Oct 302021
 


M. C. Escher Doric columns1945

 

COVID-19 Mortality Risk Correlates Inversely with Vitamin D3 Status (NIH)
Needle-Free Vaccine Patches Coming Soon (Y!)
New Lancet Study Exposes Limits Of Vaccines At Preventing COVID Infection (ZH)
And Now, The Admission…. (Denninger)
Fauci Funded Yet Another Cruel Beagle Experiment (LW)
COVID-19: Moderna Gets Its Miracle (Whitney Webb)
Humanity Is Sleepwalking Towards Medical Apartheid (SCF)
Ice Cube Ditches Movie & $9 Million After Refusing To Get Covid-19 Vaccine (RT)
Social Media Accounts Could Soon Require Digital ID in France, UK (BMU)
US Lawyers Argue Assange Healthy Enough to Be Sent to His Death (Medhurst)

 

 

Christine Anderson

 

 

 

 

McCullough

 

 

“Regression suggested a theoretical point of zero mortality at approximately 50 ng/mL D3.”

Problem solved. I’m sure your government is on it at full capacity.

COVID-19 Mortality Risk Correlates Inversely with Vitamin D3 Status (NIH)

Background: Much research shows that blood calcidiol (25(OH)D3) levels correlate strongly with SARS-CoV-2 infection severity. There is open discussion regarding whether low D3 is caused by the infection or if deficiency negatively affects immune defense. The aim of this study was to collect further evidence on this topic.

Methods: Systematic literature search was performed to identify retrospective cohort as well as clinical studies on COVID-19 mortality rates versus D3 blood levels. Mortality rates from clinical studies were corrected for age, sex, and diabetes. Data were analyzed using correlation and linear regression.

Results: One population study and seven clinical studies were identified, which reported D3 blood levels preinfection or on the day of hospital admission. The two independent datasets showed a negative Pearson correlation of D3 levels and mortality risk (r(17) = -0.4154, p = 0.0770/r(13) = -0.4886, p = 0.0646). For the combined data, median (IQR) D3 levels were 23.2 ng/mL (17.4-26.8), and a significant Pearson correlation was observed (r(32) = -0.3989, p = 0.0194). Regression suggested a theoretical point of zero mortality at approximately 50 ng/mL D3.

Conclusions: The datasets provide strong evidence that low D3 is a predictor rather than just a side effect of the infection. Despite ongoing vaccinations, we recommend raising serum 25(OH)D levels to above 50 ng/mL to prevent or mitigate new outbreaks due to escape mutations or decreasing antibody activity.

Read more …

Lemme guess: $700 a pop?

“..measuring one square centimeter that were dotted with more than 5,000 microscopic spikes..”

Needle-Free Vaccine Patches Coming Soon (Y!)

Effective vaccines, without a needle: Since the start of the Covid pandemic, researchers have doubled down on efforts to create patches that deliver life-saving drugs painlessly to the skin, a development that could revolutionize medicine. The technique could help save children’s tears at doctors’ offices, and help people who have a phobia of syringes. Beyond that, skin patches could assist with distribution efforts, because they don’t have cold-chain requirements — and might even heighten vaccine efficacy. A new mouse study in the area, published in the journal Science Advances, showed promising results.

The Australian-US team used patches measuring one square centimeter that were dotted with more than 5,000 microscopic spikes, “so tiny you can’t actually see them,” David Muller, a virologist at the University of Queensland and co-author of the paper, told AFP. These tips have been coated with an experimental vaccine, and the patch is clicked on with an applicator that resembles a hockey puck. “It’s like you get a good flick on the skin,” said Muller. The researchers used a so-called “subunit” vaccine that reproduces the spikes that dot the surface of the coronavirus. Mice were injected either via the patch over the course of two minutes, or with a syringe.


The immune systems of those who got the patch produced high levels of neutralizing antibodies after two doses, including in their lungs, vital to stopping Covid, and the patches outperformed syringes. The researchers also found that a sub-group of mice, who were given only one dose of vaccine containing an additional substance called an adjuvant used to spur immune response, “didn’t get sick at all,” said Muller. Vaccines are normally injected into our muscles, but muscle tissue doesn’t contain very many immune cells needed to react to the drug, explained Muller. In addition, the tiny spikes cause localized skin death, which alerts the body to a problem and triggers a greater immune response. For the scientist, the logistical advantages couldn’t be clearer.

Read more …

The Lancet is not worried about its reputation.

New Lancet Study Exposes Limits Of Vaccines At Preventing COVID Infection (ZH)

The Lancet has just released another study comparing the efficacy of COVID vaccines to the efficacy of protection provided by previous COVID infections. Their conclusion: while vaccines lower the risk of infections with the delta variant within households, those who are fully vaccinated are still vulnerable to a ‘breakthrough’ infection if somebody they live with gets infected. What’s more, people who have been vaccinated against COVID can be equally as infectious as the unvaccinated, the study showed. The new study, which was published Thursday in the Lancet, the British medical journal that published some of the earliest research on COVID, is one of few to use detailed infection data from actual examples of household transmission, and it showed that – as we noted above – the viral loads of both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients infected with COVID are “broadly similar”.

The study involved 621 people in the UK with mild COVID infections, identified via the UK’s contact-tracing system. The data showed that vaccination status doesn’t make a whole lot of difference in the ability to pass COVID on to others. Roughly 25% of vaccinated household members subsequently tested positive for the virus after close contact with a fellow household member with a confirmed case of COVID. That’s compared with 38% of infection for people who haven’t been vaccinated. These data show that the delta variant has a “greater capability for breaching the vaccine’s defenses when compared with predecessors. “Our findings show that vaccination alone is not enough to prevent people from being infected with the Delta variant and spreading it in household settings,” said Professor Ajit Lalvani of Imperial College London, the co-leader of the study.


The study’s author said the lower transmission rates between vaccinated patients is just another reason to get the jab – although not a particularly compelling one. “The ongoing transmission we are seeing between vaccinated people makes it essential for unvaccinated people to get vaccinated to protect themselves from acquiring infection and severe Covid-19, especially as more people will be spending time inside in close proximity during the winter months,” he said. The study also underlines the importance of the vulnerable to get booster shots, since it also shows that vaccine immunity wanes with time. “We found that susceptibility to infection increased already within a few months after the second vaccine dose – so those eligible for Covid-19 booster shots should get them promptly,” the professor said.

Read more …

“What Drosten is telling you is that not only have the vaccines failed to stop you from getting the virus, they’ve screwed everyone.”

And Now, The Admission…. (Denninger)

In short, the governments lied and now they’re admitting it. “My goal as virologist Drosten, is … I want to have vaccine immunity and then, on top of that, I want to have my first infection, and my second, and my third at some point.“ You mean… like measles? Oh wait… not like measles, because if you take the measles shot you won’t get measles — or give it to anyone else. vOf course this forms the entire premise of so-called “mandatory” vaccinations, all of which has always been a crock of **** and worthy of a piano dropped on the head of anyone arguing for it. The only reason it didn’t happen over the decades is that those other shots were in fact safe (which these are not) and, once taken, you didn’t get the disease.

But now we have an actual Government so-called expert, in this case Germany’s, stating out loud that the vaccines are in fact worthless as a public health measure. They neither prevent you from getting the virus or transmitting it, making them nothing more than a very dangerous flu shot.The flu shot usually doesn’t prevent you from getting or spreading the flu either. Indeed in Canada nurses have won court cases against their employers who argued for mandatory flu shots on exactly this basis. The flu shot, which is pushed heavily by a lot of doctors and so-called “experts”, has the virtue of being quite safe, however, that only about 20 or 25 people die associated with it and it has no record of causing effects like myocarditis. Neither can be said for these jabs that are somewhere between 100 and 1,000 times as dangerous — bad enough that for someone under the age of 30 who doesn’t have a pre-existing life-threatening condition the jab is more-dangerous than the virus itself.

But what’s worse is the continuing stream of data out of England which strongly suggests that not only do these jabs not stop you from getting the virus they also have a very nasty tendency to prevent you from building “N” antibodies if and when you do get infected after being jabbed. That’s very bad, because it is those antibodies that, we have reason to believe, are in fact critical to prevent serious or fatal outcomes.= Nobody cares if they sneeze; indeed, coronaviruses produce that all the time. So why would Drosten say he looks forward to his first, second and third infection post jab? We already know that being infected without being jabbed produces durable immunity. Exactly how durable is open to some question but by the data over the last 18 months the answer is “very durable” with only a tiny fraction of one percent of people becoming symptomatically ill, if not vaccinated, twice.

What Drosten is telling you is that not only have the vaccines failed to stop you from getting the virus they’ve screwed everyone. No, not everyone has or will drop dead from the immediate side effects such as myocarditis, although the longer-term impact of those nasty adverse effects is very likely to be materially worse than the immediate count, which is bad enough. No, the really hideous news, it appears, is that it is basically universal that the jabs produce OAS in every single person who takes them and thus you will not only get Covid, you’ll get it more than once if you were stupid enough to take the shot(s).

Read more …

And many many more. And of course he still has his job.

Fauci Funded Yet Another Cruel Beagle Experiment (LW)

In July, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the agency of the National Institutes of Health run by Anthony Fauci, gave more than half a million dollars to the veterinarian school at Kansas State University to fund an experiment, which is still ongoing, that involves infecting beagles with mutant versions of a bacteria that’s transmitted by ticks. The experiment, which was discovered through a Freedom of Information Act request by the White Coat Waste Project, is the latest item on a long list of gruesome animal tests underwritten by Fauci’s NIAID.The $536,311 payment was this year’s installment of what has so far totaled $5.6 million in NIAID funding for the research project, which began in December of 2007 and is scheduled to end in 2024.

A 2020 paper based on the experiment’s findings reported that, for that funding cycle, the researchers bought 18 six month-old beagles from a commercial breeder. The researchers created mutant strains of the bacteria Ehrlichia chaffeensis in a laboratory and infected the beagles with them. The E chaffeensis bacteria can cause fever, respiratory distress, weight loss, bleeding disorders, neurological disturbances, anemia, bleeding, lameness and eye problems in dogs. After infecting them, the researchers allowed 200 ticks to feed on each of the beagles for a week, to see whether the ticks would take up the mutated versions of the bacteria. For the next two months, they drew the dogs’ blood for testing. Then they killed them. For the new funding cycle, the researchers proposed continuing this experimentation on 138 more beagles, with 250 ticks per dog.


When asked whether NIAID considered this experimentation humane, a spokesperson emailed: “The use of animals in a grantee’s research is ultimately overseen by his or her own institution’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)” and referred me to Kansas State University. [..] Over the past week, Anthony Fauci, the NIH and NIAID have been widely criticized both in the media and by elected officials for their funding of grisly experiments on dogs and other animals. In response, NIH’s defenders have described the attacks as a “partisan hit job” motivated by unrelated political differences over Fauci’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank called it a “disinformation campaign” and part of a “crusade against Fauci.” Self-described “fact checkers” amplified Milbank’s claims.

Read more …

Whitney’s 3-part series.

COVID-19: Moderna Gets Its Miracle (Whitney Webb)

In late 2019, the biopharmaceutical company Moderna was facing a series of challenges that not only threatened its ability to ever take a product to market, and thus turn a profit, but its very existence as a company. There were multiple warning signs that Moderna was essentially another Theranos-style fraud, with many of these signs growing in frequency and severity as the decade drew to a close. Part I of this three-part series explored the disastrous circumstances in which Moderna found itself at that time, with the company’s salvation hinging on the hope of a divine miracle, a “Hail Mary” save of sorts, as stated by one former Moderna employee.

While the COVID-19 crisis that emerged in the first part of 2020 can hardly be described as an act of benevolent divine intervention for most, it certainly can be seen that way from Moderna’s perspective. Key issues for the company, including seemingly insurmountable regulatory hurdles and its inability to advance beyond animal trials with its most promising—and profitable—products, were conveniently wiped away, and not a moment too soon. Since January 2020, the value of Moderna’s stock—which had embarked on a steady decline since its IPO—grew from $18.89 per share to its current value of $339.57 per share, thanks to the success of its COVID-19 vaccine.

Yet, how exactly was Moderna’s “Hail Mary” moment realized, and what were the forces and events that ensured it would make it through the FDA’s emergency use authorization (EUA) process? In examining that question, it becomes quickly apparent that Moderna’s journey of saving grace involved much more than just cutting corners in animal and human trials and federal regulations. Indeed, if we are to believe Moderna executives, it involved supplying formulations for some trial studies that were not the same as their COVID-19 vaccine commercial candidate, despite the data resulting from the former being used to sell Moderna’s vaccine to the public and federal health authorities. Such data was also selectively released at times to align with preplanned stock trades by Moderna executives, turning many of Moderna’s highest-ranking employees into millionaires, and even billionaires, while the COVID-19 crisis meant economic calamity for most Americans.

Not only that, but—as Part II of this three-part series will show, Moderna and a handful of its collaborators at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) seemed to know that Moderna’s miracle had arrived—well before anyone else knew or could have known. Was it really a coincidental mix of “foresight” and “serendipity” that led Moderna and the NIH to plan to develop a COVID-19 vaccine days before the viral sequence was even published and months before a vaccine was even considered necessary for a still unknown disease? If so, why would Moderna—a company clearly on the brink—throw everything into and gamble the entire company on a vaccine project that had no demonstrated need at the time?

Read more …

“Under normal conditions – that is, before scientific inquiry was sent back kicking and screaming to the Dark Ages..”

Humanity Is Sleepwalking Towards Medical Apartheid (SCF)

Even as scientific studies show that vaccines alone cannot extricate humanity from the Covid-19 crisis, governments are rushing headlong towards the creation of a ‘vaccinated economy’ without any consideration for the consequences. It’s time for an injection of sanity and informed democratic debate. An astonishing thing happened this week that should have – were it not for a media industrial complex that coddles and cossets the powers that be – incited journalists to scream bloody murder around our increasingly imprisoned planet. What the world got instead was the deafening cacophony of crickets.

When a reporter asked New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern about the possibility of the Pacific island nation being fragmented into two distinct classes of citizens – the vaccinated and unvaccinated – Arden didn’t miss a beat as she responded with her trademark Cheshire grin, “That is what it is. So yep. Yep.” After being further prodded by the deferential journalist as to why she favored apartheid, Ardern, who has already mandated vaccines for government employees or else, responded, unscientifically, that “people who have been vaccinated will want to know that they are around other vaccinated people; they’ll want to know that they’re in a safe environment.”

Under normal conditions – that is, before scientific inquiry was sent back kicking and screaming to the Dark Ages – Ardern’s outrageous remark would have been greeted by robust and vigorous debate from both the political and medical communities. After all, the vaccinated should feel absolutely at ease mingling among the unvaccinated in stuffy public places given that they are, supposedly, protected? Isn’t that the point of the vaccines, to protect the vaccinated and get us back to some semblance of ‘normal’? If not, then why the incessant push to jab every single person on the planet, and not just once, as initially promised, but multiple times? The answer, at least according to Queen Ardern, is so that everyone can feel “confident” once again among their fellow man. That makes absolutely zero sense, especially as new studies show no discernible decrease in infection rates among the vaccinated. So why hedge our bets when just the opposite seems to be happening?

In a recent study by Harvard researchers, published in the European Journal of Epidemiology, it was discovered that, looking at statistics around the world, “there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases…” The researchers then delivered a brutal body slam to conventional (political) thinking by revealing that “the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have HIGHER (emphasis added) COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.”

Read more …

No Hell No.

Ice Cube Ditches Movie & $9 Million After Refusing To Get Covid-19 Vaccine (RT)

Rapper and actor Ice Cube has exited a movie for which he was supposed to be paid $9 million after refusing requests to get the Covid-19 vaccine. Ice Cube has left the ironically titled ‘Oh Hell No’ Sony comedy, according to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to The Hollywood Reporter. Cube, known for films like ‘Friday’ and songs such as ‘It Was a Good Day’, was set to co-star in the feature with comedic actor Jack Black. The production was set to kick off in December in Hawaii. Cube, whose real name is O’Shea Jackson, previously joined numerous other celebrities during the coronavirus pandemic and encouraged mask-wearing, even donating thousands of face coverings to an Oklahoma college. He also sold t-shirts during the pandemic encouraging masking and raising funds for healthcare workers.


The artist’s view on vaccines, however, is a bit more murky. In June of 2020, he tweeted that doctors should “stop lying” about Covid-19. The tweet followed a June message reading, “Got the cue for the coronavirus,” which was linked to an album cover featuring someone getting a substance injected through a needle. The bottom of the image read, “lethal injection.” Cube has declined to comment on his reported parting with the ‘Oh Hell No’ production. Hollywood performers who have stood against vaccine mandates or refused to get a vaccine themselves have thus far been primarily conservative artists. Comedian and actor Rob Schneider has frequently spoken out against mandates through his Twitter.

Read more …

The bureaucrats see opportunity.

Social Media Accounts Could Soon Require Digital ID in France, UK (BMU)

Digital ID may soon be a requirement for social media participation, as both France and the UK have taken steps toward the ban of anonymous social media accounts. The website of the French Senate published a new bill proposing the creation of an independent supervisory authority in charge of collecting user identities when they register with online platforms. According to Conservative Senator Alain Cadec, the creation of the new law would stop an observed increase in cyberbullying and make it easier to prosecute potential offenders. “The proposed law thus aims to facilitate the identification of the perpetrators of offenses, and thereby contribute to putting an end to the real feeling of impunity of the authors of hateful, racist, homophobic or sexist messages,” reads the bill’s explanatory statement.

According to the new document, submitting a scan of their ID upon registration would make users aware that they can be identified quickly, and therefore serve as a deterrent against offending behaviors. The proposed independent administrative authority would comprise representatives of platforms, users, parliamentarians, and magistrates, and would be chaired by a member of parliament. The authority’s duties would encompass the online collection and profile creation of “official data and information allowing the identification of users established on French territory of platforms and social networks exceeding a certain audience threshold in France.”


The identification data would be transmitted at the request of the judge in the event of criminal activity, which would “avoid being submitted to the goodwill of a company located in California or elsewhere in the world.” In addition, the proposed bills suggest the creation of a non-nominative online digital identifier that would enable registration to be finalized with platforms and social networks, and that would be held by the authority.

Read more …

“The United States’ lawyers are basically trying to sink the entire case, on a technicality that has nothing to do with psychiatry.”

US Lawyers Argue Assange Healthy Enough to Be Sent to His Death (Medhurst)

Appealing on five grounds, the two main topics of the High Court appeal dealt with Assange’s health, and diplomatic assurances that he wouldn’t be placed in oppressive prison conditions in the US. The United States lawyers attempted to downplay the severity of Assange’s mental illness, arguing that he was not at high risk of suicide. The prosecutors argued that he did not meet the criteria for his extradition to be oppressive, and that the judge did not apply the test correctly. The case now hinges on whether the United States can prove that Assange is not too sick to be extradited, and that the judge erred in her ruling. To do this they have attacked the medical evidence she cited in her report and the medical experts themselves.

Prof. Michael Kopelman is the key medical expert for Assange’s defense. In his first psychiatric evaluation, Kopelman concealed the identities of Assange’s partner Stella Moris and their children, out of concern for their privacy and safety. This was after revelations that Assange was being spied on in the Ecuadorian embassy. His lawyers told the High Court that Moris even moved to a different address for more protection. It’s against this backdrop of surveillance, attempting to steal DNA, and even contemplating to kill Assange, that Kopelman chose not to disclose the relationship with Moris’, and their children. Outside the High Court, Assange’s partner Stella Moris recalled: “His lawyers had been targeted by name, his Spanish lawyer’s office was broken into, his lawyers’ notes seized and copied, our eldest son’s DNA was instructed to be stolen. My mother was followed, I was followed— Julian was spied on in every single detail.”

The judge deemed this inappropriate, but “an understandable human response to Ms. Morris’s predicament”. She preferred Kopelman’s evidence, as he had spent the most time with Assange, and his reports were more detailed. Despite this point having little to do with medical science or psychiatry, the prosecution have used it to try and discredit all of Kopelman’s medical evidence. They say the judge should have given it little or no weight. They accuse Kopelman of misleading the court, and failing in his duty as an impartial, expert witness. Assange’s lawyer Fitzgerald called it a “miserable attempt to tarnish the reputation of a distinguished neuro-psychiatrist”.

The United States’ lawyers are basically trying to sink the entire case, on a technicality that has nothing to do with psychiatry. In fact, Kopelman is such a renowned neuropsychiatrist that even the US’ lead prosecutor, James Lewis, had solicited his services in another case— an irony which Kopelman highlighted in court.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

Fine People Hoax

 

 

 

 

Oz net zero plan

 

 

 

 

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

 

Oct 242021
 
 October 24, 2021  Posted by at 5:34 pm Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , ,  25 Responses »


Leonardo da Vinci Lady with an Ermine c. 1489-91

 

 

There’s something mightily ironic in me getting sick to my stomach when I read about sadistic experiments on puppies by Fauci et al, while at the same time recognizing it’s the same thing that he – and they- have been doing to the America people for 20 months now. Sadism rules under the guise of The Science, faithfully covered by the media, and spread to 200 million Americans, let alone the much larger numbers worldwide.

I don’t have the stomach for this, really, I’ve been literally sick about it all day, but I can’t not talk about it either.

 

 

If it wasn’t yet clear to everyone that the top of the American healthcare system is populated by profoundly sick people, it should be now. First, Anthony Fauci and the NIH have for years been funding experiments, carried out abroad because they are illegal under US law, on making viruses 10,000 times more dangerous.

Turns out, they also fund other experiments in which little beagle puppies are being injected with parasites and/or eaten alive by sandflies. That their vocal chords are cut first so the “scientists” who conduct the experiments don’t have to hear their expressions of pain is a lovely detail. This should make any human sick to their stomachs.

 

Bipartisan Letter Demands Answers From Fauci On Cruel Puppy Experiments

The White Coat Waste Project, the nonprofit organization that first pointed out that U.S. taxpayers were being used to fund the controversial Wuhan Institute of Virology, have now turned its sights on Anthony Fauci on another animal-testing-related matter — infecting dozens of beagles with disease-causing parasites to test an experimental drug on them. [..] White Coat Waste claims that 44 beagle puppies were used in a Tunisia, North Africa, laboratory, and some of the dogs had their vocal cords removed, allegedly so scientists could work without incessant barking.


“Our investigators show that Fauci’s NIH division shipped part of a $375,800 grant to a lab in Tunisia to drug beagles and lock their heads in mesh cages filled with hungry sand flies so that the insects could eat them alive,” “They also locked beagles alone in cages in the desert overnight for nine consecutive nights to use them as bait to attract infectious sand flies.”

 

However, while those who are still halfway awake in the Covid propaganda campaign may think these experiments are immoral, unscientific, and should have the perpetrators, including Fauci, fired and prosecuted, that is just half the story.

Some may even wonder what other animals are being tortured by this class of sadists, and why are they not being locked up too? But you would still be missing the point by a mile and a half.

Because there is an experiment just like the one with the puppies going on right now, same sadism, same cruelty, only this time on human beings, and also directed by the same Fauci-led crowd. It’s the Covid vaccine campaign. Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche once again explained (part of) this yesterday:

 

Why Are The Current Covid-19 Mass Vaccinations To Be Considered A Public Health Experiment

First, there is no precedent to the use of non-replicating viral vaccines in mass vaccination campaigns conducted during a pandemic, or even epidemic, of a highly mutable virus. The challenge of such an undertaking becomes even more difficult as more infectious antigenic variants had already been circulating by the time the first mass vaccination campaigns were initiated (i.e., Alpha, Beta, and Gamma variants). Their spread was featured by distinct temporal and geographic patterns, the underlying mechanism of which was not understood. Prior to the start of this universal vaccination program no single publication existed that came even close to suggesting that mass vaccinations using vaccines that permit transmission could be successful in extinguishing a pandemic of a highly mutable virus.


No such publication exists to this day, and the idea becomes even more preposterous when considering several infectious variants had already expanded in prevalence by the time the vaccines were rolled out. There is ample evidence from similarly highly mutable RNA viruses like Influenza virus and Enterovirus that expansion in prevalence of antigenic variants is driven by selective immune pressure on viral infectiousness exerted by antibodies, and that antigenic variation diminishes or even abolishes the protective neutralization capacity of Influenza virus or Enterovirus vaccines directed at a specific antigenic lineage.

I know that most people will say these things are completely different, but then most people are fully under the spell of the fear narrative, born anew 24/7 every single day in the media, in politics and in the utterly corrupted health care field.

We can know this because Fauci has incessantly lied about funding gain of function research, including to Congress. Which is a crime, by the way. Fauci has just as incessantly lied about the effectiveness of the vaccines, about infectiousness, transmission, protection from severe illness, and, finally, death. All Fauci has ever done is lie. And he’s America’s national doctor!

These UK numbers tell that story loud and clear:

 

 

The vaccines don’t protect, they instead spread disease; that’s what those numbers say. A pandemic of the vaccinated. All of the vaccine mandates do that too. Chances are that a few months from now, or maybe a year, who shall say, we will be forced to recognize that the lucky people in this will be the ones who were never jabbed. But today the mandates keep getting stronger and more doctors and nurses and pilots and what have you, are pushed out of their jobs, crippling society ever more.

Because everyone MUST be part of the same (kind of) experiment as the beagle puppies. But it has nothing to do with science. It’s just sadism. It’s Joseph Mengele 2.0. Sure, you can learn something from inhumane experiments on animals and people – Mengele did, after all. But that doesn’t mean such experiments should be conducted.

That the experiments on puppies constitute torture is easier for people today to understand, and to protest against, than that the vaccine campaign does, too, on people. But they are really the same thing. You just have to look at who’s behind each of them, and the so-called science they’re based on.

In the case of the puppies, the sadists feel free to do whatever they wish. Because it’s secret, nobody’s looking. In the case of hundreds of millions of humans, it’s a bit more complicated. But a strong media narrative, as we know now, can work miracles.

You tell people that a substance is safe to inject into their bodies, and they line up to be injected. That there are no safety data anywhere near as “scientific” as anything we used to demand until now, doesn’t matter. You tell them it’s safe, and they believe you. Because they are afraid, of a virus, of lockdowns, of anything that could be added on top of what they already experienced.

Pfizer came out with another report that said their boosters are 95% safe the other day. And nobody asks: for how long? Here’s the thing: you can count that in weeks, maybe -but only maybe- in months. And they will never tell you that your body is becoming more of a spike protein factory with each subsequent booster.

When they call for number 3, they don’t talk about number 4. That comes a few months later. Because you might ask questions if they talk about number 8 right now, just like you might have asked about number 3 when getting number 1.

Meanwhile, the distance between the booster shots narrows, and you’re trapped. Unless maybe when you get vitamin D, zinc, ivermectin, HCQ. But the latter are no longer available in most places. Your only escape has been cut off as well. Drugs that could have saved your life are beyond your reach now.

You are a beagle puppy, drugged and tied down. Prepare to be eaten alive. In your case, by the vaccines.

PS: If Fauci still has a job tomorrow morning, you know it’s you against all of them. They don’t care about you one bit. You’re a puppy, bred to follow your master . What do you mean untested vaccines? We’re testing them as we speak!

 

 

 

We try to run the Automatic Earth on donations. Since ad revenue has collapsed, you are now not just a reader, but an integral part of the process that builds this site. Thank you for your support.

 

 

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

 

Oct 242021
 


M. C. Escher Reptiles 1943

 

Bipartisan Letter Demands Answers From Fauci On Cruel Puppy Experiments (Hill)
NIH Admits Funding Risky Virus Research in Wuhan (VF)
The Current Covid-19 Mass Vaccinations Are A Public Health Experiment (Geert)
Infection Rates for Vaccinated Aged 40-79 Double the Rates in Unvaccinated (DS)
Israeli Doctors, Scientists Tell FDA Of Severe Concerns Over Vaccine Data (AFD)
FDA Buries Data on Seriously Injured Child in Pfizer’s Clinical Trial (Siri)
On The Primacy Of The Physician-Patient Relationship (HCR)
Generation Covid-19: Are The Kids Going To Be All Right? (Age)
Lock Him Up (Denninger)
From Economic Fantasy to Ecological Reality on Climate Change (Steve Keen)

 

 

McCullough
https://twitter.com/i/status/1451686955096420357

 

 

Science

 

 

Is it time to put a price on their heads? Run them out of town at the very least. If Congress won’t get rid of these guys, someone else will. I am sick to my stomach.

Bipartisan Letter Demands Answers From Fauci On Cruel Puppy Experiments (Hill)

A bipartisan letter demands answers from the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and President Biden’s chief medical adviser. The White Coat Waste Project, the nonprofit organization that first pointed out that U.S. taxpayers were being used to fund the controversial Wuhan Institute of Virology, have now turned its sights on Anthony Fauci on another animal-testing-related matter — infecting dozens of beagles with disease-causing parasites to test an experimental drug on them. House members, most of whom are Republicans, want Fauci to explain himself in response to allegations brought on by the White Coat Waste Project that involve drugging puppies. According to the White Coat Waste Project, the Food and Drug Administration does not require drugs to be tested on dogs, so the group is asking why the need for such testing.


White Coat Waste claims that 44 beagle puppies were used in a Tunisia, North Africa, laboratory, and some of the dogs had their vocal cords removed, allegedly so scientists could work without incessant barking. Leading the effort is Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), writing a letter to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) saying the cordectomies are “cruel” and a “reprehensible misuse of taxpayer funds.” “Our investigators show that Fauci’s NIH division shipped part of a $375,800 grant to a lab in Tunisia to drug beagles and lock their heads in mesh cages filled with hungry sand flies so that the insects could eat them alive,” White Coat Waste told Changing America. “They also locked beagles alone in cages in the desert overnight for nine consecutive nights to use them as bait to attract infectious sand flies.”

Read more …

Vanity Fair’s take.

NIH Admits Funding Risky Virus Research in Wuhan (VF)

“I totally resent the lie you are now propagating.” Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared to be channeling the frustration of millions of Americans when he spoke those words during an invective-laden, made-for-Twitter Senate hearing on July 20. You didn’t have to be a Democrat to be fed up with all the xenophobic finger-pointing and outright disinformation, coming mainly from the right, up to and including the claim that COVID-19 was a bioweapon cooked up in a lab. The immediate target of Dr. Fauci’s wrath was Senator Rand Paul, who was pressing the nation’s top doctor to say whether the National Institutes of Health had ever funded risky coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Based on new information disclosed by the National Institutes of Health, however, Paul might have been onto something.

On Wednesday, the NIH sent a letter to members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that acknowledged two facts. One was that EcoHealth Alliance, a New York City–based nonprofit that partners with far-flung laboratories to research and prevent the outbreak of emerging diseases, did indeed enhance a bat coronavirus to become potentially more infectious to humans, which the NIH letter described as an “unexpected result” of the research it funded that was carried out in partnership with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The second was that EcoHealth Alliance violated the terms of its grant conditions stipulating that it had to report if its research increased the viral growth of a pathogen by tenfold. The NIH based these disclosures on a research progress report that EcoHealth Alliance sent to the agency in August, roughly two years after it was supposed to.

An NIH spokesperson told Vanity Fair that Dr. Fauci was “entirely truthful in his statements to Congress,” and that he did not have the progress report that detailed the controversial research at the time he testified in July. But EcoHealth Alliance appeared to contradict that claim, and said in a statement: “These data were reported as soon as we were made aware, in our year four report in April 2018.” The letter from the NIH, and an accompanying analysis, stipulated that the virus EcoHealth Alliance was researching could not have sparked the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, given the sizable genetic differences between the two. In a statement issued Wednesday, NIH director Dr. Francis Collins said that his agency “wants to set the record straight” on EcoHealth Alliance’s research, but added that any claims that it could have caused the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic are “demonstrably false.”

EcoHealth Alliance said in a statement that the science clearly proved that its research could not have led to the pandemic, and that it was “working with the NIH to promptly address what we believe to be a misconception about the grant’s reporting requirements and what the data from our research showed.” But the NIH letter—coming after months of congressional demands for more information—seemed to underscore that America’s premier science institute has been less than forthcoming about risky research it has funded and failed to properly monitor. Instead of helping to lead a search for COVID-19’s origins, with the pandemic now firmly in its 19th month, the NIH has circled the wagons, defending its grant system and scientific judgment against a rising tide of questions. “It’s just another chapter in a sad tale of inadequate oversight, disregard for risk, and insensitivity to the importance of transparency,” said Stanford microbiologist Dr. David Relman. “Given all of the sensitivity about this work, it’s difficult to understand why NIH and EcoHealth have still not explained a number of irregularities with the reporting on this grant.”

Read more …

A 3-month trial to direct the rest of your life.

The Current Covid-19 Mass Vaccinations Are A Public Health Experiment (Geert)

First, there is no precedent to the use of non-replicating viral vaccines in mass vaccination campaigns conducted during a pandemic, or even epidemic, of a highly mutable virus. The challenge of such an undertaking becomes even more difficult as more infectious antigenic variants had already been circulating by the time the first mass vaccination campaigns were initiated (i.e., Alpha, Beta, and Gamma variants). Their spread was featured by distinct temporal and geographic patterns, the underlying mechanism of which was not understood. Prior to the start of this universal vaccination program no single publication existed that came even close to suggesting that mass vaccinations using vaccines that permit transmission could be successful in extinguishing a pandemic of a highly mutable virus.

No such publication exists to this day, and the idea becomes even more preposterous when considering several infectious variants had already expanded in prevalence by the time the vaccines were rolled out. There is ample evidence from similarly highly mutable RNA viruses like Influenza virus and Enterovirus that expansion in prevalence of antigenic variants is driven by selective immune pressure on viral infectiousness exerted by antibodies, and that antigenic variation diminishes or even abolishes the protective neutralization capacity of Influenza virus or Enterovirus vaccines directed at a specific antigenic lineage (1, 2). Consequently, nonreplicating monovalent enteroviral vaccines, for example, are only used at scale in vaccination campaigns of vulnerable target groups (e.g., children) deployed to fight recurrent epidemics of life-threatening enterovirus infection (e.g., EV-A71) in the Asia Pacific region (3).

Interestingly, the US FDA did not approve these vaccines due to ‘concerns about the effectiveness against different pandemic strains, safety, and quality control of vaccine production’ (3). Mass vaccination programs previously conducted to combat viral epidemics/pandemics (e.g., smallpox, polio, measles, yellow fever) have nothing in common with the ongoing mass vaccination campaigns today as those viruses are very different in terms of their pathogenesis, transmissibility, route of infection, potential reservoirs, predominant effector mechanisms involved in antiviral immunity, susceptibility of population segments, as well as with regard to the vaccines used (all prior vaccination campaigns involved live-attenuated virus). In addition, vaccine efficacy as assessed during clinical trials is different from viral effectiveness, which reflects how well a vaccine performs in the field.

Viral effectiveness, therefore, depends on the level of infectious pressure exerted by the viral population and the level of immune selection pressure exerted by the host population (among other factors). Those can be very different from the ones prevailing during clinical trials. This particularly applies when the vaccine is used in mass vaccination campaigns rolled out in the middle of a pandemic of more infectious variants. Because of large-scale pharmaceutical (e.g., mass vaccination) and nonpharmaceutical (e.g., infection-prevention measures) human interventions, significant changes in viral infectious pressure and population-level immune pressure can suddenly take place and dramatically accelerate or slow down the evolutionary dynamics of a pandemic, especially if more infectious variants are circulating.

Whereas the final target population should have the same profile as the one enrolled in the vaccine trials, current Covid-19 (C-19) vaccines are now administered to several segments of the population that have not been part of the pivotal clinical trials that enabled their authorization for emergency use (e.g., children, elderly, pregnant women, women of childbearing age, individuals who previously recovered from Covid-19 disease). Furthermore, the follow-up of study participants in the clinical trials did not extend beyond 3 months as the WHO had declared the pandemic a health emergency of international concern. Short-term results from clinical vaccine trials that were conducted on a small subset of a specific target population during a short period of a pandemic caused by a specific SARS-CoV-2 lineage (most notably the original Wuhan strain) cannot even be considered informative for vaccine effectiveness of mass vaccination campaigns deployed globally across almost all population segments over a prolonged period of a pandemic trajectory involving several waves of infection caused by several different more infectious viral variants.

Read more …

It’s the 40-49 group that comes out worst in all of the stats these days.

Infection Rates for Vaccinated Aged 40-79 Double the Rates in Unvaccinated (DS)

Another week, another Vaccine Surveillance report (now published by the U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA), the successor to Public Health England), and with it more worrying news on the vaccine front. Infection rates in the double-vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated continue to rise, meaning unadjusted vaccine effectiveness continues to decline. Infection rates are now higher in the double-vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated by 124% in those in their 40s, 103% in those in their 50s and 60s and 101% in those in their 70s, corresponding to unadjusted vaccine effectiveness estimates of minus-124%, minus-103% and minus-101% respectively. For those over 80 the unadjusted vaccine effectiveness is minus-34% while for those in their 30s it is minus-27%. For 18-29 year-olds it is 25%, so still positive but low, while for under-18s it is 90%, the only age group showing high efficacy.

Vaccine effectiveness against emergency hospital admission and death continues to hold up, though with some indication of gradual slide, particularly in older age groups. The UKHSA has continued to receive criticism for publishing this data, with claims that the figures used for the unvaccinated population are unreliable and likely too high, artificially suppressing the infection rate and vaccine effectiveness. Cambridge statistician Professor David Spiegelhalter put out a scathing tweet on these lines on Friday, but he didn’t elaborate on his claim or link to an article explaining it further. Professors Norman Fenton and Martin Neil have argued that in fact the PHE/UKHSA data may underestimate the number of unvaccinated rather than overestimate them, which would have the reverse effect.


Either way though, what wouldn’t change is the fact of the large and fast decline in effectiveness against infection. This is now generally acknowledged among many scientists (likely caused by waning over time or new variants or both), though has not had the logical impact on Government policy one might have expected and hoped for of eliminating the rationale for vaccine passports and mandates. A further point revealed for the first time in this week’s surveillance report is that the vaccines may actually hobble the body’s ability to develop the strongest immunity once infected. As noted by Alex Berenson, the report mentions (in passing) that “recent observations from U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data” show that “N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following two doses of vaccination”.

Read more …

“In the Book of Leviticus, it is said ‘Do not stand idly by while your neighbor’s blood is shed.’”

Israeli Doctors, Scientists Tell FDA Of Severe Concerns Over Vaccine Data (AFD)

An independent Israeli group of physicians, lawyers, scientists, and researchers called the Professional Ethics Front today advised the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the upcoming FDA discussion on administering COVID-19 vaccines to children aged 5-11, expressing “severe concerns” regarding the reliability and legality of official Israeli COVID vaccine data. “We are aware that the state of Israel is perceived as ‘the world laboratory’ regarding the safety and efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, as reflected by statements made by Dr. Albert Bourla, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and other senior figures in leading health authorities throughout the world,” the letter reads. “It is therefore our understanding that the data and information coming from Israel play a crucial role in critical decision-making processes in regards to COVID-19 vaccination policies.

“We thus see it of utmost importance to convey a message of warning and raise our major concerns regarding potential flaws in the reliability of the Israeli data with respect to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, as well as many significant legal and ethical violations that accompany the data collection processes.” The letter elaborates: “We believe that the significant failures underlying the Israeli database, which have been brought to our attention by numerous testimonies, impair its reliability and legality to such an extent that it should not be used for making any critical decisions regarding the COVID-19 vaccines.” “This document briefly outlines the main failures that lead to this unfortunate, albeit inevitable, conclusion,” the notice reads. “We emphasize that we can expand and clarify further, as well as provide references, in relation to each of the failures described below.

[..] The Israeli Professional Ethics Front concludes its notice to the FDA: “In accordance with the accepted perception established after World War II, the findings of experiments obtained in illegal and immoral ways should not be relied upon. We believe that the same rules should apply to the findings of the current experiment in Israel, since these findings were obtained through significant legal and ethical infringements. Our conclusion is further reinforced by the significant doubts about the reliability of the data reported by Israel, as detailed above, and the consequent major concern that their use might be misleading and thus disrupt the decision-making processes pertaining to the Pfizer-BioNtech COVID-19 vaccines.

“In the Book of Leviticus, it is said ‘Do not stand idly by while your neighbor’s blood is shed.’ In the spirit of those words, we implore the committee to take into consideration our urgent warnings and adopt utmost precaution when referring to the Israeli data concerning the safety and efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNtech COVID-19 vaccines.”

Read more …

Fire everyone at the FDA too. Seriously, get rid of these people.

FDA Buries Data on Seriously Injured Child in Pfizer’s Clinical Trial (Siri)

When Stephanie and Patrick de Garay enrolled their 12-year-old child Maddie and her two brothers in Pfizer’s Covid-19 clinical trial, they believed they were doing the right thing. That decision has turned into a nightmare. Maddie, a previously healthy, energetic, full of life child, was within 24 hours of her second dose reduced to crippling, scream-inducing pain that landed her in the emergency room where she described feeling like someone was “ripping [her] heart out though [her] neck.” Over the next several months the nightmare continued, during which Maddie was hospitalized several times and suffered numerous systemic injuries, requires a tube through her nose that carries her food and medicine, and a wheelchair for assistance.

Ms. de Garay documented every detail of Maddie’s injury and reported it to the principal investigator for the Pfizer trial at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital where the vaccine clinical trial was occurring and where Maddie was treated and admitted. They first tried to treat Maddie as “a mental patient,” telling the family it was psychological and in Maddie’s imagination. Then they claimed it was unrelated to the vaccine (copy of recording with hospital below), and when that argument failed, Pfizer listed this traumatic adverse event as “functional abdominal pain” when reporting to the FDA. Ms. de Garay reported what occurred to the CDC and FDA through VAERS in June 2021 but nobody from these agencies sought additional information or followed-up with the de Garays.

Ms. de Garay also reached out to Dr. Nath, a Chief in the NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, responded by stating he was “Sorry to hear of your daughter’s illness” and that “We have certainly heard of a lot of cases of neurological complications form [sic] the vaccine and will be glad to share our experience with them.” Unfortunately, other than a call arranged by Maddie’s neurologist, there was no follow-up or response from NIH or any other federal health agency. Even after Ms. de Garay did a press event on June 28, 2021 with Senator Ron Johnson, neither Pfizer nor any health agency reached out in any manner to address Maddie’s injury or obtain any additional information.

Read more …

I saw the doc from the Nebraska AG when it came out, but it was a PDF made up entirely of images of the text. Not very user friendly for me.

On The Primacy Of The Physician-Patient Relationship (HCR)

I have not written much at this site, or any site, in recent years due to being kept busy supporting litigation regarding bad healthcare information technology as an expert witness. A recent letter, however, so caught my eye regarding both current events and my past writing about bad health IT, that I decided to write about it. It is perhaps a poignant reminder of the craziness of the times in which we physicians find ourselves that a well researched letter on the primacy of the doctor-patient relationship, and the non-interference with that relationship by outside forces based on opinions of non-clinicians, half-baked ideas, overzealous government, media hysteria to garner audience share, etc. comes not from the hallowed halls of academia or a prestigious medical journal – but from a state Attorney General, namely, of Nebraska.

The letter, dated Oct. 14, 2021 and entitled “Prescription of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine as Off-Label Medicines for the Prevention or Treatment of Covid-19”, is located at this link: https://ago.nebraska.gov/sites/ago.nebraska.gov/files/docs/opinions/21-017_0.pdf, It was requested by Dannette R. Smith, the Chief Executive Officer of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services. I recommend reading it in its entirety. In this 48-page letter, arguments regarding sanctioning of Nebraska physicians for their decisions on how to treat their patients with FDA-approved drugs for off-label purposes are discussed in significant detail and with significant literature references. The letter reaches the conclusion that:

“… Based on the available data, we do not find clear and convincing evidence that a physician who first obtains informed consent and then utilizes ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 violates the UCA (Nebraska Uniform Credentialing Act). This conclusion is subject to the limits noted throughout this opinion. Foremost among them are that if physicians who prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine neglect to obtain informed consent, deceive their patients, prescribe excessively high doses, fail to check for contraindications, or engage in other misconduct, they might be subject to discipline, no less than they would be in any other context … Allowing physicians to consider these early treatments will free them to evaluate additional tools that could save lives, keep patients out of the hospital, and provide relief for our already strained healthcare system.”

No matter one’s opinion on the specifics of this particular controversy, the primacy of the physician-patient relationship – absent extreme circumstances of malfeasance/malpractice – is a principle that should not now, and should never need a 48 page letter for its justification.

Read more …

No.

Generation Covid-19: Are The Kids Going To Be All Right? (Age)

To be a young adult in late 2021 is to have come of age while COVID-19 put your life on hold. Gone were the dreams of big 18th birthday bashes and a bustling university life. Career ambitions were deferred, exotic holidays abroad with friends a distant dream. Jobs evaporated and social lives shrivelled. For this generation, unemployment reached 10.8 per cent last month, while participation rates – the number of 15 to 24-year-olds either working or looking for work – slumped to just 51.3 per cent, from 55 per cent in March last year. As Melbourne awakens from its sixth lockdown, a generation of the city’s youth are coming to terms with the loss of almost two years of their early adult lives. No other group of young people across the country has suffered quite like those in Melbourne.

Whether it be school-leavers whose gap-year plans have been scuttled, or uni students struggling to stay afloat in remote university classes, COVID-19 has irreparably changed the course of these young people’s personal and professional lives. Now taking their first steps forward in a post-lockdown city, parents and peers alike are wondering: will the kids be all right? “I’ve just turned 21, and there’s only a few more weeks left of my degree,” says Thomas, who does not want his surname published. “I’ve made an application for a postgrad in law – which was my original plan – but if I get accepted, I think I’m going to defer and take the year off. “As a student who was already struggling with chronic mental illness, these last two years have been hell. I feel like what should’ve been some of the most freeing years of my life have been robbed from me. “I need a break.”

He’s far from alone. A longitudinal study of Australia’s young people conducted by the Department of Education, Skills and Employment showed 23 per cent of 20-year-olds lived with a serious mental health illness in 2020, up from just 7 per cent in 2014. It showed young people are in insecure work at higher rates than six years ago (39 per cent were in permanent work in 2020, compared with 43 per cent in 2014) and were underemployed at higher rates (42 per cent would prefer to work more hours, compared with 32 per cent in 2014). Unsurprisingly, given these numbers, 70 per cent of surveyed 20-year-olds were living with their parents, and of those who had moved out by 19, almost a third had been forced to move back in.

Read more …

“Whether Baldwin believed the weapon was loaded or not only goes to the issue of whether this is murder rather than manslaughter..”

Lock Him Up (Denninger)

Reality is that Alec Baldwin intentionally pointed a firearm at a person and pulled the trigger. Exactly why he did so remains in question, as the slaughter did not occur during the “action” portion of filming — that is, he was not pointing it at one of the other actors in the film at the time. In fact he pointed it at cinematographer, killing her and and wounding the director behind her who the round also struck. This is, at best, voluntary manslaughter. I do not care if you’re on a movie set or otherwise; a firearm is handed to you with the action open and thus unable to discharge — always. A firearm is always loaded, even if you’re told it is not. You never point a firearm at anything you’re unwilling to destroy, even momentarily. And you never pull the trigger of a firearm until and unless you are pointing it at whatever you are willing to destroy.

That it is occasionally necessary in film production to violate one or more of these rules doesn’t change the rules. It simply means that you had damn well better make certain you’re not going to shoot someone as a result of doing so. In this particular case there is zero evidence Alec Baldwin had any valid reason within the context of the film to point that weapon, believed loaded or not, at a cinematographer. She was not an actor in the film. There is no claim that the weapon malfunctioned (e.g. was dropped) either; older guns, which would be rather common in a western, might not have the safety features of a modern firearm that prohibit them from firing if dropped or otherwise mishandled so that is not at issue in this instance. The evidence and presumption to this point is that the weapon was pointed at the cinematographer and the trigger depressed, both intentional acts.

Whether Baldwin believed the weapon was loaded or not only goes to the issue of whether this is murder rather than manslaughter; he had a duty to inspect what he was allegedly told was a “cold” weapon and verifying it was incapable of discharge if his part in the film required him to point it at, or where in the potential path of a projectile, a human is or could be. It is clear he did not do so and that, at minimum is killing by negligence, commonly known as voluntary manslaughter. If, as appears evident, he intentionally pointed the weapon at the cinematographer and pulled the trigger outside of a requirement to “shoot” at someone while filming was being rehearsed or was actually taking place (e.g. he was pissed off for some reason and that’s why he pointed the alleged “cold gun” at her and pulled the trigger) then I argue depravity is arguably present as well and that’s Murder 2. Baldwin must be arrested now. There is no reasonable means to claim this is an “accident”; Halyna was first the victim of felony assault with a deadly weapon when a firearm was pointed at her without lawful purpose and then was killed when, through an intentional act, it was discharged. I don’t give a crap how rich or famous Baldwin is

Read more …

Steve has been doing a lot of climate work, and is running for office in Sydney.

From Economic Fantasy to Ecological Reality on Climate Change (Steve Keen)

This was an invited talk to the Oxford Department of International Development “Climate Change and the Challenges of Development Lecture Series”, on my criticisms of the application of neoclassical economics to climate change. I focused on the new paper by Dietz et al. that allegedly calculates the economic costs of tipping points: Dietz, S., J. Rising, T. Stoerk and G. Wagner (2021). “Economic impacts of tipping points in the climate system.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(34): e2103081118. Upon closer examination, this papers fails to consider tipping points in any credible way, and this is obvious in its incredible claim (in the original sense of the “not credible”), that: “Tipping points reduce global consumption per capita by around 1% upon 3°C warming and by around 1.4% upon 6°C warming. This is ridiculous: the tipping points they consider are:

• Arctic summer sea ice,
• The Greenland Ice Sheet,
• The West Antarctic Ice Sheet,
• The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (“Gulf Stream”),
• The Amazon Rainforest,
• The Indian Monsoon,
• Permafrost, and
• Ocean methane hydrates.

If all 8 of these tripped–especially with a temperature 3-6°C above pre-industrial levels–we would be experiencing a climate utterly unlike anything Earth has seen for tens of millions of years. The thought that this would just reduce global consumption by just 1.4%–compared to what it would be if none of these tipping points were triggered–doesn’t pass what Nobel Laureate Robert Solow once called “the smell test”: “every proposition has to pass a smell test: Does it really make sense?”. I show why this paper stinks in Solow’s sense.

Read more …

 

 

 

Dads on Duty

 

 

Swiss

 

 

Milan

 

 

Udine
https://twitter.com/i/status/1452004619459104773

 

 

 

 

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