M. C. Escher Doric columns1945
You should take two minutes and really listen to this. The words are sharp and cut through the lies. The tone is of righteous anger which we all should feel. Let this energy be released upon the world. pic.twitter.com/yn58lbd4n7
— Michael (@cryptotraveler) October 29, 2021
“A child is more likely to be hospitalized with myocarditis (from the shot) than from C19 respiratory illness. So, taking the vaccine is not a favorable trade-off.”
Peter McCullough, MD, MPH@IngrahamAngle @FoxNews pic.twitter.com/g0cXzcEP1J
— Craig M. Wax D.O. (@drcraigwax) October 29, 2021
“Regression suggested a theoretical point of zero mortality at approximately 50 ng/mL D3.”
Problem solved. I’m sure your government is on it at full capacity.
Background: Much research shows that blood calcidiol (25(OH)D3) levels correlate strongly with SARS-CoV-2 infection severity. There is open discussion regarding whether low D3 is caused by the infection or if deficiency negatively affects immune defense. The aim of this study was to collect further evidence on this topic.
Methods: Systematic literature search was performed to identify retrospective cohort as well as clinical studies on COVID-19 mortality rates versus D3 blood levels. Mortality rates from clinical studies were corrected for age, sex, and diabetes. Data were analyzed using correlation and linear regression.
Results: One population study and seven clinical studies were identified, which reported D3 blood levels preinfection or on the day of hospital admission. The two independent datasets showed a negative Pearson correlation of D3 levels and mortality risk (r(17) = -0.4154, p = 0.0770/r(13) = -0.4886, p = 0.0646). For the combined data, median (IQR) D3 levels were 23.2 ng/mL (17.4-26.8), and a significant Pearson correlation was observed (r(32) = -0.3989, p = 0.0194). Regression suggested a theoretical point of zero mortality at approximately 50 ng/mL D3.
Conclusions: The datasets provide strong evidence that low D3 is a predictor rather than just a side effect of the infection. Despite ongoing vaccinations, we recommend raising serum 25(OH)D levels to above 50 ng/mL to prevent or mitigate new outbreaks due to escape mutations or decreasing antibody activity.
Lemme guess: $700 a pop?
“..measuring one square centimeter that were dotted with more than 5,000 microscopic spikes..”
Effective vaccines, without a needle: Since the start of the Covid pandemic, researchers have doubled down on efforts to create patches that deliver life-saving drugs painlessly to the skin, a development that could revolutionize medicine. The technique could help save children’s tears at doctors’ offices, and help people who have a phobia of syringes. Beyond that, skin patches could assist with distribution efforts, because they don’t have cold-chain requirements — and might even heighten vaccine efficacy. A new mouse study in the area, published in the journal Science Advances, showed promising results.
The Australian-US team used patches measuring one square centimeter that were dotted with more than 5,000 microscopic spikes, “so tiny you can’t actually see them,” David Muller, a virologist at the University of Queensland and co-author of the paper, told AFP. These tips have been coated with an experimental vaccine, and the patch is clicked on with an applicator that resembles a hockey puck. “It’s like you get a good flick on the skin,” said Muller. The researchers used a so-called “subunit” vaccine that reproduces the spikes that dot the surface of the coronavirus. Mice were injected either via the patch over the course of two minutes, or with a syringe.
The immune systems of those who got the patch produced high levels of neutralizing antibodies after two doses, including in their lungs, vital to stopping Covid, and the patches outperformed syringes. The researchers also found that a sub-group of mice, who were given only one dose of vaccine containing an additional substance called an adjuvant used to spur immune response, “didn’t get sick at all,” said Muller. Vaccines are normally injected into our muscles, but muscle tissue doesn’t contain very many immune cells needed to react to the drug, explained Muller. In addition, the tiny spikes cause localized skin death, which alerts the body to a problem and triggers a greater immune response. For the scientist, the logistical advantages couldn’t be clearer.
The Lancet is not worried about its reputation.
The Lancet has just released another study comparing the efficacy of COVID vaccines to the efficacy of protection provided by previous COVID infections. Their conclusion: while vaccines lower the risk of infections with the delta variant within households, those who are fully vaccinated are still vulnerable to a ‘breakthrough’ infection if somebody they live with gets infected. What’s more, people who have been vaccinated against COVID can be equally as infectious as the unvaccinated, the study showed. The new study, which was published Thursday in the Lancet, the British medical journal that published some of the earliest research on COVID, is one of few to use detailed infection data from actual examples of household transmission, and it showed that – as we noted above – the viral loads of both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients infected with COVID are “broadly similar”.
The study involved 621 people in the UK with mild COVID infections, identified via the UK’s contact-tracing system. The data showed that vaccination status doesn’t make a whole lot of difference in the ability to pass COVID on to others. Roughly 25% of vaccinated household members subsequently tested positive for the virus after close contact with a fellow household member with a confirmed case of COVID. That’s compared with 38% of infection for people who haven’t been vaccinated. These data show that the delta variant has a “greater capability for breaching the vaccine’s defenses when compared with predecessors. “Our findings show that vaccination alone is not enough to prevent people from being infected with the Delta variant and spreading it in household settings,” said Professor Ajit Lalvani of Imperial College London, the co-leader of the study.
The study’s author said the lower transmission rates between vaccinated patients is just another reason to get the jab – although not a particularly compelling one. “The ongoing transmission we are seeing between vaccinated people makes it essential for unvaccinated people to get vaccinated to protect themselves from acquiring infection and severe Covid-19, especially as more people will be spending time inside in close proximity during the winter months,” he said. The study also underlines the importance of the vulnerable to get booster shots, since it also shows that vaccine immunity wanes with time. “We found that susceptibility to infection increased already within a few months after the second vaccine dose – so those eligible for Covid-19 booster shots should get them promptly,” the professor said.
“What Drosten is telling you is that not only have the vaccines failed to stop you from getting the virus, they’ve screwed everyone.”
In short, the governments lied and now they’re admitting it. “My goal as virologist Drosten, is … I want to have vaccine immunity and then, on top of that, I want to have my first infection, and my second, and my third at some point.“ You mean… like measles? Oh wait… not like measles, because if you take the measles shot you won’t get measles — or give it to anyone else. vOf course this forms the entire premise of so-called “mandatory” vaccinations, all of which has always been a crock of **** and worthy of a piano dropped on the head of anyone arguing for it. The only reason it didn’t happen over the decades is that those other shots were in fact safe (which these are not) and, once taken, you didn’t get the disease.
But now we have an actual Government so-called expert, in this case Germany’s, stating out loud that the vaccines are in fact worthless as a public health measure. They neither prevent you from getting the virus or transmitting it, making them nothing more than a very dangerous flu shot.The flu shot usually doesn’t prevent you from getting or spreading the flu either. Indeed in Canada nurses have won court cases against their employers who argued for mandatory flu shots on exactly this basis. The flu shot, which is pushed heavily by a lot of doctors and so-called “experts”, has the virtue of being quite safe, however, that only about 20 or 25 people die associated with it and it has no record of causing effects like myocarditis. Neither can be said for these jabs that are somewhere between 100 and 1,000 times as dangerous — bad enough that for someone under the age of 30 who doesn’t have a pre-existing life-threatening condition the jab is more-dangerous than the virus itself.
But what’s worse is the continuing stream of data out of England which strongly suggests that not only do these jabs not stop you from getting the virus they also have a very nasty tendency to prevent you from building “N” antibodies if and when you do get infected after being jabbed. That’s very bad, because it is those antibodies that, we have reason to believe, are in fact critical to prevent serious or fatal outcomes.= Nobody cares if they sneeze; indeed, coronaviruses produce that all the time. So why would Drosten say he looks forward to his first, second and third infection post jab? We already know that being infected without being jabbed produces durable immunity. Exactly how durable is open to some question but by the data over the last 18 months the answer is “very durable” with only a tiny fraction of one percent of people becoming symptomatically ill, if not vaccinated, twice.
What Drosten is telling you is that not only have the vaccines failed to stop you from getting the virus they’ve screwed everyone. No, not everyone has or will drop dead from the immediate side effects such as myocarditis, although the longer-term impact of those nasty adverse effects is very likely to be materially worse than the immediate count, which is bad enough. No, the really hideous news, it appears, is that it is basically universal that the jabs produce OAS in every single person who takes them and thus you will not only get Covid, you’ll get it more than once if you were stupid enough to take the shot(s).
And many many more. And of course he still has his job.
In July, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the agency of the National Institutes of Health run by Anthony Fauci, gave more than half a million dollars to the veterinarian school at Kansas State University to fund an experiment, which is still ongoing, that involves infecting beagles with mutant versions of a bacteria that’s transmitted by ticks. The experiment, which was discovered through a Freedom of Information Act request by the White Coat Waste Project, is the latest item on a long list of gruesome animal tests underwritten by Fauci’s NIAID.The $536,311 payment was this year’s installment of what has so far totaled $5.6 million in NIAID funding for the research project, which began in December of 2007 and is scheduled to end in 2024.
A 2020 paper based on the experiment’s findings reported that, for that funding cycle, the researchers bought 18 six month-old beagles from a commercial breeder. The researchers created mutant strains of the bacteria Ehrlichia chaffeensis in a laboratory and infected the beagles with them. The E chaffeensis bacteria can cause fever, respiratory distress, weight loss, bleeding disorders, neurological disturbances, anemia, bleeding, lameness and eye problems in dogs. After infecting them, the researchers allowed 200 ticks to feed on each of the beagles for a week, to see whether the ticks would take up the mutated versions of the bacteria. For the next two months, they drew the dogs’ blood for testing. Then they killed them. For the new funding cycle, the researchers proposed continuing this experimentation on 138 more beagles, with 250 ticks per dog.
When asked whether NIAID considered this experimentation humane, a spokesperson emailed: “The use of animals in a grantee’s research is ultimately overseen by his or her own institution’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)” and referred me to Kansas State University. [..] Over the past week, Anthony Fauci, the NIH and NIAID have been widely criticized both in the media and by elected officials for their funding of grisly experiments on dogs and other animals. In response, NIH’s defenders have described the attacks as a “partisan hit job” motivated by unrelated political differences over Fauci’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank called it a “disinformation campaign” and part of a “crusade against Fauci.” Self-described “fact checkers” amplified Milbank’s claims.
Whitney’s 3-part series.
In late 2019, the biopharmaceutical company Moderna was facing a series of challenges that not only threatened its ability to ever take a product to market, and thus turn a profit, but its very existence as a company. There were multiple warning signs that Moderna was essentially another Theranos-style fraud, with many of these signs growing in frequency and severity as the decade drew to a close. Part I of this three-part series explored the disastrous circumstances in which Moderna found itself at that time, with the company’s salvation hinging on the hope of a divine miracle, a “Hail Mary” save of sorts, as stated by one former Moderna employee.
While the COVID-19 crisis that emerged in the first part of 2020 can hardly be described as an act of benevolent divine intervention for most, it certainly can be seen that way from Moderna’s perspective. Key issues for the company, including seemingly insurmountable regulatory hurdles and its inability to advance beyond animal trials with its most promising—and profitable—products, were conveniently wiped away, and not a moment too soon. Since January 2020, the value of Moderna’s stock—which had embarked on a steady decline since its IPO—grew from $18.89 per share to its current value of $339.57 per share, thanks to the success of its COVID-19 vaccine.
Yet, how exactly was Moderna’s “Hail Mary” moment realized, and what were the forces and events that ensured it would make it through the FDA’s emergency use authorization (EUA) process? In examining that question, it becomes quickly apparent that Moderna’s journey of saving grace involved much more than just cutting corners in animal and human trials and federal regulations. Indeed, if we are to believe Moderna executives, it involved supplying formulations for some trial studies that were not the same as their COVID-19 vaccine commercial candidate, despite the data resulting from the former being used to sell Moderna’s vaccine to the public and federal health authorities. Such data was also selectively released at times to align with preplanned stock trades by Moderna executives, turning many of Moderna’s highest-ranking employees into millionaires, and even billionaires, while the COVID-19 crisis meant economic calamity for most Americans.
Not only that, but—as Part II of this three-part series will show, Moderna and a handful of its collaborators at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) seemed to know that Moderna’s miracle had arrived—well before anyone else knew or could have known. Was it really a coincidental mix of “foresight” and “serendipity” that led Moderna and the NIH to plan to develop a COVID-19 vaccine days before the viral sequence was even published and months before a vaccine was even considered necessary for a still unknown disease? If so, why would Moderna—a company clearly on the brink—throw everything into and gamble the entire company on a vaccine project that had no demonstrated need at the time?
“Under normal conditions – that is, before scientific inquiry was sent back kicking and screaming to the Dark Ages..”
Even as scientific studies show that vaccines alone cannot extricate humanity from the Covid-19 crisis, governments are rushing headlong towards the creation of a ‘vaccinated economy’ without any consideration for the consequences. It’s time for an injection of sanity and informed democratic debate. An astonishing thing happened this week that should have – were it not for a media industrial complex that coddles and cossets the powers that be – incited journalists to scream bloody murder around our increasingly imprisoned planet. What the world got instead was the deafening cacophony of crickets.
When a reporter asked New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern about the possibility of the Pacific island nation being fragmented into two distinct classes of citizens – the vaccinated and unvaccinated – Arden didn’t miss a beat as she responded with her trademark Cheshire grin, “That is what it is. So yep. Yep.” After being further prodded by the deferential journalist as to why she favored apartheid, Ardern, who has already mandated vaccines for government employees or else, responded, unscientifically, that “people who have been vaccinated will want to know that they are around other vaccinated people; they’ll want to know that they’re in a safe environment.”
Under normal conditions – that is, before scientific inquiry was sent back kicking and screaming to the Dark Ages – Ardern’s outrageous remark would have been greeted by robust and vigorous debate from both the political and medical communities. After all, the vaccinated should feel absolutely at ease mingling among the unvaccinated in stuffy public places given that they are, supposedly, protected? Isn’t that the point of the vaccines, to protect the vaccinated and get us back to some semblance of ‘normal’? If not, then why the incessant push to jab every single person on the planet, and not just once, as initially promised, but multiple times? The answer, at least according to Queen Ardern, is so that everyone can feel “confident” once again among their fellow man. That makes absolutely zero sense, especially as new studies show no discernible decrease in infection rates among the vaccinated. So why hedge our bets when just the opposite seems to be happening?
In a recent study by Harvard researchers, published in the European Journal of Epidemiology, it was discovered that, looking at statistics around the world, “there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases…” The researchers then delivered a brutal body slam to conventional (political) thinking by revealing that “the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have HIGHER (emphasis added) COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.”
No Hell No.
Rapper and actor Ice Cube has exited a movie for which he was supposed to be paid $9 million after refusing requests to get the Covid-19 vaccine. Ice Cube has left the ironically titled ‘Oh Hell No’ Sony comedy, according to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to The Hollywood Reporter. Cube, known for films like ‘Friday’ and songs such as ‘It Was a Good Day’, was set to co-star in the feature with comedic actor Jack Black. The production was set to kick off in December in Hawaii. Cube, whose real name is O’Shea Jackson, previously joined numerous other celebrities during the coronavirus pandemic and encouraged mask-wearing, even donating thousands of face coverings to an Oklahoma college. He also sold t-shirts during the pandemic encouraging masking and raising funds for healthcare workers.
The artist’s view on vaccines, however, is a bit more murky. In June of 2020, he tweeted that doctors should “stop lying” about Covid-19. The tweet followed a June message reading, “Got the cue for the coronavirus,” which was linked to an album cover featuring someone getting a substance injected through a needle. The bottom of the image read, “lethal injection.” Cube has declined to comment on his reported parting with the ‘Oh Hell No’ production. Hollywood performers who have stood against vaccine mandates or refused to get a vaccine themselves have thus far been primarily conservative artists. Comedian and actor Rob Schneider has frequently spoken out against mandates through his Twitter.
The bureaucrats see opportunity.
Digital ID may soon be a requirement for social media participation, as both France and the UK have taken steps toward the ban of anonymous social media accounts. The website of the French Senate published a new bill proposing the creation of an independent supervisory authority in charge of collecting user identities when they register with online platforms. According to Conservative Senator Alain Cadec, the creation of the new law would stop an observed increase in cyberbullying and make it easier to prosecute potential offenders. “The proposed law thus aims to facilitate the identification of the perpetrators of offenses, and thereby contribute to putting an end to the real feeling of impunity of the authors of hateful, racist, homophobic or sexist messages,” reads the bill’s explanatory statement.
According to the new document, submitting a scan of their ID upon registration would make users aware that they can be identified quickly, and therefore serve as a deterrent against offending behaviors. The proposed independent administrative authority would comprise representatives of platforms, users, parliamentarians, and magistrates, and would be chaired by a member of parliament. The authority’s duties would encompass the online collection and profile creation of “official data and information allowing the identification of users established on French territory of platforms and social networks exceeding a certain audience threshold in France.”
The identification data would be transmitted at the request of the judge in the event of criminal activity, which would “avoid being submitted to the goodwill of a company located in California or elsewhere in the world.” In addition, the proposed bills suggest the creation of a non-nominative online digital identifier that would enable registration to be finalized with platforms and social networks, and that would be held by the authority.
“The United States’ lawyers are basically trying to sink the entire case, on a technicality that has nothing to do with psychiatry.”
Appealing on five grounds, the two main topics of the High Court appeal dealt with Assange’s health, and diplomatic assurances that he wouldn’t be placed in oppressive prison conditions in the US. The United States lawyers attempted to downplay the severity of Assange’s mental illness, arguing that he was not at high risk of suicide. The prosecutors argued that he did not meet the criteria for his extradition to be oppressive, and that the judge did not apply the test correctly. The case now hinges on whether the United States can prove that Assange is not too sick to be extradited, and that the judge erred in her ruling. To do this they have attacked the medical evidence she cited in her report and the medical experts themselves.
Prof. Michael Kopelman is the key medical expert for Assange’s defense. In his first psychiatric evaluation, Kopelman concealed the identities of Assange’s partner Stella Moris and their children, out of concern for their privacy and safety. This was after revelations that Assange was being spied on in the Ecuadorian embassy. His lawyers told the High Court that Moris even moved to a different address for more protection. It’s against this backdrop of surveillance, attempting to steal DNA, and even contemplating to kill Assange, that Kopelman chose not to disclose the relationship with Moris’, and their children. Outside the High Court, Assange’s partner Stella Moris recalled: “His lawyers had been targeted by name, his Spanish lawyer’s office was broken into, his lawyers’ notes seized and copied, our eldest son’s DNA was instructed to be stolen. My mother was followed, I was followed— Julian was spied on in every single detail.”
The judge deemed this inappropriate, but “an understandable human response to Ms. Morris’s predicament”. She preferred Kopelman’s evidence, as he had spent the most time with Assange, and his reports were more detailed. Despite this point having little to do with medical science or psychiatry, the prosecution have used it to try and discredit all of Kopelman’s medical evidence. They say the judge should have given it little or no weight. They accuse Kopelman of misleading the court, and failing in his duty as an impartial, expert witness. Assange’s lawyer Fitzgerald called it a “miserable attempt to tarnish the reputation of a distinguished neuro-psychiatrist”.
The United States’ lawyers are basically trying to sink the entire case, on a technicality that has nothing to do with psychiatry. In fact, Kopelman is such a renowned neuropsychiatrist that even the US’ lead prosecutor, James Lewis, had solicited his services in another case— an irony which Kopelman highlighted in court.
Fine People Hoax
The Fine People Hoax.
Performed immorally and shamelessly by Joe Biden. pic.twitter.com/6XtrtQJsHk
— Maze (@mazemoore) October 29, 2021
Oz net zero plan
Australian government clarifies plan for net zero.pic.twitter.com/dLim46X4XP
— Mark Humphries (@markhumphries) October 29, 2021
Support the Automatic Earth in virustime; donate with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.