Looking At Some COVID Data

 I'm going to go over a few things in this post so ya might wanna pour a drink and have a seat. 

There's a paper that I have been watching since it was posted back in July.

You'll note the title: "Vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals have similar viral loads..."

Also note the date 7-31-2021. That is version one. Since then it has gone through 4 revisions and is now:

Note the change in the header to "Shedding of infectious SARS-Cov-2 Despite Vaccination".

See the first title was more direct and to the point but ALSO undermined the narrative. So they've been doing all kinds of stuff to the article in order to hide the unchanged results:

"We observed low Ct values (<25) in 212 of 310 fully vaccinated (68%) and 246 of 389 (63%) unvaccinated individuals. Testing a subset of these low-Ct samples revealed infectious SARS-CoV-2 in 15 of 17 specimens (88%) from unvaccinated individuals and 37 of 39 (95%) from vaccinated people. "

For those unaware, the lower the ct value the *more* virus is in the sample. ct values are the cycles of a PCR test commonly used to detect Wuhan (haven't said that in a while).

One of the things they did to the paper was to link to a recently published paper on Covid infections in Israel.

Note that this paper was published on Oct 14th.  This shows just how long they've been messing with the "same viral load" paper. They don't want to approve of the paper and are doing everything they can to dilute it's findings. But let's look at a claim in the Israel study.

"In all 37 case patients for whom data were available regarding the source of infection, the suspected source was an unvaccinated person; in 21 patients (57%), this person was a household member. Among these case patients were two married couples, in which both sets of spouses worked at Sheba Medical Center and had an unvaccinated child who had tested positive for Covid-19 and was assumed to be the source. In 11 of 37 case patients (30%), the suspected source was an unvaccinated fellow health care worker or patient; in 7 of the 11 case patients, the infection was caused by a nosocomial outbreak of the B.1.1.7 (alpha) variant. These 7 patients, who worked in different hospital sectors and wards, were all found to be linked to the same suspected unvaccinated index patient who had been receiving noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation before her infection had been detected."

Maybe it's just me but I don't like the fact that they said "suspected" rather than confirmed. We know that we have a narrative that the "unvaccinated" are responsible for infecting the "vaccinated". Let's put aside that such a claim utterly destroys the "effective" argument in regards to the shot.  For example, there was a large measles outbreak in NYS. How many hospital workers (all of whom would have had a measles shot from when they were children) had a measles infection?

Heck, did anybody even look into it?

Why not?

Exactly.

So lets take a look at the above paragraph:

 "he suspected source was an unvaccinated person; in 21 patients (57%), this person was a household member."

OK. How do we know this? Were they tested PRIOR to the hospital staff? How do we know the household member wasn't infected by the hospital staff member? After all they admit that many of their cases were totally asymptomatic. If I were writing the piece I would have said "we confirmed that the source was a household member".  Look, these people don't use words by accident.

Similarly they suspect that others got infected from other [unvaccinated] co-workers, yet again, they do not establish or show in the paper whether that is *actually* the case.

Then there's the patient with the "non-invasive positive-pressure ventilation" . They said her infection had not been detected. OK? Why was she receiving ventilation? How long had she been in the hospital prior to her positive case being discovered? Are we certain that she wasn't infected *In* the hospital and transmitted that infection to the other workers? Did  they test this patient after the others had been found positive? If so, how do we know they did not pass their infection TO the patient rather than the other way around?

I suppose we should just take them at their word. 

Sure.

You may come to a different conclusion.

Next we have some CDC information. 

So this impressive looking chart looks pretty good:

Basically, by this chart if you're unvaccinated, you're fucked. I mean look at that huge hump and that barely a blip for deaths.

Now never mind that the CDC corrupted it's own data:

Oh yeah, at some point the CDC moved this document and placed a redirect to a totally different subject. Do not expect the above link to be working for too long.

But let's put aside the data manipulation, what happens when you change that chart to, say, age:

So that huge hump is 80+ year olds. 

Oh.

Next one is 65-79 year olds.

Oh.

So anyone under 49  who is not "vaccinated" has a better chance than any 80 year old. Wow. Did we not know this in say, March 2020?

You know what else goes up as you age? Number of co-morbidities, some of which are quite "silent' until they aren't.  I've shown that data shows that co-morbidities are the numero uno predictor of bad outcomes here and here. The CDC knows this as well. They have left that out of their pretty charts because, well, it's not important; right?

I will say this: if you're in a vulnerable group, it does look like taking a shot may be in your best interest. But I wouldn't depend on it like I would the childhood vaccinations. Ask Colin Powell.

Lawlessness in Virginia

 Last year I practically begged Democrats, particularly black Democrats, who won't vote for a Republican or Libertarian or anyone other than a Democrat, to at LEAST vote for sane Democrats.  Y'all voted for a early alzheimer's patient anyway.

So at this point I don't expect much. Well I actually don't expect anything.

Two points for those who may still not have there mouths firmly attached to the Dem phallus:

First, the VP is releasing a tape to churches in VA in which she openly endorses a candidate for governor. I don't care WHO the candidate is, 'cause that's not relevant. The fact is, that it is against the law for a church or any other 501c3 (tax exempt) organization to engage in partisan campaigning. Hence, by showing the video those churches are in violation of the law and *should* be subject to revocation of their tax exempt status (something I think they should be anyway for other reasons) and be subject to taxation.

But the fact that they would engage in this blatantly illegal behavior tells you what you need to know. You cannot be expecting the police to "treat us" (as in black people) fairly and to be held to account under the law, and then reward blatant law breaking by your church.

That would make you a hypocrite.

Secondly, A school board in your state actively covered up multiple sexual assaults by a student claiming to be "binary" or whatever the hell they want to call themselves. A parent of one of the victims of assault attempted to petition the school board (his absolute right) to address that situation (among others) and he was arrested and charged.

This is what these people are about. They have no regard for your children anymore. A candidate for state high office said that he doesn't think YOU have a right to determine what your schools teach children.

Ya'll voted these people in. I would think you all have enough sense to vote those people out. But I'm not holding my breath.

Y'all made a bad choice some 11 months ago and now you have to wonder if your supermarket is going to run out of stuff you need. Gasoline prices are through the roof and winter is coming. Oh, and some of you are being fired for asserting the right to decide your own medical care.

Let's see how many of you wake up in time to say no to those responsible.

And Now The Death Panels

 Remember when the Affordable Care Act (sic) was being debated and Republicans were saying that there would be "death panels"? And remember how they were mocked in the media. Well, here we are.

DENVER (KDVR) — A Colorado woman on a kidney transplant list was moved to inactive status by UCHealth for not receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Her living donor is also unvaccinated and the hospital said both need to be vaccinated for the transplant process to continue. 

No, I didn't just find out about this. The main reason I didn't post on it is because I didn't want to "fed post" 

I've been saying that these are malicious people. If you don't get it now, you won't get it.

Look, say your insurance company says that they will not cover a procedure. That's their right as you are asking for them to pay for something. As awful as that sounds, it's how "insurance" works. But, even then, this is not the insurance company *denying you a procedure*. They are declining to *pay* for it. You could try to raise the money yourself and if you do, then the insurance company has no say in the matter.

Would that be a "fun" option? Of course not. But it underscores that "insurance" is about "who pays" not whether you "can" have the procedure. What we have here is a private entity charged with providing medical attention to those who need it, deciding to not do a procedure because they don't approve of your prior medical decisions.

The hospital said in the letter that Lutali has 30 days to start vaccination, and if she refuses, she will be removed from the transplant list.

   Lutali’s potential donor, Jaimee Fougner, said she was also told she would not be eligible for the surgery since she is unvaccinated as well. 

“When I explained that no, I wouldn’t be able to take the COVID shot, then the comment was, well your journey ends here, because we require all of our donors and recipients to have the COVID-19 vaccine,” Fougner said.  

So not only would they deny the recipient. They would decline the donor. 

“Surgeries may be postponed until patients take all required precautions in order to give them the best chance at positive outcomes.” 

So patient will certainly die without transplant. Patient *may* die if they have it while not have taken the jab. They go with option one.

Death panel. 

Mind you:

Lutali said she had COVID-19 last summer, so she’s not too worried about the virus.

We already know that immunity derived from infection beats all the shots. If these people were not malicious they would have taken that into account.

The hospital also said a living donor could spread the COVID-19 to an organ recipient even if they initially test negative for the virus. 

So,

1) They don't trust their own tests.

2) While that may be the case, you would think they would do an anti-body test if they were so concerned. if the donor had anti-bodies then they are not supposed to be carrying the virus. But even then, they could certainly decide that the donor would need to be isolated for 14 days and tested during that period.  

The reason they are not doing either of these things is that they are malicious people. Period. They would rather see you dead.

*resist fed-posting*

“Should they become infected, they are at particularly high risk of severe illness, hospitalization and death,” the hospital said. “Studies have found transplant patients who contract COVID-19 may have a mortality rate of 20% or higher.”

If only there was a protocol for early treatment and prophylaxis. 

If only.

*resist fed-posting*

And Now The 4th

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  -US Constitution 

 In the formerly constitutional republic called the United States, the above is a part of the sovereign legal document of the land. Every law, rule, whatever made by a state agency or agent must conform to that law or it is null and void. In a trend that has accelerated since 2016, the agents of the state have disregarded various so-called "protections" in their quest for total control. The latest example being the current proposal to have banks report to the IRS any transaction of $600 or more. Those who regularly move relatively large amounts of money are already aware that banks are currently required to report any transaction of 10k or more. You know, to keep the money launderers at bay.

This was actually a significant intrusion into the 4th amendment. They just made a "it' reasonable" argument to get around it. Why? because most citizens do not carry, much less regularly deposit 10k. So they could be convinced that someone who does so could "reasonably" be thought to be committing a crime. And of course "if you're not doing anything illegal then what do you have to hide?"

This last point is regularly trotted out whenever these types want to further encroach on your right to be free of government surveillance. Alas, Americans used to understand WHY we limit government but no longer.

Now having taken that "inch" they are going for the full mile and now everyone is a "suspect" in the supposed crime of "tax-evasion" and so the state needs to search and seize, if they deem your transaction to be in violation of some law somewhere, your assets.

See that "report 10k" was just "putting the tip in" to see how you'd react. 

In case you need to know, the way this is supposed to work is that if the government thinks you are committing some crime, in this case tax evasion, it would have to get a warrant. It would have to go to a court and show probable cause to get that warrant and if it got it, it could then search your records and whatever else the court approved of.

The other thing the IRS does is an audit. An audit doesn't get your info though. It takes the info you gave and challenges it. There is no compelling a third party to report on you (snitch culture). 

As a side note, this is why everyone should have had a problem with NYS going after Trump's tax documents. Whether you like the man or not, there is a huge danger when the state can target a person (a sitting president no less) in order to *find* a crime to charge him with. Again, the way this is supposed to go is that there is probable cause to suspect a person of a crime. "I don't like Trump's policies" is not probable cause.

So this clear attempt to bypass the 4th here will not stop at the banks. Once enacted, the precedent will be set (which already happened but the bar is being dropped) and other previously out of bounds areas of people activity are next.

Lastly, I want to point out that one way these people are operating is that they will enact a law they know is illegal. They know that it usually takes years for the court cases to go through the courts. Also, that assumes the target person or population even has the financial means to pursue such a case, which they often don't. Even if they lose the case years after the rule was put into place, they get the effect they want.

It is all on purpose and by design. 

They Know

 So there is a PDF of a slide show from Humetrix on the falling "effectiveness" of the "vaccines". I downloaded a copy because we know that stuff gets "disappeared". But while it's up there are some important things in it. Screenshots of slides I think are important:

So this is a study of the most vulnerable groups. 

So first VE is "vaccine effectiveness". Not that I think you're dumb but just want to be clear.

So just to be clear, that the hospitalization rate dropped by 1/3, that rate is damn high for a "vaccine". In my opinion, a "vaccine" which that level of hospitalization is a total failure. 

Apparently, the person who made this slide overlooked that a drop from 32% to 21% is not a "three-fold" reduction but is a "one-third" reduction. That noted, note that the ICU care line admits that ICU care remains *unchanged* from the March-Dec 2020 timeframe.

That would be a fail.

And while the death rate for this group is, by that data,  1/3 of the March-Dec time frame, it's still high for a supposed vaccine. Can you imagine if 4% of people who took the polio vaccine still got polio AND were paralyzed?

71% of Covid cases were in "fully vaccinated individuals".

First: I think they need to stop saying 'fully vaccinated" because clearly, this is not a vaccine.

Second: I showed this using hospitalization data in earlier posts. 

Gonna be a long winter for some people who think they are in the clear cause they took the shot(s).

"Age has a minor contribution to the reduced vaccine protection."

Agreed. I've been saying for months now that this is an issue of co-morbidities and that the reason severity tracks with age is because many of these often self-inflicted co-morbidities show themselves and take a higher toll as you age.  So it *looks* like age but it's not.

Now here's the absolute nuclear bomb:

Notice that persons with prior-Covid-19 infections are the ONLY group that shows a lowered odd of having Delta infection. Now I'm not clear as to whether these persons had COVID *and also* took the shot(s).  But even if they did the change in odds of hospitalization (and downstream deaths) is HUGE. 

The second group of interest is those with Asthma. What do they do that normal healthy people do not? They regularly inhale steroids to address asthmatic attacks. It's clear then that the use of inhaled steroids helps. Why isn't the public made aware of this? Why aren't people who have been diagnosed given those steroids as outpatient early-stage treatment?

I'll leave you to think of the answer.

They Called Your Bluff

 So NYS put in a vaccine mandate for hospitals. There were a lot of people in those hospitals who had refused to take the shot(s).  I don't know their reasoning for doing so but whatever it was it was clearly not strong enough. Bluffs got called:

The one thing the state(s) learned in the past 18 months is that all the talk of people "rising up" if their rights were trampled upon was just that: Talk. In some red and rural areas there may be more resistance but in blue run states people do what their told even if they grumble about it. In the end, they talk shit on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

But they gonna turn around and bend over in the end.

"Then something miraculous happened: People who had previously refused to get a shot came into the office holding out their vaccination cards. Another nine employees opted to get their first dose at an onsite vaccine clinic offered this week. Ultimately, only four of the 120 employees at the facility declined to get vaccinated, and one got a medical exemption. By Wednesday, Highbridge’s vaccination rate had risen to near perfect, 98.6%."

Now I believe that since the elderly are at the highest risk, that staff SHOULD be under scrutiny. However; the way it should be done is that all staff undergo an anti-body and T-Cell reactive tests. Anyone who shows Anti-bodies  or T-Cell reaction to SARS-2 gets a 6 month pass on testing. Testing of all staff, every day they show up to work should be done. That includes anyone who took a shot because we know that the shots do not prevent infection or transmission.

"Because staffing is already so lean, many nursing home administrators had their unvaccinated employees working right up until the deadline, Hanse explained. Now that the deadline has passed, rather than firing employees who haven’t complied, some administrators are giving them a 30-day unpaid leave of absence in hopes that they’ll change their minds. Last weekend, Gov. Kathy Hochul eliminated unemployment insurance benefits for health care workers who were terminated for noncompliance with the mandate."

I won't get into the theft that is denying unemployment to those who paid in for years. But the 30 days is something I think had a huge effect. The vast majority of people cannot go without 30 days of pay. Many cannot afford to miss a single paycheck. If they took the shot due to this extortion (that's what it is), then they should ask themselves how and why they are in such a vulnerable position. 

For those who's position was religious, well just know that you failed the test. I'm going to use a Christian story on this point. When Jesus was in the desert and was tempted by the devil who said, I will give you all this (the world) if you would bow down and worship me.

A lot of people will say that they cannot uproot themselves. Well, why are you so attached to that house? Why are you so attached to that school? Why are you so attached to those possessions you have to pay for? Exactly how many gods have you put into your life that you would forgo the religious principle you claimed you had?

So now your employer (and the state) knows that you don't really believe in what you said you believe and the next time you open your mouth about Jesus, Allah, Jehovah or whatever, THEY all know that deep down  YOU KNOW you are full of shit. 

Not saying that non-compliance would or will be easy. Nope. I know a person who dropped everything to go after his goal of public speaking. All furniture sold. Homeless for a while. Ended up fine. The easy road is promised to no one. Sometimes the easy road is THE TEST.

PROGRAMMABLE MONEY

 Computing Forever has been spot on in his analysis of the COVID scamdemic. For those not too bright, COVID Scamdemic is the set of government, ngo and private party "reactions" to the actual COVID virus epidemic. It is NOT a claim that the virus itself is a scam.

Having put that out of the way the video below discusses the next steps that the various entities have in store for you. 

I wanted to actually quote the Telegraph article discussed in the piece but it is behind a pay wall (think on that for a minute). But in short, the idea that once "hard' currency is replaced by digital currency controlled by government and government aligned "private" entities, your days of being a free citizen is over.

One would have to be on Amish level off-grid ness to even survive and most of the members of the modern world simply will not volunteer to live that way. Hence, what is being discussed is more or less going to happen.

Why am I so pessimistic? Because over the last 18 months I have discovered that, at least for America, a good deal of the public LIKES tyrannical government so long as they continue to get certain "gibs". They also, like their Jim Crow predecessors like the smug feeling of superiority that comes with being able to designate some group of people "less than".

But most of all, the idea that rights and freedom come FROM government,  a concept wholly rejected by the founders of the country and which made it unique among nations, is now held by a large and apparently growing majority of people.

You think banks won't cut you off for having the wrong opinion or stating something the government considers taboo? Well they are already doing this. They are only doing it to people that they have convinced the general public to believe "deserve it". Why? Because the general public can't see past their next meal and so will not be alarmed [enough] to put a check on both the bank AND the government until it's too late.

Breath Right

Back in March of 2020 I mentioned the importance of breathing through your nose as a means of lowering one's likelihood of getting infected with COVID:

Filtering prevents airborne bacteria, viruses, other potentially disease-causing substances from entering the lungs, where they may cause infection. Filtering also eliminates smog and dust particles, which may clog the narrow air passages in the smallest bronchioles.

Below is a video with a very deep dive into the serious health benefits of proper breathing

It's a long video. But it's the weekend, instead of watching a re-run or junk news, watch this. Stream it while you cook. Well worth your time.

Truth Is Conditional

 This should be short. It's Friday.

Earlier this week I saw someone talk about how truth is biased in reference to some COVID discussion.  This mentality has become more pronounced over the years as the idea of 'no objectivity" has taken over society. So lets get this straightened out.

For those of us who write code for a living, we use conditionals all the time. The most common form being:

If ( some condition) then (some action).

Basically, this means that if something is TRUE then do some action. Hence we determine whether something is true based on conditions. Hence truth is conditional. What it is conditioned on?

Facts or data. 

Facts are not conditional. Data is not conditional. A thing either IS or IS NOT. Heck, a thing can be transitioning between IS and IS NOT and that is a data point.

If a true statement is based on a fact or data being absent, then the absence of that fact or data point makes a true statement. 

One counterargument offered to this is that if the facts or data is limited then the "true" statement could be   false when other data points are considered.

Yes. And that supports the "truth is conditional" argument. If additional facts causes the condition to be false, then that's what it is. 

So lesson for the weekend: Truth (and falsity) is conditional, not biased.  If you think someone has made a "false" true statement, then ask for the underlying data. An honest person will give you the underlying data. A dishonest person will just make more assertions.

The Insiders Know The Deal

First: Project Veritas dropped a video yesterday (well as far as I know). Watch:

Next: You'll want to skip to the FDA hearing presentation by Steve Kirsch at time 2:52:

Work Vs. Income

 Genesis 3:19 KJV

in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

For most of the time humans have been on the planet, and indeed for most of the people on the planet, "sweat of thy face" to eat has been the norm. If you were out in the wilderness you had to WORK. Physical labour to hunt, cultivate crops or raise animals to eat and live. 

As time went on a class of people arose all over the globe who accumulated enough wealth or by some other means no longer had to physically work to eat.  These persons could engage in speculative activities unrelated to living and eating. People who had to do these things provided them with food via the excess of their work.

I'm gonna skip ahead to 2020. Up to that point in modern America, the vast majority of people engaged in trade of labour for money in order to get the "bread". Very few people actually directly raise or acquire food by their own hand. We work at some job and get paid currency that is traded for food.  A large number of people are dependent upon people who do a lot of physical labour for their money. Truck drivers. People who stock the shelves in supermarkets. People who work cash registers. People who cook food. People who deliver food. etc.

All of these jobs pay relatively little.  Essentially, the less skill a job requires the less compensation you can expect to do it.  Even Albert Einstein can wash a dish. He may not WANT to do that but he can. There is no shortage of people who can wash dishes. I won't even get into artificial intelligence and automation.

Often those who are unable to do other types of work are essentially forced into low wage labour. Some of this comes down to IQ. Some down to lifestyle choices.  Then you have other kinds of people.

There is a whole industry in which people make money from money. Their "work" produces nothing of value to other people other than money.  They do not provide food, clothing, shelter or anything else "tangible" or necessary for living. They only make money. All they do is create "income" that is totally separated from supplying some good or necessary service.  The thing is, so long as these kinds of people are in the extreme minority you can have them. But what happens when the people who do "productive" things start "creating income" and don't need to do "work"?

This came to mind because I was reading about the hard time employers have finding people to fill positions. In my travels, I have never, ever seen "help wanted" signs to the extent I am seeing now. As a matter of fact, a casino I frequent has decided to close an entire floor for half the day due to lack of staffing. Back to the article though.

One point the article made was that online investment accounts exploded during the pandemic.  Also, and this is the main point here, bitcoin went through the roof.  This left me wondering if, due to the government handing many people disposable income while at the same time shielding them from eviction, there was a creation of a new class of investor: The ordinary joe who couldn't possibly invest 1k or more into a vehicle like stocks and bitcoin on the income of their normal job who suddenly had thousands in assets.

Imagine you had a full-time job that paid you 20k a year that you absolutely despise but dealt with because you needed the job, Imagine the government effectively dropped 10 grand in your lap between the eviction moratorium and direct cash. Imagine you invested 5k in bitcoin?

Bitcoin was 6.5k/coin in March of 2020.  it was 11k/coin in July of 2020. Say you got that cash and stiffed your landlord. That 5k investment increased 50x by March of 2021 to 58k/coin. So you know have 250k dollars if you cashed it all out.

Would YOU go back to a 20k job that you despise?

Are you seeing the picture I'm painting here?

Even if you don't despise your job, would you really want to spend 8 hours or more a day doing something you may not want to do for 1/10th of the income you made from sitting on your butt or going to the beach or whatever you like to do.

For a lot of people, me included, the answer is: 

N to the O.

So what does a society do when the people who are depended upon to do physical labour decide to check out of the market? No way you're getting a job as a dish washer or drive-through window order taker for 250k/year.

I don't know for certain that the above is exactly WHY so many have exited the "low level" job market  but if it is true to any significant extent this may be a serious disruption to life, particularly in cities. Rural people know full well that no work = no eat, etc. And if the costs of labour has to increase to high levels to entice people to re-enter the workforce, those goods and services are going to explode in cost.

If this is situation is true to any significant extent it may also be a sign of what would happen under a universal income scheme: If you give out enough, people may simply exit the market, inflate the cost of labour to the extent that many businesses will fail (or cannot expand past mom-and-pop stage) and/or inflate the costs of goods by bizarre amounts.

Something to think about.

FDA Vaccine Hearing

 I've done a number of posts where I've looked at VAERS data and compared them to death rates in various states and countries.  The FDA made a suggestion today in regards to "boosters" and the below was presented to them during what I assume to be public hearings:

So just to re-iterate: It's not like they don't know.  They are simply OK with you shouldering the entire elevated risk in order to proceed with The Plan.

Note: If the video disappears I'll try to find it elsewhere and post.

New Yorker Protests Medical Jim Crow

 Before I continue, lets look at what the NYS DHR website has to say about the rights of NYS residents. I'm going to screenshot  it because, you know, "stuff changes":

Key points:

• Public places such as hotels, restaurants, transportation services, and retail stores cannot deny you entry or access to goods or services based on a perception that your national origin, race, or disability indicates possible exposure to the coronavirus.

That's up today as in as of this writing.

So NYC has "rules" in place that are contradictory to the NYS rules and this bothers nobody in NYS with a law license? Or you know, duly elected representatives?

No?

And now here it is:

It's not about "rule of law". It's not about safety. These are malicious people. Every person in NY whether they took a shot or not should be doing sit in's just like back in the Civil Rights Movement.  Remember that everyone who supported segregation back in the day thought they were absolutely right and were "protecting society".

Oh and NY residents: YOU all voted for this Mayor and other democrats. Most recently because Orange Man Bad. So color me unsympathetic. You should have said NO to Cuomo AND Blasio.

One more Time On Zinc

 So I provided documentation as to the importance of Zinc in dealing with COVID and other diseases.  But there's always people out there on the "he's not a doctor so..." thing so...

I told no lies.

I told ya'll this a long time ago.

Vaccine Requirement For Apt. Lease? Logical Progression

 So yesterday I saw that there was a landlord in Florida who will be booting anyone who is not vaccinated from his property and will require proof for any new tenants. His staff are also included in his new policy.

Santiago A. Alvarez and his family own eight apartment complexes, which contain a total of around 1,200 housing units in Broward and Miami-Dade counties. The Sun-Sentinel reported on Sunday that Alvarez enacted a policy on August 15 that will automatically deny applications from potential new tenants if they're not vaccinated. Additionally, if anyone is unvaccinated when their lease comes up for renewal, they will have to move out.

Now, I've long said that these kinds of people are malicious actors.  So I'm not writing this in order to point out what should be obvious. No, the point of this post is to show that a lot of people haven't thought through the logical conclusions of a vaccine mandate or passport.

Once you have accepted the "the unvaccinated are a mortal threat to everybody" then the logical conclusion is to remove them. Everywhere. No sane person allows a "mortal threat" to be around them.  If you have asbestos in your property you remove it. Pronto. Lead paint? Remove it pronto. Mold? Remove it pronto. People who you think are carrying a deadly disease even though they are not actually doing but *could* because you think anyone who didn't take the shot are the only ones who can? Remove them pronto.

It makes perfectly logical sense IF you accept the premise.  The premise is wrong but we have moved to "post-fact" a long time ago.

What is interesting is that I see a number of people who are pro-mandate who think this landlord is "going too far".

Why?

It's the logical conclusion of what you want to be implemented.  What you didn't think that far ahead?

Look, I had a discussion about a year ago about lockdowns with a co-worker. She was making an argument about "what is best for society". Rather than argue whether what she thought was best for society I asked this question:

Who gets to make that determination? You? Me? Some random person you don't know?

And what if your vision of "best for society" doesn't go as far as mine? Should I get to impose MY vision on you? See the endpoint of such "best for society" argument is whoever gets the power gets to implement whatever they want to and there is ALWAYS someone who thinks that YOU are not going far enough.

There is always someone who has a more extreme view that may be "beyond the pale" for you. This is why we have a constitution, in America, that constrains government.  The founders knew full well that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Hence they explicitly limited the power of the federal and state governments and specifically said that those powers not *delegated* to the various parts of government are *retained* by the people.

So the people are the source of authority and power. Each individual is a source of authority and the government is restrained from acting against them without meeting a high standard which includes high evidentiary standards to be met prior to encroaching on the individual.

This is why this 18 or so month-long "emergency" and the declarations by various agencies is in complete contradiction to the rule of law fundamental to the US polity. 

So going back to the landlord. It's his property he can do what he likes right? Well if that's the case then why is the state of Colorado bothering a bakery? Why do we have public accommodation laws? If you want to do "vaccine mandates" then lets go all the way and abolish all laws governing what private companies can and cannot do in regards to who they serve and under what circumstances.

After all, if your employer AND landlord can coerce you to put something into your body, and make no mistake, threats of job loss, wage loss and eviction IS coercion, then you have absolutely ZERO rights.

In the end that's why I came out strongly against this concept months and months and months ago. Vaccine mandates completely upend the fundamental principle of a free society. I don't mistake "free" for "care free". Mandates shifts the paradigm from "you have a fundamental right derived from the fact that you are human" TO "you have whatever rights the government grants you".  And if the government exists to secure your rights, as the founders explicitly stated it exists for, then it has the right to dictate to the landlord that he cannot violate the fundamental right of tenants (and employees) to decline a medical intervention without fear of consequence, unless that tenant poses a clear and immediate danger to other tenants (ie: walking around with Ebola, in which case they should be in a hospital or other quarantine anyway).

Traitors

 I've been saying for years now that the US government, as well as various civilian organizations have been infiltrated. A lot of you readers think that I have been exaggerating. Well I'm going to link to a CNN story. Regular readers know I don't consider CNN worth more than dog feces, but some of y'all need to see the stuff written in your favorite MSM outlet in order to believe it.

Gen Milley is a traitor.

"Woodward and Costa write that Milley, deeply shaken by the assault, 'was certain that Trump had gone into a serious mental decline in the aftermath of the election, with Trump now all but manic, screaming at officials and constructing his own alternate reality about endless election conspiracies.'

 

Milley worried that Trump could 'go rogue,' the authors write."

 

So Milley thought that angry Trump would simply go and order a nuke attack on China eh?  Yeah OK.

"In response, Milley took extraordinary action, and called a secret meeting in his Pentagon office on January 8 to review the process for military action, including launching nuclear weapons. Speaking to senior military officials in charge of the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon's war room, Milley instructed them not to take orders from anyone unless he was involved."

Milley is not the CIC.  If he doesn't want to serve under the CIC he is free to tender his resignation.

"No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I'm part of that procedure," Milley told the officers, according to the book. He then went around the room, looked each officer in the eye, and asked them to verbally confirm they understood. 

 

"Got it?" Milley asked, according to the book. 

 

"Yes, sir." 

 

'Milley considered it an oath,' the authors write.

Military officers take an oath to protect and defend the US and uphold the constitution. They do not take an oath to a general.

"Milley's fear was based on his own observations of Trump's erratic behavior. His concern was magnified by the events of January 6 and the 'extraordinary risk' the situation posed to US national security, the authors write. Milley had already had two back-channel phone calls with China's top general, who was on high alert over the chaos in the US."

And this here is the treason. 

Why is a high ranking US military officer "back-channeling" anyone in China?

Remember when there was a news report of Chinese spies in the US in strategic places. Remember how that news got memory holed right quick?

Clearly the CCP is running the show.

Milley decided he had to act. He told his top service chiefs to watch everything "all the time." He called the director of the National Security Agency, Paul Nakasone, and told him, "Needles up ... keep watching, scan." And he told then-CIA Director Gina Haspel, "Aggressively watch everything, 360."

The authors write, 'Milley was overseeing the mobilization of America's national security state without the knowledge of the American people or the rest of the world.'

 

Woodward and Costa also write that 'some might contend that Milley had overstepped his authority and taken extraordinary power for himself,' but he believed his actions were 'a good faith precaution to ensure there was no historic rupture in the international order, no accidental war with China or others, and no use of nuclear weapons.'

 You read that shit again. Milley had the NSA go and "scan" and "watch everything". You know what that is. Everything Snowden warned us about.

It is not Milley's job to ensure "international order". We have a civilian government and ultimately the people decide what our involvement in the "international order" is. 

But these people aren't interested in "we the people". They are interested in the "international order" and making sure China knows that "we're still playing along". 

I told you in my review of the Trump presidency, that I think that China allowed the virus to escape was a direct retaliation for the trade war that Trump started with China. China knew it had assets in place to influence the "right people" to get the US (and other countries they no doubt also have strategic assets in) to destroy their countries from the inside. This revelation of Milley only underscores it.

Lies. Damn Lies and Statistics

 Over at Market-Ticker there is a link to some UK data that will be the basis of this post. Before we start I want to give you the reader a little refresher on "rates" as terms of percentages.

When someone says there is a 1% chance of something happening you should ask "out of how many?" Meaning; though taken by itself, 1% is a very small percent (close to negligible), in real terms this could represent a rather large number. So for example, say we have two groups. One is 1000 and another is 100.

If I said one percent of each group is black, then in the 1000 group that means 10 of the constituents is black. In the 100 group that's only 1 constituent. Hence the size of the group is important. Back when the plandemic started I did rough math assuming varying levels of death rates. At 10%, if everyone got infected you were talking 30 million dead. Possibly in a single year. At 3% you were talking 9 million.

This is why I thought that the initial "slow the spread" ask was reasonable. My mistake, a very bad one at that, was trusting the people in charge to both not be malicious liars and to mean what they said. Anyway, that's another topic for another time.

So with that primer on stats let's get into the report. You'll see a lot of talk about rates/100,000 which in my opinion clouds the issue at hand that is that for certain populations these shots are not doing what the authorities are saying they are doing. The reason for this dismissal of "per 100,000" is because as shown above, as the "vaccinated" population grows. "small" percentages comes out to a lot of people. As the "unvaccinated" population shrinks, "small" percentages and even "large" percentages come to represent fewer and fewer actual people.

Going back to our 1000 vs 100 example. Say that 1% of the 1000 population dies of the shot. Again that's 10 people. However in the smaller group, if you had 10% of them die from not being vaccinated, then it would be the same numbers dead. This is why even "low" failure rates on a widely used medicine is, well SHOULD, be alarming to anyone who is numerate. a 1% failure rate of a drug given to 330 million people is 3.3 million dead. If you do a proper long term study with say 100k people and found out 1% die, at least you only killed 1,000 people rather than 3.3 million.

We clear? Good. Lets dig.

Cases:

So if we look strictly at rates here (last two columns) we see that for people under 40, their case rates for "unvaccinated" are higher than those "vaccinated". Then there is a decided flip where being vaccinated results in a higher case rate (until you hit 80+).

Of more interest to me are the actual numbers.  Look at the total cases for 80+: 12k. People who had 2 shots make up 10k of those people. 

Look at the 70-79 group. Again, 25k. The double shot make up 22k of the 25k.

60-69: 38k of 45K are double jabbed.

50-59: 67K of 84K double jabbed.

40-49: 67K of 97k double jabbed.

It is only in the under 40 group where the "unvaccinated" make up a larger number of cases than the "vaccinated". And remember, we're only doing age here. No mention of comorbidities which is the real driver of cases, hospitalizations and deaths.

Taken at face value it would seem that if one were to take the shot it would be best to stop at one and even then, it only seems to confer "case protection" for the first 20 days.

Now let's move on to deaths:

 Again, going by rates, the vaccinated group seems to win hands down. But we demonstrated that these "rates" hide the real impacts.

Again in the 80+ group there were 1k deaths. Out of that 1K, 900 were double jabbed.

70-79: 428 of 580 were double jabbed.

60-69: 194 of 332 were double jabbed.

Under that age group the mortality shifts. But clearly the vast majority of deaths come from these older groups AND the "vaccinated" within those groups. Notice the big fat 0.0 nearly across the board for under 18. There is clearly no statistical reason to even be looking in their direction with these shots.

Here's the "60 day" death chart:

Same pattern as above. 

People who went to the ER:

Again, over 60 years of age, the "fully vaccinated" make up the majority of people presenting for ER care.

A quick note on the under 18 crowd. Per the graphs in the report, those 18 and under have only recently started getting the shots with under 16  not even at 10% as of this report. So you *should* expect that most presented would be "unvaccinated". 

So what's the mortality impact of all these "unvaccinated" under 18s?  Matter of fact what's the overall impact on mortality period?

So clearly there is no statistical advantage to taking the shot if you are under 50. That's by their own data.  But you should note how the "rate per 100,000" covers up what we showed above. yes, the *rates* may be lower for the "vaccinated" but in real terms it is the "vaccinated" who are over 50 who are filling the hospitals. If the "vaccines" worked as, you know, vaccines, there should be ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, No Damn body in the hospital who has taken the shots.

Did you have the typical US mandated childhood vaccines? Yes, DID YOU end up in the hospital with Mumps? Rubella? Whooping cough? Etc? No? Right because those vaccines (note the lack of quotes) are ACTUAL vaccines that *actually work*.

We should be asking what is causing the increased mortality, across the board that happens in the mid forties on? The likely answer is that the consequences of various lifestyle choices "come home to roost". The pancreas can no longer keep up with the sugar intake (including the breads and alcohol). The lack of exercise. The high salt diet. All that comes to a head along with whatever genetic time bombs we are likely carrying start to go off.

So to close, don't be fooled by the "rate per 100,000". I'm not saying it's meaningless or useless. I am saying that as the data shows, it hides the "on the ground" data. A "vaccine" that does not prevent hospitalizations in 99.999% of people who take it and has an even smaller amount of death by the disease it's meant to stop, is NOT a "vaccine".  Don't take my word for it. Look at the data.

Who's Talking and Who's Walking?

I have comments to make about recent Biden mandates but I still need to calm down so I can write coherently. Until then I have this to say/ask:

 I see a lot of people online who I know took the shot. They took the shot and they work at companies that mandate the shot for their employees. I see a lot of them talking about "unconstitutionality" and "attack on citizens" and all that. Ok, then. When the firings happen are you walking out the door too?

No?

 Then excuse me if I don't exactly take your "commiseration" all that seriously. 

One of my heroes is Denmark Vesey. 

Vesey was a free man at the time of the uprising he lead. Vesey could have continued to live as a free man while talking about how sad it was that negroes weren't free. Instead he put his life and limb at risk to free others.

So that they could own their own bodies and the fruits thereof. So that other men and women could no longer dictate what would and would not be done with their bodies. To own their own destinies for better or for worse.

And he died doing so.

That was a man of supreme honor.

And now I watch people talk about attacks on liberty. Attacks that if they really believed were true, have only one response. The only response that matters and the only response that works:

Total mass non-compliance.

So again, to all those people "secure" in their jobs, jib-jabbering about how wrong Biden is:

When your co-workers are shown the door, will you be walking through it with them?

No?

Then excuse me while I take your protestations with salt.

Sweden vs. Israel: Is It The Jabs?

 So checking the COVID data as I regularly do, I decided to compare Israel to Sweden. Israel has been getting attention because it is a "highly vaccinated" country which is experience a huge casedemic. The current popular opinion is that the vaccines are informing this rise in cases. However; the data may not support this hypothesis. Here is the percent population "vaccinated" for Israel and Sweden:

As you can see, Israel ramped up it's jab campaign very quickly but Sweden has caught up to them.

below are confirmed cases for both countries:

 Sweden lags about 3 months behind Israel. If the issue is WHEN jabs were given, then Sweden should be in for a world of hurt by about October. If not then we'll have to ask why Israel and Sweden diverge in case counts.

Here's a merged "people vaccinated" and "confirmed cases" chart:

You see that there is a 4 month gap between Israel's vaccination plateau and the start of spike in cases. If the jab theory is correct then Sweden should be seeing a similar curve in late October (assuming the current uptick isn't a part of their new spike).

In any case as far as Israel is concerned, the data shows that the jab campaign has had ZERO impact on case counts.  The only way it could be the case that the jabs have worked is if every case was among the non-jabbed. Yet we know that to not be the case.

Vaccine Death Count vs Covid Deaths in America

 I went through this before but with the numbers growing it's a good time to review. Current VAERS reports of deaths "associated" with the various COVID "vaccines". Screenshot taken this morning 10:25AM:

7k dead.

Total COVID deaths by state that are at or below the numbers of dead by vaccine. Screenshot from worldometers 10:28AM:

22 states and DC.

The vaccines have killed more people than COVID did in these states. In some instances the vaccines have killed more people than certain combined state totals.

I'm not going to tell you what you should think about this. Draw your own conclusions.

More Evidence of Wuhan Virus Creation

From The Intercept

"Newly released documents provide details of U.S.-funded research on several types of coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. The Intercept has obtained more than nine hundred pages of documents detailing the work of the EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based health organization that used federal money to fund bat coronavirus research at the Chinese laboratory. The trove of documents includes two previously unpublished grant proposals that were funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as well as project updates relating to the EcoHealth Alliance’s research, which has been scrutinized amid increased interest in the origins of the pandemic."

 The Ghost told y'all the deal months ago.

 

 Daszak can "aggresively dismiss" whatever he wants. We have the tweets.

If you want to know why nobody is actually moving to "punish China" for the virus, this is it. All fingers point right back to the US and the US would be, no IS just as liable as China.

95% "Vaccinated" Cornell

Ahhh Ithaca NY. I knew thee well.

You don't say. And they haven't hit peak season yet.

"By the numbers, during the first week of school that ran from Aug. 27 to Sept. 2 of this academic year, Cornell reported 322 positive COVID-19 cases.

In comparison, during the first week of school last year, which ran from Sept. 3 through Sept. 9 of 2020, Cornell reported 59 positive COVID-19 cases."

You'd think that at a university, where presumably there are hundreds if not thousands of the "best minds", they would have waited on seeing actual data on these new jabs before mandating anything. But no, these malicious people who are convinced of their self-righteousness just imposed stuff because that's what they believed in. 

The data suggests a similar pattern as seen in Israel and other "highly vaccinated" areas. Cases go up. The official narrative is that these rise in cases are the "unvaccinated" but we can see that these are actually "vaccinated" people.

There are a lot of universities that are going to experience similar rises. A lot of them are mucking the numbers up because they do not test people who have taken the jabs. Now personally I don't think they should be testing anybody. This testing serves to panic the public and serves little public good. Most people who "test positive" are not infectious and are not and do not become ill. The problem facing places like Ithaca is that they have pretty brutal winters. Vitamin D deficiency is going to rise dramatically and a lot of people are going to be indoors a lot. 

Anyway. More and more data is showing that these jabs at best are a symptom mitigator who's effects are best seen in those who are healthiest. That is, hospitalization rate fall for those who are jabbed AND have no comorbidities. However; if you possess any of the big 4: obesity, diabetes, hypertension or other metabolic disease, being jabbed apparently significantly increases your likelihood of being hospitalized.

The warning flags are up.

These Are Malicious People Part 2

A few things happened last week that should convince even the most propagandized people that we are not dealing with a "health crisis" but instead we are seeing the proverbial mask drop off the face of the  left wing of America (and elsewhere) to reveal the vicious malicious people that they are. 

The first thing I'll highlight is Joe Rogan. He got COVID and he took the "forbidden medicine". Now I had thought that he had taken the jab. Not my business but I thought he had. In either case, the reaction to Rogan was very illuminating. People who are normal human beings, wished him a speedy recovery and moved along. However; there were a cadre of leftists who went to prattling about 'horse de-wormer" and how he shouldn't have taken whatever meds/theraputics he did. As if it was their business what he did.

These people were actually mad that  he didn't die. 

Then we have the case of Candace Owens. She tried to get a COVID test in order to make sure she wasn't carrying anything into a gathering/conference/whatever that she was attending. The local COVID testing site (which apparently has a local monopoly on testing) refused to serve negroes conservatives/those not going along with the narrative. You can see the video on YouTube.  Aside from the nasty attitude of the sole testing provider, that a person charged with a part of the so called "public health" response to COVID, would refuse to test a person due to political beliefs says a lot:

1) They didn't care whether Candace had COVID or not., Hence they essentially were telling her to drop dead (since they believe this to be a extremely fatal disease. It is not).

2) They didn't care about the community to which they claim to serve. You would think that in this "unprecedented crisis" that they would jump at an opportunity to find a case before others would be infected.  Nope. When it comes to politics, they were willing to put the community 'at risk" in order to "punish" the negro transgressor.

So it is clear that these people are not interested in "health". If they were, they would have called Candace every name in the book, behind her back, and administered the test. 

This doesn't even touch the two recent "reports" about Ivermectin poisoning and ER visits run by MSM that were so egregious that hospitals had to come out and make statements.

These people are malicious. These are not accidents. They are not "incompetent".  There is only one thing they are interested in: pushing their narrative. If you do not comply they will do everything they can do destroy you. Literally. And they do so because they do not fear consequences.

These Are Malicious People

 Real quick before I dip out. There was an article out that said that a hospital was overwhelmed by people who had overdosed on Ivermectin. The entire story was fake. Statement from the hospital as seen on their website:

So the publication was wrong and the "Dr" straight up lied.

You need to understand, if you don't already that this entire COVID thing is not about health or anything else other than left wing power grabbing.

These are malicious people. All of them. They will kill you (or let you die) in order to preserve or advance their narrative. More on that in a later post.

It's time to stop being nice to these people. No more being respectful to these people. You need to treat these people like you would a person who ran up on you in the street and demanded your property or your life.

Yes. it's THAT serious.

Is The Deep State "Taking Out" Biden?

 So watching the events around Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan I'm thinking that this amount of incompetence just doesn't make sense. I mean, yes, there are total clowns and their enablers in positions of power but the fails just keep coming. So I'm wondering, is the Deep State making their push to remove Biden?

Yes, this falls into "conspiracy theory" land so take everything written here with appropriate salt. That said, this is not beyond the realm of possibility. Think about it:

Deep State wanted Trump out of office ever since he was elected. They covered for their actors by placing the right people in spots in the Trump administration and by strategically putting information into the media. Biden was the strongest Democrat in terms of appeal to Dem base so he was the tool to oust Trump. Biden was helped by the COVID confusion which gave cover to unprecedented election tampering.

So Biden served his purpose. However; the DS people know that Biden is on the cognitive decline. Biden is not meant to serve a full term. I think however; there was an expectation of him stepping down by now, at least in some corners. And so the DS people saw an opportunity to kneecap Biden by totally screwing up the Afghanistan withdrawal. This kind of failure would "unite" the large middle group of not crazy Democrats with almost everyone else to demand accountability. 

The unknown here is whether there is the political will to boot Biden via impeachment. In fact "impeachable offenses" have already occured. We recently were told of a phone call where Biden asked favours of the "president' of Afghanistan to "make things look better" in exchange for things. This is the same logic that got Trump impeached. 

So by this logic Biden should be in the hot seat. Will there be enough political will to carry through?

Lets assume not, given what we have heard from McConnell. Well the next move is 25th Amendment. I think there is plenty of grounds for that. Among other things Biden appeared to nod off during a meeting with an Israeli representative. I thought I saw his thumbs twiddling but anyway. Point being, 25th Amendment could be invoked if the impeachment route isn't taken.

What does DS win? Well, Kamala, though unpopular in much of the country seems to be amenable to DS things. Also, she would give them the "first female president" thing they want. And they REALLY want that. Seriously, that could be the total wish list: A female president who is amenable to SJW stuff on a national level. 

It's a theory. Could be wrong. But I think it's worth exploring.