Aerosol Scientist Discovers Failure Of Political Economy And Elite Narrative Strategy All The Way Down

Omicron is spreading at a rate we have not seen with any previous variant. I need to be very clear: vaccines alone will not get any country out of this crisis.
It’s not vaccines instead of masks, distancing, ventilation or hand hygiene.
Do it all. Do it consistently. Do it well. pic.twitter.com/YAVfJXsviQ

— Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (@DrTedros) December 14, 2021

twitter | 1/ Why is there such EXTREME RESISTANCE by @WHO, @CDCgov and IPC(*) to clearly state that COVID-19 is a dominantly AIRBORNE disease?

TLDR: see slide

*: IPC: Infection Prevention and Control scientists and professionals 

2/ This is extremely puzzling, as it is now extremely obvious that airborne transmission is DOMINANT for COVID-19.

There are mountains of evidence, e.g. as summarized in our @TheLancet publication.

And NO evidence whatsoever for droplets or surfaces!

Unroll available on Thread Reader

https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1383566908797059078

3/ I've pondered this question a lot. I've been involved in discussions with @WHO, many IPC and public health researchers and practitioners, politicians in multiple countries etc.

This thread summarizes my understanding of the causes of this situation. I look forward to comments

4/ Early in pandemic, a major historical error in the understanding of the IPC field played a major role

"Droplet transmission" was an important concept in that field... and it is an error that dates from 1910!!

This thread has long version (here short):

Unroll available on Thread Reader

https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1391111720526024708

5/ The concept of "sprayborne droplet transmission" was used by Charles Chapin (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_V…), a prominent US Public Health researcher (later pres. of APHA), to explain the EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION that transmission increases in close proximity and decreases with distance

Charles V. Chapin - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_V._Chapin

6/ As of the start of the pandemic, @WHO and @CDCgov were completely stuck on the concepts from Chapin (e.g. his seminal 1910 book: ), as exemplified by this @WHO video showing the sprayborne droplets as explanation why distance reduces transmission:

Unroll available on Thread Reader

https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1244258441880797184

7/ The problem is that Chapin had made an error. He was pushing "contact infection" that he had conceptualized, and encountered a lot of resistance (his book: archive.org/details/source…).

The sources and modes of infection : Chapin, Charles V. (Charles Value), 1856-1941 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/sourcesmodesofin00ch

8/ Chapin was very intelligent, and was well aware that short-range airborne transmission could also explain why distance reduced transmission: we breathe less exhaled air from someone else as we increased distance

“It Is Dangerous To Be Right In Matters On Which The Established Authorities Are Wrong.” ― Voltaire

americanthinker |  I just finished reading an article on the Big Think website titled "When science mixes with politics, all we get is politics," by Professor Marcelo Gleiser, theoretical physicist, Dartmouth College.  I mistakenly thought the commentary would decry the misuse of science by politicians, but no.  Instead, it decries the mistrust that we, the unwashed masses, have developed for the science establishment in recent years.  Unwittingly, the eminent professor gives us yet more reasons to regard science insiders with skepticism.

He does what so many of his colleagues do, which is to equate science itself with the institutions that purport to advance science.  To question politicized scientists, then, is supposedly unscientific.

Censorship of actual science has been heavy-handed, both by Democrats and by their Big Tech acolytes.  Epidemiologists, virologists, and physicians who do not toe the party line regarding COVID have been intimidated and silenced.  Science that cannot be openly questioned is not science, since the heart and soul of science are to scrutinize every claim from every angle.  If we are to be told we must follow the science, then scientists must explain to us the inductive reasoning that was applied to exclude members of Congress, and their staffs, from the COVID restrictions they imposed on the rest of us.  If scientists are to decry those of us who doubt their word, then they must equally decry the policy of distributing unvaccinated, untested illegal aliens to every state, while denying entry to legal travelers.

To decry only the skeptics, while ignoring the egregious anti-science of many politicians, does nothing to engender trust in the institutions of science.  It does the opposite.

 

Polarization And Tipping Points

scienceblog  |  As polarization has escalated in the U.S., the question of if and when that divide becomes insurmountable has become ever more pressing. In a new study, researchers have identified a tipping point, beyond which extreme polarization becomes irreversible.

The researchers employed a predictive model of a polarized group, similar to the current U.S. Senate, to reveal what can happen when the country faces an attack by a foreign adversary or a global pandemic.

“Instead of uniting against a common threat,” said lead author Michael Macy, Distinguished Professor of Arts and Sciences in Sociology and director of the Social Dynamics Laboratory in the College of Arts and Sciences, “the threat itself becomes yet another polarizing issue.”

“Polarization and Tipping Points” published Nov. 8 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The model allows researchers to study the effects of party identity and political intolerance on ideological extremism and partisan division.

“We found that polarization increases incrementally only up to a point,” Macy said. “Above this point, there is a sudden change in the very fabric of the institution, like the change from water to steam when the temperature exceeds the boiling point.”

The dynamics resemble what physicists call “hysteresis loops.”

“We see this very disturbing pattern in which a shock brings people a little bit closer initially, but if polarization is too extreme, eventually the effects of a shared fate are swamped by the existing divisions and people become divided even on the shock issue,” said co-author Boleslaw Szymanski, a professor of computer science and director of the Army Research Laboratory Network Science and Technology Center (NeST) at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.  “If we reach that point, we cannot unite even in the face of war, climate change, pandemics, or other challenges to the survival of our society.”

The work builds on an earlier general model Szymanski developed to study the interactions of legislators in a two-party political system. Although the model isn’t specifically tuned to distinctive practices, customs, and rules of the U.S. Congress, it was trained using data, and previous research comparing model outcomes to 30 years of Congressional voting records demonstrated strong predictive power. In one finding from that work, the model accurately predicted the shift in polarization in 28 of 30 U.S. Congresses.

There Is No Common Conversation In The U.S. Today

strategic-culture |  COVID-19 is another revelation that there are two separate islands of opinion. Take, for example, the simple factual question – yes or no – did Dr Fauci’s organisation fund gain-of-function experiments in the Wuhan laboratory? A rather important matter, one would think. Snopes, that reliable defender of the status quo, says “unproven” in May in a long-winded piece. Denied by Fauci in May: “The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” Two Pinocchios said the WaPo. But finally admitted in October: “a top official at the National Institutes of Health has conceded that contrary to the repeated assertions of Dr. Anthony Fauci, the NIH did indeed fund highly dangerous gain-of-function research on bat-borne coronaviruses in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” And more: “The annual report described the group’s work from June 2017 to May 2018, which involved creating new viruses using different parts of existing bat coronaviruses and inserting them into humanized mice in a lab in Wuhan, China. The work was overseen by the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is headed by Anthony Fauci.” And so May’s conspiracy theory became October’s fact.

Did the virus leak from these US-funded experiments? No one knows but it cannot be ruled out. As to Dr Fauci himself, he may have overreached by telling his critics that he represents science; when even the WaPo carries a piece entitled “Fauci Can’t Use Science to Excuse His Missteps” perhaps his best-before date is nearing. Despite the prayer candles. In this respect, the fate of Robert Kennedy’s book, The Real Dr Fauci, is indicative; it’s Number One on Amazon with 96% five-star ratings. This is the more remarkable because of the full-scale attack on him from the establishment media: he is “the dumbest Kennedy“; “race-baiting ‘documentary’ and disinformation to advance bogus theories and seed anti-vaccine sentiment“; “documented history of promoting debunked theories about vaccines“; banned on social media. Tucker Carlson, in “a new escalation of his anti-science rhetoric”, had an interview “with longtime anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.” Nonetheless, a lot of people are buying and reading it. These media campaigns don’t work as well as they used to. Indeed the 29% who had no trust at all probably believe the reverse of what the conventional media says. I know I do: if they’re all shouting the sane thing, I take it as a powerful indicator that the opposite is true. We should read Western media the way the Soviets read theirs.

However, there are unrelenting attempts to create conspiracy theories that all Americans can agree on. For years we have had the conspiracy theory that Putin is behind everything bad; in its current manifestation he’s about to invade Ukraine (or as the US Defense Secretary put it: “an incursion by the Soviet Union into the Ukraine“). Another fast-growing set of conspiracy theories focus on China, the “Wuhan lab leak” being one example. (Dangerous that because of Fauci’s funding of GoF research in Wuhan). China is about to invade Taiwan or starving Uyghers are forced to stuff themselves with pork or tennis players are disappeared; these conspiracy theories are safer. One of the principal pushers of the first conspiracy theory is switching to the other: he senses the change in the party line. And there’s always North Korea where the rats eat the babies and the babies eat the rats.

The China conspiracy theory seems to be working – a survey by the Reagan Foundation found that 52% saw China as the “greatest threat” to the USA (Russia well behind at 14% and North Korea just behind it at 12%). Three years ago Russia was 30% to China’s 21%. More striking is that China has gained twenty points since February. Can the Putin-won-2016/Trump-won-2020 divide be bridged by a Chinadunnit conspiracy theory?

But agreeing on a common enemy is one thing, the internal divisions are something else. In this respect the Reagan Foundation survey cited above is indicative. It finds that disbelief is spreading rapidly in the American population: trust in all institutions is dropping; confidence in the US military is dropping; support for active global leadership is dropping. A survey just now shows a slight majority of American youth regarding their democracy as in trouble. Not the strongest foundation for more foreign adventures.

A deeply divided country: there is no common conversation in the United States today – one person’s conspiracy theory is another’s truth.

I'm Not Who They Say I Am....,

Fist Tap Dale

ecosophia  |  There’s a fond belief among the comfortable classes of our time, and for that matter every other time, that the future can be arranged in advance through reasonable discussions among reasonable people.  Popular though this notion is, it’s quite mistaken. What history shows, rather, is that the future is always born on the irrational fringes of society, bursting forth among outcasts, dreamers, saints, and fools.  It then sweeps inward from there, brushing aside the daydreams of those who thought they could make the world do as they pleased.

Consider the Roman Empire in the days of its power.  While its politicians and bureaucrats laid their plans and built their careers on the presupposition that their empire would endure for all imaginable time, a prisoner on a Mediterranean island—exiled for his membership in a despised religious cult—saw the empire racked with wars, famines, and plagues, ravaged by horsemen galloping out of the east, and finally conquered and fallen into ruin, to be followed by a thousand years of triumph for his faith.  We call him John of Patmos today, and his vision forms the last book of the New Testament. He was a figure of the uttermost fringe in his own era: isolated, powerless, and quite possibly crazy.  He was also right.

Thus it’s important to keep a close eye on the fringes of contemporary culture, the places where the future is being born out of the surging tides of unreason.  One of the things I watch most closely with this in mind is the burgeoning realm of contemporary conspiracy theories. Those reveal far more than the conventionally minded imagine, irrespective of their factual accuracy or lack of same.  As Alain de Botton commented of religions, whether conspiracy theories are true or not is far and away the least interesting question about them.

To begin with, the popularity of conspiracy theories is a sensitive measure of the degree to which people no longer trust the conventional wisdom of their time. That’s an explosive issue just now, and for good reason:  the conventional wisdom of our time is fatally out of step with the facts on the ground.  Look across the whole range of acceptable views presented by qualified pundits, and by and large you’ll find that a randomly chosen fortune cookie will give you better guidance. The debacle in Afghanistan is only one reminder of the extent that a popular joke about economics—“What do you call an economist who makes a prediction?  Wrong.”—can be applied with equal force to most of the experts whose notions guide industrial societies.

What makes the astounding incompetence of today’s expert opinions so toxic is that nobody in the corporate media, and next to nobody in the political sphere, is willing to talk about it.  No matter how disastrous the consequences turn out to be—no matter how often the economic policies that were supposed to yield prosperity result in poverty and misery, no matter how often programs meant to improve the schools make them worse, no matter how many drugs released on the market as safe and effective turn out to be neither, and so on at great length—one rule remains sacrosanct:  no one outside the managerial class is supposed to question the validity of the next round of expert-approved policies, no matter how obviously doomed to fail they are.

Gregory Bateson, in a fascinating series of articles collected in his book Steps to an Ecology of Mind, discussed the way that schizophrenia is created by this kind of suppression of the obvious in a family setting. Insist to a child from infancy onward that something is true that the child can see is obviously not true, punish the child savagely every time it tries to bring up the contradiction, and there’s a fair chance the child will grow up to be schizophrenic. Conspiracy theories in society are the collective equivalent of schizophrenia in the individual, and they have the same cause: the systematic gaslighting of individuals who know that they are being lied to.

Bateson’s analysis goes further than this. He noticed that, bizarre as schizophrenic delusions can be, they always contain a solid core of truth expressed in exaggerated and metaphoric language. Look into the family situation, Bateson suggests, and you can decode the metaphors. Here’s a patient who claims that he’s Jesus Christ.  Observation of the family reveals one of those wretched family dramas, as dysfunctional as it is endlessly repeated, in which the patient was assigned an ill-fitting role from birth. What the patient is saying, in his exaggerated and metaphoric way, is quite accurate: “I’m not who they say I am.”

 

 

If The Jabs Are Safe And Effective - Why Are Their Manufacturers Shielded By Liability Waivers?

CTH  |  Many people have asked: how is the best way to stop the insanity behind the incessant vaccine narrative?  The likely best approach is to start demanding the pharmaceutical companies have their liability waivers removed.

If the vaccine is safe and effective, why would the U.S. government still need to provide liability waivers from adverse vaccine outcomes?

Start pressuring legislators and elected officials to force the elimination of the waivers.  Alinsky them… Make them live up to their own narrative; their own words, their own rules.  If the vaccines are safe/effective, why do we need the waivers?    If you want to get more people vaccinated, drop the waiver moving forward.

Eliminate those liability waivers and watch how fast every vaccine mandate is dropped, while every voice demanding vaccination goes quiet.

Only A Softhead Could Pretend Jacobson Vs Massachusetts Made The Mandate Constitutional

 

Twitter is designed in a way to mislead and distort objective reality.

This headline based on one Bloomberg opinion piece was trending on Twitter for literally *weeks*, leading many people to believe that the vaccine mandates were perfectly constitutional.

Wrong. https://t.co/xLNJ3BssWE pic.twitter.com/sAejFzgAjz

— Rav Arora (@Ravarora1) November 13, 2021

Civil War Bubbling In The Witches Brew Of Unprecedented Corporate Profits

taibbi |  Compared with how often you heard pundits rage about the “insurrection,” how regularly did you hear that billionaire wealth has risen 70% or $2.1 trillion since the pandemic began? How much did you hear about last year’s accelerated payments to defense contractors, who immediately poured the “rescue” cash into a buyback orgy, or about the record underwriting revenues for banks in 2020, or the “embarrassment of profits” for health carriers in the same year, or the huge rises in revenue for pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, all during a period of massive net job losses? The economic news at the top hasn’t just been good, it’s been record-setting good, during a time of severe cultural crisis.

Twenty or thirty years ago, the Big Lie was usually a patriotic fairy tale designed to cast America in a glow of beneficence. Nurtured in think-tanks, stumped by politicians, and amplified by Hollywood producers and media talking heads, these whoppers were everywhere: America would have won in Vietnam if not for the media, poverty didn’t exist (or at least, wasn’t shown on television), only the Soviets cuddled with dictators or toppled legitimate governments, etc. The concept wasn’t hard to understand: leaders were promoting unifying myths to keep the population satiated, dumb, and focused on their primary roles as workers and shoppers.

In the Trump era, all this has been turned upside down. There’s actually more depraved, dishonest propaganda than before, but the new legends are explicitly anti-unifying and anti-patriotic. The people who run this country seem less invested than ever in maintaining anything like social cohesion, maybe because they mostly live in wealth archipelagoes that might as well be separate nations (if they even live in America at all).

All sense of noblesse oblige is gone. The logic of our kleptocratic economy has gone beyond even the “Greed is Good” mantra of the fictional Gordon Gekko, who preached that pure self-interest would make America more efficient, better-run, less corrupt. Even on Wall Street, nobody believes that anymore. America is a sinking ship, and its CEO class is trying to salvage the wreck in advance, extracting every last dime before Battlefield Earth breaks out.

It’s only in this context that these endless cycles of hyper-divisive propaganda make sense. It’s time to start wondering if maybe it’s not a coincidence that politicians and pundits alike are pushing us closer and closer to actual civil war at exactly the moment when corporate wealth extraction is reaching its highest-ever levels of efficiency.

Brandon's NeoVaccinoid Mandate Is The Cutting Edge Of Corporate Governmentalization

mises |  Under the Great Reset governance model, states and favored corporations form “public-private partnerships” in control of governance. The configuration yields a corporate-state hybrid largely unaccountable to the constituents of national governments.

The cozy relationship between multinational corporations and governments has even aroused the scorn of a few left-leaning critics. They note that the governance model of the WEF represents at least the partial privatization of the UN’s Agenda 2030, with the WEF bringing corporate partners, money, and supposed expertise on the 4-IR to the table. And the WEF’s governance model extends well beyond the UN, affecting the constitution and behavior of governments worldwide. This usurpation has led political scientist Ivan Wecke to call the WEF’s governmental redesign of the world system “a corporate takeover of global governance.”8

This is true, but the obverse is also the case. The WEF model also represents the governmentalization of private industry. Under Schwab’s “stakeholder capitalism” and the multistakeholder governance model, governance is not only increasingly privatized, but also and more importantly, corporations are deputized as major additions to governments and intergovernmental bodies. The state is thereby extended, enhanced, and augmented by the addition of enormous corporate assets. These include funding directed at “sustainable development” to the exclusion of the noncompliant, as well as the use of Big Data, artificial intelligence, and 5G to monitor and control citizens. In the case of the covid vaccine regime, the state grants Big Pharma monopoly protection and indemnity from liability in exchange for a vehicle by which to expand its powers of coercion. As such, corporate stakeholders become what I have called “governmentalities”—otherwise “private” organizations wielded as state apparatuses, with no obligation to answer to pesky constituents.9 Since these corporations are multinational, the state essentially becomes global, whether or not a “one-world government” is ever formalized.

In Google Archipelago, I argued that leftist authoritarianism is the political ideology and modus operandi of what I call Big Digital, and that Big Digital is the leading edge of an emerging world system. Big Digital is the communications, ideological, and technological arm of an emerging corporate socialism. The Great Reset is the name that has since been given to the project of establishing this world system.

Just as Klaus Schwab and the WEF hoped, the covid crisis has accelerated the development of the Great Reset’s corporate-socialist statism. Developments advancing the Great Reset agenda include the Federal Reserve’s unrestrained printing of money, the subsequent inflation, the increasing taxation on everything imaginable, the increased dependence on the state, the supply chain crisis, the restrictions and job losses due to vaccine mandates, and the prospect of personal carbon allowances.10 Altogether, these and other such policies constitute a coordinated attack on the majority. Ironically, they also represent the “fairness” aspect of the Great Reset—if we properly understand fairness to mean leveling the economic status of the "average American" with those in less “privileged” regions. And this is one of the functions of woke ideology11—to make the majority in developed countries feel unworthy of their “privileged” lifestyles and consumption patterns, which the elite are in the process of resetting to a reduced and static new normal.

The "Masters" Have Redefined The Meaning Of The Word Vaccine

technofog |   The CDC caused an uproar in early September 2021, after it changed its definitions of “vaccination” and “vaccine.” For years, the CDC had set definitions for vaccination/vaccine that discussed immunity. This all changed on September 1, 2021.

The prior CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination (August 26, 2021):

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

The CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination since September 1, 2021:

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

People noticed. Representative Thomas Massie was among the first to discuss the change, noting the definition went from “immunity” to “protection”.

Check out @CDCgov’s evolving definition of “vaccination.” They’ve been busy at the Ministry of Truth: pic.twitter.com/4k2xf8rvsL

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) September 8, 2021

 

To many observers, it appeared the CDC changed the definitions because of the waning effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines. For example, the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine falls over time, with an Israeli study reported in August 2021 as showing the vaccine being “only 16% effective against symptomatic infection for those individuals who had two doses of the shot back in January.”  The CDC recognizes the waning effectiveness, thus explaining their promotion of booster shots.

Of course, the usual suspects defended the CDC. The Washington Post, for example, cast doubt that the CDC changed the definition because of issues with the COVID-19 vaccines. The CDC tried to downplay the change, stating “slight changes in wording over time … haven’t impacted the overall definition.”

Internal CDC E-Mails

CDC emails we obtained via the Freedom of Information Act reveal CDC worries with how the performance of the COVID-19 vaccines didn’t match the CDC’s own definition of “vaccine”/“vaccination”. The CDC’s Ministry of Truth went hard at work in the face of legitimate public questions on this issue.

In one August 2021 e-mail, a CDC employee cited to complaints that “Right-wing covid-19 deniers are using your ‘vaccine’ definition to argue that mRNA vaccines are not vaccines…”

 

America Has Lost The Covid Plot: Yet These mRNA Jabs And Jab Passports Keep Rolling Along....,

theatlantic |  We know how this ends: The coronavirus becomes endemic, and we live with it forever. But what we don’t know—and what the U.S. seems to have no coherent plan for—is how we are supposed to get there. We’ve avoided the hard questions whose answers will determine what life looks like in the next weeks, months, and years: How do we manage the transition to endemicity? When are restrictions lifted? And what long-term measures do we keep, if any, when we reach endemicity?

The answers were simpler when we thought we could vaccinate our way to herd immunity. But vaccinations in the U.S. have plateaued. The Delta variant and waning immunity against transmission mean herd immunity may well be impossible even if every single American gets a shot. So when COVID-related restrictions came back with the Delta wave, we no longer had an obvious off-ramp to return to normal—are we still trying to get a certain percentage of people vaccinated? Or are we waiting until all kids are eligible? Or for hospitalizations to fall and stay steady? The path ahead is not just unclear; it’s nonexistent. We are meandering around the woods because we don’t know where to go.

What is clear, however, is that case numbers, the metric that has guided much of our pandemic thinking and still underlies CDC’s indoor-masking recommendation for vaccinated people, are becoming less and less useful. Even when we reach endemicity—when nearly everyone has baseline immunity from either infection or vaccination—the U.S. could be facing tens of millions of infections from the coronavirus every year, thanks to waning immunity and viral evolution. (For context, the flu, which is also endemic, sickens roughly 10 to 40 million Americans a year.) But with vaccines available, not every case of COVID-19 is created equal. Breakthrough cases are largely mild; 10,000 of them will cause only a fraction of the hospitalizations and deaths of 10,000 COVID cases in the unvaccinated. The more highly vaccinated a community is, the less tethered case numbers are to the reality of the virus’s impact.

So if not cases, then what? “We need to come to some sort of agreement as to what it is we're trying to prevent,” says Céline Gounder, an infectious-disease expert at New York University. “Are we trying to prevent hospitalization? Are we trying to prevent death? Are we trying to prevent transmission?” Different goals would require prioritizing different strategies. The booster-shot rollout has been roiled with confusion for this precise reason: The goal kept shifting. First, the Biden administration floated boosters for everyone to combat breakthroughs, then a CDC advisory panel restricted them to the elderly and immunocompromised most at risk for hospitalizations, then the CDC director overruled the panel to include people with jobs that put them at risk of infection.

On the ground, the U.S. is now running an uncontrolled experiment with every strategy all at once. COVID-19 policies differ wildly by state, county, university, workplace, and school district. And because of polarization, they have also settled into the most illogical pattern possible: The least vaccinated communities have some of the laxest restrictions, while highly vaccinated communities—which is to say those most protected from COVID-19—tend to have some of the most aggressive measures aimed at driving down cases. “We’re sleepwalking into policy because we’re not setting goals,” says Joseph Allen, a Harvard professor of public health. We will never get the risk of COVID-19 down to absolute zero, and we need to define a level of risk we can live with.

---

VAERS Is Supposedly Used By Public Health Officials To Detect Signals

The signals began ringing loudly in December 2020, when first covid shots were administered, and quickly became deafening. They were that loud, and the extraordinary magnitude of them has been and continues to be ignored by our government at all levels in Washington DC, all levels!

Senators this week demonstrated that they could put the heat on, witness AG Merrick Garland — when they want to take something seriously.

However, despite the Loudon rape fiascos, which senators used to slap Garland around with, Garland the Magnificent remains in office. And his order to FBI to treat parents complaining about public school corruption remain “domestic terrorists” remains in place far as I know.

Save for Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, none of them have lifted a finger, while thousands and tens of thousands dead, permanently disabled, maimed, injured, blinded, cancers that were in remission came back, ditto herpes, thousands of miscarriages and who knows how many thousands of women now permanently sterilized? from these poisons sold as preventive medicine. Among many, many other injuries. And hospitals across the land fire skilled medical staff for saying anything about this grotesque bestiality. These are not hospitals; they are charnel houses!

What are these shots actually preventing, —- if 85% of those dead after covid shot got the disease anyways?

Below is data indicating how out of control the covid shot injuries are, which also indicates the moral turpitude of Congress, Biden, and his men [and Trump’s advocacy of “warp speed” vax], et al.

Note what happens in Dec. 2020.

all adverse events reported to VAERS
Dec., 2019 3,455
Jan., 2020 3,082
Feb., 2020 2,986
Mar., 2020 2,232
Apr., 2020 2,022
May, 2020 1,946
Jun., 2020 1,844
Jul., 2020 2,186
Aug., 2020 2,961
Sep., 2020 4,576
Oct., 2020 6,265
Nov., 2020 4,510
Dec., 2020 15,594
Jan., 2021 70,266
Feb., 2021 57,719
Mar., 2021 78,168
Apr., 2021 105,689
May, 2021 63,606
Jun., 2021 44,649
Jul., 2021 36,000
Aug., 2021 103,533
Sep., 2021 49,428

after covid shot-only reports to VAERS
Dec., 2020 10,891
Jan., 2021 66,581
Feb., 2021 54,550
Mar., 2021 74,461
Apr., 2021 102,189
May, 2021 61,113
Jun., 2021 42,374
Jul., 2021 33,564
Aug., 2021 100,718
Sep., 2021 47,158
Oct., 2021 29,144
Total 622,743

In the 11 months preceding covid shot rollout, Jan — Nov 2020,
34,701 adverse events reported to VAERS — for ALL vaccines combined.

In the 11 months since, Dec 2020 to Oct 2021,
622,743 adverse events for covid-only shots

Nearly 17 times more, or 1,685% more.

This is what vaccine failure looks like.

This is what government failure looks like.

Had the CDC and US Food and Drug Administration been serious about adverse events and in particular, the percentage of those either having covid or not, they would have done something to ensure that there would be data on this, for each and every VAERS report submitted.

In particular, regarding VAERS reports in which death occurs after covid shots.

While 100% data on this may seem like pie in the sky, the least we should expect is what Pfizer and Moderna claimed was 95% Vaccine Effectiveness VE. Which as we now know was base, rank, propaganda and deception, at best.

Irrespective of the fact that the actual VE of these poisons tends toward zero, one can at the very least expect that the percentage of VAERS reports on who did and did not test positive for this disease should have at a minimum been ~ 43%.

43% is the CDC estimated VE, from average of previous decade’s [through 2019/2020 flu season], of influenza shots.

Instead, only 16.42% is actually reported in VAERS data bank. That’s bad, that’s really unconscionably bad.

VAERS data shows that of all the after covid shot deaths,
2.54 % reported “SARS-COV-2 TEST NEGATIVE”
13.88% reported “SARS-COV-2 TEST POSITIVE”

Where are the other 83.58% ???

Thus, only 16.42% of this essential data is actually, as of Oct. 29 data, known via VAERS.

Assuming these proportions are at least in the ball park, this means
~85% of after covid shot deaths tested positive
~15% tested negative.
[13.88/16.42 = 84.531, or 85% rounding; 100-84.531 = ~15%]

8,086 deaths after covid shot reported to VAERS x 21X = ~165,000 actual deaths.

165,000 x 0.85 = ~144,211 died with positive test
165,000 x 0.15 = 21,631 died with negative test.

Total = ~ 165,842

Rose says that these deaths are caused by covid shots.

The Vaccine And The Virus Were Made By The Same People

vanityfair  | The disclosures of the last four months—since Vanity Fair was first to detail how conflicts of interest resulting from U.S. government funding of controversial virology research hampered America’s investigation into COVID-19’s origins—present an increasingly disturbing picture.

Early last month, The Intercept published more than 900 pages of documents it obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the NIH, relating to EcoHealth Alliance’s grant research. But there was one document missing, a fifth and final progress report that EcoHealth Alliance had been required to submit at the end of its grant period in 2019.

In its letter Wednesday, NIH included that missing progress report, which was dated August 2021. That report described a “limited experiment,” as the NIH letter phrased it, in which laboratory mice infected with an altered virus became “sicker than those infected with” a naturally occurring one.

The letter did not mention the phrase “gain-of-function research” that has become so central to the bitter clashes over COVID-19’s origins. That type of controversial research—the manipulation of pathogens with the aim of making them more infectious in order to gauge their risk to humans—has divided the virology community. A review system established in 2017 requires federal agencies to particularly scrutinize any research proposals that involve enhancing a pathogen’s infectiousness to humans.

Dr. Fauci’s spokesperson told Vanity Fair that EcoHealth Alliance’s research did not fall under that framework, since the experiments being funded “were not reasonably expected to increase transmissibility or virulence in humans.”

However, Alina Chan, a Boston-based scientist and coauthor of the book Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19, said the NIH was in a “very challenging position. They funded research internationally to help study novel pathogens and prevent against them. But they had no way to know what viruses had been collected, what experiments had been conducted, and what accidents might have occurred.”

As scientists remain in a stalemate over the pandemic’s origins, another disclosure last month made clear that EcoHealth Alliance, in partnership with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was aiming to do the kind of research that could accidentally have led to the pandemic. On September 20, a group of internet sleuths calling themselves DRASTIC (short for Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19) released a leaked $14 million grant proposal that EcoHealth Alliance had submitted in 2018 to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

It proposed partnering with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and constructing SARS-related bat coronaviruses into which they would insert “human-specific cleavage sites” as a way to “evaluate growth potential” of the pathogens. Perhaps not surprisingly, DARPA rejected the proposal, assessing that it failed to fully address the risks of gain-of-function research.

The leaked grant proposal struck a number of scientists and researchers as significant for one reason. One distinctive segment of SARS-CoV-2’s genetic code is a furin cleavage site that makes the virus more infectious by allowing it to efficiently enter human cells. That is just the feature that EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology had proposed to engineer in the 2018 grant proposal. “If I applied for funding to paint Central Park purple and was denied, but then a year later we woke up to find Central Park painted purple, I’d be a prime suspect,” said Jamie Metzl, a former executive vice president of the Asia Society, who sits on the World Health Organization’s advisory committee on human genome editing and has been calling for a transparent investigation into COVID-19’s origins.

Physicians - Why Must 100% Of The Populace Get Jabbed?

americanthinker  |  Lately, it has been all about getting 100% of the population jabbed.  For what reason?  I am not sure, and some of the more detailed and investigated theories scare me.  I shudder to think.  But last year’s heroes are being labeled selfish and villainous for not getting the vaccine.  Hospital systems have abandoned their community’s health and ignored early successful outpatient treatment in favor of huge government subsidies for inpatient and ICU treatment.  The success of these treatments was not great, but that is another article.  Now we have the same hospital systems turning their backs on their own employees.  Basically, health providers have a choice, get shot, or get fired.  How does that help?  Both vaxxed and unvaxxed can spread the virus, so it doesn’t help anyone.  It only helps the hospital to get more government money by meeting quotas.

 I, for one, will remember that when we faced a real crisis, the hospitals and many physicians chose money and profit over their own community’s best interest.  Perhaps it is time for groups of physicians to get back to running their own healthcare clinics and hospitals.  We used to have a code of ethics.  We used to put patients first.  Not anymore.

As for physicians, those who are blindly following the government edicts are culpable in a moral atrocity.  Bullying and deriding patients who chose to refrain from this still experimental therapy is an abomination.  (You will say it isn’t experimental anymore, to which I would say that just because the government broke its own rules regarding approval, doesn’t make it legal or right).  Patients have sincere beliefs for making their choice.  Respect their thoughts.  Do you yell as much at smokers, drinkers, fornicators, drug abusers, etc?  No, I think not. I think you chose to fit in because it gives you a sense of righteousness.

And going so far as to encourage vaccination in children and pregnant women is crazy.  There is blood on the hands of any physician who does this.  With children, there is no benefit to the vaccine, only harm.  They would serve themselves and society better with natural immunity.  The vaccine hasn’t been studied on women and their babies.  It is pregnancy category X (unknown) but being pushed wholesale on these poor women without proper studies.  Shame on you, doctors who are doing this.  I certainly have lots to answer for when I meet my maker, but this is on another level.

I beg physicians to get back to basics, remember all the epidemiology and immunology that bored us to tears in school.  Investigate the real literature and take a stand.  Society needs us to do this.  Even if you have been vaccinated, help those who are fighting for their lives.  Stand up against this forced vaccine tyranny.  Support those who have legitimate reasons for declining the jab. If you don’t stand up now, who will stand up for you when you are faced with your choice of yet another booster or your job.

Congress: Ivermectin For ME - DEATH - FOR THEE!!!

CTH  |  According to Dr Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, and verified by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), 100 to 200 congressional reps and/or staff and families who contracted COVID-19 were treated with the Front Line Ivermectin protocol.

Fun fact: Between 100-200 United States Congress Members (plus many of their staffers & family members) with COVID.. were treated by a colleague over the past 15 months with ivermectin & the I-MASK+ protocol at https://t.co/OvU8SLfLJq. None have gone to hospital. Just sayin'

— Pierre Kory, MD MPA (@PierreKory) October 8, 2021

This successful treatment is happening at the same time many congressional representatives are playing politics in favor of the vaccine; downplaying the effective anti-viral treatment and therapeutic approach with Ivermectin; and taking action to block regular American citizens from seeking similar treatment with Ivermectin.

Congress can seek treatment with a medication they simultaneously deny to others?  This is well beyond a “scandal”, and needs to be investigated quickly.

Friends, we would not have tweeted something of this magnitude and importance without knowing for certain that it was true, and that the source was unassailable. https://t.co/V7XUZkqLOt

— Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care (@Covid19Critical) October 8, 2021

Additionally, as Merck has announced a new and similar anti-viral drug called Molnupiravir, two trial studies in India have requested to exit the trials.  Apparently the issue surrounds the new drug providing no benefit once a patient is moderately ill and hospitalized (READ MORE, Reuters Link).

 

NIH/NIAID Blatantly Lying - Pretending It Just Now Figured Out Aerosol Transmission

NYTimes | Newer variants of the coronavirus like Alpha and Delta are highly contagious, infecting far more people than the original virus. Two new studies offer a possible explanation: The virus is evolving to spread more efficiently through air.

The realization that the coronavirus is airborne indoors transformed efforts to contain the pandemic last year, igniting fiery debates about masks, social distancing and ventilation in public spaces.

Most researchers now agree that the coronavirus is mostly transmitted through large droplets that quickly sink to the floor and through much smaller ones, called aerosols, that can float over longer distances indoors and settle directly into the lungs, where the virus is most harmful.

The new studies don’t fundamentally change that view. But the findings signal the need for better masks in some situations, and indicate that the virus is changing in ways that make it more formidable.

“This is not an Armageddon scenario,” said Vincent Munster, a virologist at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who led one of the new studies. “It is like a modification of the virus to more efficient transmission, which is something I think we all kind of expected, and we now see it happening in real time.”

Dr. Munster’s team showed that small aerosols traveled much longer distances than larger droplets and the Alpha variant was much more likely to cause new infections via aerosol transmission. The second study found that people infected with Alpha exhaled about 43 times more virus into tiny aerosols than those infected with older variants.

The studies compared the Alpha variant with the original virus or other older variants. But the results may also explain why the Delta variant is so contagious — and why it displaced all other versions of the virus.

“It really indicates that the virus is evolving to become more efficient at transmitting through the air,” said Linsey Marr, an expert in airborne viruses at Virginia Tech who was not involved in either study. “I wouldn’t be surprised if, with Delta, that factor were even higher.”

No Malignant Gerontocrat Holds A Candle To The Reptilian Supreme Lil'Fauci

cnbc |  EISEN: Dr. Fauci, you guys have been pushing the vaccine and I obviously understand why. I’m vaccinated but I also have COVID and it spread through my entire family in the past few weeks. That’s why I’m doing the show from home today and I just wonder about the public messaging around vaccinations. Three vaccinated people got COVID in my house, two unvaccinated children got it. Are you too casual about the limitations of the vaccine because it does feel to me that these breakthroughs are happening, they’re happening regularly, and we haven’t really seen the government pay that much attention to them or warn about them too much. The bottom line is we were still able to get it and transmit it. Thank god we’re not in the hospital, I get it, I’m vaccinated, but you can get it and transmit it and the government hasn’t been warning about that.

FAUCI: Oh yes I am, we have. And we’ve said that and let me just give you the science and the facts. If you are an unvaccinated person, you have five times the likelihood of getting infected, 11 times the likelihood of being hospitalized and 11 times the likelihood of dying, compared to someone who’s been vaccinated. So, the data showing the benefit of vaccines is incontrovertible. If you look at the people who have died from COVID-19, overwhelmingly 90 plus percent of them are unvaccinated. Vaccination protects you against severe disease and even when you get breakthrough infections because remember no vaccine is 100%, protected, but what we do know is that if you get vaccinated and get a breakthrough infection, you are much less likely of getting a severe outcome. It is much more likely that you in fact would either be without symptoms or be mildly symptomatic so you should not confuse the very important data that we now have a drug that can diminish hospitalization and death by 50%. You should not confuse that with the overwhelming benefits of the protection of vaccines. Those should not be confused.

"If you look at the people who have died from COVID-19, overwhelmingly 90% of them are unvaccinated," says Dr. Fauci. "If you get vaccinated and get a break through infection, you are much less likely of having a severe outcome and much more likely you would be without symptoms." pic.twitter.com/gEFsIjTNWj

— CNBC's Closing Bell (@CNBCClosingBell) October 1, 2021

EISEN: 100%. But it says on the CDC website, Dr. Fauci, that infections happen in only a small proportion of people who are fully vaccinated and when these infections occur among the vaccinated, they tend to be mild, but the CDC doesn’t even track the breakthrough infections. So how do we know that they’re happening to a small proportion and how do we know that they are tending to be mild? It’s not a question of whether hospitalizations and death, we know that benefit, it’s just public messaging and being transparent about the risk for vaccinated people.

FAUCI: Well, in the past, the CDC has not, you’re quite correct, tracked all real and potential asymptomatic infections. They are modifying that right now in the studies that are being done that would give the kind of information that you’re talking about. Also, it’s very important to know that with the booster rollout that we’ve been talking about, we are anticipating that we will get an extra added boost in the sense of clinical effect. The Israelis themselves are now showing very, very clearly, that when you give a person who’s received two doses of an mRNA in this case, Pfizer, when you give that person a boost, you dramatically diminish the infection, you dramatically diminish the likelihood of getting a severe outcome, and importantly, there are early data that are now showing that you actually begin to show a diminution in the transmission itself. So, in answer to your very appropriate question about if you get vaccinated and you get infected, is there less of a chance that you will be transmitting it to someone who is unvaccinated or someone who is vulnerable, the chances of doing that are diminished by being vaccinated and even further diminished, according to preliminary data we’ll wait to see the real fundamental core of the data, but it looks like that extra added of protection from a boost will be very valuable. Again, we’re talking about data that’s being rolled out in real time and that’s why when I’m using terminology that we’re having strong suggestions, we want to wait until we get a lot of data to be able to say that with a degree of confidence.

Of Course The Voice Of Youtube Community Guidelines Is A Nasally Effeminate Soy Boy

youtube |  Crafting policy around medical misinformation comes charged with inherent challenges and tradeoffs. Scientific understanding evolves as new research emerges, and firsthand, personal experience regularly plays a powerful role in online discourse. Vaccines in particular have been a source of fierce debate over the years, despite consistent guidance from health authorities about their effectiveness. Today, we're expanding our medical misinformation policies on YouTube with new guidelines on currently administered vaccines that are approved and confirmed to be safe and effective by local health authorities and the WHO.

Our Community Guidelines already prohibit certain types of medical misinformation. We've long removed content that promotes harmful remedies, such as saying drinking turpentine can cure diseases. At the onset of COVID-19, we built on these policies when the pandemic hit, and worked with experts to develop 10 new policies around COVID-19 and medical misinformation. Since last year, we’ve removed over 130,000 videos for violating our COVID-19 vaccine policies.

Throughout this work, we learned important lessons about how to design and enforce nuanced medical misinformation policies at scale. Working closely with health authorities, we looked to balance our commitment to an open platform with the need to remove egregious harmful content. We’ve steadily seen false claims about the coronavirus vaccines spill over into misinformation about vaccines in general, and we're now at a point where it's more important than ever to expand the work we started with COVID-19 to other vaccines. 

Specifically, content that falsely alleges that approved vaccines are dangerous and cause chronic health effects, claims that vaccines do not reduce transmission or contraction of disease, or contains misinformation on the substances contained in vaccines will be removed. This would include content that falsely says that approved vaccines cause autism, cancer or infertility, or that substances in vaccines can track those who receive them. Our policies not only cover specific routine immunizations like for measles or Hepatitis B, but also apply to general statements about vaccines.

As with our COVID guidelines, we consulted with local and international health organizations and experts in developing these policies. For example, our new guidance on vaccine side effects maps to public vaccine resources provided by health authorities and backed by medical consensus. These policy changes will go into effect today, and as with any significant update, it will take time for our systems to fully ramp up enforcement.

 

Who Believes Preznit Cornpop's Getting A Real Shot Of Mr.NA On This Fake Stage?

ipsos |   Americans’ trust in President Joe Biden to provide them with accurate information on COVID-19 is on the decline, according to the latest Axios/Ipsos Coronavirus Index. Fewer than half now say they trust the president, a 13-percentage point decline from his high water mark right after his inauguration in January. This week’s poll also shows Americans generally perceive less risk in going out – on a plane, to restaurants, or to see friends, in particular – than they did two weeks ago. Finally, after last week’s announcement that the Pfizer vaccine works for children aged 5-11, parents of children in this age group are split on whether they will get their kids vaccinated once eligible.

Detailed findings:

1. Trust in various people and institutions – namely President Biden, the federal government, and the news media – to provide accurate information about COVID-19 drops slightly.

• Fewer than half (45%) now trust President Biden to provide accurate information about coronavirus, down significantly from when he took office in January (58%).
• Compared to the January high point, Biden has lost trust relatively evenly across the board from Democrats (an 11-percentage point decline to 81% trust a great deal or fair amount) and Republicans (a 10-point decline to 11%). He has experienced a slightly larger decline among independents (a 17-point decline to 42%).
• The number who trust in the federal government to relay accurate information has also declined to just under half (49%), compared to 54% two weeks ago. 

  No way Soviet propaganda was this bad pic.twitter.com/u9Z0z8yCTp

  — crypto lefty🌹 (@leftyinvests) September 28, 2021

2. Compared to the past month, fewer Americans see going out as presenting a large risk to their health. However, this change in their risk calculation has not translated to significant behavioral change.

• Just over one in ten believe attending in-person gatherings with friends and family (13%) or dining in at a restaurant (12%) poses a large risk to their health, a decrease of five percentage points from two weeks ago when 18% and 17%, respectively, saw these activities as very risky.
• Currently, a quarter (27%) think traveling on an airplane or mass transit is a large risk to their health, compared to 35% two weeks ago.
• With Halloween on the horizon, fewer Americans now think allowing trick-or-treating in their community poses a large risk to their health (13% this year, 25% last year).
• In terms of actual behaviors over the past few weeks, though slightly more report going out to eat this week, all other reported behaviors (seeing friends, social distancing, visiting retail stores, etc.) remain steady.

3. Just after the announcement of the Pfizer vaccine’s efficacy for children 5-11, parents of children in that age group are split over whether to get their kids vaccinated once eligible.

• Parents with children aged 5-11 are split on whether they will vaccinate their kids when eligible. 44% say they are likely to do so, while 42% are unlikely. This poll was conducted in the immediate days following the announcement that the vaccine works for children in this age group.
• Overall, about three in five (57%) parents of children under 18 say they are likely to vaccinate or have vaccinated their children.
• Looking at the impact of COVID on schools, compared to last summer, parents now perceive a smaller risk in sending their kids to school. Only 19% of parents think sending their kids to school poses a large risk, down from 32% last August.
• Around one in eight Americans (13%) say their local school district has closed schools in the past week due to a COVID-19 outbreak.

Wait..., WHAT?!?!?!