Once Again: "Vaccinated" "Spread" COVID just like the "UnVaccinated"

 From The Lancet:

Short story:

Vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates viral clearance. Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts. Host–virus interactions early in infection may shape the entire viral trajectory.

Yeah. So we (as in those of like minds) said this MONTHS AGO.

It is therefore beyond any argument that so called "vaccination" "Stops the spread".

It also means that any and all mandates with the stated goal of "stopping the spread" have absolutely NO BASIS IN FACT.

And let's be clear "household settings" is not much different than "office" or "work" settings depending upon the type of office arrangement. It may be the case that you are "safer" in an office than at home.

Next:

Viral load growth rate (delta) population level. Do I even need to explain this?

Viral load growth rate (delta) within sample level. Do I need to explain this too?

Also:

"Host–virus interactions early in infection may shape the entire viral trajectory."

We've been saying this since March/April of last year. WE SAID early intervention is KEY. We were right the entire time.

Also, I want to go back to a post I made in regards to the Israel study where they made claims about breakthrough infections being due to unvaccinated people. I said:

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". 

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.

So I think this Lancet piece supports my issue with that paper. In this paper they ran tests against the samples to make sure they knew that the infections were linked:

"). 12 (39%) of 31 infections in fully vaccinated household contacts arose from fully vaccinated epidemiologically linked index cases, further confirmed by genomic and virological analysis in three index case–contact pairs."

That's how you make a clam of source. "Confirmed" not "suspect". "Suspect" is garbage.

We should be done with this now. 

So You Got An Exemption?

 They've been pulling bait and switches since March 2020. Many of us, me included fell for it. But I figured out that these exemptions, in the current climate and political situation (State Of Emergency), that these exemptions would be in danger. See here's the thing: If there is an emergency then the situation is SO DIRE that normal procedures cannot be followed. 

For your safety of course.

So, those who are exempted from the rules, who are not a part of the ruling class, pose a danger to everyone else. If there is such a dire emergency why would you allow people to "opt out"? So you see, the mere existence of "exemptions" to the public is an existential danger to the "state of emergency". And so..

Now this is NY but it's not only NY. 

"Most New York City municipal workers are required to have one dose of the vaccine by Friday, with some corrections officers having a Dec. 1 deadline. The city workers who present proof of vaccination will be rewarded with a $500 bonus in their paycheck, whereas those who do not will be placed on unpaid leave until they do so. 

Previously, New York City employees could opt to take weekly COVID-19 tests instead of being vaccinated, but this exemption no longer will apply."

Bait.

Switch.

I am currently on the receiving end of one of these mandates (which I will post on later). I'm currently facing a 14% decline in income within the next month. That's pre-tax. But this isn't about me.

I knew that these exemptions were "temporary".  I'm not saying there aren't jurisdictions and businesses that may honor their word, particularly if the local judiciary and / or legislature is more likely to back a citizens right to decline any and all medical treatment. But in those places where such legal protections are not observed by the courts, in particular, these government agencies will act a total fool.

And know that even if the courts rule in the favor of these employees, there will be ZERO consequences for the individuals who made the decisions.  They will be protected by qualified immunity while you cash out investments to pay your bills. And a lot of these people will be smiling in your face day in and day out until they put you out on your butt.

So you got that exemption? Good for you. You better hope it lasts. 

"A federal appeals court heard a separate case Wednesday on a similar mandate for health care workers, according to the AP. The judges seemed to support the arguments that a New York state vaccine mandate for health care workers was not a violation of constitutional rights, even though the mandate does not include religious exemptions, reports the AP. "

Got that?

See, if that position goes unchallenged up through SCOTUS, then you, my American friend are the property of the state. Period. And so long as they can say "safety", they can do whatever they want to you OR put you out on the street.

And mind you, SCOTUS has already ruled that conscientious objections are as valid as religious objections when it comes to the First Amendment. Yet you'll hear not a word about that in these cases. 

Let's Go Brandon

Purchased just to support the cause.

The Vaccinated Are Afraid

 This little gem dropped into my notifications just now:

Well that's a lot of money. Are these "unvaccinated" pilots falling ill and taking time off and therefore costing the company all kinds of sick pay while flights can't fly? I mean that's what it sounds like. Right?

United Airlines said vaccinated pilots are hesitant to fly because they "refuse to risk their safety" by flying with unvaccinated pilots, costing the carrier about $1.4 million every two weeks in paid leave, said the company in a Texas federal court where it is battling a lawsuit against its employee vaccine requirement.

 

So actually it's the "vaccinated" pilots who are costing the company money by refusing to work. You know, in not-clown-world, these "vaccinated" pilots would be fired for two reasons:

1) False sick claim: If these vaccines "work" then these "vaccinated" pilots have nothing to fear and their claims of "risk to their safety" is bogus and actionable.

2) Refusing to perform contracted work.

Once again, if the "vaccines" work then why are the "vaccinated" afraid of anyone? Do these pilots inquire about whether anyone around them has mumps, measles, TB? etc? If not why not?

We all know the answer.

The other thing here is that United apparently thinks this claim helps them in court.  If the "vaccinated" pilots are afraid of getting sick, then some expert is going to have to get up and testify, under oath, that these 'vaccines" are not effective. At that point the entire basis for any mandate is null. Find for the plaintiff.

See up to this point, these government agencies and their agents have been able to say whatever they want about these biological products without any challenge. They have censored information and in some cases rigged data. Now with these lawsuits, actual data will have a chance to be presented and these narratives dismantled by people under oath. 

A lot of companies think they can do the "well the government say so..." argument in order to protect themselves or coerce medical treatment upon employees. I think many of them will find themselves on the losing end of that argument once the data comes out.

Question For The NYPD and other PDs

 So apparently the NYPD along with the FDNY and other public employees in NY held a rally in regards to the "vaccine" mandates in NYC.  Firstly, I support them in opposition to these mandates and wish them well however: I'd like to ask them and other police in other areas, like Newark a question:

Remember early during the pandemic and people were trying to live their lives? Remember when you all were raiding businesses where people were trying to survive? Remember when you all were ticketing people who were walking down the street without a mask?

Remember when they wanted you all to stop cars that were entering the city so you could do the "papers please" thing?

Remember when you all were sent to a gym to shut it down because people were exercising, which it turns out is one of the BEST things you can do to prevent severe COVID and *may* actually help to keep viral loads down.

Remember when some of you raided businesses that stayed open and ya'll came out with rifles and an armored vehicle?

 Yeah, I remember all of that.

So apparently when you all thought you were "safe" from the bullshit being foisted upon the masses, too many of y'all went along with the tyranny. I bet when you were ticketing people and such, they told you it was tyranny and you probably said some "just doing my job" type shit.

 How many proverbs are there about how the appeaser always gets targeted at the end?

Yeah, see now it's YOUR turn. See, you all SHOULD have said no to the tyranny from the beginning. You should have refused these unlawful orders that created new criminal classes without so much as a piece of legislation being written.

You all were and are the enforcement arm of the government. They can pass all the laws they want but if YOU, the police, refuse to enforce them, they are null and void. You had a chance, many chances to refuse these unjust policies and most of you didn't.

I say most of you, because I have personally witnessed officers who I will consider stand up people who refused to enforce these rules. And I respect those persons, but as a class, you all failed.

So the situation you find yourself in now is partially of your own making and if you want to make amends, you can start by simply refusing to enforce the new segregation that is 'vaccine" for service in certain sectors. You get a call about a refusal, you refuse to enforce a trespass. 

You do for US and WE will do for you. No more blank check "back the blue".

Dr. Ardis

 Just watched this video and had to share:

 

 

 A few notes:

1) His discussion of Remdesivir explains a lot about what happened in March and why so many people have mentioned kidney damage.

2) Did not know that Quercetin was essentially HCQ.  I knew it was a Zinc ionophore but was unaware that it was an analog to HCQ.  Along with that I was unaware of woodroot as a replacement for IVM. Woodroot is available OTC at popular vitamin stores. Just saying.

3) I don't think the level of supplementation he suggests is necessary.  Of course individual circumstances would dictate different levels of supplementation. Also, this is why you don't do one size fits all medicine.

4) Per the recommendation for natural vitamin D production (actually a hormone), If you are dark skinned you'll need to double or quadruple that time out, particularly if you are above the 30th parallel (northern US and Canada). I don't know which parallel is equivalent in the southern hemisphere.

If what this guy is saying is right, then Fauci ought to be put to death by firing squad in a public execution and all state actors and private companies that have mandated shots under threats of extortion should be imprisoned for no less than 25 years and have all their assets seized and distributed to injured parties.

Intravenous Injections

So the directions given by the makers of The Shots have said that The Shot should be given into the muscle and not put into the bloodstream. The theory has been floating that the circulating spike protein, mRNA and heart issues are the result of improper jabbing. Explained below:

A couple of points I think should be made here:

1) They are admitting to what we said months and months ago, that the spike protein itself is dangerous. 

2) That if The Shots are leaking and that material gets to other systems the results could be deadly.

3) No-effing-body is going to be held accountable for this issue even though it was known from the jump that at a minimum there should be practices in place to make sure The Shot didn't get put into the bloodstream.

Again, this is why you wait for long term studies. 

Now some of my own theorizing.

We know that evidence of infection can be detected in feces. Hence we know that the virus, or particles from it, can pass through "barriers".  We know that the virus can be detected in urine

That would mean it either crossed the "barrier" in the kidneys or the blood vessels of the bladder itself.

The theory behind The Shot is that it is given in the deltoid

You can see the relatively large blood vessels in that area. The idea is that the shot into the muscle would produce the spike protein which would be picked up by certain cells in the immune system and carried into closely lymphatic vessels where the system would produce anti-bodies

Lymph

The mRNA that make up The Shot tell the cell to produce the spike protein which is then taken to the cell membrane as a means of telling the immune system what it looks like. How does mRNA usually work?

"Directions for making proteins are encoded in the DNA sequences of genes, which reside on chromosomes in the nucleus of each cell. But for proteins to be made, a gene’s DNA code must be copied, or transcribed, onto mRNA molecules, which migrate from the nucleus and into the cytoplasm where the cell’s protein-making machinery is located. For as long as it exists, an mRNA molecule can act as a template for making copies of a protein. So scientists have long suspected that cells must have ways for degrading mRNAs when, for example, a protein starts accumulating to harmful levels. “The cell somehow decides to destroy its mRNA on cue, but nobody knew how this happens,” said Dr. Singer."

Remember that The Shots are not DNA into mRNA as described above. It's mRNA directly introduced into the cytoplasm (via carrier...yes....).

Remarkably, the researchers found that these mRNAs are, in effect, born with molecular “self-destruct timers” that ultimately destroy them.

When genes are transcribed, a part of the gene called the promoter region has the job of switching on the gene so that DNA will be copied into mRNA. The Einstein scientists found that the promoter regions of the SWI5 and CLB2 genes do something else as well: they recruit a protein called Dbf2p, which jumps onto mRNA molecules as they’re being synthesized. 

Again, the mRNA introduced has to have some kind of self-destruct protein on it.

Our findings indicate that genes making proteins whose levels must be carefully controlled contain promoter regions that sentence their mRNA molecules to death even as the mRNA is being born,” said Dr. Singer. “The promoter regions do that by ‘marking’ the newly made mRNA with the protein Dbf2p—the common factor between mRNA synthesis and its ultimate decay. Dbf2p stays attached to the mRNA from its birth and then, responding to a signal indicating that no more protein should be made, orders mRNA’s destruction.” 

So the protein attached to the mRNA responds to a signal indicating that no more protein should be made? Ok. Exactly what signal is the human cell that never created the mRNA using to tell the mRNA to self-destruct?

I'm not saying there *isn't* one in The Shot.  I'm asking that assuming there *is* one, WHEN is the "die" signal sent? What event triggers the "die" signal? Exactly how much protein has to be created before this "die" signal is given? 

What if the "die" signal is never given AND instead the production of spike protein by these cells is only stopped when killer cells either destroy the cell itself or the cell is given the "die now" command by the immune system? 

And if it's a "die now" scenario, what happens to any mRNA that hasn't received its "die" signal? Does it float around the body until it finds somewhere else? 

Do the spike proteins get to float around until they are expelled in feces and urine (perhaps)?

How about this: A person who has been previously infected by a corona virus and therefore has enough immunity in that if they "see" the spike protein, they immediately instruct cell death. No waiting period while the immune system "learns" about the nature of the protein. So the mRNA hasn't reached it's "die now" stage and is immediately released into the intracellular space and so on.

This is not something alien to medicine

In addition to endogenous mRNA, the presence of extracellular mRNA in extracellular vesicles (EVs), such as microvesicles and exosomes, has been reported2,3,4,5,6. EV-derived mRNA can be transferred to other cells, where these are translated into corresponding proteins in vitro3,4 and in vivo5,6.

This study demonstrates for the first time that mRNA is itself utilized as an intercellular messenger molecule with nuclear functions. When mRNA is in a subnuclear location, it is expected to have a different function from translation dictated by the central dogma. 

So yes, mRNA can be in exosomes, be transferred to other cells and be translated there. Yes, mRNA can exist in outside the cell and "do things" without the encapsulation. How many people have had their Shot move from the deltoid to [enter body part]? 

There are people smarter than me and who are more familiar with this than I am who can possibly answer these questions.  At the very least, if you're going to get The Shot(s), make them aspirate first.

Limit Strenuous Activity

 Slide from a presentation on side effects of COVID shots.

Limit strenuous activity for 3-6 months.

I'm not under 20. However; I am very athletic. I have a resting heart rate in the 40s. I run a half marathon consistently in the top 10% of my age group. Not elite. Essentially I am about 25 in terms of biological age.  If I were to lay off all strenuous activity for 3-6 months the effects on my health would be devastating. 

I don't understand how this is at all acceptable.

Now there are those who will say that COVID can give you the same thing.

My answer is:

1) Yes, but the shot and the risk associated is totally avoidable whereas

2) a COVID infection is unlikely to be avoidable and since the current shots don't stop you from getting infected, or sick or hospitalized, then the shot represents an *additional* risk.

Your math may vary.

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.