Debt Rattle February 26 2021
- This topic has 22 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Jean-Francois Millet The flight into Egypt 1864 • Ivermectin Could Cut Covid Deaths By Up To 75% (DM) • CDC Reports Shocking Data About Asympto
[See the full post at: Debt Rattle February 26 2021]Unusually bold Canadian may need to be locked up in a psychiatric facility…?
Chris Sky at Pearson Airport Refusing Covid Test and Quarantine
https://www.youtube.com/Meanwhile in Galicia province in NW Spain there is no obligation to get vaccinated, but if you refuse it you can be fined between €1,000 and €60,000 (!)
In Spain, Galicia is going to punish those who refuse the vaccine against Covid-19 (In French).
Q: In most, if not all, states/countries where the vaccines are administered, this goes through some form of Emergency Use Authorization (because they haven’t been properly tested), which is mostly only possible if there is some sort of State of Emergency. If states/countries now want to open up again, it would appear that they -legally- have to lift their State of Emergency. But then they can no longer allow people to be vaccinated with the vaccines, can they?
From the David Martin piece 2 days ago:
The only reason we are using PCR tests is that governors and the Department of Health and Human Services are maintaining a state of emergency. The second that that state of emergency is lifted in any state or in the country, the PCR test won’t be allowed to be used.
We’re maintaining a state of emergency so that manufacturers can keep selling a thing that would never be approved if it was subject to a clinical trial. It goes for what’s being called vaccines too. The gene therapy that Moderna and Pfizer are doing, both of those would be suspended immediately if the state of emergency got lifted. People don’t understand that if you lift the state of emergency, the whole house of cards falls.
Just wondering. Laws will vary, but declaring an emergency is not an easy legal topic.
Here is the first hand talk about “The class action lawsuit” that I heard about, told by the lawyer himself and who is working in Germany and California.
Video title is appropriate and translates: “Crime against humanity”. Talk is in plain English.
1/2 truth
“…. negative rates (really confiscation) will be applied as a “penalty” against “hoarding” cash.”second 1/2 of truth
inflation (really confiscation) is applied as a “penalty” against “hoarding” cash.
——–
Which lies do you believe?
R or D lies.
———
plus ca change plus c’est pareil
Escape a social/economic oppressive society, on foot, with no supplies, no tools, no money, leading a donkey, that is carrying somebody else child that will end up in a cage when you cross the border.Q: …If states/countries now want to open up again, it would appear that they -legally- have to lift their State of Emergency. But then they can no longer allow people to be vaccinated with the vaccines, can they?
In the US, a Determination of Public Health Emergency is used to justify the Emergency Use Authorization of some vaccines, but travel restrictions are not necessarily required during the Public Health Emergency.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/02/07/2020-02496/determination-of-public-health-emergency
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/03/27/2020-06541/emergency-use-authorization-declarationIf there is no Public Health Emergency, then there can be no Emergency Use Authorization, and the Covid vaccines could not be widely distributed until getting FDA approval after years of testing.
Even if there is a Public Health Emergency, the Covid vaccines could not obtain Emergency Use Authorization if an effective treatment is acknowledged to be available.
With a Public Health Emergency in place, the PREP act (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID-19) provides liability immunity to both public and private distribution channels for the vaccines, including those who prescribe, dispense, and administer the vaccines.
“Liability immunity” means that the “covered person is immune from suit and liability under Federal and State law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration or use of a covered countermeasure [such as a vaccine].”
In addition, “to the extent that any State law that would otherwise prohibit the employees, contractors, or volunteers who are a “qualified person” from prescribing, dispensing, or administering COVID-19 vaccines or other Covered Countermeasures, such law is preempted.”
Thanks, Doc
That is a lot of legal stretching there. There must be a limit, constitutional even, to how long an emergency can last.
And it can take a long time until these so-called vaccines reach everyone. The end of the year? What does the law say about that?
In the US, the emergency declaration can be renewed. An EUA is in effect for one year, or shorter if the emergency declaration is no longer in effect. The EUA can be revoked if the criteria are no longer met (such as, the requirement that “there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition.”)
Criteria for EUA Authorization—The FDA will issue an EUA if the FDA commissioner finds all of the following:The CBRN agent specified in the declaration of emergency can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition.
Based on the scientific evidence available, it is reasonable to believe that the product may be effective in diagnosing, treating, or preventing the disease or condition specified in the declaration of emergency or caused by another medical product to diagnose, treat, or prevent a disease or condition caused by the specified agent.
The known and potential benefits outweigh the known and potential risks of the product when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat the serious or life-threatening disease or condition that is the subject of the declaration.
There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition.The EUA is in effect for one year from the date of issuance or for as long as the HHS secretary’s §564 emergency declaration is in effect, whichever is shorter. The emergency declaration can be renewed. The EUA can be amended and may be revoked earlier if the criteria for issuance are no longer met or revocation is appropriate to protect public health or safety.
Yesterday, Pfizer and Moderna got their Covid vaccine EUA reissued by the FDA, and the duration of the EUA can last until the emergency declaration is “terminated.”
IV. Duration of Authorization
This EUA will be effective until the declaration that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of the emergency use of drugs and biological products during the COVID-19 pandemic is terminated under Section 564(b)(2) of the Act or the EUA is revoked under Section 564(g) of the Act.
https://www.fda.gov/media/144412/download
https://www.fda.gov/media/144636/downloadThe EUA is one thing, but can a country be put under a State of Emergency for a entire year, or even longer? We”re close to dictatorial powers with that.
“$15 Minimum”
What would I tell you? They are LYING. Lying Lying Lying Lying Lying Lying Lying.
House floats a bill that has one line: “Minimum wage is $15”. Voice vote passes it. Everyone leaves work at 9:05 and golfs with Chinese lobbyists for the rest of the day.
Just. Can’t. Figure. It. Out. Too hard!!! Helping is too hard!!! I can’t figure out how to give away somebody else’s money to themselves!
But they can float a Covid bill where 90% of it goes to government and only 10% to the people. With the breathless support of McConnell.
What they really don’t want is to give WSB another $2,000/pc to finish destroying Citidel.
” In Final Days, Trump Gave Up on Forcing Release of Russiagate Files |(Maté)”
That’s odd, because I’ve been reading whole possets of information that was declassified. No one prints it. No one cares. Sort of like the UFO stuff. Will it ever be released???? It was. Many times. You can watch the videos on the US Navy website. “Yes, but when will they release the videos on the US Navy website???”
Sigh.
“In other words, either we spend the money, or the government will take it away.””
Yes. Like the 10 planks of the “Communist Manifesto” this is the plank of the 1930’s (fascist) Technocrats. A BTU (carbon) currency that will expire if you don’t use it by next payday. No savings=no safety=no resistance to totalitarianism of the ultra-wealthy techo-elite, even when they own private cabins on Minnesota girls’ band camp property and fly their private jet back and forth to St. James. In fact, you’ll like it!!! You’ll like it so, so much or you won’t dare say otherwise if you want food past next Friday, mister!
Anyway, their bizarre and hollow fantasy is already being destroyed before their eyes. Nothing they do works. Everyone is leaving and all their companies are collapsing, along with their currency, their market, their credibility, and their power. I could not possibly destroy it faster or more thoroughly than they already are.
“Atlantic Ocean Circulation at Weakest in a Millennium (G.)”
They’ve been saying this since they day they discovered it and it’s never happened yet. However, it certainly DOES happen or the Thames couldn’t freeze solid enough for elephants and a street market yearly in 1600. Eventually it will. …But that would be the OPPOSITE of Global Warming.
7-year Bond Auction fails. Rates spike. Fed Systems go dark.
Nothing to see here! Everything’s fine, couldn’t be better!!! What’s the interest on $70 Trillion at 1.6%? $1.1 Trillion a year? I’m sure we’ve got that around here somewhere, come back Tuesday. What is it at a normal interest rate like 5%? $3.5 Trillion a year, $300B/month.
Time’s up. You ran out of runway. You didn’t get off the ground. The game is over. Your dreams are being dumped in the ocean. You lost. Now how are you going to pay that bribe money and that protection?
I have had a very straightforward question to ask about the safety of covid vaccines, in particular the mRNA ones. The question has nagged me for months, and I spent time this week working on it. It was a difficult question to answer. I wrote this up with the idea of talking within my circle of ppl, I thought the TAE community might find it of interest. Kind of long, apologies –
As I write this, over 200MM people have received covid vaccine doses. While there is more than one vaccine out there, the two available in the West currently are the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. (The JnJ vaccine – based on a more conventional technology – will likely be available in early March, but going forward if you show up for the shot, you are not likely to know ahead of time which one you’ll get.) Both Pfizer and Moderna’s are based on mRNA, a topic of much study but little widespread deployment. In the US both are released on an Emergency Use Authorization or its equivalent in other nations, and full approval is not expected until early 2023. Nevertheless the media, the CDC, and political and medical “authorities” are unanimous and incessant in the message that it is “safe and effective.” Dissenting views on safety are relegated to the fringes, and the existence of vaccines other than just the two mRNA ones (with different, more conventional modes of action) is never mentioned in the Western media. There are several promising aspects to mRNA technology, and still more unknowns about it, particularly long-term effects which most likely would manifest as autoimmune disorders. Being a new technology, early animal studies were often plagued with unexpected negative results as the methods and delivery agents were refined. So where are we in our knowledge and expertise as a species with mRNA, now that we are jabbing tens of millions of people with these vaccines?
The straightforward questions I have are, “How do we know how safe mRNA vaccines are? How well-studied are their long-term effects?”
Those two questions do not yield to an interwebs search. Even an in-depth search mostly returns mostly self-referential information, or secondhand info repackaged and parroted by an authority figure whose motives are unclear (or simply dubious.) Specifically for the covid mRNA vaccines, no long-term data exist, as even the earliest human trials began only in late 2020. At best, we can only infer from other studies done using mRNA technology. A strong case for safety of mRNA could be made if there is a large base of data – say 200 studies, ending over 5 or (better yet) 10 years ago, and a total of a few million people involved in the trials. Even with a large database, there are unknown unknowns once you move outside the confines of clinical study and enter the real world with its long (statistical) tails. Still, large studies with years of follow-up would suggest confidence in their safety.
On the other hand, if there turned out to be just a few studies, or they don’t cover much time history, or include only a small sample of people, that would not support a strong case for mRNA safety. If the latter is the case, then – being generous here – it would be “risky” at best to be giving millions of people a vaccine with this new technology. Severity matters too in the risk/reward calculation: if a disease like Ebola or Lhasa takes hold, they are so deadly and the situation so dire that greater risks are worth taking – including a vaccine with side-effects or other measures that cause harm.
My approach was to answer 3 questions that follow from the first ones –
1) HOW LONG have mRNA interventions been tested on humans?
2) HOW MANY people have been tested (thousands? millions, tens of millions?)
3) …and from 1 and 2, do THOSE numbers suggest that vaccinating large numbers of people with an unapproved mRNA product is safe?For a starting point I used a Forbes article “What Are The Long-Term Safety Risks Of The Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 Vaccines?” It was published in Dec 2020 and, unsurprisingly, concludes that they are safe. (In fact the article leads off with a strawman, perhaps an attempt at humor, the author’s husband asking if these vaccines are going to turn us into zombies.) The author is Ellen Matloff, in her bio a certified genetic counselor, and she also runs a company that “specializes in scalable, updating, digital genetic counseling.” She is coauthor of several papers in genetics, including subjects related to gene therapy and patient advocacy. It is safe to say she knows what she’s talking about on the topic. Like many authorizes it is equally safe to assume she has a vested interest – both financially and as a personal belief system – in promoting genetic technology.
Spoiler alert: If you want to skip the rest, here’s the answer: about 1,675. That’s the number of people enrolled in (completed) mRNA clinical trials (32 of them) that ended before 2017. Keep in mind the number that received the mRNA treatment-under-study is about half that; most of these are blinded studies and half of them got a placebo. Of those, only 8 studies were conducted on an mRNA treatment against an infectious agent (HIV, rabies) a more realistic comparison which brings the number down to 985 persons. So the size of the database (hundreds) relative to the number of people now receiving doses of the technology (tens of millions) is quite small.
Matloff first discusses the Pfizer vaccine trial and its ability to identify short-term effects “Pfizer vaccine clinical trial study explain[s] that their data show a greater than 83% likelihood of finding at least one adverse, or undesirable, event, if the true incidence of that event is 1 in 10,000. However, the study does not include enough participants, nor has it followed them for enough time, to reliably detect adverse events that are rarer than 1 in 10,000.” That refers to the clinical trials conducted and self-reported by the producer of the vaccine. Assuming their studies are honest and well-run, that covers short-term risks. And it seems to be borne out thus far in the frenzy of arm-jabbing between the end of 2020 and now. We seem to be “in the clear” on short-term effects – safety seems to be on par with any other vaccine, if not a bit better. Though it does suck to be one of those few hundred (?) worldwide that reacted severely and died after the first or second jab, or someone close to them.
On long term risks, the article suggests ‘safe and effective’ though both the article and scientific evidence become decidedly hazy. In Forbes she writes “Of course, the only way to know what, if any, long-term side effects result from the use of these mRNA vaccines is to follow the participants of the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials, vaccinate and study many more people, and then follow all of them for several years. That effort is well underway.” By way of supporting the long-term knowledge, she mentions “mRNA vaccines are not as new as you may think. In fact, mRNA vaccines have been studied over the past two decades and have shown great promise for both infectious disease and cancer.” She links to several sources and particularly calls out an mRNA rabies vaccine trial to support her case. No adverse events are noted in the study. This trial involved 101 participants and ended in 2017. It is neither a large study (many participants to extrapolate the lessons out to millions of people) nor an old study (completed just four years ago.)
The rest of this analysis looks only at numbers; the number people enrolled in mRNA studies and when. This research was performed with data from the on the the US gov’t clinical trials database. One unknown about mRNA or any vaccine is the length of time for long-term effects, if any, become evident. Pulling a number out of the air, let’s look at three years of follow up. That should be enough time for side effects, such as exposure to the infectious agent that the vaccine targets. Let’s round that up to four, that allows for lag of ending the study and publishing out results. This is Feb 2021 so I looked at studies ending before Jan 2017.
Searching on mRNA returns 103 studies. This includes all studies most of which (like the 20 Covid-related ones) are ongoing. All of those studies in total have 90,000 participants. Filtering out incomplete or terminated studies, and ones newer than that arbitrary point in time, gives 32 studies and 1,675 persons. As I mentioned above the number that received the mRNA treatment-under-study is about half that; most of these are blinded studies and half of them got a placebo. Of those, only 8 studies were conducted on an mRNA treatment against an infectious agent (HIV, rabies) a more realistic comparison which brings the number down to 985 persons. Quite a small population to draw conclusions of long-term safety from – that entails extrapolating to a population four orders of magnitude larger.
BTW my approach is admittedly coarse. And I want to emphasize, it does *not* suggest that mRNA technology is dangerous. The approach simply looks at how large the database is that supports how “safe and effective” mRNA vaccines are. Questions such as long-term follow-up, adverse events, and other factors from the individual studies are outside my area of expertise, and unlikely to be found in publicly available sources. We are vaccinating large numbers of people (tens of millions) based on an experience of small size (hundreds) and not much history (going back 1-5 years in most cases.) Again, it does not suggest that mRNA technology is dangerous – it suggests that we do not have enough data. I find insufficient evidence to support the assertion that mRNA technology is “safe and effective” – we SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW.
Ordered from this company: http://medstoreproducts.com/page/about
Ivermectin arrived safely today. Tracking number was requested and provided so we could see where it was for the whole delivery sequence from India. Purchase can be completed with credit card or Bitcoin. No confirmation of purchase is provided, but after 24 hours, we got an email saying that the order was completed and shipped. The website might look a little sketchy, but maybe it is just different format than we are used to. Transaction worked flawlessly for shipping to Canada, of course, YMMV.
Thanks to John Day for Ivermectin infoHerrWerner: “She links to several sources and particularly calls out an mRNA rabies vaccine trial to support her case. No adverse events are noted in the study. This trial involved 101 participants and ended in 2017.”
If that’s what she wrote, then she’s not a trustworthy source of information (for whatever reasons). No adverse events?
Actually, 78% reported systemic adverse events in that trial.
And 10% reported “Grade 3 events — which means the reaction is severe enough to cause hospitalization, and/or is disabling (but not immediately life threatening.)Safety and immunogenicity of a mRNA rabies vaccine in healthy adults: an open-label, non-randomised, prospective, first-in-human phase 1 clinical trial
The Lancet, September 2017
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140673617316653…we enrolled and vaccinated 101 participants... 50 (78%) of 64 intradermally vaccinated participants and 29 (78%) of 37 intramuscularly vaccinated participants reported solicited systemic adverse events, including ten grade 3 events… intradermal or intramuscular needle-syringe injection was ineffective, with only one participant (who received 320 μg intradermally) showing a detectable immune response.
Regarding Trump giving up on releasing documents. He didn’t give up! Barr torpedoed him!
Remember Barr secretly appointed Durham as special prosecutor just before election?
That meant nobody had to listen to or obey Trump anymore!
And so they (CIA, FBI, Joint Chief of Staff, etc. all) ignored Trump’s requests for the documents to be released!Dr.D:
Nancy is just going to ignore the law.
The $15 minimum remains in the bill.
The law is what Nancy says it is!So they have only measured the Atlantic Ocean currents since 2004 but they can tell us the world will soon come to an end! Yeah, right!
cloudhidden:
Thanks for the link. I visited the website. Ivermectin seems to be called Stromectol. Is that what you ordered? In 6 or 12 mg pill size? Thanks.
As for John Durham doing a report, Barr clearly said he was not doing a report!
Durham was supposedly doing an investigation, not a report!
We have no evidence that Durham actually carried out any investigation.
Just like the guy before Durham, never did an investigation.Interesting; today I checked my accounts; one was showing a pending deposit…
That is very early; way more than normal as a track record of 10+ years…
It does occur that problems may be rife; threatenning future payments??????
…a very financially insecure government?@Doc Robinson – thanks for the correction, holy crap. That was careless on my part, I glossed over/misinterpreted details of the study.
Those words are mine actually, hers are that it was “well tolerated with a good safety profile.” Which pretty much puts credibility of the article in tatters. Funny that my mistake supports my case, and casts hers in further doubt.
Then I wonder at motive, when a source contradicts the very point they are trying to support with a reference. It’s almost like they’re relying on nobody checking the references. Common practice these days for once-venerable media outlets like NYT. -HW
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.