Debt Rattle December 3 2020


Home Forums The Automatic Earth Forum Debt Rattle December 3 2020

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 44 total)
  • Author
  • #66340

    Walter Langley Never morning wore to evening but some heart did break 1894   • One In Six Covid-19 Deaths In Vermont Came From A Single Nursing H
    [See the full post at: Debt Rattle December 3 2020]

    V. Arnold

    Walter Langley Never morning wore to evening but some heart did break 1894

    …that picture, no, painting, resonates with me, and my experience of going to sea as a fisherman in the pacific north west, out of Coos Bay…

    V. Arnold

    Never morning wore to evening but some heart did break

    Those words; never more true, than for those that went to sea for their livelyhoods…

    Polder Dweller

    Australia and “Europe” area comparison.

    Not sure what the makers were trying to prove there. Where are Scandinavia and the Baltic states? Ukraine, White Russia, Moldavia and Russia up to the Urals?

    Mr. House

    watch what they do, not what they say

    Still reeks of a financial crisis.


    ‘Since the vaccines are useless’

    That’s ‘fake news’ – we don’t know that.
    The problem is not that they are useless, the problem is that we don’t know.
    We don’t know if they work, if they do work,how well they work, or how safe they are.

    All we have so far is press releases.

    They could be great – they could be useless or even dangerous.
    The ‘authorities’ will check them out of course but based on their track record so far…..

    Mr. House

    we don’t know that

    That sums up about all of 2020, but i haven’t heard anyone at the top admit that. They just make decrees and tell everyone else what to do after 20 years of failure. And if you question them, they gaslight you.


    MrMoto — appreciation to you for pointing out that we don’t know whether any particular vaccine is helpful, harmful, etc. I get so tired of so many people stating logical fallacies and then having large swaths of people accept what is stated as fact. I was stressing to my children when picked them up from their dad’s yesterday that the biggest problem with Covid is that we simply still lack so much information about it.

    Regarding PCR testing,I find it misleading how many articles stress the “97% false positive“ narrative without bothering to include how many cycles leads to that rate, as well as some statistics on how many PCR test positive results were actually achieved at or past that threshold. In my own experience with my own household, PCR testing came back positive only on those who had (or soon after testing) developed symptoms. All other PCR tests came back negative — including follow up testing on those who had been sick with COVID after symptoms had resolved. It seems that the problem, if any, is not with the test itself, but simply that we need a protocol that determines how many cycles to run. Presto! Large false positive problem effectively eliminated. Why are none of the articles saying this? The only plausible answer I can see is this: cui bono? One group benefits from as many COVID cases as possible being discovered; the other group benefits from casting doubt on all COVID cases, and on the pandemic itself. Who doesn’t benefit from either dominant narrative? Most of us — who really just want expanded and accurate information about COVID so that we can make wise decisions regarding our own safety and the safety of those we love.

    madamski cafone

    Today’s painting is a kind of visual narrative mostly neglected since we’ve developed virtual realities that appear to move and make sounds. That painting says more than most heartbreak movies I’ve seen.

    A picture says a thousand words. A movie uses several thousand words to explain a series of pictures.

    Mr. House

    “Most of us — who really just want expanded and accurate information about COVID so that we can make wise decisions regarding our own safety and the safety of those we love.”

    Generally, when a situation is as dangerous as the media has made this one out to be, and we handle things in that fashion, you end up dead. Somehow i’m still not dead yet.

    madamski cafone

    Blogs and their comments being forward-looking things, I’ll post here this response to yesterday’s discussion:

    So an article says certain tests are useless for accurately telling if you have covid or not. The rebuttals to this reduce to equivocations that translate to ‘sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t’. ‘It depends’, like John McCain’s infamous underwear.

    In plain vernacular man on the street logic, the rebuttals lose. Plain vernacular man-on-the-street logic is how the public mind works.

    Me, I think this whole silly squabble revolves around the unfortunate use of the word “absolute”, which is an emotionally satisfying word to use, and closer than not to accurate* when the hard facts of the data are related to the covid phenomenon, but also easy to dismiss because absolutes are ideals not realities. Even a subatomic particle is not absolutely one thing or another. It’s a phenomenon that follows a very narrow pattern in a fairly — but not absolutely — precise range.

    Let me use more accurate language: the tests SUCK. Not absolutely but enough to be insufficiently useful to be worth messing with except, perhaps, as a stage of development in covid testing. It is the public who must trust and submit to testing for tests to be useful, and the public thinks “covid test” means, well, a test to see if you have covid. Period. How silly of them, right?

    Oh, whatever shall we do when we run out of low-hanging fruit to pick on?


    And I still have no patience with honorifics like M.D. in an egalitarian social setting. It’s one thing to tell us you’re a doctor. It’s another thing to use it as some kind of imprimatur or letterhead. If we were discussing gender/sex issues, it would be obnoxious if my handle were madamski, P.L. (Professional Lesbian). It’s enough to say I like vaginas when relevant to the conversation.

    closer than not to accurate* like, allegedly, the tests currently under discussion.


    Another point about the high false positive rate of PCR testing … if the false positive rate is so high after 40 or so cycles ( and I’m quite curious at how many cycles yields that 97% rate) is the converse also true? That a negative test after 40 cycles is, say, 97% certain to be not infected by the virus? Not all PCR tests are done to determine positivity for Covid, but rather to determine negativity for the virus. I have a friend in her 80s with her husband in a care facility. State law says that she cannot visit her husband without a negative Covid test within the prior 48 hours. As a result, she has a PCR test for Covid twice every week. (ironically, her husband already had Covid an survived without too much trouble.). If our goal is to determine who DOESNT have the virus, running dozens of cycles for a PCR test may yield extremely accurate results about who cannot transmit the virus.

    And is it such a bad thing to be quarantined? I found that friends and neighbors were willing to pick up groceries, get propane for my parents, and pick up meds from the pharmacy. Yes, it was inconvenient, but learning that I could depend on my community was both humbling and empowering. Perhaps quarantine for anyone who *might* be Covid positive — but not “lockdowns” for all — is a way to rebuild our frayed communities? If the most accurate test we have for diagnosing Covid is better at identifying who is NOT carrying the virus, rather than who IS carrying the virus, perhaps we could just flow with that until we develop a test that does the reverse and create public habits and policies around the information we have available, rather than about what we wish we had and wish we knew.

    Mr. House

    I think phxvoice actually still trusts our “betters”. How many lies is a lie to far?

    Dr. D

    “Does he still fly, drive, buy stuff wrapped in plastic? If so, what’s the message here exactly?”

    Simple: If we murder 100,000 of you, there’ll be plenty of room for me to throw plastic out the window of my jet.

    I mean: is there something wrong with my calculation here? Are we unclear on GND/WEF messaging?

    Moto: I think form yesterday, the problem was that they WERE useless…at least on their present info. Yesterday posted: “Pfizer’s vaccine “may be more than 90% effective.”
    …This sounds impressive, but the absolute risk reduction for an individual is only about 0.4%
    … So to prevent one severe illness 1370 individuals must be vaccinated. The other 1369 individuals are not saved from a severe illness, but are subject to vaccine adverse effects, whatever they may be and whenever we learn about them… Shouldn’t absolute risk reduction be reported?

    So they ARE barely working even if they’re not lying (unlikely). But they may have UNLIMITED risks.

    No wonder the doctors, HCW, all said “you first.”

    “And is it such a bad thing to be quarantined?”

    Uh, yes. Silly Billy, WHO do you think is standing at the cash register all day, WHO is driving the trucks, WHO is sorting the cabbage, WHO is making the masks? If you quarantine all those guys – ‘cause right now we’re just “unscientifically” ignoring it as inconvenient – you’ll have no gas, no food, no clothes, no internet, then the lights go out. Those things continue to exist because we haven’t had the threatened “6 week hard lockdown” and half the nation doesn’t give a crap and never followed a rule in their life. (P.S. you can’t make them.)

    So would quarantine be bad? I dunno: did you stockpile that 3-year food supply like the Mormons told you to? Do you need a doctor to save your life? Did you run out of money and are in a 10-mile long food line with your kids while living in your minivan?

    Don’t shove others into a situation you won’t volunteer for yourself.

    I guess I’ll pick up from yesterday then too:

    As far as I know, hospitals here don’t use PCR for exactly this reason: it doesn’t work worth a hoot. They don’t say that, they just say it “Doesn’t fit our needs” or some such.

    Presumably they are using one of the many, many tests that DOES work, like Dr. Day says, and are able to get their own feedstocks.

    So…a year later, we have (many) tests that work and one test that doesn’t, and guess which one we’re using? And as noted, they are using both exactly as the inventor said not to, AND for a public-policy decision that it is illogical to use for, because it doesn’t tell you “Transmissible” only “Maybe-mighta had it.”

    How does this work? How in other nations/locations? They simply direct the labs to run 20x not 40x. Boom. “Cases” drop. Which some are suspecting they will suddenly “discover” there are too many false positives just about the day they release the vaccine, and reduce the number from 40, to 30, to 10, or wherever they like. Yay! Cases plummet! Vaccine works a miracle! Profits rise!!! If the Gilet Jeunes give you lip, you just “Recommend” the labs in their areas move back to 40x. Boom. Instant lockdown til they’re dead and broke, murdered like rats. You know, like they did in Greece in ’08.

    Meanwhile, hospitals, using a “better” test — i.e. one that works at all — are blissfully unaware, and all the medical Joes and Jeans remain compliant, and believing everything they read.

    So Dr. or others, look at the chart: Deaths vs Cases.

    If it’s NOT true, then how do we have FEWER deaths than April? And the number of cases always rises, it’s now what, 400x the number of deaths? So your “testing” for “Cases” matches exactly my theory that people are tested, and the only way they think they have Covid — because no symptoms, no deaths — is from this false positive. …The one that will kill them slowly with grinding poverty and denied access to health screenings. We have a pandemic so bad nobody knows they have the disease without a test. Few people know anyone who’s died. Homeless and drug-addicted with compromised immune systems completely untouched, happily in a box, uninfected. Huh? Yes, that’s back to your “Gold Standard” problem, another whole kettle: not only can we statistically infer it’s 90% false positives (A Pfizer epidemiologist and statistician exec published an article on this in Britain I posted) but we can’t even calibrate it AGAINST a standard. (or just refuse to)

    Yes, this still leaves the door open for my theory to have other causes, but it’s not disproven by a lot of squawking and handwaving. If anything, saying “Do as you’re told”/”I’m the expert” (Experts that mis-reported H1N1, SARS, Avian, Swine, and eBola, approved AZT and Vioxx) tells me you’re all lying liars. You said no masks. You said 15 days. You said no transmission. You said 25 million dead. You said we were only going to slow it, not stop it. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. So how about some humility when you’re dead dead wrong wrong for one year and running? I’ve been right the whole time and I’m some doofus living under a bridge, so clearly it’s not that hard. Dr. Day is neck-deep and he seems to be able to hit it right all the time, even with blackmailers circling like vultures.

    So again, no additional death rate, and a disease so deadly no one can tell when they have it. Loss of all civil rights, apparently forever. Incredible, unimaginable increases in wealth for centralists, to the tune of multi-trillion$$, and a rushed vaccine that makes less medical and scientific sense than the disease. Now no Influenza deaths, no Heart Disease deaths. It’s a miracle cure! Que? Cui bono? You figure it out.

    I’m going to go worry about things that are ACTUALLY dangerous. Like governments.

    John Day

    Vitamin-D is useful… silence…

    I have been trying for 3 weeks to get the lab we send SARS-CoV-2 tests out to to give us information about their cycle thresholds, and if we can request a certain threshold, like 25 PCR amplification cycles…

    The big issue with any new vaccine is that we do not know the human cost to benefit ratio yet. From what I see so far, there are some nasty side effects and not much benefit, no reduction in hospitalizations, in healthy young people, those who are not much at risk, to begin with.
    This looks like an expensive way to get side effects. See how Obama does…
    Wait a year. Choose the lesser poison…


    @ madamski

    Epic post! You go girl!


    Dr. D

    Oh and yes, the John Hopkins article was removed. That’s what’s interesting.

    When the “media” used a “telephone” and asked for a “statement” the researcher said:

    “It’s all publicly available data. I retract nothing. Read it for yourself.”

    So John Hopkins retracts publicly available data now? Que pasa? They themselves did not “retract” it either, they “removed” it so as not to create “mixed messaging.” So the messaging you’re worried about is that people will read public data and connect the dots?


    What my crystal ball sees.

    Empty the prisons of inmates,… fill the prisons with seniors, seize their assets to pay for their care.


    Vaccine effectiveness: in the 90% range
    Ivermectine effectiveness: in the 90% range

    Vaccine risk: Everyone takes it, we find out as the year goes on.
    Ivermectine risk: Take it only when you’re sick or exposed, decades of few issues.

    Am I missing something here?

    @ DR D:
    “Don’t shove others into a situation you won’t volunteer for yourself.”
    I’d take this a step farther. Even if you would volunteer, never force others.
    It’s not socialism, rather antisocialism, if you are forced to participate.


    Humans waging suicidal war on Nature – Guterres.

    Surprising how no-one, not even Guterres (who possibly just might be considered to be in a position to do so..) mentions that WAR is a fantastically huge contributor to emissions and to temperature rise.

    This graph of global monthly air surface temp. 1880 > shows WW1 as visible, and throws WW2 in your face. Have a look.


    Other stats, ex. CO2 emissions – GG emissions – FF use, etc. show similar spikes if tallied over the long run and not too badly done, or over-smoothed, etc. – I cherry picked, using the the end-point of temperature, that is what counts after all.

    Apparently War’s pyrotechnics, all the blowing up for killing, annihilating, destroying, as well as moving, doing, industrialising, constructing, to carry out such aims — the tremendous extraction involved, endless hyper fuel use, the resulting pollution, the factory processes (‘war economy’), the crazed destruction that then ….. leads to rebuilding (more resources, more digging, burning, built in) is unmentionable.


    Mr. House & phoenixvoice

    Exactly – we don’t know, and the people and institutions that in a functioning society should be a source of reliable information are so compromised in one way or another that who knows what ‘s really going on.

    People turn to ‘the internet’ but that is hardly an answer as it is riddled with BS.

    Like that 97% false positive thing – looks like an internet meme to me!

    Mr. House

    Yo @ Mr Moto

    Appreciate it if you didn’t use the word ‘we’ when admitting your shortcomings in understanding the nature of reality. You think for yourself and I’ll do the same. Thanks.

    On that PCR thing . There is a #$%t ton of information out there about what the inventor and Nobel prize winner for the invention of the PCR test Kary Mullis has said about what it is *for*. Here’s a short little diddy, one of many:


    So what’s your assessment? If the vaccine is not designed to prevent you from being infected, then what is its use, other than somewhat milder symptoms? Don’t people expect a vaccine, first of all, to protect them from infection? Or is the author of the article I quoted yesterday, William A. Haseltine, healthcare contributor at Forbes, just completely wrong? If he’s not, why is anybody at all talking about vaccination passports?

    Doc Robinson

    I’m going to bypass the testing controversy and look directly at total reported deaths in the US, with a breakdown into cause categories (respiratory, circulatory, alzheimer/dementia, etc.)
    A death from respiratory disease (as a category) is relatively easy to determine, without having to know whether it was Covid-19 or not. Looking at it this way gave some surprising results.

    As a starting point, the overall number of excess deaths (from all causes) is reportedly about 300,000 for this year so far. This amounts to roughly 0.1% of the population (one out of a thousand people), and is roughly 10% of the expected number of annual deaths in the US (based on previous years).

    This graph shows the excess deaths for 2020, which can be visualized as roughly 10% of the total deaths for the year:!/vizhome/COVID_excess_mort_withcauses_12022020/WeeklyExcessDeaths

    What types of diseases are causing these excess deaths? The CDC has this data, and it’s not what I expected.

    When I look at the most recent data breakdown (published yesterday by the CDC), I find it surprising that since late April of this year, the weekly deaths from respiratory diseases have been about the same as (or less than) the numbers from the previous 5 years.

    In fact, respiratory diseases are at most the third highest cause of excess deaths for the year. Circulatory diseases and alzheimer/dementia have the top spots.!/vizhome/COVID_excess_mort_withcauses_12022020/LargeCauseofDeathGroups
    (Excess deaths are estimated graphically by the area below the 2020 red line and above the 2015-2019 gray lines average.)

    Digging deeper within this “Circulatory diseases” category, the two largest causes of excess deaths are “Hypertensive diseases” (high blood pressure) and “Ischemic heart disease” (heart attacks, angina…)!/vizhome/shared/ZW4G68C4B
    (Again, the excess deaths are estimated by the area between the red and gray lines. It looks like Hypertensive diseases is the largest cause of excess deaths in this category).

    This graph brings it all together with “Total number of deaths above average since 2/1/2020, by cause of death”:!/vizhome/COVID_excess_mort_withcauses_12022020/Totalnumberaboveaveragebycause

    The above graph shows that when you look at the “above average” (excessive) deaths, the largest cause is not “Respiratory diseases,” instead it’s “Alzheimer disease and dementia”, and the next highest cause is “Hypertensive diseases”, followed by “Ischemic heart disease.”

    All of the “Respiratory diseases” added together into one category are shown to have caused even less “above average” (or “excessive”) deaths than Diabetes caused.

    This was surprising and illuminating to me, and I think it puts the situation into better perspective, to say the least.

    Mister Roboto

    As to the article about trucking and consumer goods, I will admit to having done the bulk of my Xmas shopping online this year. I get around Milwaukee on the county bus, and at the age of 53, I have well and truly lost any taste I might have had for long, long bus-rides.


    Is quarantining so bad? Yes … most of us don’t get paid, especially when it happens repeatedly over the course of 9 months. No paycheck = bad.

    PCR tests appear to be useful for some situations but perhaps not this particular situation? It leaves one to wonder about the efficacy of other tests the public takes for granted. Strep throat comes to mind. Little kid at dr with a sore throat, throat culture done, it’s either positive for strep or negative. Why can’t covid testing work that way? (or … is the strep test actually useful for ITS purpose?)

    Covid vaccination: mRNA vaccines that have never before been tested on humans, much less been studied to evaluate long-term impacts, are now being rolled out to the masses. For a disease that kills only a tiny percentage of the population. Anyone with a functioning brain cell can tell this is not a well- thought-out risk/reward scenario.

    Excess deaths: if there have been 300,000 in the US to date, that is about 99 people per million (check my math). With at least 40% of those deaths in nursing home residents. So about 55 people per million excess deaths outside nursing homes (sorry to be blunt, but the people in nursing homes are typically much closer to death than the general population). Can we talk about that mRNA vaccine risk again? About the absolute destruction of small businesses? Extreme job loss?

    A commenter (can’t remember who) asked the other day for a link that proves Cuomo sent covid positive people back into nursing homes. I watched the majority of Cuomo’s daily press releases last spring because I was essential staff (office environment) responsible for developing policies/procedures for reopening. Yes, Cuomo sent covid positive people back to nursing homes from the hospital. Cuomo also stated that a positive covid test could not be a reason to deny a new person entry into a nursing home. He did, however, mention that a nursing home could decline to admit a covid positive person if it was unable to take care of him/her.

    As a person who has worked in the nonprofit industry for well over two decades (no, I don’t earn much), trust me when I tell you that no entity receiving government funds wants to tell the government they CAN’T do something. That simple statement invites scrutiny and the potential loss of ALL funding. So, yes, Cuomo’s decisions put people at risk. Likely his decisions outright killed people.

    If you don’t believe me on this, go back and listen to Cuomo’s daily pressers. They’re so inspiring he’s won an Emmy.

    Doc Robinson

    upstateNYer: “Excess deaths: if there have been 300,000 in the US to date, that is about 99 people per million (check my math)”

    It’s actually more like 900-something people per million (or one out of a thousand people, as I commented above.)


    I want to dig into President Trump’s push to scrap Section 230, and the surprising support from Tulsi Gabbard (who I have generally respected in the past, and who puzzles me now). To me, scrapping Section 230 means that platforms (like Twitter, Facebook, or any web site with a comment section) would become responsible/liable for what is posted therein by the members/users/commenters. As such, I see scrapping Section 230 as a neutron bomb to completely eradicate freedom of opinion on the Internet, because no platform can take the risk of being sued for what is posted. Am I missing something?

    As I see it, the problem is not the shield from liability, no, the problem is the censorship that is occurring: the algorithmic de-promotion of inconvenient truths, the labeling of tweets as false information, etc etc. How is scrapping 230 going to fix the censorship? Am I in opposite-land? To me, the problem is that Section 230’s prohibition against censorship in return for the liability shield is being ignored and abused. As far as I can tell what is needed are court cases by those that are harmed (say, Trump, or NY Post) that challenge the platform’s censorship: “Section 230 says you can’t be held liable for your content, but you’re putting your fingers on the scale, so we’re suing your sorry ass.” Or a credible threat from the DOJ to splinter social media into a thousand little pieces if they don’t play by the rules.

    Again, am I missing something?


    It’s all very well sourcing articles from RT, but how much credence would we in the Glorious West give them? Some such articles have links to “reputable” western-origin sources which can be cited, but in today’s political climate I would never cite RT directly.

    So sad.


    ‘Fascist Kabuki’, by John Steppling:

    “..Now, recent polls suggest that half of Americans reject the idea of more lockdowns. That’s a lot of people. Yet very few of those people speak up, or post opinions on social media. And this is an interesting phenomenon. There is an enormous fear of being called ‘conspiracy theorist’ or ‘anti vaxxer’ or ‘Covid truther’ etc. There is a tacit assault on the truth itself embedded in this stigmatizing. A pathologization of the search for truth. And this seems something that has arisen out of the culture of social media.

    One understands that if the law says wear a mask or be fined, then people will wear the mask. But there is no law (yet) in expressing a dissenting opinion. And this lynch mob mentality has, predictably, attracted the most virulent xenophobic and racist memes and opinions possible. Of course major social media platforms like twitter and facebook are perilously close to outright censorship now. One is labeled dangerous if one questions the narrative on the pandemic.

    Simply pointing out that the fatality rate is extremely low despite all the lurid headlines is cause for censorship on facebook. Stating facts has become, quite literally, dangerous..”

    Fascist Kabuki

    Good to see Mr. Steppling didn’t go over to the Dark Side in Mid-March; and he’s right- the correct term for
    what we’re living under now is capital-F Fascism..


    madamski cafone

    @ Rototillerman

    “Am I missing something?”

    Maybe this: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

    Add that many years back, FB stated a policy that it could copyright the material of anything posted on FB (that wasn’t already copywritten outside FB).

    While this doesn’t have any real teeth in publishing terms, it nonetheless means something: FB made a proprietary claim about FB user-made content, but also enjoys via Section 230, legal immunity from anything posted on FB. To my mind, this relation between these two clauses also moves toward shielding the likes of FB from any censorship they make. Pincer attack kind of strategy.

    Section 230 wiki


    @ RT is in principle no more or less reliable overall than any other large news platform except that at this point in time, the truth of global socioeconomics and geopolitics favors Russia’s perspective and interests. In short, the truth about America and Europe generally makes Russia look good and us bad.

    RT at this point has little interest in lying to American or European readers, only to its Russian and Russian sphere readers. Even then, it has less reason to lie to tis citizens than the NYTimes etc. have to lie to their readers, because we make Russia look so good by comparison it doesn’t have to cover its ass with lies nearly so much as we do.


    madamski: I think RT is *quite a bit* more sensationalized now that it was, say, two or three years ago.
    I still read it most days, though (with images and animations turned off, TYVM), because it’s a relative
    breath of fresh air compared to Western corporate media.



    Remember what happened to the last guy who threatened to break the CIA into a 1000 pieces?

    Yes social media is part of the CIA! They were all funded as startups by CIA money.


    Dr. D:

    It wasn’t so long ago that you couldn’t get tested for the virus because there weren’t enough test kits available. Up here in Ontario tests were reserved for government workers only.

    Now more people can get tested. Still not everybody.

    Your virus cases graph shows that. Yes we had a summer dip but every virus has had a summer dip. Vitamins D? So nothing new there.

    Over time doctors have gotten better at treating the virus so maybe that explains death rates not rising as fast as confirmed virus cases have.

    What I would really like to see is a graph of those who survived the virus but are still suffering long term from it.


    @ Dr. D
    Yes that approach has been used lately to assess various drugs, treatments, & procedures and a lot of them don’t come out looking so good.. How that would work on these vaccines I’m not sure because again not much data. But should it be used – yes indeed.


    @ Geppetto

    Oh sorry about that ‘we’. Is that some king of micro-aggression?

    You know I can’t really promise not to use it in the future so if it does happen I guess you’ll just have to mentally exclude yourself OK? You can handle that right?

    Also in the true spirit of reciprocity I hereby grant you permission to live in your own separate reality.


    It looks like the TAE will soon need to find a new topic to cover.

    President Biden says Americans will only need to wear masks for the first 100 days of his administration.

    Clearly the MSM will stop covering the virus and it will go away.

    The MSM media’s around the clock virus coverage has done it’s primary job, getting rid of President Trump!

    Chris M

    Mr. Meijer,

    I applaud you for looking deep into the truth about the virus and vaccines.

    Do you and your readers want to go down the rabbit hole further? Ready?

    Look into terrain theory. Watch the You Tube videos of Dr. Tom Cowen and Dr. Andrew Kaufman.

    As a farmer, biologist, soil scientist, and pathologist, I will tell you that what they present about terrain theory is legit. It adds clarity to all this confusion about these microscopic sophisticated molecular structures in our bodies and why they are there.

    John Day

    What if a Biden administration lasts less than 100 days?
    What if there is no Biden administration?
    What if words just come out of his mouth?

    @others: RT is better than NYT and WaPo these days.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 44 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.