressure over its heavily-criticised coverage of the disputed origins of the Covid pandemic by publishing an ‘alternative view’ from 16 scientists – calling for an ‘objective, open and transparent debate’ about whether the virus leaked from a Chinese laboratory. It was revealed earlier this year that Peter Daszak – a British scientist with long-standing links to the Wuhan Institute of Virology – had secretly orchestrated a landmark statement in The Lancet in February 2020 which attacked ‘conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin’. The now-infamous letter, signed by 27 leading public health experts, said they stood together to ‘strongly condemn’ the theories which they said ‘do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice’.
They also lavished praise on Chinese scientists who they said had ‘worked diligently and effectively to rapidly identify the pathogen behind this outbreak… and share their results transparently with the global health community’. Now, The Lancet has agreed to publish an alternative commentary which discusses the possibility that laboratory research might have played a role in the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It also directly confronts the efforts of science journals to stifle debate by labelling such theories as ‘misinformation’. In the article, the authors argue that ‘there is no direct support for the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, and a laboratory-related accident is plausible’. They add that the February 2020 statement ‘imparted a silencing effect on the wider scientific debate’.
[..] The new commentary, published in The Lancet on Friday, said: ‘The world will remain mired in dispute without the full engagement of China, including open access to primary data, documents, and relevant stored material to enable a thorough, transparent and objective search for all relevant evidence.’ One of the signatories, Professor Nikolai Petrovsky of Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia, told The Mail on Sunday: ‘It might seem small, but after 18 months of complete denial, the very act of [The] Lancet agreeing to publish this letter acknowledging the origins of Covid-19 remains an open verdict, is a very big deal. ‘For a leading medical journal like Lancet to agree to finally open its doors to a letter from scientists highlighting the ongoing uncertain origins of Covid-19, indicates how far we have come in 18 months in requesting an open scientific debate on the topic, but also indicates just how far we still have to go’.
“..once we’ve established “anti-vaxxers” don’t deserve healthcare, those other people she’s so careful to mention – smokers and drunk drivers – they’re next. Along with the obese, or the clumsy, or the religious, or the politically inconvenient.”
Ruth Marcus, a deputy editor at the Washington Post, has had enough of people pussy-footing around this issue and is going “come right out and say it” – unvaccinated people deserve healthcare less than vaccinated people. She at least admits this “conflicts radically with accepted medical ethics”, which is completely true but for some reason that doesn’t seem to change her mind: “..under ordinary circumstances, I agree with those rules. The lung cancer patient who’s been smoking two packs a day for decades is entitled to the same treatment as the one who never took a puff. The drunk driver who kills a family gets a team doing its utmost to save him..”
To be clear then – Ruth considers the unvaccinated as morally inferior to a drunk driver who ran over some kids. Which says a lot more about her, than the unvaccinated. This is one of this feeler pieces. An antennae article, gently feeling the ground to see if can bear the weight of the agenda coming behind it. It’s setting up the conversation. Because once we’ve established “anti-vaxxers” don’t deserve healthcare, those other people she’s so careful to mention – smokers and drunk drivers – they’re next. Along with the obese, or the clumsy, or the religious, or the politically inconvenient.
If you don’t believe me, just check the comments under the article. The WaPo has one of the most scripted comments sections on the internet, whose usual job is to play the “bad cop” to the author’s “good cop”. And, sure enough, BTL is full of hundreds of supposedly real humans saying the author doesn’t go far enough, and we should ration all kinds of healthcare based on personal choices. This particular talking point is already being aired on CNN and by late-night talkshow hosts too. Expect it to spread quickly, especially when the flu season starts.
Twitter thread by Girolamo Pandolfi da Casio ditto Carlo Dossi Erba.
Evergrande: why most analysis is dead in water and how best to understand and navigate what’s happening? Both denialists and alarmists are getting it wrong. Let’s start by understanding this: what is happening is the result of a CCP-initiated policy change to curb leverage. It started a while back and has seen other defaults, including SOEs. What are the specific policy changes? Most important is the introduction of the 3 red lines a year ago: – L/A < 70% – net leverage < 100% – cash to ST debt > 1. What’s the point of the 3 red lines? First and foremost to forestall a systemic crisis that could have brought down the whole financial sector if left unchecked. Real estate amounts to a significant chunk of China GDP with strong linkages upstream and downstream.
And believe it or not, the sector was levered to the gills. The 3 red lines are hardly draconian, yet all the CCC, a large chunk of the B and a good 1/3 of the BB did not pass them a year ago. Needless to say, it was really not too early. But there is more to it than leverage. One common practice of these construction companies,a game Evergrande excelled at, was to bid land at prices significantly higher than market. It didn’t matter to them, coz the risk got transferred to flat buyers and banks that financed the purchase. That model worked well for local governments, banks and households because house prices were going up. So much so over the last 15 years, that a serious affordability crisis emerged in major cities AND HH debt soared way above disposable inc – below HH debt as % GDP.
So it wasn’t hard to figure out the economic disaster in the making: exponential price rises with explosive HH and Construction leverage. But that’s not all. There is another problem that escapes most China analysts. As a result of years of seeking easy growth through construction and leverage, the misallocation of capital was : 1- capital starving more innovative and high tech sectors (see chart) and 2- creating a headwind for a re-balancing towards a more consumption driven growth. At some point, reigning in lending to the RE sector became vital in order to address the structural issue of capital misallocation. That also explains the curbs on VC investments in RE and most importantly, a curb on all the irregularities that characterized RE.
The issue of irregularities is at the core of what is happening with Evergrande. More on that later. It’s a long introduction, but it seemed important to explain these issues to understand the long term nature of this problem and why its resolution will be tedious. So there is a new paradigm dictated by a set of economic realities that CCP could no longer ignore and most importantly, they can relax the rules a bit, but can’t reverse course. They can’t allow consumers to be bust nor a rogue unproductive sector to balloon further.
“It shows our readiness to be hard-headed in defending our interests and challenging unfair practices and malign acts.”
France has continued its war of words in the increasingly bitter diplomatic row over the UK’s new defence pact with the US and Australia. Europe Minister Clement Beaune said Britain had returned into the “American lap” after Australia announced it was scrapping its £30 billion French submarine deal in favour of more powerful nuclear-powered vessels acquired with the help of the UK and US. The announcement prompted President Emmanuel Macron to order the recall of the French ambassadors from Washington and Canberra – a move virtually unheard of among such close allies. However, there was no similar order for the French envoy to London to return to Paris for consultations.
But in a series of interviews with French television, Mr Beaune suggested it was because the UK was the “junior partner” which had accepted its “vassalisation” by the US. “Our British friends explained to us they were leaving the EU to create Global Britain. We can see that this is a return into the American lap and a form of accepted vassalisation,” he said. “The UK is clearly trying to find its feet, perhaps there was a lack of thought about the strategic future. Today they are hiding in the American fold. I hope that will not be their policy for the decades to come.” He later added: “We see through this partnership, this strategic alliance and after the Kabul crisis, that Global Britain seems to be more about a US junior partner than working with different allies.”
New Foreign Secretary Liz Truss has defended the pact, saying it showed Britain would be “hard-headed” in defending its interests. Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, Ms Truss said the UK was a “fierce champion” of freedom and democracy around the world. “It shows our readiness to be hard-headed in defending our interests and challenging unfair practices and malign acts. It also shows our commitment to security and stability in the Indo-Pacific region,” she wrote.
Wait. China takes it all over, and that’s supposed to benefit Citi?
There are some things that bring joy to my soul. My pleasures are simple ones. Peanut butter on toast (the food of gods), witnessing Macron getting a slap, and this…
The awesome thing here is that what is taking place is that our competition on bidding for coal assets has disappeared in a cloud of woke smoke. This will quickly become geopolitical, and the question is this: can BlackRock, Citi, Prudential, HSBC, and their other woke mates decide the fate of nations? They are already affecting the fate of nations. Witness Canada and all of Western Europe. But will they do the same to China? Will they do the same to Russia? The answer to that will only be fully revealed in the due course of time, but we don’t really need any crystal balls here as we just watch actions, not words.
“China put 38.4 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity into operation in 2020, according to new international research, more than three times the amount built elsewhere around the world and potentially undermining its short-term climate goals.” Nearly all of the 60 new coal plants planned across Eurasia, South America and Africa — 70 gigawatts of coal power in all — are financed almost exclusively by Chinese banks” We see all of this on the ground, and while it is taking place, formerly reputable media outlets such as the FT, Reuters, and Bloomberg tell us that: “China’s belt and road initiative creates a problem for China with respect to their climate goals.”
Really? There is no conflict or problem. Let me explain. Here is what is transpiring. They will keep paying lip service to the woke ideology while capturing the bulk of the energy market, and by the time we all wake up, they’ll control the world’s energy and logistics chains. And once they’ve done that, they’ll be able to control the reserve currency and once they’ve done that… well, they will be the dominant power. Game over. At this rate they’ll get there in a frighteningly rapid period of time. No more than a couple of decades.
Before machines the only form of entertainment people really had was relationships.”
~ Douglas Coupland
Chris Rock: “there’s no money in the cure. The money’s in the medicine. That’s how a drug dealer makes his money… that’s all the government is, a bunch of drug dealers.”
Support the Automatic Earth in virustime; donate with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.