Amnesty? Absolutely NOT
The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.
NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.
Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility; author(s) may have positions in any firm or security discussed here, and have no duty to disclose same.
Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.
The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)
Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.
Considering sending spam? Read this first.
So CDC, NIH and others are over-reach and bullshit extraordinaire.
I was asked to speak on this briefly today. And did.
Then the conversation went toward "smart meters" and the overtones of "5g."
Jesus, cut the shit folks.
So-called "smart meters" are nearly all Zigbee-style devices which is a quite-common option for home automation. This is a mesh technology and typically runs in the same bands as your WiFi router does, with less power in terms of ERP (effective radiative power) than your cellphone -- and not by a little either, given the wild difference in distance between the device and you.
The reason the power companies use this is because it can be certificate-based for security and thus is quite secure from interception or tampering, which is a really big deal when you're talking about people's power bill never mind being shut off if you don't pay. While they could have designed their own why re-invent what already exists and is available to anyone who wants to use it when that is perfectly-suitable to the task and quite secure?
Here's an ARRL document on them, which is entirely accurate by the way. 902 Mhz is very close to the Z-wave US frequency (908 Mhz) and I've had that stuff all over my house for over ten years. You probably have too, since it was one of the earlier "cordless phone" frequencies (nowdays most are on 2.4Ghz.)
FCC power requirements limit such a meter to one watt of RF power. For comparison your cellphone is tower-controlled as to power level but, because you walk around with it near and on your body (which attenuates the signal thus can cause the power required to go up) its limited to 600mw, or 0.6w, which is the maximum for a handheld device.
A common ham radio HT or "walkie talkie" has both a 1W and 5W setting. I own two. My ham "base" transceiver has a base power level settable of up to fifty watts but the power I'm allowed to run depends on the band I'm operating on and, depending on the band and the power limits associated with amateur radio use on same I can run a linear amplifier behind that and boost the power to ten or more times that level.
I also used to work on Ku and C band microwave transmitters and in fact did control software for some of them; the C-band klystron units, in particular, had rated power outputs into the kilowatt range, with TWT units typically having rated outputs around 300-600 watts. These were continuous ratings, not "burst" or "pulsed".
All of RF is, as you learn if you ever study it, subject to the inverse-square law. This is why the local FM radio station frequently runs somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 watts of output power yet at your radio the signal level received by the antenna is tiny.
Thus while your meter may emit 1 watt and your cellphone is 6/10ths of that the meter is almost-certainly a hell of a lot further away from you than the phone just as your FM radio or TV is from the transmitter and thus the actual power you are exposed to is a tiny fraction of that from your cellular device, laptop connected via WiFi (which of course is transmitting) and similar.
In addition the meter transmits on a periodic basis because all the others within "listening range" have to not be transmitting at the same time or they will "step on" each other since they're all on the same frequency band. The "mesh" is what makes this work; in short your neighbor "helps" your signal get to one of the utility company's antennas and vice-versa. This is, of course, wildly different than what happens when you use a cellphone, PDA or laptop where your transmission is for you -- and only you.
In short the argument is bullshit unless, of course, you have no electronic devices in your house and do not live anywhere near a transmitting radio or TV station, nor do you have a transformer (which also emits EMF) on the pole or pedestal outside your home. Well, perhaps not if you're Amish. For everyone else? It's crap. Period.
The other argument is "dirty power." Guess what I own? A Tek digital storage oscilloscope, with which I can trivially look at the power quality coming from my AC outlets just as easily as I can use it to design, diagnose and fix electronics. I have. The claim is nonsense.
Why do power companies love smart meters? Because they don't have to send people out to read them, so their costs are lower. In addition nearly all (if not all) have a remote disconnect capability. This cannot be used to shut you off for load management as its not designed to be used on a regular basis (it has a rated connect/disconnect under load life of perhaps a hundred cycles) so in terms of a "rolling blackout" that's not how they'll do it -- if they try they'll be buying a lot of new meters when the contacts fail.
But if you don't pay your bill, well, that's a "once in a while" deal and yeah, they can and do use it that way since now they don't need to send someone out to remove the meter from the socket and potentially meet the deadbeat with a 12ga shotgun who's rather interested in them not removing it and thus shutting their power off.
What I was asked to speak to was CDC overreach and my view that the agency should be destroyed, as their malfeasance and misfeasance, all of it intentional, goes back decades and is well-documented as is that of the FDA and NIH. AIDS was one of the most-egregious examples but hardly the only one prior to Covid, never mind the CDC's refusal to actually act within their authority and seize and destroy contaminated items in interstate supply (such as E-coli contaminated food), which under statute they are empowered to do.
Nonetheless I refuse to have my name associated with bullshit and, while I'm polite enough not to call it out while on the Zoom, it shall not pass without my commentary here, on the record and exempt from roll-off.
I, like Dr. Noorchashm, have some concerns with Dr. Kory and loud advocacy down one specific road. I understand where he's coming from: When someone tries to silence debate rather than engage in it the only way to break through the intentional wall is to yell louder, or shoot the persons building the wall.
Since the latter is frowned upon in a polite society we're left with the other option.
Nonetheless I object -- and have -- to a single-minded focus. By definition it fails to account for acquired knowledge over time, never mind being exactly what the other side is doing.
As for calling Dr. Kory's view a scheme, that's over the line. In fact, its likely actionable, specifically when couched in the claim, no matter how-carefully wrapped, that unlawful acts are taking place. Which Noorchashm did, I remind you.
As someone who has had Covid-19 and hit it with repurposed drugs, all of which I had to source outside of alleged "professional advice", and having successfully treated my own person with same, knowing it was Covid because I seroconverted and proved that both before (being negative) and after (being positive) the fact, again, without any professional assistance from your so-called "profession" because it was denied me, never mind formal refusal at the time to be given monoclonal antibodies because I was not fat, over 65, diabetic or non-white I think I have plenty of reason to ride your ass and that of the "orthodoxy."
Yes, I know my experience is called "an anecdote" or a "case study" and is not proof. It is, however, my experience and thus stands as it is, like it or not.
I have every right to relate my personal experience to others.
Yes, I refused to take these so-called "vaccines" prior to getting Delta. Why? Many reasons, and I will list them again since otherwise you'd have to go back and read my work over the 18 months prior to my getting hit:
Given all of the above the decision was not difficult at all. I had a large body of unknowns that could not be discovered for a period of years, some of which if they became realized risks would be catastrophic or even immediately fatal. As time had gone on additional serious risks were discovered to be potentially in play, none of which had been addressed, discussed or disproved. On the other side of the scale was about a year of knowledge of the disease etiology, its mechanisms of damage to the body, how certain personal health factors influenced that and what mitigations had statistical correlation with interdicting it.
I made my decision, I was ultimately infected, I used the drugs and supplements that I believed would be of benefit and while Delta was no cake-walk the outcome was success. I neither went to the hospital or died, and I have no long-term discernable effects from the event, other than an IgG antibody titer that persists to this day (last checked a couple of weeks ago.) In fact on an objective cardio-pulmonary basis the impact of my infection with the "evil" Delta was materially less than that which I suffered from whatever got me in the first week of January 2020, which was likely (although I can't prove it) H1N1. That infection took more than six months to fully recover from in terms of cardio capacity!
Of course then the so-called "good doctor".... goes here.
But what is more concerning to me is that you three do so, while expressing unusual zeal for ignoring the established principles of Immunological science, as licensed American physicians to vocally disparage and dissuade millions of Americans, who have already lost trust in their government and expert institutions, from becoming immunized against COVID-19. This is a critical medical and ethical judgement failure on your parts.
Well, to put not fine a point on it: Bullshit.
There is no clear balance of risks and benefits for the jabs that applies on a blanket basis. This is in fact true for every immunological product and indeed for every drug irrespective of its class or purpose. I would not take a varicella shot for one simple reason: I already had chicken pox and thus it offers me nothing but risk. Yes, the risk from that shot is extremely small but when measured against zero benefit you would be stupid to allow anyone to give it to you.
Yet when it comes to Covid-19 this is precisely the problem -- we had a decent part of the population as of December of 2020, before the first jab went into anyone on a widespread basis, that had already had Covid-19. So where was the loud outcry then and where is it now, or even threats to revoke medical licenses for giving the jabs to people who already had the disease? Even the CDC now admits there is zero statistical benefit to receiving one or more such jabs if you have previously been infected. Such a recommendation or even demand is thus nothing more than risk, including the risk of death, without the possibility of benefit and yet even today the CDC and everyone else screams at people to get jabbed and boosted even if they've been previously infected and recovered!
The jabs originally looked like a fairly decent risk:benefit gamble for those in nursing homes and otherwise at very high risk, but who had not been previously infected, at the outset. I said so at the time, quite-clearly -- even with all the unknowns given that we knew of a roughly 5% infection mortality rate in severely-compromised people, plus the fact that the average survival time for a person admitted to a nursing home is six months the choice to be jabbed was, on the basis of available data, reasonably determinable as odds-on for such persons.
For everyone else the decision was never that clear.
This, even with what was trivially-discernible as trials that failed to demonstrate either sterilizing immunity or durable protection. Three months is not durable. In addition indications that the trials were gamed were present all the way back when they began.
Now, with more time, we've developed information that is more adverse to both the safety and efficacy of the shots!
Indeed the reported rate of serious complications and death from these jabs looks to be some one hundred times that of another common non-sterilizing (and often worthless or nearly so) inoculation we hand out to over 100 million Americans a year -- the flu shot.
When all the "errors" go one way it is extremely likely they're not errors at all -- they're probably intentional -- because errors do not have a directional bias.
Why should not Dr. Kory present the position that the risk and benefit equation is not clear, it is certainly not clear for younger, healthy people and the data was deliberately screwed with to make it look better than it was?
All of which is true, by the way.
How bad is what appears to be the deliberate skewing of the data? We don't know and thus we cannot put boundaries on it or prove it.
We can't look. So says Pfizer, Moderna and J&J. So says the FDA.
"Eat this, inject that!" says the doctor.
"Show me the data", says I.
"No." says the doctor and the government.
Well then fuck you sir, and may the plague of a thousand locusts descend upon your home, your assets, your clothing and your penis.
Especially when you further tilt the scales by actively denying people the right to choose mitigating drugs that, to the extent each or all of them work, make the risk:reward benefit calculation adverse to getting the shots.
Speaking of risk and reward how about Remdesivir. Or, as I've taken to call it, Run-Death-Is-Near. A drug with a known toxicological problem, specifically to the kidneys, that is a multiple-time loser, including with Ebola where it not only didn't help it led to higher rather than lower mortality rates and thus was stopped during the trials. May I remind you that Solidarity, a fairly large-scale trial, said Remdesivir was worthless? These results were reported in the NEJM close to one year ago yet hospitals in the US are still pumping people full of that crap today.
The reality is that our federal public health agencies have badly failed at accurate and honest messaging about the vaccine and its efficacy. The vaccine’s presentation by Mr. Biden’s administration as a binary silver bullet was an error that only stoked more mistrust, when its inefficacies became visible with the growing environmental viral load.
It was not an error: It was an intentional lie and it pervaded not only Biden's Administration but Trump's as well and still does right now and here at the FDA, which claims the shots PREVENT the disease.
They do not.
We know this conclusively; exactly none of them provide the at least one year, 50% or better protection against infection and transmission that the FDA has historically required as a minimum, which is (usually) barely met by the flu shot.
The original trials were never powered to detect whether these jabs met that criteria, nor was the routine testing and follow-up done to detect it either -- on purpose.
Therefore any claim that these jabs prevent the disease was and is not an error -- it is intentionally false, especially given the data we have now.
The antibody titers produced were wildly beyond that from natural infection without any explanation as to why. A reasonable explanation is that the manufacturers either knew or suspected that (1) the protection would rapidly wane and thus gamed the test so as to pass the deliberately-short timeframe required to sell them and (2) viral evasion due to mutation was likely. Worse, setting the titer there while serving to conceal the failure and thus sell product may have also potentiated enhanced binding antibody levels, that is, vaccine-enhanced disease over time which would not become evident until after the trials were complete and 200 million Americans got jabbed.
Which, sadly, we may now be seeing with Omicron and even with Delta.
Can I prove the latter? Not yet. But if turns out to be true what are you going to do about it?
Oh by the way, every prior attempt at vaccination against a coronavirus ended in this sort of failure. The entity that claims it doesn't this time carries the burden of proof and it better be iron-clad proof too because if you're wrong the harms can be catastrophic.
See, that's why we don't do this sort of thing as a rule and anyone who is intellectually honest both knows and admits it: This risk is real, if it happens you screw an utterly huge number of people, the screwing is likely to be long-term or even permanent and there's nothing you can do about it.
Is not allegedly the "prime directive" in medicine First, do no harm?
Well now..... experimental jabs, liability shields, using known toxic drugs that have repeatedly failed trials due to safety and in fact has repeatedly caused mortal injury in those trials on a widespread basis in hospitals and systematically denying access to drugs that have decades-long safety records to people at the earliest sign of illness.
Doctor, hypocrisy much?
BUT, none of these federal failures, nor any of Dr. Fauci’s prejudices and errors (or even the alleged corruption my friend, RFK Jr., elaborates on in his new book), justify anyone, especially three seemingly decorated and licensed American physicians, acting to compound the harm to America and American institutions, by disparaging UN-IMMUNE persons from becoming vaccinated.
There might be a reason for it sir. The above may well be the reason.
Now let's talk about the jabs specifically.
The truth is that COVID-19 vaccine induce a powerful Adaptive immune response to SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein in the majority of vaccinated persons. This immune response, though it wanes and requires boosters in some, protects the majority of the vaccinated from severe illness. It protects the majority from becoming infected. It reduces transmission in the majority.
Only the first statement in that paragraph has factual basis. The rest are conjecture and require balance, which you refuse to provide. Indeed, you deny it even in the face of large-scale "natural experiments" such as in Israel and Denmark where, the data now shows, against Omicron the jabs are worse than worthless; they make infection more likely.
Indeed the data is that even against the pre-Delta variants this was true until two weeks after the jab sequence was completed. That is, you were temporarily made more-susceptible and this pattern of wildly-increased infection occurred in every state and nation where jab rollouts commenced exactly when it commenced. You and everyone else dismissed this by falsely claiming these people were "unvaccinated". If you are offering jabs into the middle of a pandemic then an infection that occurs at any time after the jab is accepted must count against the vaccine's effectiveness. It is your profession that chooses when to offer and recommend said jabs, I remind you and thus if you choose to administer them into a spike of infections and they make that worse that outcome counts against the intervention you prescribed.
Why should I ever believe someone in the future when it comes to my health once I prove they've lied. Many have, and they claim to be experts. "You become a dead end to the virus" if you get jabbed? "Vaccinated people do not carry the virus -- they don't get sick"? Yeah, Rachel Maddow is not an expert at anything except having diarrhea of the mouth. How about Fauci, Walensky and Bouria? Is not the latter the CEO of one of the companies making these products? Are not the former two those who encouraged lockdowns, mandatory masking, mandatory vaccinations and more? All three claim to be subject-matter experts and all three were completely full of crap.
Indeed there is evidence that the original trials were deliberately gamed and thus were frauds. I've gone over this in substantial detail. Can I prove it? Not without subpoenas but eventually someone is going to get through that wall. How is it that you accept alleged "trial" data that is generated and filtered only by the interested parties and which nobody else can look at, especially after the first batch of it is proved to be garbage? It's not like pharmaceutical companies have lied before, right? Oh wait, they have, and have been charged, prosecuted and punished for it. Do you believe a bank robber who has been convicted will not rob a bank in the future? Why would believe a pharmaceutical company that has been caught cheating would not cheat again, especially when they try to hide data from the public for decades and in fact go to court in an attempt to block its release? How about when those same firms execute contracts with governments that require the government to indemnify them if, in the future, it is proved the product is defective? We know they did exactly that because those agreements have been leaked and published.
Further, and perhaps most-seriously, we knew very early on that viremia, that is, virus in the bloodstream, including the spike, only occurred with severe and fatal cases of Covid-19. We also knew starting in September of 2020 and documented by December that the spike alone, absent the rest of the virus, was pathogenic in the human body, specifically in the endothelium. It is thus a reasonable belief that when someone ends up in the hospital or dead from Covid-19 this is likely the root cause at least some of the time -- and maybe all of the time.
It is impossible to inject something without some of it ending up in the circulation -- that is, in and around the endothelium. That begs the obvious question as to which is more-dangerous: A definite exposure of your endothelium to the spike from an injection or a possible one from infection if, and only if, you get severely hammered? Nobody knows and nobody has done the work to find out. Despite the signal in December of 2020 we went ahead anyway without first disproving that the balance of harms went the wrong way especially in healthy, low-risk individuals.
On top of this we knew very early on that there was no reduction in transmission from the jabs; a person who had a "breakthrough" was just as infectious (per Fauci and the CDC itself) and thus might be more-dangerous because by hiding symptoms you make the problem worse. If I do not know I'm sick I will not self-isolate in my home since I have no reason to suspect I'm infected. An inoculation that does not prevent infection, replication or transmission but prevents symptom expression is thus not only bad from a public health perspective its disastrous. Indeed one can reasonably make the argument that intentional blinding of symptoms is involuntary manslaughter. We have historical precedent for this, incidentally, in the fiasco surrounding the DTP vaccine in the 1970s and the twenty-fold higher case rate for pertussis today after the formula for that jab was changed to DTaP, a non-sterilizing inoculation that prevents neither infection or transmission. Do you think I can't read history and the CDC's own data on pertussis cases?
What's worse is that we now know the jabs don't work with any degree or durability at all. How do we know this? Because the CDC has proved it with their own contemporary data, that's how. The >65 cohort is the most vaccinated in the United States. Indeed, the CDC says that 88.3% of those >65 have been fully vaccinated, and 64.3% have received boosters, that is, the third shot.
The proof they don't work is that the CDC also reports that hospitalization among those >65 for Covid is roughly as high or higher this winter as it was last winter when there were no shots. With nearly 90% of that age cohort fully vaccinated across the entire United States if the jabs worked to prevent severe disease we would see a ratable decrease in hospitalization among that cohort. Indeed, since we know natural immunity is protective against severe disease for much longer than the jabs, at least one year, again by the CDC's own data, if the jabs did nothing we'd expect to see a lower rate among that segment of the population simply because many of them already had the virus and survived. There are simply not enough unvaccinated and uninfected seniors remaining if the jabs work and yet there is in fact no decrease at all compared with last winter's surge among the most-vaccinated population subgroup.
This strongly implies that what the jabs are doing is producing VEI (vaccine-enhanced infection); that is, causing actual harm and either wildly potentiating first infections or, far worse, destroying immunity from infection whether prior to or subsequent to vaccination such that people are getting the virus a second or subsequent time and not mildly either; they're getting hammered since this is not relying on "infections", it's hospitalizations. We knew the latter was likely this summer, incidentally, because "N" protein seroprevalence in Britain flatlined during Delta -- an impossibility unless the vaccine was interfering with building that titer or destroyed existing antibody titers if jabbed after being infected and recovered.
Never mind that there's evidence these jabs may be back-boosting other common coronaviruses. That was known to be a risk in May of 2021. We see that in the data too; people showing up in the ER and Urgent Care with "covid-like illness" but they don't have Covid, and a huge percentage of them are vaccinated. Are these jabs turning the common OC43 and HKU1 coronaviruses, that usually produce mild colds, into severe disease events? Maybe -- and we knew they might in May of last year but didn't bother to follow up on that either. Since OC43 is believed to have been the cause of a Covid-like pandemic in the 1890s if this proves up we will have screwed millions of Americans -- or even perhaps tens of millions -- instead of helping them.
But, even then, systematic off-label use of controversial and unvetted drugs in millions of Americans would be a very questionable practice.
What is "controversial" and "unvetted" about a drug that has a 30+ year record with nearly four billion human doses consumed worldwide and, of course, all of the results of same in evidence? You can run all the teeny little trials you want but you will never get the statistical power on safety that comes from decades of widespread use. We have that for Ivermectin. We have it to a lesser, but still powerful extent, for hydroxychloroquine. I know people who are using Plaquenil and have been for an extended period of time for chronic conditions. They're not falling over dead while this specific use would be for a week or so at maximum.
How about budesonide? We dose people with systemic steroids all the time; prednisone to name one. We know its safety profile quite well, because we use it for a whole host of other reasons. Budesonide, as an inhaled steroid, has much less systemic effect yet it concentrates the effect where you want it if Covid gets out of hand on you before you get sick enough that your O2Sat collapses -- in the lungs. Is it 100% safe? Of course not. No drug is.
What if I demand those things, take them, and they do nothing? So what? Your alternative on offer was chicken soup! Unless the drugs harm me in short-term, acute use I can't be worse off than what you offered me as an alternative, which was nothing!
Explain to why you believe you have the right to deny me that choice.
I remind you that in a tiny little nation called Mexico to our south these drugs are sold over the counter. Indeed you can buy Zpak, HCQ and Ivermectin there for just a few dollars without any gatekeeping whatsoever by the medical "profession."
If your argument is that such active denial "encourages" your preferred path I have a word for that and it has a punishment too: Extortion.
Close to one year ago I posted a list of lies from physicians and alleged public-health experts. Indeed it is precisely your group that has spent close to the last two years claiming a physical impossibility: That a mask could and will stop an aerosol virus. You and your pals, in short, have and still argue that a chain-link fence around my porch will stop mosquitoes from biting me. In addition to not failing math I also did not fail physics.
At the same time you so-called experts have refused to follow up on alleged Covid cases (that is, PCR+) with an inexpensive, couple of dollar fingerstick antibody tests two weeks later. Why is this important? Because a person who comes positive on a PCR test at Ct40 likely never had the virus at all. Since none of the labs report the Ct value to the patient said person has no idea if their "positive" denotes a nearly-certain infection with Covid or one that is wildly-improbable to be a true positive. In the latter case if they were sick they had something else. If they weren't sick they had nothing, In both cases they may well still be susceptible. By calling them "sick and now recovered" you caused them to take risk they would otherwise not take, and this also became (and still is!) part of your argument for "everyone must get jabbed."
But if they do follow up and a huge percentage of the so-called "had Covid" people find out they were lied to and never had the virus perhaps that would be bad..... Indeed it might lead to a very-justified call for heads if your profession quarantined and economically destroyed tens of millions of Americans who weren't actually sick.
I had to go "outside the lines" to source these tests on my own. I did so.
It is my sincere hope that any American reading my opinion here will think carefully about the best way to protect themselves from COVID-19.
On this we agree entirely. I have done so since this first began. Indeed that is part of being an adult.
But my attempts to do so, including to document whether what I had in January of 2020 was Covid, have been intentionally, willfully and maliciously interfered with by people just like you. My access to safe drugs that, on reading of hundreds of formal studies, some great, some not-so-great, some undoubtedly riddled with errors and even lies was refused even though said drugs are in fact as safe or safer than those I can buy over the counter in the local WalMart or CVS.
I can buy all the allergy meds I want without proof that I have an allergy. I can buy all the Tylenol I want without proof that I have a headache or fever. Why can't I buy a drug that is, on the data, roughly one hundred times safer than Tylenol?
The bottom line is this: Until and unless you have a proved-effective alternative on offer at the same point in the progression of disease there is no argument ever for interfering with someone using a safe drug irrespective of whether you believe, or can prove, that it works. The test for this must be simple, binary and put into law NOW: If I can buy something as safe or safer over the counter then I can buy this if I so choose, period. It's my ass and thus must be my choice when all you will offer in the alternative is nothing at all.
The reason is trivially-easy to understand: If a person uses it and it doesn't work provided its safe they're no worse off than eating the chicken soup.
We should demand -- and you, as a so-called "professional" had a duty to demand that all of the data surrounding these jabs be released before they went into arms. You have a duty to insist that there be actual criminal penalties for failing to report adverse events into VAERS and even more-severe penalties for anyone tampering with, redacting or sitting on said reports including not autopsying persons who die shortly after using experimental treatments and publishing the findings, which the jabs all are.
You further have a duty to stop lying in your professional capacity and so does everyone else who claims a "professional" credential when it comes to medicine. There are no approved jabs available to the public and the reason for it is obvious: Until and unless approval and recommendation comes for children marketing and selling the "approved" version is outside of both the PREP Act and NCVIA liability shields which means if Pfizer sells it and someone gets harmed they will get sued and lose. Comirnaty is not available; I challenge you to find vials of it with lot numbers and produce them. I have issued this challenge repeatedly since the alleged approval but not one such lot number and photograph of a vial has been shown in actual use. The jabs that are available are all under EUA, they are and remain experimental to this day, the trials appear to have been gamed, the control group was deliberately destroyed making fair comparison impossible, some data from the trials was not reported at all including some that suggested a significant mortality increase, there is now a significant mortality increase in the working-age population that is not from Covid-19 and exactly correlates with the initiation of these jabs into that part of the population, the CDC's own data says that the most vaccinated cohort is still getting sick and winding up in the hospital WITH COVID in equal numbers to before any jabs were available and more.
But you have done none of this.
Indeed what you have done is the opposite and in fact you still claim that which the data and even the CDC disclaims: That the jabs prevent, on a material basis, acquisition and transmission of the virus.
I have no quarrel with anyone who reads your material, mine and everyone else's, does their own evaluation of all of it, weighing it as they see fit and comes to the opposite conclusion I did -- that for them in their opinion, the jab is a superior choice. Were I in a different personal health situation I might well have come to that conclusion as well.
But there is no clear-cut, true for everyone answer in this regard especially when much of the data necessary to accurately calculate the odds either is being withheld on purpose from public disclosure and analysis, is being deliberately misrepresented or, perhaps worse, simply cannot be discerned without the passage of time that has not yet occurred.
I am not anti-vaccine. I was forcibly inoculated with a whole host of things when I was young as are most children but on analysis as an adult I cannot disagree with the choices my parents made on my behalf. Likewise, I made those decisions for my daughter when she was a child, and with one exception I agreed with the recommendations and she received those shots. The one exception she had every capacity to change upon reaching her 18th birthday and I explained to her both my decision and that she was free to alter it at her discretion as an adult. I have no idea what she decided because, since she is now an adult, her private health decisions are none of my damned business. Likewise she decided (as a young adult) against the Covid-19 shots, got the disease (at the same time I did, which is why I know she had it), recovered without incident and now has natural immunity just as I have.
When it comes to the medical "industry" and "profession", especially that of so-called "public health" I do not trust it -- or you -- and never will in the future. Your "profession" has destroyed its own credibility with your own hands and words. Your "profession" has engaged in a two year long scream-fest of lies, you have failed to take reasonable mitigating actions for the most-vulnerable who we knew within weeks were at especially high risk, many of your cohorts deliberately exposed people in nursing homes to infected individuals, you have advocated for and used extraordinarily dangerous drugs which in addition to being dangerous have been proved in large trials to be worthless, you have continually advocated for "protective measures" that are physically impossible to be functional in actually reducing transmission and might increase it through physical transport of contaminated material from one place to another and you have repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that your preferred intervention is in fact a sterilizing inoculation and are completely, 100% of the time safe. These were not errors -- these statements and acts were undertaken either with reckless disregard for the truth and known limitations of the data available or worse, with actual knowledge of falsity where there has been years or even (in the case of masks) decades of hard science proving you were full of crap.
Covid-19 is not the first load of garbage your so-called "profession" has run on the American population. Roughly a million Americans a year die each and every year in whole or part as a result of the decades long pile of garbage your profession has and continues to run on what people should put down their piehole and is largely why obesity and diabetes continues to wildly expand in the United States and elsewhere. Indeed that load of crap is likely responsible for a huge percentage of all Covid-19 deaths -- perhaps as many as half or even more!
There is no possible way for you to reclaim credibility with me. You simply can't. That which you or any other so-called "medical professional" assert from here onward must be backed by scientific evidence with all the data exposed, no redactions and no "trust me" assertions because you are not trust worthy. Each and every piece of evidence that is missing I will construe against whatever you assert and that is perfectly reasonable, given the history of the last two years.
I write in defense of the United States and Her public health,
Hooman Noorchashm MD, PhD
In a word:
I'm getting very tired of the tin-foil-hat crowd.
When this blog opened up originally in 2007 I inserted a term into the TOS that made clear that certain Reynolds items were going to lead to instant banhammering. Specifically, from the TOS:
Any discussion of 9/11 "Troofer"-related nonsense on Tickerforum will result in an immediate, no-notice and permanent account (and possibly IP-level) ban. There are literally thousands of places on The Internet where you can run this sort of tripe. This is not one of them, and those who refuse to respect this constraint will have their access privileges removed.
I meant it then and it holds to this day. Post that event I spent a decent amount of time given that the basic "graving" plans if you will for the towers were public on simulation and satisfied myself that such claims were bullshit. There are plenty of others, including "we never went to the moon" that fall into the same category.
This virus has led to whole bunch of others that are similarly bullshit. Some of the people running this garbage are simply crazy, but I suspect some are put up to it and do so in an attempt to brand anyone deviating from the "official story" as nuts. Here are a few of the self-declarations of insanity, stupidity or both that that will get you tossed instantly around here with no apologies and no second chances -- along with a handful of facts that we now know really did happen because there is documentary proof of them -- and in many cases we know who's responsible too because those are the people who wrote the documents or were collecting and analyzing the data referred to in them.
Yeah, I can show you exactly how this goes together; what I posted the other day is enough for you to find it with a few minutes of effort. The executive summary is enough, on the first page, standing alone to recognize what happened. It will take longer to read the 75+ page grant proposal for the detail on that and about 2 minutes to read the DARPA rejection -- and why, which very-clearly documents how fucking stupid and arrogant what they were doing was. It may take 30 seconds beyond that point for you to realize that basically the entire program was the responsibility of a European and multiple United States entities. Yes, the Chinese were involved as well -- there's no absolution to be found there.
Within weeks there were pissed-off families of over 100,000 dead who had every reason to want and expect blood in exchange for their loved ones that were slaughtered as a direct result of this stupidity. Today that number is much larger. It takes nothing more than that to recognize that even if only one percent of said loved ones are willing to get that retribution and don't give a wild fuck how they get it that if it starts every single person involved (and plenty who are fingered but really weren't) are going to have very bad days.
That's all this is folks -- and all it ever was.
Wild-eyed corruption that blew up in their face and then of course those who take advantage of others to sell bullshit and snake oil even at the expense of even more lives, cough-pharma-cough-cough swoop in and enlist those who are branded in the media as "heroes" to sell their crap.
Exactly as has been done myriad times before, and until you stop the with the tinfoil bullshit and are willing to put a pitchfork up the ass of the responsible parties will happen again.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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:
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!
“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.