I hate it when I'm right.

This is about it when it comes to the jabs for me, since we're now at the point that you can pull a Hillary Clinton: "At this point, what difference does it make?"

For those who took it out of stupidity, coercion, to belong or whatever: Too bad, so sad.

To those who used their heads and deduced that between the lack of long-term longitudinal data (zero) and known, documented risks along with deliberate sandbagging by the our government and media of all sorts in reporting the bad effects that rapidly showed up, including deaths, they've made up their minds.  All we have left there is whether, if attempted to be coerced instead of cajoled, they will consider that attempted murder and destroy not only the person coercing them but everything that individual loves as well, living or not.

You can only die once and only be damned once too.  Once either happens its a very liberating thing; you now are simply evaluating whether you're going to let some SOB get away with it or whether he or she is going to Hell in front of you, even if only by a few minutes.

I am not linking source papers in this treatise, so don't ask -- go do the looking yourself this time.  I've done it for a year and a half and, frankly, you still let these ghouls mask your kids, demand you stay home and then con you into taking jabs they lied about, let them lie about "no effective treatments" and deliberately not make reasonable inquiry as regard adverse effects of the jabs despite there being plenty of scientific evidence published before they were rolled out.  I'm laying out facts here; the science is, at this point, old enough and visible enough that if you gave a crap there would have been a revolt months ago.

A real one, not some LARPers crap.  If 500,000 corpses aren't enough what is?

If you remember very early on we knew that ventilators didn't work.  In fact we knew before Trump's HHS issued their order that paid (and still pays; the Biden administration just extended the "emergency" authorizing it) hospitals nearly $40,000 to shove a tube down your throat.  Trump then upped the ante by ordering tens of thousands of them under the DPA, despite the data being on the table that they were worthless.  That was a deliberate act that was all about the money -- damn those who were killed.  This nation sat back and allowed that to happen, and still is allowing it 18 months later.

Not long after, when the first few dead were autopsied, we found out why: Covid-19, when it goes badly, is not just a viral, inflammatory disease.  It causes thrombosis (clotting) in various organs, most-particularly the lungs.  That's what kills you most of the time.

The "spike unit" that the jabs are all constructed around, it has developed, something known to the NIH and the pharmaceutical companies before Covid-19 was claimed to exist in January of 2020.  There is a transfer agreement from the NIH to a university dated prior to that time, and some evidence that the exact spike configuration found in Covid-19 was being discussed in scientific papers long before that.  How can you have a scientific discussion, write papers on and transfer technology related to something that isn't known to exist yet?  Fauci was grilled on this the other day by Congress, asked directly if the spike in Covid-19 was identical to that in said paper, and refused to answer with a yes or no.  He knows damn well what the answer is and if he lied that would be proved perjury and a criminal offense.  If he tells the truth then the etiology of Covid-19 is conclusively known to wildly pre-date the so-called "discovery" and now we must start asking all sorts of other questions; said questions degenerate very rapidly into criminal culpability on the part of many including a whole bunch of people right here in the US.  Fauci looked very nervous in that hearing -- exactly like a man who has been caught bullshitting since the start, there's a half-million bodies piled up as a result and his neck is itching.

When the jab trials started, in short, we knew that severe disease from Covid-19 was primarily a thrombotic event.  We also knew that roughly 80% of the population had decent if not excellent resistance and would get nothing more than a mild or moderate cold or flu from it.  That proof goes all the way back to Diamond Princess.  Hell, a couple reasonably well-known to me got hit by the 'Ro in the early months, both elderly and quite morbid.  He was dead in five days while she never even sneezed, a flat impossibility for two people who are married and sleeping with each other if everyone is susceptible as we were told.  We investigated and learned why that has repeatedly happened; the science was published in June, peer-reviewed by September and published in Nature -- long before the first jab went into the first arm.  These are facts.

We also knew, from decades of trying, that coronavirus vaccines had always failed in the past.

We deliberately did not look at the thrombotic profile of the trial participants in the vaccines; specifically, we did not pull d-Dimer and troponin tests (both cheap) on the participants before the jab, and then sequentially on intervals (e.g. 3 days, 1 week, 2 weeks) to detect whether we were in fact inducing damage similar to the disease.  The drugmakers did not look because quite-obviously they did not want to know; if that showed up in the trials in any sort of statistically relevant percentage of the enrollees it would have instantly shut down the trials and freaked out the thousands in said trials who put themselves at risk.  I remind you that in September of 2020 the first scientific paper was published indicating that the "Spike" was quite possibly the direct cause of the serious damage and virtually all Covid-19 deaths.  Several papers followed starting in December of 2020, prior to mass-distribution of the jabs, confirming that the spike was directly capable of causing pathology -- that is, severe damage -- without the rest of the virus being present at all.

Failing to halt the roll-out to prove that the vaccines, which all cause production of said spike in your body, would not cause the same effects was criminally insane and grossly negligent given the science at the time.  This was not an "accident" since the studies were published and known -- it was deliberate blindness undertaken in the interest of speed and money before human safety and indeed human life.

We also were told that the jabs produced a "robust" antibody response, which, on the data, is true.  What either wasn't looked at, or was known and intentionally not discussed is that the sequencing of IgA/IgM/IgG in a vaccinated person was wrong for someone who had no immune system knowledge prior to vaccination.  This is now out in the public, at least on a preliminary basis, and it shows that the jab adverse effects may in fact be a form of ADE!  If so that's extremely bad.  The original studies either developed this information and it was hidden or they deliberately did not look; what we do know is that it was not run down.

Now there's potentially worse evidence showing up that the jabs may be destroying existing coronavirus T-cell recognition.  That, if confirmed, is profound because natural infection preferentially builds "N" protein T-cell reactivity.  The spike on a coronavirus evades immune recognition; that's how you get infected in the first place.  That more-severe infections had higher IgG antibody titers to the spike would appear counter-intuitive (after all, you'd think the more-severe the infection the less your immune system was able to respond) but it makes sense once you realize what's going on with a severe infection; you are in fact having a thrombotic problem caused by the spike, and thus you get the higher titer.

That should have raised all sorts of eyebrows and alarms in that it strongly implies that all the vaccine formulations were at best backward and at worst directly harmful but, again, it didn't.

So what we have at this point appears to be the following:

• The jabs are quite worthless in preventing either infection or transmission.  We knew that after Diamond Princess 80% of the population, approximately, was resistant before Covid showed up and either couldn't get infected at all or if they did had almost no ill effects.  There were multiple instances of couples where one person got a symptomatic case and the other did not get infected at all despite being quarantined together in a 10x10 room for a month.  That means if you have 10% of a vaccinated population that gets symptomatically infected when the base risk of symptomatic infection is 20% at best the jabs are 50% effective in preventing infection and transmission, and perhaps less than that.  So much for the "95%+" claims; that was always bullshit and now we have widely-diverse proof from all over the world that the jabs are non-sterilizing and thus effectively worthless in preventing infection and transmission of Covid.  The entire premise of "protecting others" by getting vaccinated against Covid-19 is now scientifically known to be complete and utter bullshit.
  
  
• There is now emerging evidence of another mutation against which the jabs are almost entirely worthless.  Expect the fear porn to get cranked on that soon even though for infected and recovered persons who are not vaccinated they remain almost entirely immune to that mutation just like all the others.  Even worse is that the data includes some people who recovered and then were stupid enough to take the jab anyway and it increased their risk of symptomatic disease over the other cohort which recovered and did not get vaccinated.  In other words they didn't get more protection by taking the shot after recovery they destroyed a large part of their existing protection, specifically, existing nucleocapsid recognition.  I have warned people repeatedly of this exact risk; there was never any scientific evidence that the jabs were useful if you had previously been infected and now we factually know they're harmful.  This is a very strong marker of what is called "OAS" ("Original Antigenic Sin") or ADE as described scientifically above as to mechanism.  It looks to be very real and accelerating as mutation continues.  The "vaccinated" symptomatic case line should be expected to cross over the "unvaccinated" line soon as mutation never stops and if it does all Hell will break loose as the shots will actually make symptomatic infection and thus transmission more likely compared against unvaccinated persons.
  
  
• The jabs may continue to provide some protection against severe and fatal disease from Covid-19 specifically but the duration of that protection is unknown.  If you're at severe risk then on this basis they may be a good bargain.  I say may rather than "is" for the below reasons which, if they turn out to be true in your case means on balance you got fucked more than protected, and now they're a bad deal for basically everyone.  We do not yet know the answers to the other questions but they are on the table and were deliberately not investigated before we jabbed 150 million Americans.  Some if not all of this was discoverable if anyone cared to look during the summer and fall 2020 trials, but nobody looked on purpose.
  
  
• There is evidence that roughly half of all persons jabbed may show evidence of clotting disorders caused by the jabs.  Whether this is temporary or does permanent damage is not known.  It explains, however, the heart attacks, cardiomylitis, strokes and cognitive changes (e.g. microclotting in the brain) shortly after being jabbed.  I remind you that the "associated but not proved cause" death rate from these jabs is running roughly four hundred times on a per-million-persons jabbed that of the flu shot -- and climbing.  The bad news is that endothelial damage of this sort may well be permanent.  It also raises the very real risk of PAH if some of that damage is in the lungs; there is no non-invasive way to know and by the time you become symptomatic for that your heart has been critically damaged.  To be fair some small percentage of people naturally infected get the same sort of damage but to risk same from infection which is not certain is different than taking that risk on a certain basis from being jabbed.  This could have been quantified before the EUAs were granted as a trivial test would have disclosed the problem in the Phase 1 and 2 trials and was not done or explored.  Given that by summer of 2020 we knew how Covid killed people that failure is only reasonably characterized as intentional.
  
  
• There is now evidence that the jabs destroy some part of your existing immune system T-cell recognition, replacing it with "spike" recognition.  The scope and impact of that is not yet known but the potential impact is horrifying.  The induced spike recognition is Covid-19 specific and, we now know, mutationally specific at least in part.  What is destroyed is not specific to either Covid or mutation and therefore what you destroyed was almost-certainly worth more than what you gained.  This looks very much like "OAS" and the bad news is that it may well impact across other coronaviruses such as OC43.  If that proves up then the increase in susceptibility to severe disease on balance and in whole from circulating viruses has been increased rather than decreased by getting jabbed.

All of this has come to light in about a year from the first trials of these vaccines.

I remind you that it usually takes 10 years or so to qualify a vaccine.  These sort of risks are why it takes 10 years and, let us not forget, coronavirus vaccines have been tried in the past and have universally failed, either due to adverse effects (including OAS and ADE) or they simply proved to be worthless over time with the virus evading them.  That was the history against which these jabs were developed and that we had the arrogance to believe we had magically overcome that which nature had previously thwarted without multi-year evidence may well wind up proving to be one of the most stupid undertakings ever in medicine and public health.

Yet even with this data now on the table the manufacturers are demanding "expedited" full approval reviews!

Oh, and don't start with "well, its knocking down the incidence of infections."  Is it really?

How is it that India has seen a 90% collapse in case rates with only 6% of their population vaccinated?

It clearly wasn't the vaccine over there, was it?  Gee, maybe its Farr's Law that caused that.  Just like the infection rate here in the US peaked and was falling before we had any meaningful vaccinated immunity.  That which happens before you do something cannot have been caused by the something.

This also bears on the current case rate.  Look at last summer; seasonality is real.

We'll see how bad #JabbersRemorse gets in the coming months, and whether the 150 million Americans who took the jab thus far decide they made a good decision or a critically bad one that winds up blowing up in their face -- and if the latter, what those who get screwed, which is about half the adult population at this point, decide to do about it when it comes to those who deliberately failed to investigate what we knew were serious risks that needed to be excluded.

Those who are true believers cannot be reached at this point since they've already committed to their course of action.  As a result I see no further point in writing on this in the general sense, and thus probably won't.

Right up until I wave the "Told You So" flag sometime around late fall, assuming the pattern holds.

"Mild" reports eh?

The Centers for Disease Control is investigating a small number of young adults and adolescents who may have experienced heart problems following a COVID-19 vaccine, though the agency stressed that it is unclear the vaccine is responsible. 

There have been "relatively few" reports of myocarditis and "most cases appear to be mild," but the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group said it felt the potential issue should be communicated to providers. 

The CDC says that 10-20 cases of this disorder happen in young adults and adolescents per 100,000 per year.  Let's take that at face value which would mean (at the "worst" end of the range) it's 200 per million.  But a 2 day range is 0.0055 of a year, so to bracket that to "about 4 days" means that the odds are approximately 1 case per million people in that age group stabbed.  So therefore if you jabbed 20 million people in this age group you should see about 20 cases during that couple of day period of time.

Go read the article on the other side about probability then come back here.

Then consider that Connecticut, a tiny state of 3.6 million population total, has at least 18 cases of this condition.  This means nationally it's not a few dozen cases -- it's more like 2,000 or one hundred times what the CDC is admitting.  Note that the entire cohort in question that can get the shots is about 60 million people and of those only about 15% have had the shot, if that, so this means the odds are not all that rare; it's about 1/4,500 which is approximately ten times the fatality rate of Covid-19 in that group.

Bluntly put if you're healthy you're stupid to take the jab in that age cohort and your parents, if they got you jabbed, should go to prison for felony assault and child abuse.

So this isn't a safety signal, right?

Wrong, because no cases were noted in people except in that right at 4 day window.  None were noted, for example, after the first jab, only the second, with a two week window of time between the two and yet the surveillance of said people begins on the day they get the first dose.

If the events were in fact random and not caused by the shots they would be randomly distributed over a four week period from the first jab until 2 weeks after the last.  They're not; they're all concentrated in a couple of day period after the second jab.

The odds of this cluster occurring by random chance can be computed but when the actual incidence is not across "a few dozen" events (let's call it three) it is happening at a rate 100 times that as well you need more zeros than there are on the odds of a dinosaur-killing asteroid impact next week.

This is, I remind you, a group of people who almost never suffer serious outcomes from Covid-19 absent significant comorbid events such as, for example, fighting leukemia at the time.

The fact that these cases are not random but all cluster right around day 4 of the second jab while there are zero reports distant from that over the remainder of a one month period is a screaming safety signal standing alone.

Oh, and it's not "a couple dozen" cases either.  It's over 2,000 cases.  The CDC is LYING.

THESE SHOTS MUST BE STOPPED IN ALL PERSONS IN THIS AGE RANGE NOW as the premise that such events are "mild" and do not impart permanent injury is complete crap.  Heart damage is often permanent and this condition is the third leading cause of sudden death in children and young adults.

Facebook has decided that anything you say there that discourages the use of a vaccine, including especially Covid-19 vaccines, will be removed (and you might get banned) even if its truthful.  For example, you can't talk about the fact that 95%+ of all associated deaths in VAERS for the last two years have been associated with Covid-19 vaccines, and 99% of them this year are associated with the Covid shots.  This is the truth which you can look up right here on the CDC's own web page, but if you say it on Facebook - poof.

OSHA said if your employer required the vaccine they owned the results -- including the bad results.  That quietly disappeared a day or two ago; you see, workplace injuries do not include things the government wants to happen.  One wonders why this isn't applied to coal mining, oil drilling and even asbestos abatement; after all, the government does want asbestos out of buildings, right?  So now your employer can injure or even slaughter you so long as the government approves.  Germany didn't do something like that 80 years or so back, did they?

Incidentally OSHA will likely get attacked on that and lose on a TRO and injunction because under the APA (Administrative Procedures Act) there is a specific process a government agency must use to modify a previous stance, and their previous position was consistent with both law and practice for decades: As an employer if you mandate something as a condition of employment you own the outcome -- it's deemed a workplace injury -- if it goes badly.

It gets better.  The CDC has now declared that if you've been vaccinated you are not a Covid-19 case unless you wind up in the hospital or die.  I'm not kidding.

As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases to focus on identifying and investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any cause. This shift will help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance.

So now "cases" don't differentiate, or if you're vaccinated they may not report a positive result at all.

This "deems" the vaccines automatically 97-98% effective -- even if they're saline shots.  Why?  Well, you could look at our county here; as of December 1st, before there were any shots, we had 5,219 "cases" and 136 of them wound up in the hospital; 2.6%.  Thus if you refuse to count a "case" in a vaccinated person unless they go to the hospital then you have deemed the shots 96+% effective even if there's nothing in the syringe.  Magic, I tell you, magic..... and in a sane world such an open and notorious fraud would get you instantly arrested -- or worse, particularly when someone relies on that line of bullshit and dies as a consequence.

It's even worse: Unlike non-vaccinated Covid-19 people where reporting of positives and negatives was mandatory under CDC demand this is not:

The number of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections reported to CDC likely are an undercount of all SARS-CoV-2 infections among fully vaccinated persons. National surveillance relies on passive and voluntary reporting, and data might not be complete or representative.

In other words hospitals don't have to look and see if you've been vaccinated if you show up there with Covid-19 nor is a hospitalization if you have been a mandatory reportable Covid-19 event.  Of course they can (and I presume if your Ct is low enough they will for sequencing purposes) but the mandate is gone.

That's nice.  How much resource do you spend on something that doesn't happen?  Nothing.  Therefore what is the reasonable presumption if you willfully refuse to look at and catalog data that is otherwise trivially available?

That's what I thought.

So the CDC has intentionally destroyed the integrity of the data set from April forward by introducing a new twist; they declare the shots "effective" to stop you from spreading the virus but then refuse to collect and document the data to prove it.  Indeed they deliberately eliminate the means of determining that from the data, despite having recorded and reported every shot given and thus they do in fact know.  If someone comes up PCR+ after the shot on a Ct40 test, well, whether symptomatic or not by the very rules the CDC adopted last spring they have Covid-19 and count as a "case"!  Remember, the entire premise of their campaign and everything that everyone was ordered to do since last March was that even if you weren't physically sick you were still dangerous.  After all it's obvious that someone who is sick could give whatever they have to someone else; you need no mandate other than "stay home if you're ill" if there is no asymptomatic transmission.  The actual science has failed to identify asymptomatic transmission; it was never anything more than a computer model statistically, and an attempt to actually isolate cases of it in China across a huge population failed to find even one instance.

But if in fact the CDC still believes asymptomatic transmission is a "thing" then they should be collecting any and all evidence of Ct40 positive tests among those who got one or more shots.  After all, positive is positive and any positive is dangerous, right?  We kicked kids out of schools, we quarantined people in their homes and took all manner of other "precautions" on that basis including mask orders, closing businesses and the like and now the CDC is deliberately refusing to collect data of anyone with a positive PCR test for other than sequencing purposes who has been jabbed unless they wind up in the hospital, which is wildly more serious than simply being symptomatic!

Thus we can reasonably presume that the CDC has now declared that asymptomatic transmission is in fact not a thing; in other words, they now believe in the science.  Or, to put it more-succinctly, they lied and ruined the economy, along with issuing mandates including the current mask "recommendation" in schools for no reason whatsoever.

But this also means that there is no public health argument for vaccination at all; only a personal one, and any attempt to mandate otherwise is unconstitutional since they now admit they cannot meet the first test when it comes to the burden of proof required: An unwitting person will transmit the virus to others only if not vaccinated; ergo, there is a "serious harm to others" argument which is extinguished by vaccination -- and only by vaccination.  (There are plenty of other tests to be met too but if you fail this one you lose immediately in terms of a mandate when it comes down to both Constitutional and common law principles.)  Given the CDC's actions anyone faced with such a mandate would appear to have a very good crack at nailing the issuing party to the wall on both an injunctive and final basis.

Never mind the now-irrefutable evidence coming out of India -- you know, where there are over a billion people?  The CDC, NIH and FDA continue to proclaim that there are "no early treatments" that work.  That's a damnable lie and was known in the spring of 2020.  How many people do you get to kill with lies like this before either a crap-ton of people get frog-marched to face trial for mass-murder or, if the government refuses, a gallows gets erected right next to your signboard and the people take care of ridding the place of vermin themselves?  It appears that the threshold is well beyond even a minor genocide, seeing as the body count is now over 500,000 by their own claims!

This would be truly unbelievable but of course it isn't because a huge percentage of the population have become psychotic.  They were in fact driven to psychosis due to the deliberate lying and fear porn peddled by the government and all of the media but especially CNN, Rachel Maddow and others. These actors have all determined that the psychosis must continue and in fact Zuckerpig along with the other media and "social" outlets all insist: You may not do anything that might break people out of their psychotic states and if you do we will attempt to silence you.

You see, we cannot discuss whether the shots are safe on Facebook and other social media without the risk of being banned.  If employers mandate it, which is illegal by the way as the EUAs make clear, the government doesn't give a fuck anymore.  What else is new -- when, may I ask, has the government ever prosecuted someone doing something illegal provided they liked the outcome?  Of course you get prosecuted for doing something illegal.  But that's because you're not doing what Joe Biden (and before him, Trump) along with Fauci wants.  Now about that gun Hunter bought and lied on the Form 4473... 

So let's look at the data to see if indeed on the data the shots are effective.  We already know they're not known safe; as I've pointed out back to December there have been myriad concerns with them, none answered.  This doesn't prove they're unsafe but the burden of proof when it comes to safety is on the person making the claim, and the evidence must be clear and convincing; unanswered, reasonable questions all run the wrong way here.  There's a nasty compendium that some fine folks put together, scientists and doctors all in an actual vaccine-related academic journal.  Most of these were known to be potential issues back as far as December, before the first jab went in the first arm, and some were plausibly known in September yet not addressed by any of the makers before they filed for EUA, nor is any mention of them in the EUA documents.  In fact, some of the issues now known were claimed to not occur by the manufacturers; an assertion we now is false   That's mostly because it simply takes too long to answer the questions so in order to get the speed you want you can't wait for them -- you just go ahead and hope and, if an inconvenient question does arise, you ignore it.

If you come to me as a CEO and tell me that you want something in six months that normally takes ten years, and you'll give me immunity, I'm going to direct my staff not to look where suspicions might lay.  Sure, if something is seen it has to be run down but if you don't look you're unlikely to see.  It's not like we did not know that every mRNA attempt prior had resulted in the drug ending up where it wasn't supposed to go with resulting toxicity problems in animal trials, right?  Oh wait, we did know that.  So just don't look too closely and hope it doesn't wind up in data somewhere so we maintain plausible deniability.

It is what it is and that's what we did.  It was stupid and nobody in their right mind should trust the process because it was intentionally made incurious to meet a timeline.  Go talk to Trump about it originally and then Biden for not instantly halting it at one minute past noon on January 20th.

But there still is uncorrupted data available that we can look at -- specifically, to see if the core claim for you deciding to take these stabs is true: They will prevent you from wind up in the hospital or dying.  If that test cannot be conclusively demonstrated then safety is irrelevant because the claimed benefit is either smaller than claimed or non-existent and thus no risk is acceptable.

Let's look at the hospitalization rate of people of ages from 50-64.  KFF has some pretty good data here showing that by April about 70% either had received the shots or immediately intended to when they could, and basically everyone in that group could during April.  So if the shots were 100% effective at preventing hospitalization and death and there was no preference for getting them among those who haven't had Covid-19, (there should be; if you've had the virus there's no reason to get it but all the screaming "urges" you to anyway) then hospital admissions among that group should be down about 70% from March levels plus the same sort of seasonal drop that we saw last year in the same group when there was no vaccine.  Nobody is claiming 100% effective except in a flippant manner, but all are claiming wild reductions in risk for hospitalization and death, typically in the 90%+ range.  90% of 70% is 63%.

Did it happen?

That doesn't look very different from last year, does it?  It certainly isn't 63% different; you wouldn't need to count or draw lines to see that as it's nearly two thirds.  Look at 65+, where the uptake for shots is even better; indeed there according to KFF the take rate for the shots is about 80%, and pretty-much everywhere anyone 65+ could get shots in March, not April.  There should be very close to zero -- a roughly 75% reduction -- in people 65+ going to the hospital with Covid-19.  But.... but..... but...... we were all promised!

Remember how a virus works; it can only infect people that are susceptible.  Once infected you don't count as "susceptible" anymore.  This immediately suppresses the R0 to what can be denoted as "Rt"; that is, the effective transmission rate, and once Rt goes under 1.0 then the case rate falls irrespective of all other measures because each infected person fails to find a new victim.  That doesn't mean the infection rate goes to zero because as long as there are reservoirs (e.g. in cats, ferrets, etc.) even if in a given area all the people who have it fail to give it to someone else it will come back, whether from reintroduction by a person or one of the animal reservoirs.  So all those people who got it and recovered over the spring, summer, fall and winter are neither reservoirs or transmission sources.  Thus, by the data, if the shots worked there should be a dramatic reduction in hospitalizations.

Where is it, beyond the expected seasonal drop-off that mirrors exactly what we saw last year as the weather warmed up?

Any questions?

Further a shocking number of reports on social media are out there -- including Eric Clapton -- who were not sufficiently disabused of their psychosis even after a kick in the nuts; they had a severe reaction to the first jab and still went back for the second and not only got hammered again they got it worse the second time!  Sure, it is true that the shots don't nail everyone; not even close.  But think about how far into the land of irrational, psychotic fear you have to be to to back for seconds after being kicked in the balls.  This is the world we live in today folks -- like it or not.

Don't be psychotic; it's not attractive at all and, frankly, that sort of behavior marks you as dangerous -- far more-so than any virus.

You've been had.

As I said when this whole Coof thing started with a respiratory virus there was no possible way to get a vaccine developed, tested, and into arms fast enough to matter.  We try to do it every single year with the flu and we suck at it because we don't know what flu strains will be prevalent in the coming winter so we have to guess.  We've guessed every year for decades.  Sometimes we guess better than others.  Then those who want the shots take them on that guess into the fall.

Oh, they keep telling you go to get them into the winter if you want, but that's stupid because once it starts circulating the inevitable time for the antibodies to build means you get screwed worse if you're infected during that period of time.  The one year I was stupid enough, given my lack of morbid factors, to listen to the incessant prattling and relented around November less than a week later I got what might have been the worst flu I've ever had.  Needless to say I haven't done that dumb thing again.

But the flu shots very rarely harm people.  We hand out about 160 million of them a year and out of those people roughly 25 die closely-associated with the jabs. Even though the data is that they don't work very well, indeed, I suspect a more-critical view of the data would show that they stop basically nobody from dying of influenza, they almost-never bring harm down on the person stabbed beyond a sore arm for a day or two.  The biggest risk I can identify with them is that repeated flu jabs may (the science is rather short on this, but there's evidence) produce resistance to future inoculation through what is known as Original Antigenic Sin.  It took us 20 years to detect that and it's a weak signal, but it's there.  That is, repeated annual flu shots may make the next one less effective.  If you want them to work when you're 80 and frail, in other words, it's rather stupid to take them every year through your life as you may degrade the effectiveness at the very point when it might be the difference between survival and not.

There was no special risk to this virus except in people who were severely-morbid; indeed, in children Covid-19 is materially less dangerous than influenza.  The average person who died, according to the CDC, now is listed as having either four or five serious co-morbidities.  Not one or two, four.  The average age is also something like 78.

Life expectancy has been right around 78 now for a decade.  In other words statistically-speaking Covid-19 killed nobody who wasn't going to die anyway.  Of course that's not true individually and there were certainly people who died that were younger but it is true statistically.

While the CDC does not yet have full-year life expectancy numbers up for 2020 their preliminary "best guess" has a decline of 1.0 years.  That sounds horrible, doesn't it?

Is it?

The 1918 Flu Pandemic took fifteen years off life expectancy for that year -- to put perspective on that the next year life expectancy rose twenty eight percent and returned to trend.  In one year.  Most of those who died in fact passed from secondary bacterial infections; we had no antibiotics so if you got one in a weakened state you were finished.  Incidentally a huge percentage of people shot in WWI died the same way; without antibiotics basically any serious abdominal wound was almost-universally fatal due to sepsis.  Many people chose to finish the job themselves when wounded in such a fashion rather than go through what was an almost-universally fatal and really nasty outcome.

Note that there were exactly zero flu shots produced and jabbed into arms in 1919.  It was over anyway.

The impact of Covid-19 is thus reasonably expected to be about one twentieth of that of the 1918 pandemic in terms of single-year life-expectancy loss, by percentages.  In other words inconsequential.  Further, there was a major one-year surge in excess death larger than that in 2020 just three years prior, in 2017, and that was much more consequential in real terms because the people who did largely did so in their productive years rather than when near or even beyond their expected end of life.  Yet nobody screamed and nobody raised hell.

Again -- in 1918 nobody jabbed anyone with anything and it was over anyway.  In 2020 and 2021 we're madly jabbing everyone who we can con into it with lightly-tested and, in many cases, never before used in humans technology.  We have absolutely zero long-term data on the safety of these technologies.  We have decades of attempting to produce vaccines against coronaviruses and other respiratory virus families such as RSV and have never succeeded in the past, with such attempts ending in either failure or worse, severe injury and death.

By the time the first jab went into the first arm the evidence was that the pandemic threat was over here in the United States.  Maybe not so much in other nations, but certainly here.  President Biden, Fauci and others called Texas Neanderthals for dropping masks, capacity mandates and similar with only a tiny fraction of the population having been jabbed, and the CDC itself along with the rest of the so-called "experts" said there was no possible way we'd see any meaningful suppression from "herd immunity" until 80% of the population was vaccinated.

This was a knowing, intentional lie.  A person who has been infected and recovered is just as well protected, if not more-so, than one vaccinated.  A huge percentage of the population has been infected.  An even larger percentage may be able to be infected but won't be harmed; we knew this all the way back to Diamond Princess where two people in one cabin had one person get sick and the other not despite sleeping with each other and being quarantined in a cabin measuring about 100 square feet with no outside ventilation!  There is zero probability a susceptible person will not get a respiratory virus if quarantined with someone who has it in those circumstances, yet it happened over a thousand times across the guests on that ship.  For a so-called "novel" virus to which everyone is susceptible, which was claimed repeatedly for months that is not possible.  Yet we now know, scientifically, it's proved: About 80% of the population has pre-existing resistance to Covid-19.  Exactly what degree of protection is conferred is not known but this now known scientific fact completely explains Diamond Princess, it explains multiple nursing home outbreaks where only one of two people in a room got sick and expired and it explains a good friend of mine's grandparents who had the exact same thing happen; he got Covid and within five days was dead, she "got" it by test but never got sick at all.

Sadly there is no cheap and fast way to know if you have pre-existing resistance.  There is an inexpensive test for IgG antibodies, which should be protective and indicates reasonably-recent (last three to six months) infection.  How long they persist is not known with scientific certainty.  What is known is that the various "NPI"s -- masks, closing businesses and schools, etc -- did not work.  All they did was destroy jobs, lives, the education of our children, induce psychotic-level fear in a large percentage of the population and dramatically raise drug overdose rates along with other deaths of despair.  In other words the NPIs killed people since they did kill but protected nobody at all; those who imposed them are mass-murdering monsters.

It is a fact that those places which took those steps had no positive correlation with better outcomes that were statistically material.  Indeed even the CDC, with a highly-flawed "study", documented through their own paper that the difference between masked and unmasked persons in terms of potential risk of catching the virus was in fact 0.2%.  Oh yes, they claimed about a 2% "statistically significant" difference but that was over eight viral generations, which means the actual difference for a person exposed in a given "generation" of the virus (that is, person has it and either does or does not pass it to someone else) was..... 0.2%.

Would you force someone to take a drug or some other action if it changed your odds of a good or bad outcome only 2 times in 1,000?

Well, then let's look at the absolute risk difference for the jabs.  The absolute difference in risk was right about 1%; slightly higher for some, slightly lower for others.

That is, during the trials being jabbed reduced your risk of getting Covid by one percent.  Not 95%, 92% or 99%; that was relative risk, which is highly misleading when in fact the odds of a thing happening are quite low to begin with. May I remind you that over a year's time this "highly-contagious, everyone is susceptible" virus only managed, on the CDC's data, to infect 1 in 10 Americans?

This of course assumes you believe the "infected" numbers.  I don't.  I believe the hospitalized numbers and I believe the number of people died who are said to have died, because in both cases it's easy to count bodies whether in beds or coffins and pretty tough to pull off a fraud involving either, but that someone is in a coffin does not mean, necessarily, that the reason they're claimed to be there is truthful.  On the other hand if I'm dead why isn't really all that important to me; whether you lie about the cause or not I'm still dead.

We killed people for profit folks.  We know how to stop this virus and we've known since April of 2020.  We've gotten even better at it over time, but Zelenko, treating only high risk patients with a 5% chance of death (which is some 1,000 times greater than that of a child or healthy young adult) with his protocol, all with laboratory confirmed infections, resulted in crazy reductions of risk of both hospitalization and death.

Of 141 treated patients, 4 (2.8%) were hospitalised, which was significantly fewer (P < 0.001) compared with 58 (15.4%) of 377 untreated patients [odds ratio (OR) = 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06–0.5]. One patient (0.7%) in the treatment group died versus 13 patients (3.4%) in the untreated group (OR = 0.2, 95% CI 0.03–1.5; P = 0.12). 

OR 0.16 means an 84% reduction in hospitalizations.  An OR of 0.2 for death means an 80% reduction in death.

This is the "devil drug", of course, HCQ.

Zelenko started this protocol very early in the pandemic.  He was slammed for it as HCQ turned into a political football.  We now know that on peer reviewed science it works.  We also know Ivermectin works.  We know Budesonide works.  We know all three of those have very low serious side effect risk.

So which would you rather have?  A 0.2% reduction in the risk that the guy next to you with Covid will give it to you from a mask mandate, screwing your kids out of a year of education and blowing up the economy or leave all of that alone, accept the 0.2% greater risk of infection and rely on an 80-90% reduction in risk of hospitalization and death by taking three pills a day if you get sick?

That's what we did folks -- we forced an 0.2% reduction in the risk of getting the virus and both slammed a protocol that was good for an 80% reduction in the risk of serious disease and death and, in some states, actually prohibited pharmacists from dispensing the drug.  We let the media including all the big social media giants censor and even throw people off their platforms for daring to mention the protocol and its rate of success.

We knew all of this by the summer months and into the early fall.  We deliberately ignored that data and let hundreds of thousands of people die so EUAs could issue for what has, in time, proved to be nearly-worthless shots even if they are effective as they simply arrived too late to matter.  Those who were going to get the virus in large part had already gotten it; the virus was running out of victims to infect before the first jab went in the first arm.

We had a strategy to stop the death and didn't use it, on purpose.  It was known and being used in the Spring of 2020.

The people responsible, including every media and social media executive personally, along with the NIH, CDC, FDA and your local medical societies, corporate medical practices and hospitals deliberately allowed at least 80% of those who died "of" Covid-19 to expire by willingly withholding working treatment, and that's without refining and using more effective protocols which we learned of as time went on.  In fact the data is that the risk reduction for both hospitalization and death with these three inexpensive and available drugs is in excess of 90%, and in high risk people where prophylaxis is used we may be able to get between 95-99%.

Today there's plenty of reason to believe those protocols (e.g. FLCCC's) will produce at least a 90% reduction in hospital admission and death.  I personally would add budesonide to it on the strength of this study and the fact that COPD and Emphysema patients, many of which are on this drug for control of those conditions, died at a rate in 2020 that was lower than that in 2019 despite Covid-19 ravaging the land.  That sort of "natural experiment" lends a lot of statistical weight to what would otherwise be a relatively small trial, particularly since the drug, like ivermectin, has decades of safe use behind it having been on the market since 1981.

That is better than a vaccine using drugs for which we have decades of longitudinal, long-term risk data where with the jabs we have none.  The simple fact is that these treatments are not only at least as effective as a vaccine they are much safer since we have decades of data on their safety and precautions and interactions, if any, in humans while we cannot even claim to have one year worth of data from the various jabs.  We will not have equivalent safety data on any of these jabs for a decade or more and in the case of ivermectin and budesonide it will be 2060 before we can claim to have an equivalent safety profile for the jabs.

These are facts folks and this is the bottom line on the question of "jab or no?"

To recap:

1. The actual loss of life expectancy was a tiny fraction, 1/20th approximately, of the 1918 pandemic.

2. We knew how in March and April to treat this infection early and aggressively in high-risk persons and deliberately did not.

3. Said aggressive treatment was in the first evolution from March and April in 2020 at least 80% effective in preventing hospitalization and death.

4. Said aggressive treatment produced zero serious side effects, including the claimed "cardiac risk" that was in fact, on the data, non-existent.  The people who so-claimed were lying.

5. Remdesivir, which was touted and used, was later found worthless via scientific study but is expensive and has severe cardiac risk.  It is still being used today if you are hospitalized with Covid-19; it was not withdrawn.

6. Said aggressive and early treatment has improved in protocol to the point that a reasonable expectation of reduction of hospitalization and death risk today, without prophylaxis and treating only on presentation of disease, is at least 90%.  With the exception of monoclonal antibodies all of these drugs are oral, pill or inhalation-based medications and can be taken at home and are inexpensive.  With prophylaxis in high-risk individuals it is reasonable to believe that risk can be cut by another 50%, to a 95% reduction in total.  We have long-term longitudinal data on all of these drugs; they have been used in humans for decades and every one of them have extraordinary safety records.

7. Had we used that protocol originally instead of damning people to die for the benefit of jab development the total deaths in the US would be somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000, statistically identical to a bad flu season.  There would have been zero reason to close anything, to destroy even one job, to mask anyone or to close a single school for a single day.  As the protocol improved the failure rate (20%) would have been cut roughly in half (10% or less) in time for the entire late fall and winter surge.

8. The political and jab-based focus not only failed to prevent death it greatly accelerated death by a factor of at least five in addition to adding deaths of despair from drug overdoses and similar.

And finally, the whopper: I only use the treatment, with said decades of safety data, if I get infected.  Therefore whatever risk, which we have decades of data on, is only taken if I get sick and when I take it I have the benefit of time and further improvement in the protocol between now and then.  If I take a jab I take the unknown safety risk immediately despite not being sick and if the formulas for the vaccines improve I cannot benefit since I already took it.

It is for this reason -- you are accepting the risk of the vaccine "as it is" right now .vs. treatment options that may improve over time which you use if and only if you get infected that traditional vaccines have always been required to be much safer than treatment alternatives in order to be approved, and in fact they are -- usually by a factor of somewhere around 100.

I've got at least a half-dozen scientific papers at this point which argue for potential severe intermediate and long-term risks from these jabs.  A recent publication summarizes most of the pertinent ones.  They run the gamut from the spike protein itself being pathogenic, a fairly-clean explanation of why some people get hammered with blood clots and platelet disorders to the distribution of antibodies produced including a very large percentage of binding .vs. neutralizing antibodies which raises a serious risk of ADE down the road as titers wane.  None of the risks are quantified into a probability or excluded at this point and the reason we usually take 5-10 years or more to qualify a vaccine is to explore these sorts of risks, get them in the literature and test them before we shove needles in the arms of millions of people.

If even one of these papers proves up as a real and material risk anyone who took the jab has a significant probability of being screwed with exactly nothing they can do about it.  I remind you that even fully approved drugs have this happen from time to time  -- Vioxx anyone?  That was a prescription COX-2 NSAID somewhat related chemically to ibuprofen which went through the full FDA approval process.  It was pulled from the market five years later when further studies showed that it doubled heart attack risk but not before it had been taken by 4 million Americans, caused about 140,000 heart attacks and killed 60,000.

It was later shown that there was an indication of possible serious harm with Vioxx but it was not run down before approval; there are, in this case, more indications of possible serious harm through multiple potential pathways, zero of which have been excluded.

If the same result was to occur here with about 30x as many people taking the jabs the outcome would be 1,800,000 dead Americans and who knows how many permanent disabilities from events such as heart attacks and strokes.  That is more than three times the number of people killed by Covid-19 thus far.

When there are more than a half-dozen distinct and coherent mechanisms of serious harm found in the scientific literature for a given therapeutic path being pursued you are lying if you claim it is safe until every one of them have been disproved.  It will take years to do so.  Vioxx had some indications of potential trouble too, but the FDA gave it full approval after approximately two years of study work.

I trust data that has been collected over decades in many nations all over the world, and I can look at and examine it.  I do not trust six months worth of data or even necessarily two years of it, no matter where it comes from, especially when there are indications of potential trouble that have not been disproved.

Until you can present longitudinal data sufficient to convince me that a jab is equal or better in both result and risk on a risk-of-infection basis than what we knew how to achieve in April of 2020 and refused to use, on purpose, never mind the evolution of that knowledge and its improvement over time (which has been substantial) you can take your jab and shove it up your ass.

I choose the alternative for which there is decades of safety data and which is at least as effective in preventing hospitalization and death.  I have had access to and maintained said alternative, replacing and augmenting the protocol as it has evolved over the last year, since April of 2020 and will continue to do so.  If I get infected -- but not until -- I will use it.  Only an insane or psychotic individual selects the option for which there is zero long-term safety data when an equally-effective alternative that has three or more decades of safety information to rely on exists and is both readily available and cheap.

Period.

PS: If you'd prefer this in podcast format; same basic content -- watch here.

I hate being right.

In this study we profiled vaccine-induced polyclonal antibodies as well as plasmablast derived mAbs from individuals who received SARS-CoV-2 spike mRNA vaccine. Polyclonal antibody responses in vaccinees were robust and comparable to or exceeded those seen after natural infection. However, the ratio of binding to neutralizing antibodies after vaccination was greater than that after natural infection and, at the monoclonal level, we found that the majority of vaccine-induced antibodies did not have neutralizing activity.

This is not good.  Now we know why the stabs target very high antibody titers -- several times that of natural infection, and the doses were not adjusted down.

I had wondered about that: It makes exactly no sense to target wildly-higher titers than natural infection with a vaccine, yet all of the shots do exactly that.  The question was why and now we have the answer: A large percentage of the antibodies produced are not neutralizing, so to get enough that are they cranked up the dose.

This is dangerous -- very dangerous -- because the non-neutralizing antibodies can enhance infection.  What we don't know, because we didn't take the time, is whether the decay is linear in both sorts or whether one decays first.  But again, this is data we did not have before we mass-stabbed people -- and unfortunately it explains why dosing was set where it was and that fact, and the potential bad side of all those non-neutralizing antibodies, which could lead to SEVERE ADE and kill you down the road was never discussed nor explained by any of the manufacturers.

Let's contemplate a possibility: The manufacturers know this and in fact knew it during Phase I and II testing; they characterized the antibodies produced and that is why they set the dose where they did; they knew that they had to wildly over-produce to get a high enough titer of the neutralizing antibodies or the shots would not work.

Now think about the game that might have been run:

1. You take the shot.

2. You get both protective (good) and non-protective (neutral) or possibly enhancing (very bad), antibodies.

3. The protective antibodies are enough to prevent you from getting seriously sick or dying.  We all cheer, and all appears to be well in the world.  The results look good -- for a while.

4. Over time the antibody titer wanes.  Now you don't have enough neutralizing antibodies but still have some of the bad ones which, if you get infected, make it materially more-likely the infection will kill you.

5. Then in comes the nice pharma dude who tells you to take this booster shot, which by the way isn't free and for which the price goes up every year, irrespective of the side effects which are real and remain (and might kill or seriously disable, and which risk you must accept every year forever into the future), or you're very likely to die because the virus is still out there and all you have are the bad antibodies that make an infection worse.  While those too will wane over time it may take years before you're back to where you started before the stab in terms of risk.

Is this plausible?  You bet.

They knew damn well that this proportion between neutralizing and non-neutralizing was present right up front.  That's why they set the dosing where they did; they had to in order to get a neutralizing titer that was high enough.  But that also means they knew it would decay and when it did the non-neutralizing antibodies would still be present to some degree.

Why did the companies not work on getting rid of the non-neutralizing titer?  They didn't have to.  The EUA didn't require it and further, if they got away with it long enough to get crap-ton of shots in arms there was nothing that could be done about it.

Take the shot once, buy in forever to whatever price they charge and if you don't, and get Covid-19, you die.

Obamacare was all about forcing you to buy health insurance.  The penalty for non-compliance with the medical monster and government's scheme was money, which Congress eventually got rid of.

But if this problem proves up to be true the penalty, once you buy in originally (and which is conveniently "free") should you try to refuse to continue later on, irrespective of the price the company charges, is death.

Of course this little problem would have been discovered in a full 5 or 10 year trial where you give someone one shot and then follow them.  Inevitably as it wore off a year or two down the road you'd see indications of trouble as some of those people would get the virus naturally and get ridiculously hammered.  But not if you go Warp Speed, as you simply don't wait long enough for the antibody titer to wane.  Oh, and then they lobby for full licensing on an expedited basis (instead of the usual 5 or 10 year cycle) too.  The reason for that is obvious, is it not?

Does this paper prove that?  Nope.  But could it be possible?  You bet.

And these are not quacks folks, or some group of Chinese that might be running a game on us.  This paper came out of Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.

If you took the stab or do now you're literally betting your life that they're wrong.

Now do remember that the pharma companies involved all have legal immunity, even if it is later proved they knew this to be the case before they applied for EUA status.

We also found a co-dominance of mAbs targeting the NTD and RBD of SARS-CoV-2 spike and an original antigenic-sin like backboost to seasonal human coronaviruses OC43 and HKU1.

That's really bad too.  

OC43 and HKU1 are betacoronaviruses that produce colds and flus in humans; they're considered mild annoyances these days.  But one of them, OC43, is believed to have been a serious pandemic flu in the 1890 timeframe.  We can't prove it but sequencing, simple time analysis and reports from that time of people dying in the same sort of way as Covid-19 killed people are in the literature.  Between those it is a reasonable hypothesis that OC43 was the cause of that, and it was real.

But that means that if there's a boost to the virulence of OC43 it has a proved capacity to kill -- and might again, being potentiated by getting the jabs.

Again: This is one paper, it's a pre-print and not proved.   But it is science and not crack-potted assumption.

Shouldn't we have done all of this science before we jabbed a hundred million+ Americans with something that they are now stuck with and, if it proves up to be what's suggested in this study, may well be worse, on balance, than accepting a Covid-19 infection and using cheap drugs to treat it?