M. C. Escher Relativity Lattice 1953
What this guy says👊. That’s the whole tweet👍https://t.co/bB6lKJV6g0
— Bobby D (@LateNightBobbyD) October 25, 2021
They will always find a witch to burn, or drown.
Problem is, how are we going to tell the vaxxed that they are in grave danger?
A question we have been asking for several months: Who are the political officials going to blame for rising COVID infection and hospitalization rates when the vaccination rates are well over 90 percent? What happens on a sociological scale when a vaxxed society realizes there is no magic panacea afforded by the vaccination narrative? Author Jack Cashill takes those questions head-on in a Spectator article noting we only need to look at Waterford, Ireland, to see the dynamic where an almost completely obedient and vaccinated population of 99.7% is facing rising COVID infection rates despite their good citizenship:
Cashill – […] “The arbitrary evolution of Irish COVID policy over the past 18 months has made it clear that public health officials and government policy makers have no idea what they are doing. If proof were needed, County Waterford provides it. According to data published on October 21, Waterford City South has the nation’s highest 14-day incidence rate at 1,486 cases per 100,000 and Tramore-Waterford City West has the third highest at 1,122 cases per 100,000. This is despite internal travel bans and the county’s more than 90 percent vaccination rate. Although Waterford is running three times the rate of the nation writ large, Ireland as a whole is not faring particularly well, especially given its draconian restrictions. In the seven days preceding October 21, Ireland reported 2,026 new cases. To put that number in perspective, wide-open Florida had 2,262 cases during that same period with a population more than four times greater than the Irish Republic’s.”
More vaccines -> More Covid.
In many areas of life, half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. But when it comes to vaccines, the opposite is true. Half-baked antibodies injected throughout the entire population can make the virus even stronger and negate people’s natural immunity. Thus, all the defenses of the leaky vaccine suggesting that it at least conveys “some” protection are actually extremely concerning, a point driven home by a nugget in the most recent surveillance report from Public Health England (PHE). On page 23 of PHE’s “COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report Week 42,” British health officials report a shocking finding. They believe their serology tests are underestimating the number of people with prior infection due to “recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination.”
In other words, the vaccine might be reducing the all-important N antibodies that one generates from natural infection. Kudos to former NYT reporter Alex Berenson for discovering this important point. Until now, we’ve been operating under the assumption that those with prior infection don’t need the vaccine to boost immunity and taking the shots would only expose them to the growing risk of side effects. However, what if the shots are actually sliding back the natural immunity generated in those with previous infection? What if that is related to the macro concern that a narrow-spectrum vaccine with suboptimal antibodies that only recognize the “S” (spike) protein of the virus but not the “N” (nucleocapsid) of the virus will cause B cells in those with the vaccine to learn to produce only S antibodies, which are slower-acting and less sterilizing (don’t stop transmission) than N antibodies, which are faster-acting and are more effective in their protection against the virus?
It’s not like we weren’t confronted with some other warning signs that the vaccine could perhaps negate some of the immunity acquired from prior infection. In March, researchers from Mount Sinai in New York and Hospital La Paz in Madrid posted a preprint study indicating that at least the second Pfizer shot might weaken T cell immunity. In a shocking discovery after monitoring a group of vaccinated people both with and without prior infection, they found “in individuals with a pre-existing immunity against SARS-CoV-2, the second vaccine dose not only fail to boost humoral immunity but determines a contraction of the spike-specific T cell response.” They also note that other research has shown “the second vaccination dose appears to exert a detrimental effect in the overall magnitude of the spike-specific humoral response in COVID-19 recovered individuals.”
Thus, mass vaccinating with leaky suboptimal antibody production could serve as a Trojan horse and make people more susceptible to an ever-enhanced virus. It’s not like we had no warning about the possibility of viral enhancement through waning and suboptimal vaccine-mediated antibodies. On page 52 of Pfizer’s “Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for an Unapproved Product Review Memorandum,” it is admitted that antibody dependent disease enhancement was a possibility in the long run with waning efficacy. “However, risk of vaccine-enhanced disease over time, potentially associated with waning immunity, remains unknown and needs to be evaluated further in ongoing clinical trials and in observational studies that could be conducted following authorization and/or licensure,” write the FDA regulators in the memo.
[..] According to PHE data, 86% of all U.K. residents over age 12 have received at least one shot, including nearly everyone in a vulnerable age bracket. Yet the summer and early fall curve, as presented by Worldometer, has blown out the magnitude of the case curve last year when nobody was vaccinated, and the daily numbers are reaching close to their winter peak.
Vaccines killing off antibodies is not a new idea. This is from March 2021.
“Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease.”
Aims of the study: Patient comprehension is a critical part of meeting medical ethics standards of informed consent in study designs. The aim of the study was to determine if sufficient literature exists to require clinicians to disclose the specific risk that COVID-19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus.
Methods used to conduct the study: Published literature was reviewed to identify preclinical and clinical evidence that COVID-19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus. Clinical trial protocols for COVID-19 vaccines were reviewed to determine if risks were properly disclosed.
Results of the study: COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.
Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications: The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.
Steve keeps pushing.
VAERS is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. It is the official system relied upon by the FDA and CDC for adverse event tracking. For example, if you report an adverse event in V-Safe, the app they told you about when you got vaccinated, you are told to file a VAERS report. It is essentially the mother of all adverse event reporting systems for vaccine events in the US. There is nothing more comprehensive than VAERS. The most important thing to know about VAERS is that it is always underreported. This is widely known. To properly interpret any safety data, you must know the underreporting factor (URF). For example, the famous Lazarus report estimated the VAERS URF to be over 100:
“Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health.” The Baker paper, Advanced Clinical Decision Support for Vaccine Adverse Event Detection and Reporting, showed that “the odds of a VAERS report submission during the implementation period were 30.2 (95% confidence interval, 9.52–95.5).” In other words, the VAERS URF was at least 30 (since the system wasn’t perfect, 30 is a lower bound of the URF in that study), but they estimated that it was likely between 9.5 and 95.
The URF is normally calculated for very serious events since these are required to be reported for all vaccines by healthcare workers. That URF can then be applied to less serious events to create a conservative estimate of the true incidence rate (since less serious events would have a higher URF). The method for calculating the URF is well known. Sadly, the CDC has erroneously assumed that Vaccine Safety Datalink represents a fully reported comparator. This is clearly false as can be seen from slide 13 in ACIP Chair Grace Lee’s presentation delivered on August 30, 2021:
“Fauci slaughtered tens of thousands of AIDS sufferers by blocking Bactrim in HIV+ persons for years, arguing he needed “controlled trials” first to “prove” that it worked to prevent PCP.”
“.. in the case of HIV it was AZT. This time its intentionally falsely labeled drugs that are called “vaccines” yet are not, along with a new drug from Merck that may be even more dangerous than the jabs.”
If you want to know why God is sipping on a cold one and laughing at the evil in our nation and indeed the world you need nothing more. Fauci slaughtered tens of thousands of AIDS sufferers by blocking Bactrim in HIV+ persons for years, arguing he needed “controlled trials” first to “prove” that it worked to prevent PCP. We already knew it did, by the way, having learned that in the late 1970s with Leukemia patients — it cut the mortality rate of people with Leukemia during chemo by a huge amount. Fauci claimed that wasn’t good enough. 30,000, roughly, Americans got shoved in the hole, dead from PCP, as a result. This time around Fauci proclaimed that we had “insufficient evidence” to recommend that people use HCQ, Ivermectin, Budesonide and a whole host of other things at first indication of Covid-19.
The answer was “vaccines”, which did not exist for 11 months, and were not rolled out in size for a full year. In both cases pharmaceutical companies made billions; in the case of HIV it was AZT. This time its intentionally falsely labeled drugs that are called “vaccines” yet are not, along with a new drug from Merck that may be even more dangerous than the jabs. Two hundred thousand Grannies and Grandpas, mostly, died during the last 18 months without even being able to say goodbye to their loved ones, having been denied drugs that might have worked and might not have — but which were almost certainly better than being dead. If they did nothing, so what? Dead is dead, right? Well, neither Ivermectin or Budesonide killed me. I used both when I got Covid in August.
I do not know if Ivermectin appreciably impacted the course of the disease because I hit it early and hard and thus perhaps it did nothing (hard to prove otherwise, isn’t it?) but the budesonide reversed symptom progression within 12 hours of initiation of use. I cannot attribute that change to mere chance. Is it proof? No. But do I believe it worked? You bet. And I’m still here; neither killed me, nor did either do any harm I can detect (nor did the virus itself) to my cardiopulmonary function from pre-infection baseline. Will any of these drugs work for everyone? Nope. Does vaccination? Nope.
St. Elizabeth’s, as of 10/22, makes quite clear that people winding up in the hospital, ICU or with a tube down their throat on a vent happens all the time in fully-vaccinated people. None of that is “rare” and, I remind you, this is a major hospital chain all over NE KY along with a couple of other states. Do the jabs “reduce the risk”? Probably. Do they work as well as using drugs at first hint of trouble? Since these “breakthroughs” that land people in the hospital, ICU or on a vent are hardly RARE — they’re extraordinarily common despite the lies the media, CDC and other hospitals have told — I maintain that I made the correct choice as I did not wind up in a hospital at all and now I have presumptive immunity that actually works unlike these “jabs” which, on the data certainly appear to NOT.
“Dr. Fauci is ever more emblematic of the American predicament: maniacs and doofuses in charge of powerful institutions strategically positioned to wreck the country.”
Some flinched when Dr. Fauci commanded the children of America to take the mRNA shots fraught with deadly side effects, but now it’s out that the agency he has controlled for decades like a Byzantine despot, the NIAD, gave a $1.6 million grant to a lab in Tunisia — that world-beating center of the bio-sciences — to study what happens when puppy-dogs are pinned down so that ravenous sandflies can chew their snouts off. I guess it didn’t go to well for the puppies. (And doesn’t one wonder exactly what was learned doing that?) We are not Tunisia, of course, at least not yet. We are the mighty USA, a nation imbued with the moral spirit of Walt Disney, and for us this puppy-dog caper might just be an experiment-too-far.
We’ll have to stand by months, maybe years, to find out what the effects are of mRNA shots in human children, but two known possibilities stand out: inflammation and scarring of the heart (myocarditis + sequelae), and an incrementally disabled immune system. Do you really want those shots in your children? — America might ask. And how does Dr. Fauci imagine the child vaxx program would be carried out? In the schools, I suppose, where the subjects of the experiment can be conveniently rounded-up every day. Would you suppose that roughly half the parents in the land would then withdraw their kids from the public school system and, if so, what becomes of the system when they’re gone? Not anything good, I promise you.
But consider that it is already a rotten system ever more incapable of turning out citizens who can speak English, write a coherent sentence, and add up a column of figures, let alone name the capital of Tunisia (warning: trick question!). Dr. Fauci is ever more emblematic of the American predicament: maniacs and doofuses in charge of powerful institutions strategically positioned to wreck the country. For now, they strangely enjoy protection within this matrix of captive institutions while carrying out their nefarious missions. So, the question arises: do Americans wish to live in a wrecked country?
Note how, in the calculation, the world population decline starts around 2050, some three decades after the start of the crash of the industrial and agricultural systems. Why is it that the population keeps growing while people are starving? Unlikely, to say the least. It is hard to quantify people’s intention to have children or not have them, so the modelers used past data on birthrates as a function of the gross domestic product (GDP). It was equivalent to “running in reverse” the demographic transition that took place in the 1960s when natality had collapsed in many regions of the world in parallel with an increase of the GDP per capita. The result was that a contraction of the GDP would cause people to have more children? These assumptions were later reconsidered and different results were obtained in 2004.
Now, the population starts declining around 2030, less than a decade after that food production starts collapsing, and that looks much more reasonable. Yet, even this curve has problems: would you really believe that in the midst of the great turmoil of the global collapse the result would be such a gentle decline? More likely, all the four horsemen of the apocalypse would enter the game and generate a disastrous general crash. This is called the “Seneca Effect.” You see the typical shape of the Seneca Curve in the figure: decline is much faster than growth. Models such as the one used for the “Limits to Growth” cannot reproduce a really sharp Seneca Curve because they do not consider the many possible “tipping points” that may affect the world system. But the historical data tell us that the Seneca shape is the typical behavior of population collapses. Here is the example of the data for the great famine in Ireland (From Ugo Bardi’s book “The Seneca Effect.”) You can clearly see the “Seneca Shape” of the curve, with a sharp decline following growth.
“..the federal government must show that the burden imposed furthers a “compelling governmental interest” and is “the least restrictive means” of furthering that interest.”
“Come on, man,” seems to be President Biden’s signature response to any uncomfortable question. The phrase is meant to be both dismissive and conclusive in ending inquiries, frequently used to counter reporters before often walking away. Indeed, it is so often repeated that it appears on T-Shirts or coffee mugs and in remixes. This week, however, it was not the pesky press but freedom itself that got hit with a version of the comeback. When asked during a CNN town hall program about those still objecting to taking COVID vaccines, Biden mocked them and their claimed rights with “Come on, ‘freedom.’ ” He then called for any police officers, firefighters, medical personnel or other first responders to be fired en masse if they refuse to be vaccinated.
Biden’s response to the question was applauded by the CNN audience, as if to say “Freedomm Ptff, that is so last century.” And he reduced any vaccine refusals to claiming “I have the freedom to kill you with my COVID.” He is not alone in such rhetoric. Chicago’s Mayor Lori Lightfoot declared that police officers refusing to take vaccines are insurrectionists. The problem is that the courts already recognize some religious exemption arguments. Those arguments are based on both the constitutional protection of religious values but also laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a), which declares unlawful any “employment practice for an employer … to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s … religion.”
The federal government also is subject to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which prohibits the government and other covered entities like the District of Columbia from “substantially burden[ing]” a person’s exercise of religion. Under RFRA, there is no “Come on, man,” defense. Instead, the federal government must show that the burden imposed furthers a “compelling governmental interest” and is “the least restrictive means” of furthering that interest. There is a move in many states to refuse to allow such exemptions, but courts have pushed back. In New York, the state is appealing a preliminary injunction against its refusal to allow religious exemptions to its vaccine mandate. A lower court found the governor’s mandate “has effectively foreclosed the pathway to seeking a religious accommodation that is guaranteed under Title VII.”
Likewise, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals this month affirmed such a preliminary injunction against Western Michigan University. The university allowed students to ask for individual exemptions but failed to grant religious exemptions under its discretionary policy.
“The deal caused Tesla’s market valuation to hit the $1 trillion mark.”
“It’s a striking decision given that Hertz filed for bankruptcy last year..”
Rental car company Hertz has ordered 100,000 Tesla Model 3s as part of a massive push to electrify its fleet — the largest purchase of electric vehicles ever, according to Bloomberg. It’s a massive deal reportedly worth $4.2 billion, pushing the automaker’s valuation past the $1 trillion mark for the first time ever. Shares were just two dollars shy of reaching the $1,000 mark on Monday, a new record for the Elon Musk-led company. Musk’s own net value soared in response to the news as well, crossing the quarter trillion mark. “Electric vehicles are now mainstream, and we’ve only just begun to see rising global demand and interest,” Hertz interim CEO Mark Fields told Reuters.
It’s a striking decision given that Hertz filed for bankruptcy last year as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. But the company’s market value has recovered, Bloomberg reports. Even more so, it’s a major win for Tesla, giving vast numbers of potential customers a first-hand look at the electric carmaker’s offerings when they travel. Bloomberg reports that Hertz is hoping to push maintenance and refueling costs down by switching to electric cars, as well as planning to build out a customers-only charger network. To celebrate the deal, Hertz hired quarterback celeb Tom Brady for a cheesy ad, showing off its new Tesla fleet. Now, the ball is in Tesla’s court to deliver the vehicles. “There is quite an execution journey ahead of us,” Tesla CFO Zachary Kirkhorn told Reuters.
“‘It would be such a stain on the system in this country that I certainly hope there will be enough pressure and realisation of how devastating it would be for this country ..”
The editor-in chief of WikiLeaks believes it would be ‘unthinkable’ for the High Court to lift a US extradition ban on website founder Julian Assange. Speaking ahead of a crunch hearing at the High Court this week, Kristinn Hrafnsson said would be ‘totally unacceptable’ for judges to overturn a decision blocking the extradition of the Australian activist. The High Court is due to hear an appeal this week against a January decision not to extradite the 50-year-old to face charges relating to WikiLeaks’ publication of secret military files due to concerns that he would be a suicide risk in a US prison. And Mr Hrafnsson told a press briefing in London on Monday: ‘It is unthinkable that the High Court will come to any other decision but to uphold the magistrates’ court decision. Anything else is totally unacceptable.
‘It would be such a stain on the system in this country that I certainly hope there will be enough pressure and realisation of how devastating it would be for this country if somehow the judge comes to the decision of reversing the magistrates’ court decision.’ The briefing panel, which also included Mr Assange’s lawyer and partner Stella Moris and director of international campaigns at Reporters Without Borders (RSF) Rebecca Vincent, said the forthcoming hearing follows an investigation, published by Yahoo News, which alleged plots to abduct or kill Mr Assange. A security firm, under investigation in Madrid, is also alleged to have spied on Mr Assange on behalf of the CIA while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and been part of the alleged plot. Ms Moris said: ‘This is a game-changer going into the appeal because it shows the true nature, the true origins, the true criminality of the US actions against Julian and it completely taints any semblance of legality of this appeal going into it.’
It certainly should be.
The partner of Julian Assange said on Monday a media report that the CIA had plotted to kill or kidnap the WikiLeaks founder was a game-changer in his fight against extradition from Britain to the United States. U.S. authorities will this week begin their appeal against a British judge’s refusal to extradite Assange – who is wanted on 18 criminal charges including breaking a spying law – because his mental health problems meant he would be at risk of suicide. Last month, Yahoo News reported CIA officials had drawn up options for former U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration for dealing with Assange while he was holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, including assassinating or kidnapping him.
[..] “This (Yahoo report) is a game changer going into the appeal because it shows the true nature, the true origins, the true criminality of the U.S. actions against Julian,” his fiancee Stella Moris, with whom Assange has had two children, told reporters. WikiLeaks came to prominence when it began to publish thousands of secret classified files and diplomatic cables in 2010. Soon afterwards Sweden sought Assange’s extradition from Britain over allegations of sex crimes. When he lost that case against extradition in 2012, he fled to the Ecuadorean embassy. He was finally dragged out from the embassy in April 2019 and jailed for breaching British bail conditions, although the Swedish case against him had already been dropped.
U.S. authorities then sought his extradition. Although the British judge on Jan. 4 rejected Assange’s arguments that the case was political and an assault on freedom of speech, Moris said there was a real risk that, if found guilty, he would be held in a maximum security prison in almost total isolation. That would lead him to attempting suicide, Moris concluded. U.S. lawyers aim to challenge the ruling against U.S. extradition and the evidence given by a key expert at a two-day High Court appeal hearing in London starting on Wednesday. No result is immediately expected, and Moris said the process could be fast, with Assange extradited by next summer, or it could take years. “Both prospects are terrifying,” she said. Currently, Assange is being held at London’s top security Belmarsh Prison where Moris visited him on Saturday, saying he looked very thin. “He was looking very unwell,” she said.
Kevin Gosztola spells it all out.
On October 27, the High Court of Justice in the United Kingdom will hear the Crown Prosecution Service argue on behalf of the United States government that a lower court improperly blocked the U.S. from extraditing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The proceedings in London are expected to last two days and will involve five grounds for appeal that were previously approved by the High Court of Justice. (Two were reinstated by the court after a hearing on August 11.) District Court Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled on January 4 that Assange’s mental health was such that it would be “oppressive to extradite him” to the U.S. But two days later, she accepted the U.S. government’s objections and ordered him to remain in jail while her decision was appealed.
Assange is detained at Her Majesty’s Prison Belmarsh in London, a high-security prison where he has been held since he was expelled from the Ecuador Embassy on April 11, 2019. He faces 18 charges—17 of which are charges under the Espionage Act. The Espionage Act is a U.S. law passed in 1917 that the Justice Department has increasingly wielded against media sources who share “classified” documents or talk about sensitive information with journalists. Because Assange is the first publisher to be charged under the law, press freedom organizations around the world have roundly condemned the political prosecution. It also is part of a troubling development where the U.S. government increasingly seeks to impose its domestic laws on foreign nationals. Assange is an Australian citizen and has no ties whatsoever to the United States.
Each of the charges, aside from a conspiracy to commit a computer crime offense, solely relate to the documents that were submitted by U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning to WikiLeaks in 2010: the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs, the U.S. State Embassy cables, and the Guantanamo Files. The general allegations in the indictment against Assange directly criminalize the publication of information.
— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) October 25, 2021
You may have noticed that: 13 x 13 = 169 and 31 x 31 = 961 which makes the two operations true even if read in reverse.
But this is not the only case.
Support the Automatic Earth in virustime; donate with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.