Nov 152021
 November 15, 2021  Posted by at 9:43 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , ,

Francisco Goya Fire at night 1793-94


Is Vaccine Efficacy A Statistical Illusion? (Fenton)
What They Didn’t Tell You (Denninger)
New Pfizer Drug and Ivermectin (Campbell)
COVID-19 Vaccine-Myocarditis Paper To Be Permanently Removed: Elsevier (RW)
Delta Variant Displays Moderate Resistance To Neutralizing Antibodies (bioRxiv)
Patient Trajectories Among Hospitalised Covid-19 Patients (medRxiv)
The Media’s Epic Fail On The Steele Dossier (Axios)
Alan Dershowitz: Kyle Rittenhouse ‘Should Be Acquitted’ And Sue Media (JTN)
Was Rittenhouse’s Possession of the AR-15 Unlawful? (Turley)



The 1905 SCOTUS case Jacobson v Massachusetts held that mandates can only be considered to “prevent the spread of contagious disease.”

As all studies show the shots don’t stop transmission, Covid mandates are obviously illegal.



The Miracle Vaccine Nobody Will Talk About: Covax-19





Can’t catch it well in this format, do read it. He shifts reporting of deaths by just a week, and the world looks entirely different.

Norman Fenton is Professor in Risk Information Management

@profnfenton: “Turns out that, simply by delayed reporting of deaths by 1 week, it’s inevitable a placebo will appear to reduce mortality in those who receive it compared to those who don’t..”

Is Vaccine Efficacy A Statistical Illusion? (Fenton)

Suppose we want to examine and compare the mortality rates of the unvaccinated and vaccinated cohorts based on the data in Table 2. Figure 1 shows this comparison, and we can see that the mortality rate is consistently lower for the vaccinated than that for the unvaccinated throughout the roll out of the vaccination programme and it reduces as soon as vaccination nears population saturation at close to 100%.

Figure 1 Reported weekly mortality rates vaccinated against unvaccinated

We might conclude that those who remain unvaccinated look to be suffering much higher levels of mortality than the vaccinated. The reporting delay therefore creates a completely artificial impression that the vaccine must be highly effective. In fact, it looks like a magic ‘cure all’ wonder drug! The fact that the mortality rate of the unvaccinated peaks when the percentage of those vaccinated peaks should ring some alarm bells that something strange is going on (unless there is independent evidence that the virus was peaking at the same time).

While the placebo vaccine example was purely hypothetical, Figure 2 shows the vaccinated against unvaccinated mortality using the data in the latest ONS report mortality in England by Covid-19 vaccination status (weeks 1 to 38)[1], complemented by NIMS vaccination survey data (up to week 27 only). Here we show other-than covid mortality to remove the virus signal.

Figure 2 Reported weekly other-than covid mortality rates for vaccinated versus unvaccinated for 60-69 age group for weeks 1-38 2021

Note that we see the same features as the shifted graph in Figure 1. In other words, a perfectly reasonable explanation for what is observed here could be that there is no difference in mortality rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated and the mortality differences are simply a result of a delay in death reporting. Moreover, given we have removed covid deaths (which were only a small percentage of all-cause deaths in the reported data) we get a near identical result for non-covid mortality to that which would result if the vaccine were a placebo! Thus, we appear to have created a statistical illusion of vaccine efficacy.

If this is not a statistical illusion how is it possible that the unvaccinated are dying from non-covid causes at a higher rate than vaccinated? Also how is it possible that, at the time vaccination rates are ramped up to nearly 100% of the population, the nonvaccinated are dying from non-covid deaths at almost twice the rate of those who are vaccinated?

These same patterns are also observable in the 70-79 and 80+ age groups (with the mortality peaks for the unvaccinated appearing at different weeks because these age groups received vaccinations earlier). This strongly suggests that what we are observing is a genuine statistical illusion unexplainable by any real impact of the vaccine on mortality rates. There could, of course, be reasons other than just delays in death reporting or misclassification. For example, any systematic underestimation of the actual proportion who remain unvaccinated would lead to a higher mortality rate for unvaccinated higher than that for the vaccinated, even if the mortality rates were equal in each category.

Read more …

“It can’t happen if there are no susceptible people. But it is. So there are susceptible people. How did they become susceptible when they weren’t before in any material size? We jabbed them.”

What They Didn’t Tell You (Denninger)

This study is a bit dense — but has been peer-reviewed, and makes clear that indeed, what I hypothesized was true — and had to be, given the circumstances with Diamond Princess and elsewhere, in fact validates by scientific fact. “In summary, RTC regions like polymerase, expressed in the first stage of the viral life cycle, are highly conserved among HCoV and are preferentially targeted by T-cells in pre-pandemic and SN-HCW samples. A subset of T-cells from donors able to abort infection could cross-recognise SARS-CoV-2 and HCoV sequences at individual RTC epitopes, pointing to prior infection with HCoV as one source of pre-existing cross-reactive T-cells. ” “SN-HCW” are health-care workers who were repeatedly exposed and while they did not get sick or seroconvert “(SeroNegative)” showed very rapid response to Covid-19 from cross-reaction as a result of other coronavirus exposures.

Remember that Diamond Princess only had about 20% of the population on board that got sick despite all of them being confined together over an extended period, and even more-telling, there were multiple instances where one member of a cabin pair (husband and wife, usually) got seriously ill while the other did not only not get ill they did not test positive either. This also occurred among a couple I know early in the pandemic; one (the husband) was killed by the virus, the other (the wife) never got sick. What’s even more damning is that by May of this year about 20% of the population, according to a NEJM study that I wrote on, had seroconverted. This strongly implies that statistically everyone who could get Covid-19 and have a serious problem with already had done so.

So how is that we had a “surge” this summer and continue to see infections this fall? It can’t happen if there are no susceptible people. But it is. So there are susceptible people. How did they become susceptible when they weren’t before in any material size? We jabbed them. The CDC and hospitals do not count someone who gets Covid before 2 weeks after their last jab as “vaccinated.” So if you have a cycle of 28 days from first to second from the first jab to a period of time six weeks later if you get Covid-19 you’re considered “unvaccinated.” Every place where we’ve had very high vaccination uptake as the uptake occurred we have seen material spikes in infection contemporary with the jabs, even out of regular season with normal respiratory viral patterns.

Why? The reasonable hypothesis is that the jabs are destroying pre-existing resistance that formerly was sufficient to prevent significant, seroconverting infections in about 8 out of 10 people, but post-jab that resistance is suppressed either temporarily or permanently and thus they are able to get significantly infected.

Read more …

‘No one’s saying that the information [about ivermectin’s efficacy] has been deliberately hidden away while millions of people have died’

New Pfizer Drug and Ivermectin (Campbell)

Read more …

Lots of Pfizer ads? How many millions on a yearly basis?

COVID-19 Vaccine-Myocarditis Paper To Be Permanently Removed: Elsevier (RW)

A paper claiming that cases of myocarditis spiked after teenagers began receiving COVID-19 vaccines that earned a “temporary removal” earlier this month will be permanently removed, according to a publisher at Elsevier. As we reported last week, the article, “A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products,” was published in Current Problems in Cardiology on October 1. Sometime between then and October 17, the article was stamped “TEMPORARY REMOVAL” without explanation other than Elsevier’s boilerplate notice in such cases:

“The Publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at” In an email to co-author Peter McCullough, Elsevier publisher Diana Goetz said that “the journal is not willing to publish the paper.” Here’s the entire email:

Goetz did not respond to requests for comment from Retraction Watch about whether a retraction notice explaining the move would appear. Elsevier’s policy on such matters has changed slightly over the years, but the central lack of transparency on their “withdrawals” has been the subject of our coverage since 2013. Jessica Rose, the other author of the paper, told Retraction Watch: “We are very motivated to get the information in our paper to the public: pediatricians, parents and policy-makers alike. This is why we decided to publish in the first place. It is extremely frustrating for us to face such censorship when professionals are in need of scientific data and discourse on the subject of myocarditis in children in these very strange times.” Rose’s affiliation on the removed version of the paper is the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge’s Public Health Policy Initiative, and McCullough’s is the Truth for Health Foundation in Tucson.

As we noted in our previous post, IPAK is “..a group that has been critical of vaccines and of the response to COVID-19 and has funded one study that was retracted earlier this year… Last month, Baylor Scott & White obtained a restraining order against McCullough — whom Medscape says “has promoted the use of therapies seen as unproven for the treatment of COVID-19 and has questioned the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines” — for continuing to refer to an affiliation with the health care institution despite a separation agreement. “Since the Baylor suit, the Texas A&M College of Medicine, and the Texas Christian University (TCU) and University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC) School of Medicine have both removed McCullough from their faculties,” Medscape reported at the time.”

Read more …

Variants of variants.

Delta Variant Displays Moderate Resistance To Neutralizing Antibodies (bioRxiv)

The SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617 lineage variants, Kappa (B.1.617.1) and Delta (B.1.617.2, AY) emerged during the second wave of infections in India, but the Delta variants have become dominant worldwide and continue to evolve. The spike proteins of B.1.617.1, B.1.617.2, and AY.1 variants have several substitutions in the receptor binding domain (RBD), including L452R+E484Q, L452R+T478K, and K417N+L452R+T478K, respectively, that could potentially reduce effectiveness of therapeutic antibodies and current vaccines. Here we compared B.1.617 variants, and their single and double RBD substitutions for resistance to neutralization by convalescent sera, mRNA vaccine-elicited sera, and therapeutic neutralizing antibodies using a pseudovirus neutralization assay.

Pseudoviruses with the B.1.617.1, B.1.617.2, and AY.1 spike showed a modest 1.5 to 4.4-fold reduction in neutralization titer by convalescent sera and vaccine-elicited sera. In comparison, similar modest reductions were also observed for pseudoviruses with C.37, P.1, R.1, and B.1.526 spikes, but seven- and sixteen-fold reduction for vaccine-elicited and convalescent sera, respectively, was seen for pseudoviruses with the B.1.351 spike. Four of twenty-three therapeutic neutralizing antibodies showed either complete or partial loss of neutralization against B.1.617.2 pseudoviruses due to the L452R substitution, whereas six of twenty-three therapeutic neutralizing antibodies showed either complete or partial loss of neutralization against B.1.617.1 pseudoviruses due to either the E484Q or L452R substitution.

Against AY.1 pseudoviruses, the L452R and K417N substitutions accounted for the loss of neutralization by four antibodies and one antibody, respectively, whereas one antibody lost potency that could not be fully accounted for by a single RBD substitution. The modest resistance of B.1.617 variants to vaccine-elicited sera suggest that current mRNA-based vaccines will likely remain effective in protecting against B.1.617 variants, but the therapeutic antibodies need to be carefully selected based on their resistance profiles. Finally, the spike proteins of B.1.617 variants are more efficiently cleaved due to the P681R substitution, and the spike of Delta variants exhibited greater sensitivity to soluble ACE2 neutralization, as well as fusogenic activity, which may contribute to enhanced spread of Delta variants.

Read more …

Hard to speak in clear terms when you’re scientists, but:

“We observed no difference in [..] odds of in-hospital death between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.”

Dr Anthony Hinton: “Norway Study Finds ZERO Vaccine Effectiveness Against Death for Covid Hospital Patients. The Pfizer trial never made this claim they only claimed symptom reduction.”

Patient Trajectories Among Hospitalised Covid-19 Patients (medRxiv)

Objectives With most of the Norwegian population vaccinated against COVID-19, an increasing number and proportion of COVID-19 related hospitalisations are occurring among vaccinated patients. To support patient management and capacity planning in hospitals, we estimated the length of stay (LoS) in hospital and odds of intensive care (ICU) admission and in-hospital mortality among COVID-19 patients ≥18 years who had been vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine, compared to unvaccinated patients.

Methods Using national registry data, we conducted a cohort study on SARS-CoV-2 positive patients hospitalised in Norway between 1 February and 30 September 2021, with COVID-19 as the main cause of hospitalisation. We used a Cox proportional hazards model to examine the association between vaccination status and LoS. We used logistic regression to examine the association between vaccination status and ICU admission and in-hospital mortality.

Results We included 2,361 patients, including 70 (3%) partially vaccinated and 183 (8%) fully vaccinated. Fully vaccinated patients 18–79 years had a shorter LoS in hospital overall (adjusted hazard ratio for discharge: 1.35, 95%CI: 1.07–1.72), and lower odds of ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio: 0.57, 95%CI: 0.33–0.96). Similar estimates were observed when collectively analysing partially and fully vaccinated patients. We observed no difference in the LoS for patients not admitted to ICU, nor odds of in-hospital death between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.

Conclusions Vaccinated patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in Norway have a shorter LoS and lower odds of ICU admission than unvaccinated patients. These findings can support patient management and ongoing capacity planning in hospitals.

Read more …

Axios: “A reckoning is hitting news organizations for years-old coverage of the 2017 Steele dossier, after the document’s primary source was charged with lying to the FBI.”

The Media’s Epic Fail On The Steele Dossier (Axios)

A reckoning is hitting news organizations for years-old coverage of the 2017 Steele dossier, after the document’s primary source was charged with lying to the FBI. Why it matters: It’s one of the most egregious journalistic errors in modern history, and the media’s response to its own mistakes has so far been tepid. Outsized coverage of the unvetted document drove a media frenzy at the start of Donald Trump’s presidency that helped drive a narrative of collusion between former President Trump and Russia. It also helped drive an even bigger wedge between former President Trump and the press at the very beginning of his presidency.

Driving the news: In wake of the key source’s arrest and further reporting on the situation, The Washington Post on Friday corrected and removed large portions of two articles. To The Post’s credit, its media critic, Erik Wemple, has written at length about the mistakes made by The Post and other media outlets in their coverage of the dossier. BuzzFeed News, which made waves in 2017 by publishing the entire dossier, says it has no plans to take the document down. It’s still online, accompanied by a note that says “The allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors.” Ben Smith, who was BuzzFeed’s editor-in-chief at the time and is now a media columnist at The New York Times, told Axios, “My view on the logic of publishing hasn’t changed.”

BuzzFeed defended the decision in a 2018 lawsuit by arguing that because the FBI opened an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, the dossier itself was newsworthy, whatever the merits of its contents turned out to be. It won that case. Other outlets that gave the document outsized coverage have so far been less forthcoming. CNN and MSNBC did not respond to requests for comment about whether they planned to revisit or correct any of their coverage around the dossier. Mother Jones Washington bureau chief David Corn began reporting about the dossier prior to the 2016 election. Asked by Wemple whether he planned to correct the record, Corn said,” My priority has been to deal with the much larger topic of Russia’s undisputed attack and Trump’s undisputed collaboration with Moscow’s cover-up.”

The Wall Street Journal told Axios, “We’re aware of the serious questions raised by the allegations and continue to report and to follow the investigation closely.” Axios was among the outlets that did not publish the dossier or original reporting based on its contents. What to watch: The Steele screwup will undoubtedly cause an even bigger rift in trust between Democrats and Republicans.

Read more …

“It’s CNN who is involved in vigilante justice. It’s The New Yorker that’s guilty of vigilante justice.”

Alan Dershowitz: Kyle Rittenhouse ‘Should Be Acquitted’ And Sue Media (JTN)

Alan Dershowitz, the famed Harvard law professor emeritus, said Kyle Rittenhouse “should be acquitted” of injuring a man and killing two others in Kenosha, Wis., and sue media outlets that are claiming he’s guilty of vigilante justice. “If I were a juror, I would vote that there was reasonable doubt [and] that he did act in self-defense,” Dershowitz told Newsmax on Saturday.”Then he’ll bring lawsuits, and that’s the way to answer… vigilante justice is what CNN is doing, not what a 17-year-old kid under pressure may have done right or wrong. It’s CNN who is involved in vigilante justice. It’s The New Yorker that’s guilty of vigilante justice.”

Dershowitz referenced then-Kentucky high school student Nicholas Sandmann and how he sued and settled with CNN and The Washington Post for defamation as they accused him of being racist following viral videos of an encounter he had with a Native American activist in Washington, D.C. “The idea is to make the media accountable for deliberate and willful lies,” he said. Dershowitz added that “the left-wing media … is attacking this judge for trying to be fair. They want an outcome. They want a result and if they don’t get their results and you know this seeps through to the jury, and I worry that the jury could be influenced by the fear that if they vote to acquit, they’ll be called racist and they’ll be attacked.”

Read more …

Judge: “I have been wrestling with this statute with, I’d hate to count the hours I’ve put into it, I’m still trying to figure out what it says, what’s prohibited. I have a legal education.”

Was Rittenhouse’s Possession of the AR-15 Unlawful? (Turley)

In covering the motions hearing last week in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, I noted a surprising comment from Judge Bruce Schroeder that he had “spent hours” with the Wisconsin gun law and could not state with certainty what it means in this case. The statement could effectively knock out the misdemeanor gun possession count — the one count that could still be in play for the jury after the prosecution’s case on the more serious offense appeared to collapse in court. A close examination of that provision reveals ample reason to question not just its meaning but its application to this case. The unlawful possession of the gun has been a prominent fact cited not only by the prosecutors but the press. At trial, however, prosecutor Thomas Binger at points seemed to be learning the governing law from Rittenhouse.

For example, he pressed Rittenhouse on why he did not just purchase a handgun rather than an AR-15. Rittenhouse replied he could not possess a hand gun at his age. Binger then asked in apparent disbelief that the law allowed him to have an AR-15 but not a handgun and Rittenhouse said yes. Binger then moved on after seemingly drawing out a point for the defenseThe exchange was all the more baffling because it drew attention to the fact that one of Binger’s alleged “victims” was an adult named Gaige Grosskreutz who also decided to bring a handgun to the protests and pointed his .40 caliber Glock at the head of Rittenhouse when he was shot in the arm. However, the most damaging moment came outside of the presence of the jury when the judge drilled down on the law.

He told the prosecutors “I have been wrestling with this statute with, I’d hate to count the hours I’ve put into it, I’m still trying to figure out what it says, what’s prohibited. I have a legal education.” He added that he failed to understand how an “ordinary citizen” could understand what is illegal. It is hard to understand how the count could be given to the jury without a clear understanding of what it means. It is also hard to instruct a jury on an ambiguous statute. Criminal laws are supposed to be interpreted narrowly. It is called the “rule of lenity” and has been around in the English system for centuries. For example, in 1547, the court was faced with a law making it a felony to steal “Horses, Geldings or Mares.” Given the use of plural nouns, the court ruled that it did not apply to stealing just one horse.

The problem with the Wisconsin statute is not a problem of pluralization but definition. It is not clear that the statute actually bars possession by Rittenhouse. Indeed, it may come down to the length of Rittenhouse’s weapon and the prosecutors never bothered to measure it and place it into evidence. In Wisconsin, minors cannot possess short-barreled rifles under Section 941.28. Putting aside the failure to put evidence into the record to claim such a short length, it does not appear to be the case here. Rittenhouse used a Smith & Wesson MP-15 with an advertised barrel length of 16 inches and the overall length is 36.9 inches. That is not a short barrel.

Read more …








Support the Automatic Earth in virustime; donate with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.


Home Forums Debt Rattle November 15 2021

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 85 total)
  • Author
  • #92478

    But I prefer how the Neville Brothers present the concept:

    Sons and Daughters

    those darned kids

    dark eagle?!

    these people are nuts. they should call them “child vapourizers” or “if-we-ever-use-this-shit-we-all-gonna-die”.

    sun ra knows best.

    “if they push that button, your ass gotta go”

    bonus: the big snit

    Figmund Sreud

    …the Pentagon has reactivated a nuclear unit, based in Mainz-Kastel, western Germany, that will soon be able to launch 4,000 mph hypersonic weapons aimed at Moscow, according to The Sun. – Dr. John Day

    And so Drums of War:

    Strangely, … coincidently, perhaps?, … sounds from the other side, latest from Orlov:
    The Tripartite World Order and the Hybrid World War

    … it’s a long harangue, mostly behind a paywall, but here it is the whole enchilada, including a commentariat beneath:

    The Tripartite World Order and the Hybrid World War

    … fwiw,



    “Erin hired a lawyer, found a new doctor and and got a court order for other treatments, including Ivermectin. But when she and a nurse got to the ICU door to administer the first dose on Wednesday, the hospital called the police to stop her.

    On Friday, the hospital wrapped a towel around the feeding tube to block Erin from administering the Ivermectin herself. ”


    ” …a reduced relative risk of mortality was found to be associated with the use of SSRIs—specifically fluoxetine—compared with patients who were not prescribed SSRIs.”



    Yes global warming is important but the matter below is much more important!

    My daughter puts peanut butter on her croissants for breakfast!

    I said the French would look down on her rather unfavorably for doing this! I said it was probably OK to put chilled butter on a croissant, as I have done so while in Europe.

    I told her you would be the final authority on what is acceptable behavior in civilized societies regarding the proper treatment of croissants!


    Leaked document shows that Germany has already plans in place for up to SIX total doses!

    RKI bereitet seit Anfang September die 6. IMPFUNG und Ausnahmezustand bis Ende 2023 vor


    Sun Ra!



    The Psychology of Mass Hypnosis and American Totalitarianism

    The Psychology of Mass Hypnosis and American Totalitarianism


    RE: In Shock Closing Statement, Rittenhouse Prosecutor Claims Teen ‘Lost The Right To Self-Defense’ By Carrying Gun….

    Hold on! I happened to catch that part of the closing argument on the teevee – and that is NOT what I heard, nor is it the “complete” point that was being made.

    The Prosecutor showed pictures (very hard to see) and gave a verbal narration of: Rittenhouse putting down a fire extinguisher with his left hand/arm, reaching for his weapon with the right, and then bringing that weapon into a threatening position. The Prosecutor asked for the gun and then proceeded to do a live demo of what he had just described. He claimed that in that action (of raising the gun into a point and shoot stance) Rittenhouse established himself as the threat, and that Wisconson statute would not allow a person to claim self defense when you were the threat to be defended against.

    Zero Hedge just updated by adding “the rest of the facts” from the Prosecution’s argument: “When you’re the one creating the danger. When you’re the one provoking other people.”

    So here is the whole thing: “”You lose the right to self-defense when you’re the one who brought the gun,” adding “When you’re the one creating the danger. When you’re the one provoking other people.””

    Interesting POV. Funny how the original reporting left out the most important aspect of the argument.


    This weird little known fact, from the Future Crunch, written by two Australians, might help explain the “apparent” disappearance of the flu during the winter of 2020/2021.

    One of the four major flu viruses, the Yamagata flu, has not been detected anywhere in the world, since April 2020. It is thought covid-19 may have killed it off. So has the Yamagata flu virus gone extinct?

    John Day

    Boscohorowitz implied that I twisted his word “us” into “them”, which was not my intention.
    The exploration of what is host, what is parasite, and what is organism is one I have also been considering of late, as I see the madness striking some, but leaving others cogent, but outside, like the boy left behind by the pied piper.
    CIA, Mossad et al certainly excel at provoking dissension among those populations which might otherwise join to resist their exploitation.
    We can see the same mechanisms of imperialism brought to bear within the old seats of empire, now that empires are degrading.
    “In the last days will come many false teachers, leading astray those who know not God” (truth)

    Is this all manipulation, or is it partly organic, spiritual, a function of the zeitgeist?

    Is there a protection against the self-destruction function, which Freud postulated, and (to me) forms the core of that argument?
    “One is reminded of Freud, who after much speculation felt he had no alternative but to postulate the existence of a death drive, whose primary goal was the destruction of the individual’s own life, with the destruction of the lives of others as a secondary aim. His hypothesis could never be tested empirically and has remained vague…”

    Is already being tuned to God/Truth protective?
    Is being tuned to convenient fictions destructive? I can see how those paths would develop as a person goes into crisis, sequentially taking the easier step into a trap, or taking the difficult moral turns, ultimately away from an eventual trap.

    Let’s revisit:
    “Boscohorowitz said: “My reading of history tells me that we are incapable of adequate reform to a serious problem. When things get serious, some kind of destructive revolution must occur. We seem compelled to destroy what is — be it necessary or useful or not — before building anew.”

    I think it’s the only way. As long as an economy is meeting needs, it can’t be replaced. There are vested interests who must capitulate. They would rather kill any number of proles than capitulate, so that usually happens. War is too destructive this time, at least for now, but there are always fearful fingers twitching near the red buttons.
    Any real change has to come from people who have arranged a bit of food security and community outside of the failing economy.
    That COULD be some of us…”

    I don’t think I took a side there on whether it was manipulation by elites alone, or whether each individual, serving truth, or serving convenience, was contributing.
    It’s not either-or, is it? Both aspects are ongoing.
    At what point is destruction of the life-support system triggered? Is that a form of suicide?

    The destruction of a hospital, by combatants presumed to need it later, speaks to an extreme discounting of the future in these periods of civil war. How does one interpret that? It is a group action. Does it speak to total, unquestioning, dedication to the group? It might be saying that…

    I was also mulling over the reduction of human population as “an answer”. That was discussed some days ago. “What is the question?”
    I think it will happen as life continues to unfold on this world, because we know that pattern of overgrowth of the food-supply, overshoot and dieback. It is a common and recurrent pattern in complex ecosystems and bottles of yeast in sugar-water…
    I don’t think it’s question-and-answer, problem-reaction-solution. It seems that we are deciding how to engage in an ongoing macroeconomic process from a personal and small group perspective.
    We can decide our own inputs, and will need to be comfortable, without personal regrets, whatever path our economies/ecosystems evolve through.

    I am rejecting chicken-or-egg, Brothers and Sisters, and I am rejecting inaction.
    “Freewill” (I never liked the band, but it makes the point)


    “due to a cardiovascular issue.”
    “He’s in the best shape of his life” – he was, now his career is over. Ooops.



    The reason I made the we<>they distinction was this (pls follow the bouncinf emphases):

    “I think it’s the only way. As long as an economy is meeting needs, it can’t be replaced. There are vested interests who must capitulate. They would rather kill any number of proles than capitulate, so that usually happens. War is too destructive this time, at least for now, but there are always fearful fingers twitching near the red buttons.”

    After which youy switch to change coming from we people, leaving the destructive aspect to “them”. I won’t tax our eyes with further explanation, for that is the essential distinction I wished to make: we’re always blaming the Bad Stuff on Them, when it is We who tolerate Them being in charge of Us.

    The result is an inherently reasctonary view when proaction is what’s needed. Proaction leans strongly to the individual, I believe, along the same logic as “a journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step”.

    One of the Numbered People

    Doc Robinson

    @ absolute galore

    This article is from a mainstream media source, written by professors of medicine at Harvard and Stanford (one of them an epidemiologist) who are pro-vaccine (“we should do everything we can to encourage vaccination for older people”).

    The idea that everyone must be vaccinated against COVID-19 is as misguided as the anti-vax idea that no one should. The former is more dangerous for public health. The COVID-19 vaccines have been one of the few bright spots during this pandemic. While anyone can get infected, the old have a thousand-fold higher mortality risk than the young. By vaccinating older people, the country has saved thousands of lives…

    First, all medical interventions should pass the test of providing more benefits than risks. For the COVID vaccine, this is decidedly true for older populations but it is not yet clear for younger people. While we know that COVID vaccines have common but mild adverse reactions, we will not know enough about rare but serious adverse reactions until a few years after vaccine approval.

    For older people, this does not cause a dilemma. Even if there is a small risk of a serious adverse reaction, that is still better than the much higher risk of dying from COVID. Hence, we should do everything we can to encourage vaccination for older people, including less affluent people whom our health care system often has difficulty reaching.

    For younger adults and children, it is a different story, as their mortality risk is extremely low. Even a slight risk of a serious vaccine adverse reaction could tip the benefit-risk calculation, making the vaccine more harmful than beneficial...

    Martin Kulldorff, PhD, is a biostatistician, epidemiologist and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. He does research on disease surveillance methods for post-market drug and vaccine safety surveillance and for the early detection and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD is a professor of medicine at Stanford University and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

    The ill-advised push to vaccinate the young

    I like the suggestion of negotiating a 6-month wait, or to be less arbitrary, waiting at least until the Pfizer injections are actually approved for 12-year-olds (they currently only have emergency use authorization for ages 12-15).

    The FDA’s “Fact Sheet” for recipients of the Pfizer injections says this:
    “Serious and unexpected side effects may occur. The possible side effects of the vaccine are still being studied in clinical trials.”


    Absolute Galore:

    I have been mulling over your question about your ex-wife wanting to vaccinate you son as soon as he turns 12.

    Boco brings up the good point that you are highly unlikely to convince your ex to not vaccinate through any use of logic or facts.

    I think somebody else brought up the issue of who gets stuck with the life long costs should anything go wrong. Obviously the drug companies and the government plan to stiff the parents!

    I think it might be here where you can exercise some leverage. If facts and logic fail, then try expressing concern for how you and your ex would deal with the costs, if God forbid, something were to go wrong and your son is injured or/and disabled for life. It is here that Dr. John Day’s suggestion of referring to that disabled girl in a wheelchair whom both Pfizer and the US gov have both said it is the parent’s problem. This then sets the stage for the need for long term disability insurance coverage.

    You could then say (knowing at this point that you can not stop your wife) OK, so before she gets your son vaccinated, both of you, or just her, need to investigate getting the necessary long term disability insurance first.

    I do not know what US long term disability insurance costs, and whether they exclude the vaccine (I suspect they do exclude it), and whether if they do, whether you can afford it.

    The whole point of this exercise is to try and avoid an ideological battle, which you will lose, and shift it to a more practical non-emotional issue. Of course she can quickly brush you off by saying no. You should be prepared for the fact that 100% she will likely do just that.

    Here is where the suggestion by a TAE member of asking her for a signed legal disclaimer, that she will take on all the future financial risks, should anything go wrong, kicks in.

    It is here where your ex may hesitate or pause. She is probably expecting that you will share in all the future costs of raising your son, even those where she makes the final (and possibly stupid) decisions.

    I would get your lawyer to prepare such a disclaimer so you have it ready just in case it goes that fa

    One thing I have learned in life, is in such critical situations, you need to 100% check your emotions and stay absolutely totally calm and rational throughout your discussions with your ex even if she gets emotional. If she does get emotional, realize it is a proven technique to draw you into also getting emotional also. Once there, she will surely beat you with experience. If you stay totally calm and rational throughout, you stand a much better chance of obtaining a better outcome for your son. Maybe not winning but not necessarily losing either.

    Good Luck Absolute Galore!

    P.S. Thanks to all those on TAE who earlier provided suggestions of what to do. All I have tried too do is string the suggestions together into some type of plan. The credits are all yours.


    Absolute Galore:

    Doc Robinson’s references look promising in the effort to convince your ex. However even winning a time delay should be grabbed if offered or you can offer a time delay yourself.


    That was a terrific analysis/list of suggestions, WES.


    I think we at the TAE are more aware of what to look for regarding long term health issues stemming from the vaccine.

    We have noticed the sudden increase in public “Sudden Death” announcements.

    We have noticed the not so rare cases of physically fit young athletes having heart attacks.

    People who previously beat cancer suddenly battling cancer again. An example is BC ‘s priemer.

    Unfortunately we know what is coming. We also know the powers-to-be will go to great lengths to defeat any and all vaccine “cause and effect” associations.


    “This Tweet is misleading. Find out why health officials consider COVID-19 vaccines safe for most people.”


    “A neurologist’s rhombencephalitis after comirnaty vaccination. A change of perspective”

    Quote – “In conclusion we do not yet know much about complications after vaccination”

    No shit Sherlock!

    Clueless Honky

    @ Absolute Galore,
    Best of luck with your complex situation. I admittedly don’t have enough time right now to follow up more on this, but I have a memory of an interview with Dr. Harvey Risch from Yale in which he states explicitly that the data says that the young are better off not getting the vaccine. Maybe (?) it was this interview:
    (Once again, I cannot fully promise that this link is the right one. My apologies if it isn’t. I do confidently remember that it was a very good interview.)
    Another person I’d recommend checking out is Dr. Martin Kulldorff from Harvard.
    I mention these two doctors specifically because 1) they are clear-headed and well-spoken, and 2) one is a Doctor at Yale and one at Harvard. These names, whether we like it or not, carry weight among mainstream folks. Your ex may be more willing to listen to a Doctor from Harvard or Yale explain how the risks outweigh the benefits for the young – at least more than she’ll listen to anyone else.
    I won’t repeat the other good suggestions from other commenters, but there are many above.
    May everything with your son and ex-wife work out in a good way. Take care,


    A pattern many of us have come to see: very smart people, even geniuses, people whom we greatly admire, prove amazingly foolish when it comes to some things. Witness Trump Derangement Syndrome and covidiocy. From CHSmith’s article today:

    “Despite Newton’s tremendous intelligence and experience, he fell victim to the bubble along with the vast herd of credulous greedy punters.”


    “amazingly foolish when it comes to some things”

    My brain is tired today so I have no clue about what underlying principles those “things” might share.


    What’s especially sad about Newton is that the man ran the coin mint for England.


    “Newton was not just smart and wealthy, he was financially sophisticated and a very successful investor who favored financial instruments such as bonds over land. He was the ultimate experienced, savvy investor who would not be bamboozled by specious math. Despite Newton’s tremendous intelligence and experience, he fell victim to the bubble along with the vast herd of credulous greedy punters.”

    Veracious Poet

    Meet the new cult,

    Same as the old cult…


    @wes Love the play on words…. Yes winter is here.

    Veracious Poet

    One of the reasons CULTS proliferate:

    Another reason for CULT religiosity is it alleviates the individual’s innate drive to personal spiritual enlightenment + responsibility…

    I see CULT people.

    Walking around like regular people. They don’t see each other. They only see what they want to see. They don’t know they’re CULTISTS.

    All the time. They’re everywhere.


    There is a lot of good will in this place and I truly appreciate that. From, I did not know that to that’s a great way to frame it and so forth. Also, there is a domino effect, I feel I am less ignorant as a result and more mindful that my words might be stupid in nature which is, if you will, sinful in and of itself. Outside of this space, I am more cognizant of what the other person might be trying express. In group situations I am more confident interjecting when someone is trying to steer or dominate the moment.

    Anyway, DarkMatter posted a link to a NY Times interview with Fauci last night (thanks for that). This led to a Koppel/Fauci Interview yesterday. I think I am not alone here when I mentally scream, “This is so stupid!”. Among other things, I would guess absolute wants to tear his hair out, While it’s complicated, it’s really not and that is frustration that gets captured here. It’s really comes down to how we treat one another. I then spent some time in proverbs and ultimately came across this. It is a simplistic interesting way to look at it. I just wanted to be sure to provide some context to be sure not to cause an offense.


    @boscohorowitzdo you recall the name of the guy you mentioned the other day in your comment? The “Some internet prophet guru, using (what I shall call) pattern recognition via verbal stochastics…”

    It sounds like a video I’ve been trying to locate, that was the commentator’s area of expertise. It was a popular vid circulating on the interwebs this summer. He had very disturbing predictions on the topic of mRNA vaxxes, and was very direct about what was going to happen with Antifa and other useful idiots. It is not on the YouTUbEs obviously, was on Rumble or one of the other alternatives. White guy, probably early 70’s, not that that description helps much.

    Does that ring a bell with anybody? I watched part of the vid and meant to give it a closer watch one of these days, but it’s not in my history or notes anywhere X-(



    Herr Warner:

    I thought I had it bookmarked but can’t find it and can’t think of sufficiently unique search terms to home in on him.

    Guy does forecasts, financially oriented but hardly based on standard economic concepts. It involved frequency of word use and semantics. Total autodidact. Has one of those ‘reclusive’ websites. I used to be really good at web searches, but the web has become so commercialized, corrupted, and dumbed down I might as well be asking questions of a community college economics professor or taking a class in Futility Exercises.

    I’ll put my subcon to work on it. It may kick up a salient term for fiunding him again.

    I think we’re talking about the same guy.

    Doc Robinson

    Is it this guy?

    Clif High is a computer scientist, linguist and enthusiastic futurist who has been credited as the founder of the Predictive Linguistics field.

    “I’m not giving ‘Hopium’, I’m not saying that we’re all going into ‘The Wizard of Oz land’ as of any particular day, I’m saying we’ve got a very long hard, years of suffering, years of deprivation, years of shortages, years of your life changing until you will no longer even remember what we used to call Normal, and in that process of going through the agony, the suffering and the death, we will become a free humanity and that will be worth it.”

    Clif High
    [quoted on Delingpod]

    Year Woo – Woo War
    (At the 8 minute mark he starts talking about vaccines.)


    I’ve consulted with his pediatrician and guidance from the CDC and AHA in formulating my proposed determination on this medical issue. You are welcome to respond in writing (only) to communicate your concerns and alternate proposals, including any supplemental material for my consideration.

    absolute galore, I read those words and I conclude that the decision is already made. It’s really an appeal to authority, evidencing trust in the CDC and AHA. For the vast majority of people with no independent critical reasoning ability or curiosity to keep digging to get to the truth, it won’t go further than that. It cannot. You waste your time, like spitting into the wind.

    The answer is that the spike protein vaccines are fundamentally problematic because of the spike protein. Even if the spike protein does not cause myocarditis, it is still an active agent that binds to cells and affects the body’s organs on a sub-clinical level. You don’t know how much spike protein is being produced, and you do not know how long it will take for the body to clear it. You do not know how many boosters will be required in the future. The boosters are not at all like an annual flu vaccines. The body does not replicate the antigen in the flu vaccines. The antigen in the flu vaccines does not bind to the ACE2 receptors throughout the body — it is inert and can be easily cleared. That is not the case with these spike protein vaccines. The problem is not the delivery platform (mRNA or adenovirus) — the problem is the payload they deliver. The problem is the antigen itself. The problem is the unknown long term effect of repeatedly priming the body to produce a substance that interferes with normal functions. The body many be able to clear it once, twice, three times, four times . . . but what is happening at a sub-clinical level in the meantime? Single exposure to lead isn’t what causes harm most of the time. It’s repeated long term exposure. Long term effects of repeatedly priming the body to produce and them clear spike protein is not on the CDC’s or AHA’s radar. They are myopically only focused on the short term, and having ruling out any other options such as early treatment, I suppose that is not very surprising.


    My previous message was perhaps a little too bleak.

    Rather than try to stop the decision that already seems to have been made, there still may be hope to try to mitigate the effects. You might suggest at least checking Vitamin D levels in advance to confirm that this is in the normal range, and if it is low to bring it up to normal first. You might suggest taking nattokinase before and after to reduce the risks of clotting. There are other suggestions that have been made on this board for people who believe that they have no choice but to get the clot shot. That might be the best chance . . .


    @ absolute galore
    Try the comirnaty approval letter from FDA to Pfizer…makes it very clear that risk of myocarditis is UNKNOWN, and that the FDA has commissioned a study, not to terminate for 5 YEARS. Quite frankly, before the results have been published and parsed your son should be nearly 18.

    However, if the law says that she can do this over your wishes, she likely can. Tank him up on all the vitamins, neutraceuticals, baby aspirin, etc. If she forces the issue, let me know — I’ll keep him in my thoughts.

    And..I feel for you with the narc co-parent…my co-parent is mostly borderline when he is stable, becomes increasingly narcissistic when he destabilizes or when he feels like he has powerful allies. He thought he was going to win the last time he challenged me in court…he lost, and I’m still recovering financially. (I didn’t really win. I just didn’t lose.)


    @ Absolute Galore
    I just reread the letter. One thing I’ve learned through dealing with my narc ex…she can cite everything she wants to and so can you…that doesn’t mean the other parent’s mind will or can be changed. Your job is not to change her mind, your job is to object. Your job is to block. Not convince.
    What it comes down to is this: in your legal situation does one parent have the right to have a potentially life-altering medical procedure performed upon a child? The vaccine for 12-15 LEGALLY only has EUA. It is by legal definition EXPERIMENTAL, and you may want to simply object and point out to her that injecting your child with an experimental substance without your support is in violation of the parenting agreement. Then go do what needs to be done according to your parenting plan when there is a dispute — for me, that would be drafting a petition for mediation, driving to the courthouse 25 minutes away, waiting for about 20 minutes, paying the $100 fee to file, then getting myself quick, quick to a process server, another $75 fee. Within a couple days the coparent is served and now getting the child vaxxed would be in violation of the court process. That would buy me at least 30 days. I started this process last year when my ex refused to allow our daughter to return to in-person school. How much time can you buy with it?


    Miracle Vaccine Nobody Will Talk About


    Can’t give headline #, confidential

    Meets all criteria (bar has been lowered. New EUA guinea pig requirement not hard to achieve. Get game trials and jab millions)

    Marketed as Spikogen in Iran.

    Phenomenal set of data to be published in due course.

    Vaxine to file for Australian approval of protein subunit Covid-19 vaccine

    In Vaxine’s phase 1 trial, 40 participants aged 18 to 65 were included, with 30 people receiving the active vaccine and ten getting a saline placebo.

    The phase 2 clinical trials started on May 30 in Iran, with 400 volunteers injected with either a placebo or the first dose of the vaccine candidate.

    CinnaGen’s Phase III investigation of the protein subunit Covid-19 vaccine SpikoGen will likely have data within the next two months, vaccine developer Nikolai Petrovsky said. The 16,876-volunteer trial administered the final dose of the two-shot vaccine in the past few days, he added.

    Said he took his own jab a year ago.

    Professor Petrovsky said he was seeking an exemption, after receiving what he described as a “threatening” letter from Flinders Medical Centre — which is co-located with the university’s medical research labs.
    “It says that as of yesterday all payments will be suspended and that my position itself will be considered to be made redundant if I don’t submit to having one of their vaccines,” he said.


    @doc-robinson and @boscohorowitz many thanks! Yeah that’s the guy (Clif High) I remember being riveted watching the vid, me trying to absorb, trying make heads or tails on how much I believed or agreed with.

    Yes Bosco the interwebs is useless for finding contrary things, it’s dramatically worse than a few years ago. Good sites get sold, blacklisted, de-monetized, vanish, or they just purge “stale” content. Usually If I find a good article or vid these days, I save a copy to my PC, lest it go down the memory hole forever.


    “Fine example of how you can create a model to describe nature and then enter into a circular reasoning loop that may be detached from biological reality and if the foundational premises are incorrect, none of the conclusions follow on.” (Dr. Sam Bailey)

    After no cold vaccine after 40 years, Dr. David Tyrell’s obituary read:

    “Though he never found a a cure, he discovered almost everything about cold viruses.”

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 85 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.