Pablo Picasso Five women 1907
The Biden cabal is purging the military with their vaccine mandate. pic.twitter.com/9wtjheaJ8l
— Joe Kent for WA-3 (@joekent16jan19) October 6, 2021
Biden Kerry AUKUS
John Kerry admits in interview with French TV that Joe Biden had no idea about the fallout with the French from the AUKUS sub deal.
"He literally had not been aware of what had transpired" pic.twitter.com/EblvE05zKg
— POLARIS (@polarisnatsec) October 5, 2021
Watching Ashish Jha, blight of the Gato alma mater, wade into the debate on vaccine mandates for air travel and prove once more that schools of “public health” are the “biology for aggrievement studies majors” of the university systems cannot help but dishearten one. It would be sad were it not so pernicious. There has not been a single reported superspread on a plane. None. There have been about a zillion flights. So this, right there, seems a bizarre fight to pick. Even his tweet seems to admit that this has not been a spread vector or a risk. But he has a “story” that “confirms this need.” It must be a heckuva story.
Just what kind of story would make vaccine mandates needed on airplanes when it’s now a completely established fact that these are non-sterilizing vaccines? Even the CDC threw in the towel on this in early august. And we’ve had buckets of data since then that not only are vaccines non-sterilizing (unable to stop infection or stop spread) but that they are actually spread enhancing. The UK vaccine surveillance report is VERY clear on this. VE for cases is -60% in many age brackets. this is data straight from their report and this is the rigged data that only looks at “fully vaccinated” people more than 14 days after their second dose and ignores the whole worry window after dose 1. reality is worse than this. but this is plenty bad all on its own…
added VE’s in red. (under 18 should be broadly ignored as so few are vaxxed and the injected bias makes the data more artifact than signal, especially due to extreme testing rates among unvaccinated school (and college) kids. This renders 18-29 suspect as well. This really all needs to be controlled for tests per 100k by vaxx status.)
“The proposal was rejected and the database of viral strains at the Wuhan Institute of Virology was taken offline some 18 months later, making it impossible to check what scientists there were working on.”
US and Chinese scientists were planning to create a new coronavirus before the pandemic erupted, leaked proposals show. Last month, a grant application submitted to the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) revealed that an international team of scientists had planned to mix genetic data of similar strains to create a new virus. The grant application was made in 2018 and leaked to Drastic, the pandemic origins analysis group. ‘We will compile sequence/RNAseq data from a panel of closely related strains and compare full length genomes, scanning for unique SNPs representing sequencing errors. ‘Consensus candidate genomes will be synthesised commercially using established techniques and genome-length RNA and electroporation to recover recombinant viruses,’ the application states.
This would result in a virus which had no clear ancestor in nature, a World Health Organization (WHO) expert told The Telegraph. The expert, who asked the paper not to publish their name, said that, if such a method had been carried out, it could explain why no close match has ever been found in nature for Sars-CoV-2. The closest naturally occurring virus is the Banal-52 strain, reported in Laos last month. It shares 96.8 per cent of Covid-19’s genome. No direct ancestor, which would be expected share around 99.98 per cent, has been found so far. The WHO expert told The Telegraph that the process detailed in the application would create ‘a new virus sequence, not a 100 per cent match to anything.’
‘They would then synthesise the viral genome from the computer sequence, thus creating a virus genome that did not exist in nature but looks natural as it is the average of natural viruses. ‘Then they put that RNA in a cell and recover the virus from it. ‘This creates a virus that has never existed in nature, with a new ‘backbone’ that didn’t exist in nature but is very, very similar as it’s the average of natural backbones,’ the expert said. The proposal was rejected and the database of viral strains at the Wuhan Institute of Virology was taken offline some 18 months later, making it impossible to check what scientists there were working on. The institute’s scientists have consistently denied creating the coronavirus in their lab. The grant application proposal was submitted by British zoologist Peter Daszak on behalf of a group, which included Daszak EcoHealth Alliance, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the University of North Carolina and Duke NUS in Singapore, The Telegraph reported.
“2 days from exposure to you’re ****ed”
The reports all over social media and among people who have been jabbed strongly implies that the long-term or even permanent impairment rate is likely somewhere around one in a hundred persons jabbed. That’s an utterly ridiculous adverse event rate and in any normal set of circumstances would never be acceptable for anyone with other than a condition that would be terminal if not treated, such as cancer. We already know (because its been leaked by whistleblowers) that hospital and other medical staff are being directly told not to file VAERS reports and, in some cases, threatened with disciplinary action or termination should they violate that mandate. There are also those who refuse to seek medical attention as doing so would conclusively blow up their mental belief, part of the Stockholm Syndrome-style insanity that has gripped the world in the era of Covid, that what they did was “safe and effective.”
Never mind the write-up out of Israel that has now proved quite-conclusively that vaccination is worthless to prevent acquisition and propagation of the virus and that personal protection in terms of severe and fatal outcomes has a high probability of being seriously attenuated or even entirely absent within six months. An attack rate of more than 20% of the patients where 95.2% of them were fully vaccinated makes quite clear that even nearly-100% coverage, which can never be achieved, does nothing of value from a standpoint of cutting off infection. It may provide some personal protection against severe infection outcomes, but whether this is a “good bargain” when measured against the risk of permanent impairment from the jab itself is a much tougher call.
The other problem that the Israeli study presents is that one of these cases was a person who had Covid and recovered but then took a single jab. Did that jab destroy their resistance from previous infection? Nobody knows and the data set is too small to draw conclusions, since only one person was in this circumstance. But this is absolutely on the table given the fact that it happened, and if true jabbing people who recovered may well have been a big part of the surge we just took in the summer by turning recovered and immune people back into susceptible ones! What’s even worse is that in such a person a severe outcome was astronomically-unlikely in the first place so the “personal protection” argument for getting jabbed appears to have been voided.
What’s worse is that of the attacked patients five died including the index, who was vaccinated. These were all older, fairly-morbid people — but the fact of the matter is that both masking and jabs failed to protect them from a fatal outcome. “.. all transmissions between patients and staff occurred between masked and vaccinated individuals, as experienced in an outbreak from Finland ”. In addition all of the transmission happened with people both wearing PPE and being vaccinated, so the presumption has to be that neither masking or jabs are effective to provide protection and using both in combination does nothing either. Finally, and perhaps most-damningly, is the presence of evidence, albeit not convincing due to small sample size, in this write-up of severe immune compromise from the jabs that promoted infection severity in the people who got attacked. Why? Right here:
“Infection advanced rapidly (many cases became symptomatic within 2 days of exposure), and viral load was high.” This is consistent with other anecdotal reports of jabbed people who get a severe alleged “breakthrough” case go from being entirely-fine to screwed almost-immediately, which is an extreme outlier among the general population exposed, including when exposed to Delta but unvaccinated. I can speak to that with personal knowledge since I and two others were infected by a known index during a time that Delta was the only statistically-important variant circulating and none of us had that sort of “2 days from exposure to you’re ****ed” experience.
“Merck and NIH allowed 14.1% of people in the control arms to develop severe COVID-19 and die with no treatment. None. Just placebo.”
Trigger alert: This article may upset those who care about other human beings.Molnupiravir (mull-noo-’peer-aveer) is the talk of the town, belle of the ball in the press. “Game changer” is the word on the street, according to a message to Science Insider: “Molnupiravir is unquestionably a game changer! The large effect size, and the ease of administration change the paradigm of mild COVID-19 treatment with a potential to reduce COVID-19 death rates.” See: Science Magazine The hype even included Fauci going on in an interview about how the idea that molnupiravir is so effective that the vaccine won’ t be needed. “That’s such a false narrative” Fauci aped at the camera.
What’s all the excitement & hype about? Well for one, Merck reported no deaths in the molnupirvir group, but there were eight deaths in the placebo group. Great news, right? Hold on there. This is an interim analysis. On non-hospitalized patients. (See the Phase 3 MOVe-OUT trial record at ClinicalTrials.gov) Why, when the litany of studies have been published on the efficacy of off-label use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, has the media been silent or hostile to the published studies? When meta-analyses find that the studies – both randomized clinical trials and observational studies – spanning the range of prophylaxis, mild, moderate and severe COVID-19 support immediate adoption for early treatment using ivermectin especially – why in the world is Merck’s molnupirvir interim analysis given the spotlight?
Slow Down, People. The Molnupirvir Study is ONE Study (And It’s Not Even a Study) In Non-Hospitalized People Without HIV, Hepatitis or Liver Disease. And the Hospitalized Patients – They’re Found in A SECOND, BURIED Study. Before we get too excited about molnupirvir, let’s remember that there are 29 studies on ivermectin and 32 studies on hydroxychloroquine totaling over 26,000 and 54,000 patients combined, respectively. Merck’s non-peer-reviewed molnupirvir interim analysis report study? Only 775 patients. According to the US press, with 775 patients in the Merck study, 7.3% of patients given molnupiravir were either hospitalized or died 9 days after treatment, compared to the 14.1% of placebo patients. None died, but 7.3% were hospitalized.
And 14.1% on placebo died. Placebo? Died? When there is a vast amount of published research on clear winners are the early treatment protocols as described by the medical authorities on the matter? Merck and NIH allowed 14.1% of people in the control arms to develop severe COVID-19 and die with no treatment. None. Just placebo. How did the NIH and the FDA let this happen in the face of the evidence of efficacy of early treatment? How could they? Because that’s the standard of care for early COVID-19: go home, incubate, get sick, and die if you must. But don’t call us until you are seriously ill.
Lots of references.
“Merck stock surged 10% Friday after it said its investigational pill cuts the risk of hospitalization and death in COVID-19 patients…The pill reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by about 50%,” Merck and its partner, Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, said in a statement Friday. “This is a phenomenal result. This is a profound game-changer to have an oral pill that had this kind of effect, this magnitude of effect in patients who are at high risk who are already symptomatic,” former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said Friday on CNBC about results of the interim analysis. “Meanwhile, shares of COVID vaccine makers Pfizer and Moderna fell 2.5% and 10%, respectively.”
This puts Dr. Scott Gottlieb between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, as a member of Pfizer’s Board of Directors, he is paid handsomely to attend a few board meetings per year, yet on the other hand, he must not be too glowing in his praise of the antiviral, which might lead people away from the Pfizer vaccine. Moreover, it could affect sales just as it has already dropped the stock price. In 2020, Gottlieb was paid $338,587 by Pfizer. In 2020, he also earned $525,850 as a director of Illumina. Due to his former FDA Chief status, Gottlieb is in high demand as one word of favor from him can send a stock price soaring. He has served on multiple other boards, including Tempus Labs, National Resilience, and the Mount Sinai Health System. It must be a daunting task to walk the line by promoting one corporate interest while not offending any of the others.
But the good news is that soon, Pfizer, too, will be peddling their antiviral drug, which should make up for any drop in their vaccine sales. “Pfizer is testing whether its pill—PF-07321332—can prevent infection in people exposed to the virus or benefit patients who have not been hospitalized with COVID-19.” Roche and Atea are not far behind with their antiviral pills, and soon all of Big Pharma can get in on the action. They have timed it perfectly. While shutting down any competition from repurposed drugs like HCQ or Ivermectin, they deftly rolled out the vaccines first, making sure not to confuse the consumer with antiviral pills that would only be allowed AFTER the majority of the population had been vaccinated.
The one glitch is that Merck’s Molnupiravir only surfaced AFTER a prominent scandal involving Merck lying three times. Just as Peter would disown Christ three times before the cry of the rooster, Merck would turn their back on their creation with three lies about Ivermectin before they would accept the payoff from the United States government. On February 4, 2021, Merck, the corporation behind the monumental Mectizan Program, which rescued the world from River Blindness, told three untruths about Ivermectin.
Lie #1: No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from preclinical studies; Lie #2: No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease. Lie #3: A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies. However, the Monash preclinical study disproved the first statement showing a massive 99.98% reduction in viral load with a single Ivermectin treatment in cell culture.
Note that for a private fact to exist it must be private. There is an exception in the law for things that are newsworthy and of legitimate public concern but absent that medical status is one of the areas where this law is routinely upheld. If you make known to others without a legal duty of confidentiality that you are HIV+, for example, you cannot sue if someone discloses that because it’s not private anymore. Once you willingly make something public by your own actions it is not possible to return that item of information to the status of a private fact. There are things that we remove from the status of “private facts” willingly and by our own hand. Our true identity, for one. You flash a driver license to prove you’re 21 at a bar, for example. Said bar has zero duty of confidentiality to you.
There are all manner of places where such is requested and we willingly comply. By doing so we waive the private fact nature of that information since we willingly and intentionally display it in public. If you go to a professional conference, for example, and flash a vax card or a digital app QR code at the door to “attest” that you had a Covid-19 vaccination you have released that information to people who have no duty in law or by contract to keep that information private. Said app developer and owner has no legal stricture requiring said privacy either. Further, by definition your mere presence in such a place, if such a pass is required for entry, voluntarily discloses your medical status to thousands of others! Again: Your mere presence in a business — any business — that requires such at the door waives your private fact protection.
I remind you that anyone can photograph you from or in a public place. Never mind that damn near everywhere such is happening all the time in public anyway; there’s a camera behind the bar in the restaurant, three more in the dining area, etc. If you’re walking down the street these days your next door neighbor probably has a camera on their doorbell and you were in a public place, namely, the street. The minute you consent to a requirement for your medical status in some regard to be in a place open to the public you have, by definition and your own hand, destroyed any claim now or in the future that such is a private fact. Thus you have now consented to your employer requiring you to document same since you already have made your Covid vaccination status available to the public on an unrestricted basis.
If and when something related to that (e.g. whether you have taken the sixth booster two years from now) is required of you you have already consented to that disclosure and discrimination because you, by your own hand, voluntarily gave up all right of privacy in that regard and consented to be discriminated against. Note that prior to Covid-19 there was exactly zero such attempt made. Oh, people say, but the schools required vaccinations for kids. Ah, but said entities were government agencies and had strict protocols for medical privacy. Further, there were plenty of kids who didn’t have all those shots in the school — but nobody knew who they were. If you had an exemption on whatever basis that was nobody else’s business and exactly nobody had access to those records. Finally, I attended college briefly in the 1980s (and took some classes while in High School too at a different college) and was never asked for a single bit of medical documentation before or while doing so. All they were interested in was money.
For a fast increasing number of people, freedom is something granted to you by goverment. Scary.
The New Zealand government called time on its world-leading Covid-19 elimination strategy on Monday, announcing a suite of measures that grant Aucklanders greater freedom after seven weeks of community transmission, despite experts urging tighter restrictions. In doing so, the government has snookered itself in three mutually-reinforcing ways: on social license, on enforcement, and on the economy. New Zealand’s strategy depends on social license, and people feeling like they understand and are part of the system, and can contribute to its success, knowing others will be prevented from undermining their efforts. This has proceeded partly from prime minister Jacinda Ardern’s personal popularity and the excellence of her communications, but more from her resolve and the strong alignment of her policies with the expert consensus in favour of continued elimination.
It has worked well. And social license has also been rooted in a transparent, understandable system that lets well-informed non-experts anticipate policy decisions and feel validated when they come to pass. Two weeks ago, when the government moved from alert level four to three despite untraced community transmission, its policies began to diverge from the consensus, and on Monday the gap widened further. On Sunday, the day before the announcement, a group of experts from the University of Otago urged the government to do more to ensure the safety of vulnerable communities in Auckland. Instead, the government did less. As a result, the government’s decisions are now less comprehensible to people who have spent 18 months observing the outbreak and response. Ardern, who remains enormously popular, had fewer cheerleaders on Monday night than she did on Sunday.
The most immediate policy shift will allow Aucklanders to gather outdoors in small groups from Wednesday. This means enforcement is now essentially impossible at any scale, because when you tell a million people who have been stuck inside for two months they can go and have a drink at the beach or in a park, that is what they will do and a certain number of them will not follow the rules. Police have taken a hands off approach to enforcement of illegal gatherings, most notably refusing to break up a rally of more than 1,000 anti-lockdown protesters who gathered at the Auckland Domain on Saturday. This was wise, because provoking a confrontation could have done enormous harm to social cohesion. But if police now start arresting people for low-level breaches, they will further erode social license. The authorities have snookered themselves.
The Department of Defense has set Nov. 22 as the deadline for civilian employees to get fully vaccinated against COVID-19. In a memorandum Tuesday, Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks announced the deadline, noting that the last day to get the second jab is Nov. 8. The memo also states that civilian employees must be ready to provide a copy of their vaccination records to the appropriate management departments. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin ordered the entire military, including civilian employees and contractors, to be fully vaccinated following Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine being approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Employees who do not comply face termination, without any separation benefits. Service members and civilian employees can apply for a medical or religious exemption.
The feds can’t mandate it, so they use the states to do that.
New York is expanding its COVID-19 vaccination pass program to allow residents who’ve been vaccinated in other states to prove they’ve gotten their shots or tested negative for the virus. On Tuesday, Gov. Kathy Hochul announced that New York state’s Excelsior Pass Scanner app – which allows businesses to verify a person’s COVID-19 vaccination – has been updated to enable the validation of SMART Health Cards from out-of-staters. Hochul said the changes are based on federal and state COVID-19 guidance and will help more New York businesses stay afloat with the winter months approaching. “New York was hit hard by COVID-19, and we have led bold efforts to pursue innovative solutions to reinvigorate economies,” she said in a statement.
“We’re expanding this solution even further with a set of standards that can be used and validated by all businesses for free, nationwide, based on shared policies and commitments New Yorkers trust.” The move will allow New York businesses participating in the Excelsior Pass program to verify vaccination and negative COVID-19 tests for people from states that issue SMART Health Cards, including California, Hawaii, Louisiana and Virginia. Washington state is in the process of setting up its SMART card system. New York’s digital pass, which was unveiled by former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in March, allows people to download an app to show proof of vaccination or a negative COVID-19 test.
DR. FAUCI ON VACCINE MANDATES:
“There comes a time when you do have to give up what you consider your individual right of making your own decision for the greater good of society." pic.twitter.com/LCkPLOFlqy
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) October 3, 2021
Canada is lost like Australia.
The Canadian government is considering new rules to regulate how social media platforms moderate potentially harmful user-generated content. Already, the proposed legislation has been criticized by internet scholars — across the political spectrum — as some of the worst in the world. [..] The legislation is simple. First, online platforms would be required to proactively monitor all user speech and evaluate its potential for harm. Online communication service providers would need to take “all reasonable measures,” including the use of automated systems, to identify harmful content and restrict its visibility. Second, any individual would be able to flag content as harmful. The social media platform would then have 24 hours from initial flagging to evaluate whether the content was in fact harmful.
Failure to remove harmful content within this period would trigger a stiff penalty: up to three per cent of the service provider’s gross global revenue or $10 million, whichever is higher. For Facebook, that would be a penalty of $2.6 billion per post. Proactive monitoring of user speech presents serious privacy issues. Without restrictions on proactive monitoring, national governments would be able to significantly increase their surveillance powers. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians from unreasonable searches. But under the proposed legislation, a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity would not be necessary for a service provider, acting on the government’s behalf, to conduct a search. All content posted online would be searched.
Potentially harmful content would be stored by the service provider and transmitted — in secret — to the government for criminal prosecution. Canadians who have nothing to hide still have something to fear. Social media platforms process billions of pieces of content every day. Proactive monitoring is only possible with an automated system. Yet automated systems are notoriously inaccurate. Even Facebook’s manual content moderation accuracy has been reported to be below 90 per cent. Social media companies are not like newspapers; accurately reviewing every piece of content is operationally impossible. The outcome is uncomfortable: Many innocent Canadians will be referred for criminal prosecution under the proposed legislation.
But it gets worse. If an online communication service provider determined that your content was not harmful within the tight 24-hour review period, and the government later decided otherwise, the provider would lose up to three per cent of their gross global revenue. Accordingly, any rational platform would censor far more content than the strictly illegal. Human rights scholars call this troubling phenomenon “collateral censorship.”
That whistleblower is bad theater.
When Facebook, Google, Twitter and other Silicon Valley social media companies were created, they did not set out to become the nation’s discourse police. Indeed, they affirmatively wanted not to do that. Their desire to avoid that role was due in part to the prevailing libertarian ideology of a free internet in that sub-culture. But it was also due to self-interest: the last thing social media companies wanted to be doing is looking for ways to remove and block people from using their product and, worse, inserting themselves into the middle of inflammatory political controversies. Corporations seek to avoid angering potential customers and users over political stances, not courting that anger.
This censorship role was not one they so much sought as one that was foisted on them. It was not really until the 2016 election, when Democrats were obsessed with blaming social media giants (and pretty much everyone else except themselves) for their humiliating defeat, that pressure began escalating on these executives to start deleting content liberals deemed dangerous or false and banning their adversaries from using the platforms at all. As it always does, the censorship began by targeting widely disliked figures — Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones and others deemed “dangerous” — so that few complained (and those who did could be vilified as sympathizers of the early offenders). Once entrenched, the censorship net then predictably and rapidly spread inward (as it invariably does) to encompass all sorts of anti-establishment dissidents on the right, the left, and everything in between.
And no matter how much it widens, the complaints that it is not enough intensify. For those with the mentality of a censor, there can never be enough repression of dissent. And this plot to escalate censorship pressures found the perfect vessel in this stunningly brave and noble Facebook heretic who emerged this week from the shadows into the glaring spotlight. She became a cudgel that Washington politicians and their media allies could use to beat Facebook into submission to their censorship demands. In this dynamic we find what the tech and culture writer Curtis Yarvin calls “power leak.” This is a crucial concept for understanding how power is exercised in American oligarchy, and Yarvin’s brilliant essay illuminates this reality as well as it can be described.
Hyperbolically arguing that “Mark Zuckerberg has no power at all,” Yarvin points out that it may appear that the billionaire Facebook CEO is powerful because he can decide what will and will not be heard on the largest information distribution platform in the world. But in reality, Zuckerberg is no more powerful than the low-paid content moderators whom Facebook employs to hit the “delete” or “ban” button, since it is neither the Facebook moderators nor Zuckerberg himself who is truly making these decisions. They are just censoring as they are told, in obedience to rules handed down from on high. It is the corporate press and powerful Washington elites who are coercing Facebook and Google to censor in accordance with their wishes and ideology upon pain of punishment in the form of shame, stigma and even official legal and regulatory retaliation.
— INVESTMENT HULK (@INVESTMENTSHULK) October 5, 2021
Support the Automatic Earth in virustime; donate with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.