There is an article floating around from The Expose that makes an explosive claim: There is a wildly statistically-significant skew in the death rate from Covid-19 vaccines by lot number.

What originally got my attention was the tinfoil hat crowd screaming about lots being intentionally distributed to certain people to kill them -- in other words certain Covid-19 vaccine lots were for all intents and purposes poisoned.  That was wildly unlikely so I set out to disprove it and apply some broom handles to the tinfoil hatters heads.  What I found, however, was both interesting and deeply disturbing.

Lots are quite large, especially when you're dealing with 200 million people and 400 million doses.  Assuming the lots are not preferentially assigned to certain cohorts (e.g. one goes to all nursing homes, etc) adverse reactions should thus be evenly distributed between lots; if they're not one of these things is almost-certainly true:

• There is a serious manufacturing quality problem or you produced something without understanding how it would work in the body and thus failed to control for something you had to in order to wind up with reproduceable results.  That is, some lots are ok, others are contaminated, have too much or too little of the active ingredient in them, some produce wildly more spike-protein than others in the body when injected, etc.
  
  OR
  
  
• Much worse, the lots are intentionally segregated to produce different results. This implies some sort of nefarious intent such as killing people on a differential basis or that the manufacturers are running unsanctioned experiments on a mass basis among the population at-large, since they know what is in each lot and intentionally varied the contents.
  
  OR
  
  
• Perhaps worst of all, reports are now being intentionally suppressed, the injury and death rate hasn't changed and there are lots with one of the two above problems but it is being intentionally not reported, having been detected almost-instantly and health providers were directed to not report anything serious (e.g. death) associated with the jabs.

Now let's talk about VAERS.  You can grab the public data from it, but VAERS intentionally makes it difficult to discern differences in lot outcomes.  Why?  Because they separate out the specifics of the vax (the manufacturer, lot number, etc.) into a different file.  This means that simply loading it into Excel does you no good and attempting to correlate and match the two tables in Excel itself is problematic due to the extreme size of the files -- in fact, it blew Excel up here when I tried to do it.  But that's an external data-export problem; internally, within HHS, it is certainly not hard for them to run correlations.

Indeed the entire point of VAERS is to find said correlations before people get screwed in size and stop it from happening.

Let's step back a bit in history. VAERS came into being because back in the 1970s the producers of the DTP shot had a quality control problem.  Some lots had way too much active ingredient in them and others had nearly none.  This caused a crap ton of bad reactions by kids who got the jabs and parents sued.  Liability insurance threatened to become unobtanium (gee, you figure, after you screw a bunch of kids who had to take mandatory shots?) and thus the manufacturers pulled the DTP jab and threatened to pull all vaccines from the market.

Congress responded to this threat of intentional panic sown by the pharmaceutical industry by giving the vaccine firms immunity and setting up a tax and arbitration system, basically, to pay families if they got screwed by vaccines.  Rather than force the guilty parties to eat the injuries and deaths they caused Congress instead exempted the manufacturers from the consequences of their own negligence and socialized the losses with a small tax on each shot.

Part of this was VAERS.  We know VAERS understates adverse events because it while it is allegedly "mandatory" it is subject to clinical judgment and there is a wild bias against believing that these jabs, or any jab for that matter, has bad side effects.  In addition there is neither a civil or criminal penalty of any kind for failure to report.  We now know some people who have had bad side effects from the Covid-19 jabs have shown up on social media after going to the doctor and then tried to find their own record, which is quite easy to do if you know the lot number from your card, what happened and the date the event happened -- their doctor never filed it.  This does not really surprise me since filing those reports takes quite a bit of time and the doctor isn't paid for it by the government or anyone else, so even without bias there will be those who simply won't do the work unless there are severe penalties for not doing so.  There are in fact no penalties whatsoever.  The under-reporting does not have a reliable boundary on it, but estimates are that only somewhere between 3% and 10% of actual adverse events get into the database.  That's right -- at best the adverse event rate is ten times that of what you find in VAERS.

But now it gets interesting because VAERS exports, it appears, were also set up, whether deliberately or by coincidink, to make it hard for ordinary people to find a future correlation between injury or death and vaccine lot number.

NOTE THAT THIS EXACT CIRCUMSTANCE -- THAT MANUFACTURERS HAD QUALITY CONTROL PROBLEMS ORIGINALLY -- IS WHY VAERS EXISTS.  YOU WOULD THINK THAT IF CONGRESS WAS ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN SOLVING THE PROBLEM THIS WOULD BE THE EASIEST SORT OF THING TO MONITOR AND WOULD BE REGULARLY REPORTED.  YOU'D ALSO THINK THERE WERE STRONG CIVIL AND EVEN CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR NOT REPORTING ADVERSE EVENTS.

You'd be wrong; the data is across two tables and uncorrelated as VAERS releases it and there is no quick-and-easy reporting on their site that groups events on a comparative basis by lot number.  While it is possible to do this sort of analysis from their web page it's not easy.

(Further, and this also intentionally frustrates analysis, VAERS keeps no record nor reports on the number of shots administered per lot, making norming to some stable denominator literally impossible.  If you think that's an accident I have a bridge for sale.  It's a very nice bridge.)

But, grasshopper, I have Postgres.  Indeed if you're reading this article it is because I both have it and know how to program against it; this blog is, in fact, stored in Postgres.

Postgres, like all databases, is very good at taking something that can be foreign-key related and correlating it.  In fact that's one of a database's prime strengths.  Isn't SQL, which I assume VAERS uses as well, wonderful?

So I did exactly that with the data found here for 2021.

And..... you aren't going to like it.

Having loaded the base table and manufacturer tables related by the VAERS-ID I ran this query:

karl=> select vax_lot(vaers_vax), count(vax_lot(vaers_vax)) from vaers, vaers_vax where vaers_id(vaers) = vaers_id(vaers_vax) and died='Y' and vax_type='COVID19' and vax_manu(vaers_vax)='MODERNA' group by vax_lot(vaers_vax) order by count(vax_lot(vaers_vax)) desc;

This says:

Select the lot, and count the instances of that lot, from the VAERS data where the report ID is in the table of persons who had a bad reaction, said bad reaction was that they died, where the vaccine is a Covid-19 vaccine and where the manufacturer is MODERNA.  Order the results by the count of the deaths per lot in descending order.

vax_lot | count
-----------------+-------
039K20A | 87
013L20A | 66
012L20A | 64
010M20A | 62
037K20A | 49
029L20A | 48
012M20A | 46
024M20A | 44
027L20A | 44
015M20A | 43
025L20A | 42
026A21A | 41
013M20A | 41
016M20A | 41
022M20A | 41
030L20A | 40
026L20A | 39
007M20A | 39
013A21A | 36
011A21A | 36
031M20A | 35
032L20A | 35
010A21A | 33
011J20A | 33
030A21A | 33
028L20A | 32
011L20A | 32
004M20A | 32
025J20-2A | 31 << -- What's this? (see below)
041L20A | 31
011M20A | 31
031L20A | 30
032H20A | 29
030M20A | 28
042L20A | 27
Unknown | 27
006M20A | 27
012A21A | 25
002A21A | 25
043L20A | 24
032M20A | 24
023M20A | 23
040A21A | 23
027A21A | 23
017B21A | 22
036A21A | 20
unknown | 19
020B21A | 19
047A21A | 19
006B21A | 18
044A21A | 17
038K20A | 17
048A21A | 15
003A21A | 15
014M20A | 15
031A21A | 15
031B21A | 15
021B21A | 15
025A21A | 14
007B21A | 14
003B21A | 14
001A21A | 13
038A21A | 13
025B21A | 13
001B21A | 12
046A21A | 12
027B21A | 11
045A21A | 11
038B21A | 11
025J20A | 11
002C21A | 11
016B21A | 11
036B21A | 11
039B21A | 10
002B21A | 10
018B21A | 10
019B21A | 10
008B21A | 10
029K20A | 10
029A21A | 10
028A21A | 9
047B21A | 9
001C21A | 9
044B21A | 8
045B21A | 8
009C21A | 8
048B21A | 8
026B21A | 8
UNKNOWN | 7
039A21A | 7
040B21A | 7
046B21A | 7
032B21A | 7
038C21A | 6
030m20a | 6
027C21A | 6
008C21A | 6
006C21A | 6
004C21A | 6
047C21A | 6
007C21A | 5
025C21A | 5
042B21A | 5
043B21A | 5
025J202A | 5  << -- Same as the above one?
052E21A | 5
003C21A | 5
030B21A | 5
030a21a | 5
016C21A | 5
017C21A | 5
N/A | 5
NO LOT # AVAILA | 5
037A21B | 5
037B21A | 5
024m20a | 4
031l20a | 4
003b21a | 4
026a21a | 4
041B21A | 4
005C21A | 4
033C21A | 4
035C21A | 4
021C21A | 4
040a21a | 4
041C21A | 4
006D21A | 4
022C21A | 4
037k20a | 4
048C21A | 4
03M20A | 3
008B212A | 3
039k20a | 3
024C21A | 3
016m20a | 3
038k20a | 3
025b21a | 3
033B21A | 3
026C21A | 3
Moderna | 3
033c21a | 3
014C21A | 3
.....

There are 547 unique lot entries that have one or more deaths associated with them.  Some of the lot numbers are in the wrong format or missing, as you can also see.  That's not unusual and in fact implicates the ordinary failure to get things right when people fill out the input.  For example "Moderna" in the above results is clearly not a lot number.  I've made no attempt to "sanitize" the data set in this regard and, quite-clearly, neither has VAERS even months after the fact with their "alleged" follow-up on reports.

But there is a wild over-representation in deaths of just a few lots; in fact fewer than 50 lots account for all lots where more than 20 associated deaths accumulated and out of the 547 unique entries fewer than 100 account for all those with more than 10 deaths.

Evenly distribution my ass.

How about Pfizer?

vax_lot | count
-----------------+-------
EN6201 | 117
EN5318 | 99
EN6200 | 97
EN6198 | 89
EL3248 | 86
EL9261 | 84
EM9810 | 82
EN6202 | 75
EL9269 | 75
EL3302 | 69
EL3249 | 67
EL8982 | 67
EN6208 | 59
EL9267 | 58
EL9264 | 57
EL0140 | 54
EN6199 | 54
EJ1686 | 51
EL9265 | 50
EL1283 | 48
ER2613 | 48
EN6204 | 47
EN6205 | 45
EK9231 | 43
EL3246 | 43
EN6207 | 41
EN6203 | 41
ER8732 | 40
EL1284 | 39
EL0142 | 38
EJ1685 | 38
ER8737 | 37
EN9581 | 36
EN6206 | 35
EP7533 | 35
EL9262 | 34
EL9266 | 33
EL3247 | 32
ER8727 | 28
EP6955 | 27
ER8730 | 26
EW0150 | 25
EK5730 | 24
EP7534 | 24
EM9809 | 22
EK4176 | 22
EH9899 | 21
EW0171 | 21
unknown | 20
ER8731 | 19
ER8735 | 18
EW0172 | 18
EL9263 | 17
EW0151 | 15
ER8733 | 15
EW0158 | 14
EW0164 | 14
EW0162 | 14
EW0169 | 14
ER8729 | 13
ER8734 | 13
Unknown | 13
EW0153 | 13
EW0167 | 12
EW0168 | 10
EW0161 | 10
EW0182 | 9
NO LOT # AVAILA | 8
EW0181 | 8
EW0186 | 8
ER8736 | 8
EW0191 | 8
FF2589 | 7
EW0173 | 6
EW0175 | 6
FA7485 | 6
EW0177 | 6
FD0809 | 6
301308A | 6
EW0170 | 6
FC3182 | 6
EW0217 | 6
EK41765 | 5
EW0196 | 5
EW0176 | 5
EW0183 | 4
EN 5318 | 4
el3249 | 4
EW0178 | 4
EW0179 | 4
EW0187 | 4
FA6780 | 4
FA7484 | 4
EN 6207 | 4

Pfizer has 395 unique lot numbers associated with at least one death and, again, there are a few that are obviously bogus.  But again, evenly distribution my ass; there is a wild over-representation with one lot, EN6201, being associated with 117 deaths and fewer than 20 are associated with more than 50.

For grins and giggles let's look at the age distribution for 039K20A -- the worst Moderna lot.

karl=> select avg(age_yrs) from vaers, vaers_vax where vaers_id(vaers) = vaers_id(vaers_vax) and vax_type='COVID19' and vax_manu(vaers_vax)='MODERNA' and vax_lot(vaers_vax)='039K20A' and age_yrs is not null;
      avg
---------------------
 51.4922202119410700
(1 row)

Ok, so the average age of people who got that shot, had a bad reaction (and had a valid age in the table) is 51.

How about for 030A21A which had 33 deaths?

karl=> select avg(age_yrs) from vaers, vaers_vax where vaers_id(vaers) = vaers_id(vaers_vax) and vax_type='COVID19' and vax_manu(vaers_vax)='MODERNA' and vax_lot(vaers_vax)='030A21A' and age_yrs is not null;

       avg
---------------------
 61.1097014925373134
(1 row)

Well there goes the argument that we jabbed all the old people in nursing homes with the really nasty outcome lot and they died but it not caused by the jab and the second lot, which had a much lower rate, all went into younger people's arms and that's why they didn't die.  Uh, no, actually when it comes to the age of the people who got jabbed in these two instances its the other way around; the second lot, which was less deadly, had bad reactions in older people on average yet fewer died -- and significantly so too (by 10 years.)

What's worse is that the "hot" lots for deaths also are "hot" for total adverse events.  If the deaths were not related to general pathology from a given lot there would be no correlation -- but there is.  Oops.

In addition there is no solid correlation between the "bad" lots and first report of trouble.  The absolute worst of Moderna had a bad report in the first days of January.  But -- another lot of their vaccine with only 172 reports against it (1/20th the rate of the worst for total adverse events) had its first adverse event report on January 6th.

What is evenly-distributed with a reasonable bump for the original huge uptake rate?  When people died.

What the actual fuck is going on here?  You're going to try to tell me that the CDC, NIH and FDA don't know about this?  I can suck this data into a database, run 30 seconds of queries against it and instantly identify a wildly-elevated death and hazard rate associated with certain lot numbers when the distribution of those associations should be reasonably-even, or at least something close to it, across all the lots produced and used?  Then I look to try to find the obvious potential "clean" explanation (the higher death rate lot could have gone into older people) and it's simply not there when one looks at all adverse event reports.  I have Moderna lots with the same average age of persons who died but ten times times the number of associated deaths.

Then I look at reported date of death and.... its reasonably close to an even distribution.  So no, it wasn't all those old people getting killed at once in the first month.  So much for that attempted explanation.

Oh if you're interested the nastiest lot was literally everywhere in terms of states reporting adverse events against it; no, they didn't concentrate them in one state or region either.

The outcome distribution isn't "sort of close" when most of the lots have a single-digit number of associated deaths.

Isn't it also interesting that when one removes the "dead" flag the same sort of correlation shows up?  That is, there are plenty of lots with nearly nothing reported against them.  For Moderna within the first page of results (~85 lots) there is more than a three times difference in total adverse events.  The worst lot, 039K20A with 87 deaths, is not only worst for deaths; it also has more than 4,000 total adverse event reports against it.  For context if you drill down a couple hundred entries in that report the number of total adverse events against another lot, 025C21A number 417 with five deaths.

Are you really going to try to tell me that a mass-produced and distributed jab has a roughly ten times adverse event rate between two lots and seventeen times the death rate between the same two, you can't explain it by "older people getting one lot and not the other" and this is not a screaming indication that something that cannot be explained as random chance has occurred?

Here, in pictures, since some of you need to be hit upside the head with a fucking railroad tie before you wake up:

That's Pfizer deaths by lot, worst-to-best.  Look normal to you?  Remember, zero deaths in a given lot doesn't come up since it's not in the system.

How about adverse events of all sorts?

(Yes, there are invalid lot numbers, particularly in the second graph, with lots of "1s".  The left side however is what it is.)

There's a much-larger problem.  Have a look at Moderna's chart of the same thing.  First, deaths:

And AE's....

These are different companies!

Want even worse news?

JANSSEN, which is an entirely different technology, has the same curve.

and

What do we have here folks?

Is there something inherent in the production of the "instructions", however they're delivered, that results in a non-deterministic outcome within a batch of jabs which was not controlled for, perhaps because it isn't understood SINCE WE HAVE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE IN MAN OR BEAST and if it goes wrong you're fucked?

This is a power-law (exponential) distribution; it is not a step-function nor normally or evenly distributed.  Those don't happen with allegedly consistent manufacturing processes and the potential confounding factor that could be an innocent explanation (all the bad ones were early and killed all the old people early who died of "something" but it wasn't the vaccines since they all got the jab first) has been invalidated because the dates of death are in fact reasonably distributed.

Have doctors been told to stop reporting?  Note that HHS can issue such an order under the PREP Act and there is no judicial review if they do that.  Did they?

This demands an explanation.  Three different firms all using spike proteins, two using a different technology than the third, all three causing the body to produce the spike rather than deliver it directly and all three of them have a wild skew of some lots that hose people left and right while the others, statistically, do not screw people.

This data also eliminates the hypothesis put forward that lack of aspiration technique is responsible -- that is, that occasional accidental penetration of a vein results in systemic distribution.  That would not be lot-specific.

Next question, which VAERS cannot answer: Is there an effectiveness difference between the lots that screw people and those that do not?

Are we done being stupid yet?  Statistically all of the adverse events of any sort are in a handful of lots irrespective of the brand.  The rest generate a few bad outcomes while a very, very small number of lots generate a huge percentage of the harm.  And no, that's not tied to age bracketing (therefore who got it first either); some of the worst have average age distributions that are less than lots with lower adverse event rates.  It is also not tied to when used either since one of the "better" lots has a first-AE report right at the start of January -- as do the "bad" lots.

The only thing all three of these vaccines have in common is that all three of them rely on the human body to produce the spike protein that is then attacked by the immune system and produces antibodies; none of them directly introduce the offending substance into the body.  The mechanism of induction is different between the J&J and Pfizer/Moderna formulations but all exhibit the same problem.  The differential shown in the data is wildly beyond reasonable explanation related to the cohort dosed and the reported person's average age for the full set of events (not just deaths) does not correlate with elevated risk in a given lot either so it is clearly not related to the age of the person jabbed (e.g. "certain lots all went to nursing homes since they were first.")  While the highest AE rate lots all have early use dates so do some of the low-AE rate lots so the attempt to explain the data away as "but the highest risk got it first" fails as well.

In other words the best-fit hypothesis is that causing the body to produce part of a pathogen when that part has pathological capacity (as we know is the case for the spike) cannot be controlled adequately through commercial manufacturing process at-scale.  This means that no vector-based, irrespective of how (e.g. viral vector or mRNA), not-directly-infused coronavirus jab will ever have an acceptable safety profile because some lots will be "hot" and harm crazy percentages of those they're given to with no way to know in advance.  The basic premise used here -- to have the body produce the agent the immune system identifies rather than directly introduce it where you can control the quantity, is a failure. 

The entire premise of calling something that does this a "vaccine" is bogus and in the context of a coronavirus this may never be able to be done safely.

Something is very wrong here folks and the people running VAERS either aren't looking on purpose, know damn well its happening and are saying nothing about it on purpose -- never mind segregating the data in such a fashion that casual perusal of their downloads won't find it -- or saw it immediately and suppressed reporting on purpose.

If these firms were not immune from civil and even criminal prosecution as a result of what Biden and Trump did the plaintiff's bar would have been crawling up assholes months ago.

This ought to be rammed up every politician's ass along with every single person at the CDC, NIH and FDA.  They know this is going on; it took me minutes to analyze and find this.

What the HELL is going on here?

THESE SHOTS MUST BE WITHDRAWN NOW until what has happened is fully explained and, if applicable, accountability is obtained for those injured or killed as a result.  If embargoing of reports is proved, and its entirely possible that is the case, everyone involved must go to prison now and the entire program must be permanently scrapped.

THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR THIS DATA THAT REDUCES TO RANDOM CHANCE.

The much-screamed about federal "contractor" guidance is out.  It does not say what Biden said it says.  Once again, the petulant 2-year old in diaper (literally, Depends) is lying and trying to scare you. 

Here it is:

That proposed rule defines a contract or contract-like instrument as an agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law. This definition includes, but is not limited to, a mutually binding legal relationship obligating one party to furnish services (including construction) and another party to pay for them. The term contract includes all contracts and any subcontracts of any tier thereunder, whether negotiated or advertised, including any procurement actions, lease agreements, cooperative agreements, provider agreements, intergovernmental service agreements, service agreements, licenses, permits, or any other type of agreement, regardless of nomenclature, type, or particular form, and whether entered into verbally or in writing.

Yeah, ok, and this is news?  A contract is a contract.  But, as you will soon see, a contract is a contract and that's a problem for Biden and his pissy little temper tantrum -- and the government admits it right on page 5:

Covered contractors must ensure that all covered contractor employees are fully vaccinated for COVID-19, unless the employee is legally entitled to an accommodation. Covered contractor employees must be fully vaccinated no later than December 8, 2021. After that date, all covered contractor employees must be fully vaccinated by the first day of the period of performance on a newly awarded covered contract, and by the first day of the period of performance on an exercised option or extended or renewed contract when the clause has been incorporated into the covered contract.

And there it is folks.

Most contracts are for a term, negotiated in writing.  Indeed, if performance is to stretch over a period of one year or more there is this nice little thing called "The Statute of Frauds" (which doesn't actually cover fraud) that mandates that the contract be in writing to be enforceable.  Therefore all the contracting parties with the federal government, where performance will meet or exceed one year, do indeed negotiate same in writing and sign off on it.  That's because they're not stupid.

If a contract has options to extend then you have a contract with the ability to make it longer.  For example, let's say I have one that is a one-year contract with the option to extend for additional one year periods up to five years.  Fine and well, except that when you exercise that option you can't change the terms unless they're mutually re-renegotiated.

What this document says is that when such options exist the government shall do that -- in other words they shall renegotiate to include said term (you must be fully vaccinated.)  That's perfectly legal but doing so means the contractor can refuse and/or reopen negotiations -- say, on price or other terms.

Note that since this document provides burdens to the covered contractor you can bet the price will go up.  Not only is record-keeping involved workplace "social distancing" and masking is involved too along with a demand for compliance officer(s) to be employed.  These are real costs and, in some cases, fairly-extreme costs.

Covered contractors shall designate a person or persons to coordinate implementation of and compliance with this Guidance and the workplace safety protocols detailed herein at covered contractor workplaces.

They will be immediately met with demands for more money and snarl the supply chain to the government, since they're now a demand for every contracting entity.  Good -- maybe Mordor and its various agencies will get ratfucked by the inability to secure at a reasonable price, or even at all, the goods and services it wants to buy.

What's even worse for the government is that the way they're going to word this requirement (which isn't yet released), according to Q16, those will become part of existing agreements entered into after November.  Yes, you can do that in a contract; explicitly agree that one side or the other can change terms in various ways -- in this case, for whatever the Government decides are "Covid" reasons.  But since that set of requirements which may be imposed on the contractor is unknown as to both scope and cost (in other words the contractor cannot price it with any sort of precision) you can bet it's going to trigger very large adjustment demands from the contracting firms.

VERY large.

Good.

Note that in the FAQ Q12 it specifically addresses what's obvious: You cannot unilaterally change the terms of a contract so these requirements cannot be, and are not, imposed until the option period comes up -- which triggers renegotiation -- or, for a new contract, when it is awarded.

Further, Biden's administration has figured out that attempting to run this all the way down the supply chain to products and those incorporated in others is likely to result in an erected middle finger and the collapse of the government's procurement process, and so they didn't do that.  Read Q13.

Good luck you demented asshole; you're going to need it.

And no, if you work for a contractor or are one, you're not required to be vaccinated in November.  The Government hasn't even issued the actual rule yet, nor its language.  But when it does issue contracts that are extended, optioned or newly-drafted after that date must include it.  Fine.  Your price should reflect their stupidity and may it cause the Feral Fuckface-In-Dementia to CHOKE.

... in a not-so-tiny nation called Spain, a nursing home had a nasty virus get into it.

It was March of 2020.  The nasty virus was called Covid-19.  And this nursing home, like so many others all over the world, was full of elderly, morbid people.  The mean age of residents was 85 and 48% were over 80 years old.  It was a killing field, like so many others.....

Within three months 100% of the residents had caught the virus.  Not presumed to have -- proved to have.

How do we know this?  Because almost every one of them seroconverted.  All but three out of 84 of them, to be precise.

Think about that last sentence for a second.

Almost every one of them seroconverted.

How's that possible?  Many of them died, right?  You can't seroconvert if you're dead.

No.  Not only did nearly none die none went to the hospital either because they rapidly figured out how to stop the virus from killing people -- and did exactly that.

You would have thought this would have been all over the news.  In point of fact not one mention of it was made.  Further, not one write-up was made in medical journals either until January of 2021, which I missed.  My bad -- out of the several hundred medical journal pieces, I missed this one.  It was brought to my attention on my forum and my jaw immediately hit the floor.

The jab train must continue, you see.  So must the ventilator train.  So must the money train, the mask train and the rest of the BS we have endured for the last 18+ months.

So must the slaughter for money, the fear, and the lies.

So what did these few nursing homes do that nobody has done since and nobody reported out at the time?

1. Early start of treatment, regardless of the severity of patient symptoms.
  - Antihistamines every 12 h: dexchlorpheniramine 2 mg, cetirizine 10 mg or loratadine 10 mg.

2. Patients with mild or recent-onset symptoms (cough, fever, general malaise, anosmia, polymyalgia):   
   - Azithromycin 500 mg orally every 24 h for 3 days if there is rapid improvement, and for 6 days if the duration of symptoms is prolonged.
   - If pain or fever, acetaminophen 650 mg/6–8 h.
   - Nasal washing and gargling with sodium bicarbonate water (half a glass of warm water with half a teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate).

3. If symptoms of severity (dyspnea, breathing difficulty, mild or moderate chest pain, with SpO2 <80%, heart rate >100 beats per minute at any time of the process):

   - Antihistamines + Azithromycin (see mild treatment management)
   - Levofloxacin 500 mg/12 h, up to 14 days of antibiotic treatment from diagnosis.
   - Mepifilin solution, 50 mg/8 h as a bronchodilator, until subjective improvement. Patients with previous lung disease (asthma or COPD) used their usual bronchodilators.

   - If the patient experienced increased breathing difficulty, prednisone 1 mg/kg/day divided into two doses until clinical improvement, and then it was slowly tapered down.

 

4. Prophylactic treatment for close contacts, including all asymptomatic residents:

  - Antihistamines at the same dose as symptomatic patients.

Ed 9/25 11:30 - Reformatted the cut section; it got mangled by the forum.  Still not what I'd like in terms of formatting, but at least it's readable now... and one typo corrected.

Look at that top line.

Cetrizine is otherwise known as Zyrtec.  Loratadine is otherwise known as Claritin.  Dexchlorpheniramine is not often-used in the US anymore, but it used to be.  The other two core drugs were Azithromycin and Levofloxacin, both common antibiotics with the first being the infamous "Zpak" from the HCQ+Zinc+Zpak combination that a fraudulent study was used to discredit.

Both of the first two antihistamines are available over the counter in most nations including the United States.  The dosing they used is twice that on the label.  The two antibiotics are both available anywhere for little money.

Before they started treating people three residents died.  The entire group of them had the common maladies of old age -- hypertension, diabetes, COPD, cardiovascular disease.  Most were using a huge range of existing drugs for their conditions (5 or more.)  

As soon as they started treating people the following happened:

All of our patients evolved satisfactorily and were recovered at the beginning of June. No adverse effects were recorded in any patient and no one required hospital admission. At the end of June, 100% of the residents and almost half of the workers had positive serology for COVID-19, most of them with past infection.

Not one adverse event occurred among these residents and staff and no hospitalizations were necessary either.

In pooled data 28% of the residents in similar nursing homes over the same time period died.  In these two, once they started treating with cheap drugs, leading with those available over the counter in the US, ZERO -- I repeat -- ZERO had a bad reaction to the protocol, ZERO died and ZERO were admitted to a hospital for treatment.

ZERO.

It was one hundred percent effective.

Yes, it's a small sample.  Go do the statistical math on the CI for that size sample and results if you insist.

According to the mechanisms of action described, these drugs would act synergistically in the early stages of the disease, which is why we consider it essential to start the treatment as soon as possible. Once the virus has colonized the respiratory system, the effectiveness is probably more limited, and hence the failure of these treatments in more advanced stages of the disease, when hospital admission is necessary. In our experience, early double antibiotics were effective to control the process in cases with moderate symptoms.

Nobody cared.

Nobody reported on this.

Nobody duplicated it either.

I didn't even realize this study existed; had I known of it guess what I would have added to my protocol when I got Covid-19 the first week of August of this year, since it happens to be in my medicine cabinet already for seasonal allergies?  Uh huh.  Two 60ct bottles of generic Claritin equivalent costs about $12 at WalMart.

Folks, think about this long and hard: In the worst-case scenario for those who this virus should have killed -- it killed nobody.  It should be killing statistically nobody today -- right here, right now.  How to prevent it from doing so was discovered in March and April of 2020 and intentionally ignored worldwide.

It is still being ignored today.

With these numbers there is no reason to fear a Covid-19 infection.  There is no reason to take a vaccine.  There was never a reason to develop a vaccine, especially the ones we have today; infection that does not produce severe disease is sterilizing and thus wildly superior to vaccinated immunity which is now proved to be failing worldwide.  There is no reason to wear a mask.

Every single one of these residents seroconverted and became immune with mild or moderate symptoms consistent with seasonal colds and flus and not one of them was put into the hospital or killed. The treatment is so goddamned cheap and available there's no excuse to not use it instantly on suspicion of infection and prophylactically among everyone else in your household at first sign of trouble.

You think the entire load of BS around HCQ and Ivermectin is bad?  This is a thousand times worse.

Those who died did not do so due to a "novel coronavirus"; we knew how to treat that infection successfully for pennies in March and April of 2020.  Yes, in the first month or two people died because we did not know.

Beyond April of 2020 people died because we let the medical system and governments murder them for profit and they're still doing it today.  We, the people, have allowed this.  We have failed and refused to rise up and hold accountable, personally, every single hospital, doctor, so-called "hero" nurse and every single politician across the globe.  They willfully and intentionally slaughtered millions on a global basis.

The answer to the problem -- to Covid-19 -- was known in March and April of 2020 and yet not published until January of this year, and even then not one single bit of media attention nor a single mention from Fauci, the CDC, the NIH or FDA has been made, all in the interest of Moderna and Pfizer's stock prices and the power-mad jackasses on an international basis -- at the cost of your loved ones' lives.

That wasn't an accident and it still isn't one.

It is often said that there is some crazy conspiracy to slaughter -- whether you prefer to call it "genocide" or whatever.  In the context of medicine, including the current pandemic, I argue 99% of the time its simpler.

It's nothing more than greed.

Greed is not necessarily bad.  In measured and rational amounts it drives innovation.  I developed a crap-ton of software and designed a network around it that became MCSNet, a successful Internet company in the 1990s because of greed.  That is, by doing so I expected that I could make a lot of money.  That was not the first time I tried to make a lot of money, but it was the time it worked.  Most people who are entrepreneurs (and honest) will tell you that for every success there are three, five, sometimes ten or more failures.  "Failure" means you lose some or, in many cases all of your investment.

But unchecked greed is bad.  It becomes exploitive, even murderous.

What stops unbridled greed in the ordinary case?

Liability.

If I might otherwise claim a vial full of saline has medicinal properties and can cure a disease what will stop me is the threat of being bankrupted or even thrown in prison.

Now enter an epidemic or any other emergent crisis.

Florida and other states have laws constraining greed in times of crisis.  You can't charge someone $10/gallon for gas when a hurricane is coming for this reason.  There are people of the libertarian pursuit that argue these laws are immoral because the invisible hand of supply and demand would otherwise come into play.  They're only right until duress shows up.

They know it too.  Ask any of those libertarians how they feel about it if the gas station owner could see your fuel gauge, knew you were nearly out and couldn't reach the next station and then had his pump charge you $10/gal.  Or worse, he pulls a gun on you once you pull into the station and now you have no choice but to pay the grossly-inflated price.  Is not the hurricane a gun?  That the owner of the station doesn't pull it changes nothing; the question is about taking advantage of duress not who applies it to you.

Now let's look at epidemics and pandemics, since both certainly count as duress, especially if you're infected -- or being led to believe you will be absent something you do (or don't do.)

The last "serious" one before Covid that actually materialized in the US was HIV/AIDS.  What was Fauci's proclaimed miracle drug for HIV?  AZT.

What was AZT?  A failed cancer drug -- it not only didn't work it had a nasty safety profile.  In fact it damaged immune response including that in the bone marrow, which is where long-term immunity tends to migrate to and, by being present there, results in very durable, even lifetime protection.  We knew this going in because it had been previously tested and failed in cancer patients -- in fact it killed people in those trials.  In other words it was one of the overwhelming majority of molecules that drug companies invent, they look promising in test tubes and initial study, and then fail either due to ineffectiveness or outright harm when actually trialed.  Indeed what AZT had produced in those earlier trials looked an awful lot in terms of immune impact like AIDS!

But now we have a "epidemic" with no known effective treatments so off the shelf it comes and into people's bodies.  It appears to sort of work -- it delays, in some people, symptoms.  Or does it?  We're not sure, even today, because the "placebo" arm of the trial wasn't really blinded.  The people in the study could taste the difference between the real medication and the placebo.  Thus they knew which they were getting and this destroys the integrity of the study.  Nonetheless the drug, under heavy pressure from Fauci, was approved and used for a long time.

It didn't actually work but the toxicity was real.  While in those years AIDS was a death sentence because the therapies we have now, which suppress (but do not eradicate) the virus in your body, didn't exist the fact remains that a hell of a lot of money was made.  At the time AZT was the most-expensive medicine ever prescribed.

What's worse is that in the late 1970s we discovered that a cheap, off-patent two-drug antibiotic cocktail known as Bactrim prevented PCP, a nasty and very deadly pneumonia, in children undergoing cancer treatment for leukemia.  People with AIDS often got PCP as well; it is an opportunistic infection that almost-never causes disease in immune-competent individuals, but among those who are being treated for cancer and thus severely immune-suppressed it often did, and frequently killed them.

Anthony Fauci argued vehemently that there was insufficient safety data to recommend the use of Bactrim by AIDS patients as a prophylaxis to prevent PCP, even though they were getting the disease and dying by the thousands.  Whether this was linked to his vehement promotion of AZT is, of course, unknown -- but reasonable to assume.  What is known is that his advocacy against the use of said drug, which we knew worked and had saved countless leukemia patients from a nasty, choking death, resulted in 30,000 AIDS patients in American alone being shoved in the hole before the decision to bar its use in said people was overturned.

AZT was, by the facts, functionally worthless.  For every person temporarily "helped" one or more got screwed by the side effects and statistically zero people had the course of disease interrupted either way on a durable basis.

But it sure was profitable.

Now enter Covid-19.  Fauci runs an unproved line of crap on Remdesivir, claiming "clear-cut evidence" that it helps people recover from the disease.

What was Remdesivir?

It was a three-time loser!  It had been trialed as a drug against both Hepatitis-C and RSV, a viral disease that usually attacks young children and can be fatal in them.  It failed both trials.

Next it was tried against Ebola and failed there too.

But this time, with very limited evidence that it might shorten hospital stays and in fact zero evidence that it cut mortality, because we were in a pandemic that very limited evidence and no evidence that it prevents death allowed it to be given an EUA.  It's quite-expensive too since it's on-patent -- about $3,000 to be precise for the usual course of administration plus thousands more in charges by the hospital to administer it since it is an IV medication.  Any hospital using it makes a crap-ton of money giving it to you.

Further trials occurred over the next months with the most-important one arguably being SOLIDARITY, a very large multi-national in-hospital trial that covered multiple drugs.  It failed there too; it not only had no statistical benefit on outcome it wasn't the only one; indeed, zero of the trialed drugs when used in the hospital setting, that is, presumably late in the disease, worked -- including HCQ.  I was not surprised by any of those outcomes; HCQ, for example, would not be expected to work in the hospital because at that point viral replication is complete and its mechanism of action, such as it is claimed, was against viral replication.

The problem is that Remdesivir was developed and sold as an antiviral so why did anyone think it would work in the hospital under the same circumstance -- viral replication having completed -- where HCQ fails?

Yet even today it will be given to you if you check into a hospital with Covid-19.  It is part of the "official protocol."

It is, on the data, a useless drug just makes people money at your expense.  But most failed drugs aren't just useless since all drugs have potential harms associated with them.  This one is especially nasty because one of the side effects that came out of the early trials was a roughly 1-2 in 10 risk of at least temporarily damaging or destroying kidney function.  

Now think about this for a minute.  You're in the hospital fighting a potentially-deadly infection.  You get a drug that, 10-20% of the time on the data damages or destroys your kidney function.  Most people think the kidneys are all about removing uric acid and thus creating piss.  That's only part of what they do.

In addition they:

• Control the acid/base balance of your blood.  This goes out of range, you die.
  
  
• Control the water balance of your blood.  Guess what happens if that goes out of range?  Uh huh.  Specifically, that can cause acute pulmonary edema and compromise lung function.  You weren't already choking to death before that happened by chance, were you?
  
  
• Controls electrolyte balance.  While some of that is survivable even wildly out of whack there are specific parts of electrolyte balance that you cannot survive being materially-disrupted -- to name one, potassium which is utterly crucial for neural conduction.  That being out of range can literally give you an immediate heart attack by interrupting or damaging the neural signaling from your brain to your heart muscle.  I think you can figure out what comes next if you suffer cardiac arrest.
  
  
• Removes toxins. Not just uric acid; a whole host of other things including many drug byproducts.  Needless to say poisoning by excess levels of many of those results in.... yeah, you got it, death.
  
  
• Control of blood pressure. Yeah, that ain't good if it goes out of range, right?
  
  
• Controls the process of red blood cell production in the marrow by producing a hormone called erythropoietin.  No red blood cells, no oxygen transport.  You die (granted, probably not fast enough for it to be in play here.)
  
  
• And a critical part in the metabolic pathway by which Vitamin D is used by the body.  What do we know is associated with bad Covid-19 outcomes?  Severely deficient serum Vitamin D levels.

Anyone who runs dialysis for other people as a nurse or who has had to have it done knows damn well that the process is not just about removing what would otherwise be piss.  Oh sure, that's part of it -- but it's a complex dance when you try to replace that which the body does on its own with external process and doing so requires a crap-ton of attention and replacement of those functions.  When you are under severe disease stress the odds that this sort of dysfunction and the inability to match natural response artificially, even in the short term and the best of skill, will kill you is quite high.

As a result it is entirely reasonable to expect that if you give Remdesivir, with a known 10-20% rate of significant kidney disruption rate to a group of people who are ill enough to be hospitalized it might well kill 10% of those it was given to via this toxicity.  Therefore in order for the drug to be considered worth the risk it would have to save statistically more people than it harms by enough to produce a hazard ratio that was materially in favor of the treatment and the confidence band would have to conclusively show that.

The data from SOLIDARITY said that isn't the case.

It gets worse.

Death from the above can be determined at autopsy.  Dysregulation of the first several of those items will produce differentiated edema, particularly in the lungs.  That is, excess fluid.  This is immediately obvious on autopsy and is wildly different than what is apparent if coagulation killed the patient, which is typically what results with Covid pneumonia that leads to death.

They aren't looking, on purpose, and in fact people who have specifically asked for autopsies are being refused.

If you did 100 of them on Covid hospitalized deaths, all of which got Remdesivir and found half of them had evidence of systemic harm from the drug well......

History rarely repeats, but it frequently rhymes.  Fauci, at the same time arguing for Remdesivir, an on-patent and expensive medication along with mandatory vaccination, argued against, and continues to argue against the early use of Ivermectin, HCQ and even Budesonide, three drugs for which we have decades of safety data and which are used routinely by huge numbers of people -- we have history on close to 4 billion human doses consumed for Ivermectin, millions of RA and Lupus sufferers use HCQ daily and Budesonide is commonly prescribed as a maintenance drug for daily use by asthmatics.

Speaking of vaccination we've known for decades that "leaky" vaccines -- that is, ones which do not sterilize you against infection and thus allow you to "carry" a disease and not get sick are dangerous.  If used when a disease is present in the community they turn vaccinated people into carriers and spreaders of the disease who have no idea they're passing the love around to others.  Eventually the disease finds a person it can make sick, whether their vaccine failed or they are not vaccinated.

We learned this the hard way decades ago with DTP.  Virtually every child was -- and is -- vaccinated against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.  Pertussis, otherwise known as "whooping cough" is a nasty disease that frequently kills infants -- and is dangerous to basically anyone who gets it.  Anyone who is symptomatic for it is instantly obvious due to its characteristic and violent coughing and "whoop" respiratory disturbance, which is also frequently associating with vomiting.

The DTP shots had a fairly nasty adverse effect profile and, what's worse, there were quality control problems with insuring the correct amount was in a given dose.  There were suspicions that the pertussis component caused permanent brain injury in children.  People sued.  The manufacturers withdrew the DTP vaccine, liability insurance became prohibitively expensive and the manufacturers threatened not to make any more of the shots -- ever.

What did Congress do in 1986?  Immunize the manufacturers from liability.  Instead VAERS (which we have today) was established, alleged "mandatory reporting" (which we know is a joke in the context of Covid-19 shots) was instituted for health  providers that administered vaccines and an arbitration system was established for alleged injury claims.

But what happened with pertussis itself -- you know, the disease?

Well, on the data, the vaccines were working.  There were only 1,010 cases of pertussis across the entire United States in the mid 1970s.  Rather than solve the quality control problems the industry, now immune from lawsuit, in full cooperation with the CDC changed the vaccines to "DTaP", which is what is given today.  That change  was broadly rolled out through the 1990s in the United States.  "a" stands for acellular; in other words, not containing the actual material of the disease.  DTaP was easier to make and, while somewhat more-expensive also did not suffer from the quality control challenges of DTP.

That's good, right?  Improve the product!  Why VAERS and everything that came from the lawsuits and such is a victory!

Uh, no, it isn't.

“The second generation of vaccine turned out to have an unanticipated limitation, and that has been probably the main engine driving the resurgence,” says Gill, who is lead author on a review article on the resurrection of whooping cough, published in the journal F1000 Research. Gill and his colleagues suspect that the vaccine, while preventing symptoms from pertussis infections for some time, has little impact on preventing people from becoming “colonized” with the bacteria, meaning they are asymptomatic carriers of the disease and are still capable of infecting others.

Why we would never do the same stupid thing again, not with an endemic disease that comes around here and there and screws some people, but rather into the maw of an epidemic that is screwing people by the score, right?

Oh wait -- we did exactly that and what's worse is that we are now mandating such abject stupidity for health care workers and enlisting countless people, including but certainly not limited to them, in marching around virtue signaling others to get jabs that history tells us will make the situation worse! 

Of course profit and the removal of liability from the manufacturers has nothing to do with this, right?  Why if they were liable then you could sue and introduce as evidence that we have known for decades on the data that when we did the same thing with pertussis we screwed people and turned a nearly-eradicated disease into one that makes a hell of a lot of people sick!

Now I want you to look in here.  Get out Excel, you're going to need it.

Or just look at my county and the latest figures off the CSV file.

358 people total hospitalized and of them 227 died thus far.

Sixty-three percent of the people who go into that hospital (there's only one in this county) for Covid-19 come out in a box?

How about Knox?

1,707 hospitalizations and 784 deaths.

Forty-six percent of those who go into one of the several hospitals in that much-larger county for Covid-19 come out in a box?

By the way on March 1st -- before Delta -- our hospital had killed 61% on a run-rate basis so no, this is not a "Delta" problem.

It is a post-vaccine acceleration at a gross rate, however: On January 1st, when statistically zero people had gotten vaccines, they had killed 43% of those who went in with Covid-19.

Indeed in Sevier County if you take the May 1st number of hospitalizations as a "baseline" (291) and deaths (175) and subtract that off you find that from May 1st to now 127 people went into the hospital for Covid-19 and 52 came out in a box thus far for a "kill rate" of 41% since the "advent" of Delta.  How you like those odds?  4 out of 10?

How about from July 1st to now, when basically everything is allegedly "Delta" and the vaccines may be either wearing off or worse, promoting more-severe disease?

304 in the hospital, 179 dead on that day.  In other words 54 hospitalizations in total and of them 48 died thus far.

THE ASSHOLES AT OUR COUNTY HOSPITAL SENT 89% OF ADMISSIONS HOME IN A BOX SINCE JULY 1ST!  You think there's no SIGNAL in there?

Yes, this is a bit unfair as there's overlap; that is, if you die the second day of the 2-month window you probably were infected and admitted some time previous. Can we correct for that?  Yes; offset the two by 10 days, which likely gets you into the median area for admission .vs. death (that is, on average it likely takes you about 10 days to die if you're going to die.)

So let's do that; we'll go with June 20th for the start date for admissions.  That's 304 and, on deaths, still 179 -- in fact on June 21st Sevier County recorded its previous one death.

I still get 54 admissions from June 20th to the 16th of September and 48 deaths, for a kill rate of.... 89%.  And this understates the rate, in all probability, since if I cut off admissions on the 16th I should carry forward deaths for another 10 days,  If we go back 10 days on admissions to the 6th, however, we get an identical count so we shall see if the deterioration gets worse over the next  week.   Oops.

Now do you understand why I was willing to do whatever I had to early, often and hard to avoid giving those pieces of crap a nearly 9 in 10 crack at killing me when I got infected at the beginning of August?  I succeeded, obviously, or you would not be reading this.

If I had to go and the option was this county rather than just laying down and being murdered so I could be held up as another "unvaxxed death" on CNN I might have chosen instead to do something that could send my soul to Hell.  When facing St. Peter this is what I would have told him:

"See all these souls immediately in front of me? I intentionally made them come here today because they were, with a 90% certainty, imminently going to commit murder upon both my person and others in addition to those who they murdered before me.  I did it to terminate that 90% kill rate, ending their orgy of death along with my life which I willingly spent.  I'm well-aware of God's commandment "thou shalt not murder", the serious nature of violating that law and the just and eternal punishment for doing so, but I submit that it is not murder to stop someone who is actively committing homicide, even if it results in their death.  This is especially true when the net number of lives that are ended decreases as a result of your actions, and a 90% slaughter rate across dozens of people over a couple month's time, which they can no longer continue, meets that criteria.  On the evidence I sincerely believe these people could have kept half or more of those souls who preceded mine here alive and their failure to do so was not an accident -- they did it on purpose out of willful ignorance, arrogance, spite, promoting a political agenda and greed.  Given that you have absolute knowledge of whether I am right or wrong then if I was wrong and my actions did violate the 5th Commandment, a mortal sin, I humbly accept my just punishment in eternal Hellfire."

You think I have any respect for anyone who claims that "oh this is so terrible" when they've done nothing about the Elephant in the room -- they own and execute those protocols for these patients and it is absolutely clear they are either doing nothing to save people or worse, actively killing them!

That's like asking me if I had respect for Jeff Dahmer because a few of the people he targeted managed to figure out what he had in mind and escaped having their heads wind up in his refrigerator.

How's Knox County (much larger and right next door) look?  1707 HX, 784 dead as of 9/16.  What was it on 7/1?  1434 and 649, respectively.

273 more hospitalizations and 135 more deaths, or a slaughter rate of 50%.  Better odds than my county?  Yeah, now its a revolver with three cartridges in it out of six holes instead of nine out of ten.  Oh by the way their rate of death from the start of the pandemic to January 1st was 343/960 or 36%.  That's going the wrong way too, isn't it -- and not by a little either.

How is it that with all these vaccines injected across susceptible people who are most-likely to get whacked by this virus we've gone from roughly 4 in 10 people dying who are admitted to more than double that rate and near-certain death?  Why is it that a much-larger county right next door with multiple medical centers, while doing better, is still going the wrong way?  Given that the data out of every place with reasonable statistics says that Delta is somewhat less lethal on a case fatality rate basis, and that all the really easy to kill people are already dead as they died either in early 2020 or the winter what the Hell is going on here?  We already know one hospital (but not in this area) was caught deliberately trying to lie for that purpose as someone taped the Zoom call where it happened and leaked it online.

It isn't because we wildly deployed a vaccine strategy that is identical to the one that failed for pertussis and we knew why it failed before this pandemic began, was it?  Isn't it lovely that we exempted everyone from liability for doing something that on the data was demonstrably dangerous and now, on the objective evidence as documented by the percentage of hospital admissions ending in a pine box is blowing up in our face?

Oh, and since we're talking about failed strategies, has anyone updated the adverse event risk on Remdesivir?  Nope.  What if those original trial results were skewed by illness severity and in fact the drug is a lot more dangerous than it appears?  What if, under increasing levels of systemic stress, that drug kills the majority or even nearly all of those people?

Given that the data continually has shown there is no mortality benefit where is the data from hospitals that do not use it and how do those compare on a matched-cohort basis with those that do?  Do such hospitals in the United States exist?

I cannot find a single scientific publication that lays this out; if you have it I'd love to see a link to it in the comments.

Do we have a bunch of people dying of secondary bacterial pneumonia and not Covid-19 at all yet again, nobody is looking because there is a playbook and it does not include looking for and treating anything else if the person has a positive Covid-19 test?  The use of steroids is shown to help dampen inflammatory response (and thus is common and helpful in hospitalized Covid patients) but systemic steroids also set up the potential for bacterial colonization by suppressing immune response.  Is "The magic PCR 8-ball" saying "POSITIVE!" a barrier to looking for anything else that may be going on?  Since nobody is doing autopsies you will never get caught if you don't bother looking -- is that why all these people are dying?

Again -- what the hell is going on here?  Is it simply that we were stupid with our jabs because we couldn't come up with a sterilizing vaccine for a coronavirus as there has never been a successful one before so the do something, even if it might harm in the interests of "Warp Speed" won and now we're screwed and yet nobody can sue over that which, objectively examined, was STUPID?

This sort of bullshit would never work absent the PREP Act's liability shield and the actions of HHS in the first weeks of the pandemic that specifically exempted hospitals, physicians and others from liability provided they use drugs and protocols the FDA and CDC list as approved whether under regular order or EUA -- and nothing else.   I remind you that not only did Trump's HHS do that but Biden has refused to rescind it -- and he has the power to do so immediately by direct order.

But for that liability shield the relatives of the deceased would order an autopsy be performed and if in fact evidence was present Remedesivir and not Covid-19 killed Granny, or the hospital refused to look for anything else once the PCR test came back positive and in fact she died of bacterial pneumonia they didn't look for and did not treat everyone involved would be sued to beyond the orbit of Mars.

Would we have even gotten beyond publication of the SOLIDARITY trial when it was conclusively demonstrated across a very large data set that statistically speaking it did not keep anyone from dying before that the thrice-failed drug was labeled a four time loser and binned?

Given what we know about this drug and the history of using dangerous and net-harmful pharmaceuticals that our "wonderful" health care system, regulators and others all the way down to doctors and nurses running around with virtue-signaling bullshit on their T-shirts promote and even demand go into patients what sort of possible reason would there be to not autopsy some representative sample of those who die and find out with reasonably medical certainty what's going on, especially when death rates for those hospitalized in certain areas have more than doubled in the last couple of months?

Other than "health care professionals" being made more self-absorbed in their virtue signaling while the hospital and drug company collects $3,000 per corpse for a drug that actually may have killed them, that is.

The math on this is nasty, the basic biological functionality of the kidneys and this drug's known harm to same strongly suggests serious trouble and yet I cannot find one hospital that has sought to discover the truth via autopsy and either prove or disprove that this drug is in fact killing and killed a huge percentage of those who died in the hospital with Covid-19 -- or whether something other than the virus was responsible for their death.  If you have said study and autopsies let's see them.  I've looked and can't find any evidence they exist.

It's all about the money and "virtue" of those nurses and doctors once again -- isn't it?  Just like the original Tik-Tok dancing nurses?

The more death the more "virtuous" they believe they are in doing "God's Work"?

FACTS THAT ARE TRIVIALLY DISCOVERABLE BUT INTENTIONALLY NOT LOOKED FOR BE DAMNED.

The Israel data has told us both what pharma did, what they probably knew, but also how to get out of the box.

And yes, there's a way out of the box.

A reminder: The spike protein that is part of Covid-19, and which all the current vaccines instruct your body to produce is, by itself, pathogenic.  This was first published as a pre-print, it came out before we went on a wild jabbing spree, the original study that set off the alarm bells came in September of 2020 and when the study work was done it was dismissed by many as being "not peer reviewed" (who remember, endorsed a whole bunch of other bullshit such as masks, denial of early treatments and so on.)

Well, that excuse is gone now.  Two articles, both now published, and which I originally discussed as pre-prints before we mass-jabbed people are now out in public and published form here and here.

Both demonstrate quite-conclusively that the spike protein alone, absent the rest of Covid-19 "the virus", is pathogenic.

Again, in case you missed it further up near the top, all of the current vaccines deliberately produce that spike protein, which by itself causes disease, specifically clotting-related disease, in your body.  Deliberately causing your body to produce that pathogen (which then elicits the antibody response) is how all of them work.

This means there is no safe way to vaccinate against this disease because introducing the spike into your body, no matter how you do it, inherently runs the risk of serious clotting-based disorders.  You might or might not get nailed but there is no avoiding the risk.  That same risk is what kills you, most of the time, if you actually get Covid-19 and die but the premise that you avoid that risk when taking a jab is a lie.  You cannot; the risk is inherent in introducing the spike into your circulation and there is no way around that with an IM injection because the muscles of the body are very well-perfused (that is, there's a lot of blood flow in them) even if the person who performs the injection does not hit a blood vessel, and they might.

These facts are not up for debate on a scientific basis any longer.  They also fully explain the myocarditis, pericarditis and myriad other so-called "rare" events that occur with these jabs such as strokes, heart attacks and other clotting-based disorders.  In addition the data is that the 2nd shot in the 2-shot series is much more dangerous than the first, which implies an exponential expansion of risk. 

Whether that expansion of risk bleeds back off over a couple of months or so is entirely unknown as it has not been studied.  Without a data set of hundreds of thousands (so as to get statistical significance) and both baseline and follow-up d-Dimer testing, at minimum, we will never be able to put numbers on this, nor get a decay rate on the risk if it decays, and nobody is doing those studies.

That's the bad news; if you take repeated shots and the risk does not bleed off then eventually you will kill yourself.  If, for example, the risk on the first shot is 1/100,000 (extremely rare), on the second 1/10,000 (that's a bad pattern) and the risk does not bleed off over the space of three or four months then the risk from the third is 1/1,000 (that's 0.1% and quite nasty) while the risk from a fourth jab rises to 1% at which point you're in the ballpark for a severely morbid person when it comes to Covid-19 infection itself killing them.  The fifth jab would put the risk of getting screwed at ten percent, which is approximately the rate of death from the original SARS and the sixth would be odds-on as literal suicide.

How many jabs did you say you're willing to risk taking again?

You cannot get your health back if you ruin it by being stupid.  The younger you are the worse the risk is in terms of years of enjoyable life lost.  To take that sort of risk when you're 85, fat, diabetic, you have an almost-10% risk of death in the next year from all causes  and the Coof is 10% likely to kill you is very different than to take that same risk to your health when you're 17, male, have a BMI under 25, there's not a damn thing wrong with you medically, your all-cause risk of death (most of it by violence) is 7/10,000 and your risk, by the CDC's numbers, of Covid-19 killing you if infected is approximately 1/100,000.

No two people are the same in terms of risk and medical status but this much is certain: That anyone is contemplating, say much less jabbing, the public with a now proved pathogen on a repeated basis without doing this scientific work first is worthy of immediate and summary execution as if they're wrong people are going to die in huge numbers as a direct result of that willful blindness, advocacy and action.

We knew all of the above before the first of 2021 and before any material number of jabs went into arms.  What were dismissed as "pre-print" follies have now been published formally and have turned into scientific fact. 

Never mind the now-documented risk of evasion and even enhancement due to ordinary viral mutation.  This too is now scientific fact.  There is no possible way to reformulate and re-jab everyone fast enough to stay ahead of this; even Pfizer's CEO has said it will take 95 days to reformulate their jab and then you must produce and deliver it, which of course cannot happen with the flick of a wand.  The virus can and does mutate faster than you can adapt the jabs to it which means you are now taking risk without benefit since the odds of evasion to each "new" formulation you work on during the time in question approach 100%, especially if you test the new versions for excess risks unlike the original trials.  Like it or not that's the data; Mother Nature is faster than we are and there's nothing we can do about it.

But remember, I said we also now know there is an exit ramp, and there is.  That knowledge is newly-developed and can greatly limit the damage if we use it instead of, once again, denying scientific fact and continue down a road that we now have every reason to believe, based on the data currently available, is very likely to lead to ruin for hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans.

When the trials were being done last fall I found it utterly astonishing that both Moderna and Pfizer had set their dosing to produce extremely high antibody titers -- 10x, 100x or more than produced by natural infection.  That looked at the time to have been a truncated series of dose:response trials undertaken in the interest of Warp Speed; that is, "be fast rather than accurate."  Obviously you do not want to err on the low side (you get no protection) so if you're going to screw it up the direction to do so is on the high side, assuming toxicity at that level is reasonable  It turns out the decision wasn't reasonable, however, because doing that wildly increased the risk of the above reactions, since to produce that sort of high antibody titer you needed to put more spike into the body and we now know the spike, standing alone, is dangerous.  (Incidentally the CDC still claims the spike is harmless, despite two peer-reviewed and published papers documenting otherwise and all the in-field adverse events which dovetail exactly with what those papers describe.)

But, as Israel has now shown with conclusive data antibody titers from vaccination wane at 40% a month while those from infection decrease at a much slower rate and in fact broaden in terms of recognition to the virus over time.

Why?

The broadening is indicative of B-cell recall, which is utterly crucial for lasting immunity.  Antibodies do not circulate forever in the blood and other tissues; they eventually degrade and are replaced -- if your body's immune system has been trained.  Your B-cells are largely responsible for this, along with T-cells and a whole cadre of other components of the immune system.  This is why monoclonal antibody infusions protect you right now, when infected, but do not provide lasting immunity on their own.  The infection itself does, but not the infusion.  If you give the infusion to a non-infected person you wasted it; they have protection for a short period of time but it goes away.

The evidence from these now-published decay rates is that B-cell training does not happen with any of these vaccines.  This is important and, it would appear, both Pfizer and Moderna (along with J&J) either knew or should have known this.  In fact they all may have deliberately rigged their studies to be submitted for EUAs knowing the failure to produce a durable immune response was not going to be discovered due to time considerations.  This cannot be proved without a bevvy of subpoenas of course but it is a reasonable and rational explanation for setting the dose and produced titer where they all did.

You can bet the vaccine makers will all do everything in their power to evade disclosure of what they knew and when in this regard because if in fact they knew that B-cell induction did not happen and deliberately set dosing to produce a result intended to game the EUA process that is quite-arguably intentional misconduct which is the bar that must be cleared to void their legal immunity for all of the adverse events PLUS all those who got infected as the defectively-produced immunity waned.

Consider a 40% per month decay rate for these injections and a natural infection that produces a titer of "100" (units don't matter for this purpose, nor does the actual number -- just the ratio.)

If the jab produces an original titer of 1,000 (10x as much) you get the following titer level on a monthly basis for the jabs:

0: 1,000
1: 600
2: 360
3: 216
4: 129
5: 77 
6: 46

At six months you're probably below the protection threshold.  Note that it takes 12 months, starting from 100 with a 5% monthly decay for natural infection, to reach the same titer.

So why does the titer decay so much slower if you get infected?  Simple: It doesn't actually go away; natural infection trains your B-cells which is a durable response and thus capable of immediately restoring protection if you get challenged with the virus again, which you will.  This is why the Cleveland Clinic, following their employees who got infected, found zero re-infections over more than a year's time among more than 1,000 infected and recovered individuals.  It is also why a recent study found that natural infection and recovery was 13x as protective as the jabs.

This is how every other virus works and with natural infection by this virus most of the titer is to the "N" protein which cannot mutate materially and still be a virus capable of infecting and replicating in humans.  The vaccines do not include any part of the "N" protein and thus cannot produce a response to it.  In other words all of the "escape" and even "enhancement" concerns with the vaccines don't happen if you get naturally infected and beat the bug.

This is, incidentally, why humans and all other animals exist on this rock; our immune system has evolved over millennia to prefer targeting future protection, post-infection and recovery, toward the parts of a virus that don't change very much if at all.  In addition that recall capacity frequently migrates into the marrow where it becomes decades-long if not permanent and we already know that happens with Covid-19 because a small study was done that proved it.  These parts of the immune system and actions by it confer a survival advantage and thus were naturally selected for over the space of hundreds of thousands or even millions of years.  Disbelieving that which is the very reason you survived your first few months after being born, and why humans and all other animals exist, is flat-out stupid.

The vaccines, it appears, fail to produce this B-cell response; that is a very reasonable explanation for why their antibody titers decay so fast.  The manufacturers may have known this, which if true explains why they set the dosing where they did.  Had they set dosing to produce a titer equivalent to natural infection within three months protection, by the Israel data, would have all but disappeared and the EUA-generating trials would have failed as there would have been no statistical difference in infection rates between those who got the actual shot and placebo by the end of the trial.

The bad part of this decay is being seen now with Mental Midget Fauci and others arguing over the "need" to get a third, fourth and so on jab and on what interval that will be required.  Since we do not know if the risk of adverse events from those jabs compound on an exponential basis it is flat-out insane to suggest such a path forward even absent the antibody to circulating strain mismatch which we also know is a serious concern and raises the risk of both OAS and vaccine-driven enhancement of disease along with simple evasion of the antibody protection.

But the fact that B-cell recall appears to not be generated by the jab also means you can exit the jab highway and, while you will take a materially-higher risk of adverse outcome from infection than an unvaccinated person for a period of time, likely six to twelve months, it is not a lifetime risk since that mismatched B-cell training which would have screwed you on a durable basis did not, by the data thus far, happen.

Some of this is hypothesis at this point in time -- but it is a reasonable hypothesis as to what happened, why it happened, and what we had better do before we allow the wanton re-jabbing of people on an on-going basis with shots that intentionally produce a known-dangerous condition, by the now peer-reviewed science, in the human body.

First and foremost we must stop treating recovered people as if they need anything more; not only is that false it's dangerous as the data is that prior infection is roughly thirteen times as protective as vaccination.  If you actually had Covid-19 and recovered there is no scientific evidence you need anything more -- not now, and not in the future.  Yes, failures will occur; nothing is 100%, ever, in medicine.  But you are far more-likely to be safe on a durable basis than via any number of jabs.

At the same time we must stop lying to those who we claimed had Covid-19 by crazy-high Ct PCR test but have no other evidence of infection.  Many of those people didn't actually have the disease; they either had nothing or some other viral disease such as influenza.  The CDC is now claiming that a "significant" percentage of people, biased toward young and high Ct value PCR tested individuals, did not seroconvert.  The near-certain explanation for that is simple: They never had Covid-19 at all and the test readouts were false positives.  To back this up if you believe that there was no influenza last year in America, which is what the CDC has repeatedly claimed, you're a flat-out nutcase.  Further, as I pointed out in November of 2020 we knew the false-positive rate on these tests was nutjob-level high because by the CDC's data every single person in America was likely infected and that made the winter (and this summer's) surge mathematically impossible -- yet they both happened.  The only explanation is that many of those who we claimed had Covid-19 by PCR test in fact either had nothing at all or some other viral infection.

An inexpensive antibody test will differentiate those individuals and must be made available on request for private, in-home use.  These tests exist today but forcing people into a pharmacy where the price is 10x higher because you're paying the tech to stick your finger, where ID is required and the data is transmitted to the government is outrageous, especially after we lied to tens of millions of people in the first place.  If you're not at risk you deserve to be able to know you have circulating antibodies as a matter of private, medical fact for no more than the cost of an at-home pregnancy test.  If you are at risk because despite being told you had Covid-19 you never really did then likewise, you deserve to know on, again, a private medical basis.  This technology exists right now, it is nearly 100% accurate, it is in most Krogers and many other locations right now, and must immediately and permanently be sold OTC on a "no questions asked, use at home as you wish" cash basis exactly as were the BinaxNOW tests sold in WalMart for a few weeks around here.

We must also stop ignoring both existing drugs that help blunt the virus' impact and continue work, where appropriate, on finding new ones.  Simply put the jabs do not work to produce durable protection, they may over time enhance disease, they are much more-dangerous than any other common vaccine and we cannot possibly reformulate and distribute them faster, even without testing each new iteration which is ridiculously stupid by the way, than the virus can evolve to escape the cage we attempt to put it in.  Both Zelenko and FLCCC, among others, have protocols that appear to work.  I personally used a blend of a few of them and believe it was effective.  Case studies are not proof but you'll no more convince me it didn't work than you will convince someone who got jabbed and then infected that it would not have been worse had they not taken the shot.

We must insist and enforce that doctors be doctors and thus act as advisors, not deciders.  It's your ass and thus it must be your choice as to how and with what you use to treat this virus since you, and only you, are stuck with the consequences.

The only option we have is to live with the virus and learn how to treat it; natural immunity, even against all "variants" by the data works.  The jabs do not; they produce non-sterilizing and temporary protection at the risk of severe adverse events up to and including death with an unknown and potentially-compounding exponent for each repeated jab.  They should remain a personal choice but only with full and fair disclosure and full legal consequences for anyone concealing the facts as they develop.

In any event since we now know these jabs are non-sterilizing and their protection rapidly decays anyone attempting to mandate them needs to go to prison immediately as they are not mandating the induction of durable sterilizing immunity, which confers a public benefit, but rather are mandating the exponential accumulation of personal risk of serious medical events including heart attacks, strokes and death in the scientifically-proved absence of any public benefit.

That is legally a battery and it is occurring with the reasonable expectation of causing great bodily harm or death to the person being coerced.

That, on the science, fully-justifies the use of whatever level of force may be necessary to stop it immediately.