Sunday, October 03, 2021

GOD Must Be Small In Size And Permanent In Time

wikipedia |  In chapter I, Schrödinger explains that most physical laws on a large scale are due to chaos on a small scale. He calls this principle "order-from-disorder." As an example he mentions diffusion, which can be modeled as a highly ordered process, but which is caused by random movement of atoms or molecules. If the number of atoms is reduced, the behaviour of a system becomes more and more random. He states that life greatly depends on order and that a naïve physicist may assume that the master code of a living organism has to consist of a large number of atoms.

In chapter II and III, he summarizes what was known at this time about the hereditary mechanism. Most importantly, he elaborates the important role mutations play in evolution. He concludes that the carrier of hereditary information has to be both small in size and permanent in time, contradicting the naïve physicist's expectation. This contradiction cannot be resolved by classical physics.

In chapter IV, Schrödinger presents molecules, which are indeed stable even if they consist of only a few atoms, as the solution. Even though molecules were known before, their stability could not be explained by classical physics, but is due to the discrete nature of quantum mechanics. Furthermore, mutations are directly linked to quantum leaps.

He continues to explain, in chapter V, that true solids, which are also permanent, are crystals. The stability of molecules and crystals is due to the same principles and a molecule might be called "the germ of a solid." On the other hand, an amorphous solid, without crystalline structure, should be regarded as a liquid with a very high viscosity. Schrödinger believes the heredity material to be a molecule, which unlike a crystal does not repeat itself. He calls this an aperiodic crystal. Its aperiodic nature allows it to encode an almost infinite number of possibilities with a small number of atoms. He finally compares this picture with the known facts and finds it in accordance with them.

In chapter VI Schrödinger states:

...living matter, while not eluding the "laws of physics" as established up to date, is likely to involve "other laws of physics" hitherto unknown, which however, once they have been revealed, will form just as integral a part of science as the former.

He knows that this statement is open to misconception and tries to clarify it. The main principle involved with "order-from-disorder" is the second law of thermodynamics, according to which entropy only increases in a closed system (such as the universe). Schrödinger explains that living matter evades the decay to thermodynamical equilibrium by homeostatically maintaining negative entropy in an open system.

In chapter VII, he maintains that "order-from-order" is not absolutely new to physics; in fact, it is even simpler and more plausible. But nature follows "order-from-disorder", with some exceptions as the movement of the celestial bodies and the behaviour of mechanical devices such as clocks. But even those are influenced by thermal and frictional forces. The degree to which a system functions mechanically or statistically depends on the temperature. If heated, a clock ceases to function, because it melts. Conversely, if the temperature approaches absolute zero, any system behaves more and more mechanically. Some systems approach this mechanical behaviour rather fast with room temperature already being practically equivalent to absolute zero.

Schrödinger concludes this chapter and the book with philosophical speculations on determinism, free will, and the mystery of human consciousness. He attempts to "see whether we cannot draw the correct non-contradictory conclusion from the following two premises: (1) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to Laws of Nature; and (2) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take full responsibility for them. The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, that I – I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, every conscious mind that has ever said or felt 'I' – am the person, if any, who controls the 'motion of the atoms' according to the Laws of Nature". Schrödinger then states that this insight is not new and that Upanishads considered this insight of "ATHMAN = BRAHMAN" to "represent quintessence of deepest insights into the happenings of the world." Schrödinger rejects the idea that the source of consciousness should perish with the body because he finds the idea "distasteful". He also rejects the idea that there are multiple immortal souls that can exist without the body because he believes that consciousness is nevertheless highly dependent on the body. Schrödinger writes that, to reconcile the two premises,

The only possible alternative is simply to keep to the immediate experience that consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown; that there is only one thing and that what seems to be a plurality is merely a series of different aspects of this one thing…

Any intuitions that consciousness is plural, he says, are illusions. Schrödinger is sympathetic to the Hindu concept of Brahman, by which each individual's consciousness is only a manifestation of a unitary consciousness pervading the universe — which corresponds to the Hindu concept of God. Schrödinger concludes that "...'I' am the person, if any, who controls the 'motion of the atoms' according to the Laws of Nature." However, he also qualifies the conclusion as "necessarily subjective" in its "philosophical implications". In the final paragraph, he points out that what is meant by "I" is not the collection of experienced events but "namely the canvas upon which they are collected." If a hypnotist succeeds in blotting out all earlier reminiscences, he writes, there would be no loss of personal existence — "Nor will there ever be."[8]

Saturday, October 02, 2021

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.

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.

Feinstein And Pelosi Older, More Evil, And More Demented Than Cornpop...,

Forbes |  President Joe Biden didn’t just announce a Covid-19 vaccine mandate on companies employing 100 or more people, he plans to enforce it.

On Saturday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House quietly tucked an enforcement mechanism into their $3.5 trillion “reconciliation” bill, passed it out of the Budget Committee, and sent it to the House floor.

Buried on page 168 of the House Democrats’ 2,465-page mega bill is a tenfold increase in fines for employers that “willfully,” “repeatedly,” or even seriously violate a section of labor law that deals with hazards, death, or serious physical harm to their employees.

The increased fines on employers could run as high as $70,000 for serious infractions, and $700,000 for willful or repeated violations—almost three-quarters of a million dollars for each fine. If enacted into law, vax enforcement could bankrupt non-compliant companies even more quickly than the $14,000 OSHA fine anticipated under Biden’s announced mandate.

sanfrancisco |   In addition to checking your ID and bags at the ticket counter, you could soon have your COVID-19 vaccine record checked for domestic flights.

The proposal coming from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) would require travelers on U.S. flights to present either a COVID-19 vaccination record, a negative PCR test or proof they have recovered from a SARS-CoV-2 infection. As currently written, these checks wouldn’t be administered by federal authorities but by airline agents.

“It does require that all of the attestation to be done by the airline and for the airline to provide confirmation of it,” says Marc Casto, president of Leisure Americas for Flight Centre Travel Group.

Jonathan Isaac Perfectly Understands And Rejects Cornpop's Evil Mr.NA Mandate

spectatorworld |  The mainstream media has spent months dancing on the graves of political personalities and normal people alike who refused a COVID-19 vaccine and then succumbed to the virus itself. They’ve created a totem of who these unwashed masses of zombie-horde anti-vaxxers are: MAGA hat-wearing, Boomer hicks more interested in their ‘free-dumb’ than their health.

But as basketball season approaches, that caricature is about to vanish. According to NBC Sports, about 90 percent of all NBA players are vaccinated. But a small number of players are speaking out against vaccine mandates, offering nuanced opinions on the vaccine as it pertains to natural antibodies in those who have contracted COVID already.

It’s a conversation the Biden administration isn’t interested in having with the public. Neither is the NBA, which is seeking to impose a penalty on any player who refuses the COVID vaccine. But that has not stopped a vocal minority of players from challenging the press on the history of African Americans, vaccinations and born immunity.

Andrew Wiggins of the Golden State Warriors is one holdout. Brooklyn Nets star Kyrie Irving is another. But it was the Orlando Magic’s Jonathan Isaac that most mystified the sports media. They seem confused that NBA players are speaking out at all, let alone, as we are starting to see in New York City, Black Lives Matter protesters, who are taking up the mantle of opposition to vaccine mandates.

Isaac’s stance is not that of the ranting, raving Facebook loon. ‘I would say I’m hesitant at this time but at the end of the day I don’t feel that it is anyone’s reason to come out and say “well this is why” or “this is not why”, it should just be their decision,’ he said at a press conference earlier this week. ‘Loving your neighbor is not just loving those who agree with you or look like you or move in the same way that you do. It’s loving those who don’t.’

The rest of his comments are worth quoting at length:

‘I understand that the vaccine would help if you have COVID, you’ll be able to have less symptoms from contracting it. But with me having COVID in the past and having antibodies, with my current age group and physical fitness level, it’s not necessarily a fear of mine. Taking the vaccine, like I said, it would decrease my chances of having a severe reaction, but it does open me up to the albeit rare chance but the possibility of me having an adverse reaction to the vaccine itself. I don’t believe that being unvaccinated means infected or being vaccinated means uninfected. You can still catch COVID with or with not having the vaccine. I would say honestly the craziness of it all in terms of not being able to say that it should be everybody’s fair choice without being demeaned or talked crazy to doesn’t make one comfortable to do what said person is telling them to do.’

I don’t personally agree with his vaccine stance. I myself contracted COVID last year and still chose to get vaccinated. However there is a deeper meaning to what he’s saying that goes beyond ‘Bill Gates is trying to microchip everyone.’ It stands against what the media and the Biden administration are attempting to do by shaming and other-ing anyone who opts not to get vaccinated or can’t because of medical reasons. And that’s before we even get into the dark history African Americans and vaccinations, which has no doubt played a role in lower vaccination rates among that demographic.

Isaac is rejecting the atmosphere of division, the idea that anyone who’s unvaccinated is deserving of scorn from the desks at CNN, as well as ostracization from polite society by employers, friends and family. Division is the lingua franca of the national media — and Isaac isn’t speaking it. Legitimate medical diagnoses are being lumped in with QAnon Facebook conspiracists. That leads nowhere good.

Jonathan Isaac seems to understand this. It’s worth asking why our media and political leaders choose to ignore it.

Until The Neovaccinoid Mandate - I Had No Idea Bomani Jones Is Such A Shrivelled Little Sellout....,

Slate |  S1: Today on the show, will the NBA find its season reshaped by COVID again? I’m Mary Harris. You’re listening to what next? Stick around. During the last two seasons, it seemed like the NBA was handling the pandemic pretty well. The 2020 season got cut short, but it finished up inside the Disney bubble. The 2021 season had a pretty stringent testing regimen and pretty much went off without a hitch. But when negotiations happened over this season, the players union said a vaccine mandate was unequivocally off the table, even though referees and other NBA employees had agreed to one. When did you first hear that vaccination could be an issue with some of the players?

S2: I didn’t actually hear that it could be an issue, but I figured that it might cause is an issue for everybody else. Like, there was no reason for me to expect this particular group of people to be more or less enlightened than anybody else is on this matter. There are some things that a union is going to push back on, particularly in an industry like this one. And in this industry, you have to put this in your body is something that is never, ever going to be able to fly. It really is a slippery slope. I think for them in particular, because so much of their job does involve putting things in your body, you got at least had the option to say no if you want to do that. And so this is somewhere where as much as people can talk about the weakness of the National Basketball Players Association in different negotiations, this is one that they had to stand on and they stood on it. And I think that the owners ultimately understood that it was necessary that the players are going to stand on it because they didn’t try to bring them to the ground, right?

S1: Because your body is your livelihood. Right, right. What are the rules exactly for NBA players at this point? I mean, I recognize it’s different in different places because of the regional differences. But what did they eventually agree to after this tense negotiation with the players union?

S2: It’s increased testing. If you were not vaccinated, your locker, for example, has to be. I think it is literally as far as possible away from the rest of the team if you were not going to be vaccinated. I think there’s increased masking requirements if you’re not going to be vaccinated. I mean, they make it sound really inconvenient if there’s going to be the case now of what’s happened with the travel in the legs. And this is I actually think people are paying enough attention to this. So in New York City and in San Francisco, there have been local ordinances passed that basically you can’t come inside to a large indoor event. If you have not been vaccinated in New York, it requires one shot in San Francisco. I believe you have to be fully vaccinated in order to do that. Now we talk about this strictly in the context of those two places, but I don’t know why we’re assuming that that won’t be adopted by other places. If the delta or whatever else starts raging even more. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if you saw those places then make the same calls as these other cities have. And then when that happens, it’s going to be a lot to do is caught flat footed.

S1: That’s because whatever rules the NBA’s got in place, players are also going to be bound by the laws of whatever state they happen to be playing in. For some unvaccinated stars like Kyrie Irving in Brooklyn, restrictions in their home states mean they could be barred from home games. Let’s talk about some of the reasons people are giving, because I think it’s useful to just kind of listen to the players a little bit here. We’ve got Jonathan Isaac from Orlando Magic. He’s talking about natural immunity. He’s had COVID and he actually, I listen to this press conference he gave. He was incredibly clear and straightforward, and he was very angry at being misrepresented by some journalists he felt in this process.

S5: I would just I would start by saying that that I was pretty badly misrepresented. I’m not anti-vax, I’m not anti medicine, I’m not anti science.

S1: But he was basically saying, I have the utmost respect for health care workers. I’m not anti-vax, I’m making a choice for me.

S5: With that being said, it is my belief that the vaccine status of every person should be their own choice.

S1: And by the way, I already had COVID, and so I’m protected a little bit. What did you make of that?

S2: Well, the I already had it unprotected, like that’s that that begs follow up questions, right? Like how protected are you? When did it happen? Is not like, this is a it’s not like the chicken pox, right? You’re not about to be like, I’m good from here on out. Yeah, you can’t get it twice. Yeah, I mean, Lamar Jackson to tell you that, like, that’s not really how that one works. I. As someone who has heard Jonathan Isaac taught before and found him to sound ridiculous, I did not think that he necessarily sounded ridiculous on this one, even though he is taking an approach that I do not agree with. Where where I look at him and I’m like, OK, I get that you’re not worried about you. But this isn’t just about you. And I think that the the libertarian streak of a lot of the non the not even anti-vax broadly, but anti this particular vaccine right here is purely looking at it through the prism of themselves and not thinking about anybody else, like when we were doing the super hardcore social distancing thing, when the test was short and everything else reason was everyone was supposed to assume that they were an asymptomatic carrier and that to stop the spread is by not interacting any more than you absolutely had. Two people instead looked at that is, stay inside so you don’t catch it as opposed to stay inside so you don’t spread it. So you get guys like him who are only thinking about this in the context of catching it, not in the context of transmitting it.

 

 

Friday, October 01, 2021

Legal Resistance To The Mandate Crystallizing Around The Naturally Acquired Immunity Claim

thehill  |  Two service members filed a potential class action lawsuit against Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to attempt to block him from requiring all troops receive a COVID-19 vaccine.  

Army Staff Sgt. Dan Robert and Marine Corps Staff Sgt. Hollie Mulvihill, who filed the complaint Aug. 17 in the U.S. District Court of Colorado, also want the Pentagon to create a vaccine exemption for those previously infected with the coronavirus as they already have “natural immunity.”

The two, who are both based in North Carolina, argue that the Defense Department’s vaccine mandate “is in open violation” of the rights of service members and is unconstitutional.

ADVERTISEMENT

Austin is named as a defendant in the lawsuit as are Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and Janet Woodcock, acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The Pentagon chief in late August ordered service members to “immediately begin” receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, with the military services setting the deadlines for the requirement.

The Pentagon has also made clear it would only require a COVID-19 vaccine that had full FDA approval, which the Pfizer shot received on Aug. 23.

But Robert and Mulvihill, who filed their complaint days prior to the FDA decision, base their argument on the Pfizer vaccine’s previous emergency-use authorization standing.

They also say they should be exempt from the mandate because they already caught and recovered from COVID-19.

"Science" And "Follow The Science" Have Been Subverted By Punitive Political Partisans

mises |  In an op-ed for the Washington Post last week, Marty Makary of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine argues that the medical profession has hurt its credibility in pretending that natural immunity is virtually irrelevant to the covid equation. Moreover, the dogmatic "get vaccinated" position constitutes a lack of honesty about the data. Rather, Makary concludes:

[W]e can encourage all Americans to get vaccinated while still being honest about the data. In my clinical experience, I have found patients to be extremely forgiving with evolving data if you are honest and transparent with them. Yet, when asked the common question, “I’ve recovered from covid, is it absolutely essential that I get vaccinated?” many public health officials have put aside the data and responded with a synchronized “yes,” even as studies have shown that reinfections are rare and often asymptomatic or mild when they do occur.

And what are these studies? Makary continues:

More than 15 studies have demonstrated the power of immunity acquired by previously having the virus. A 700,000-person study from Israel two weeks ago found that those who had experienced prior infections were 27 times less likely to get a second symptomatic covid infection than those who were vaccinated. This affirmed a June Cleveland Clinic study of health-care workers (who are often exposed to the virus), in which none who had previously tested positive for the coronavirus got reinfected. The study authors concluded that “individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from covid-19 vaccination.” And in May, a Washington University study found that even a mild covid infection resulted in long-lasting immunity.

The policy bias in favor of vaccines ignores many other facts as well, such as the relative risks of vaccines, especially for the young:

The current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention position about vaccinating children also dismisses the benefits of natural immunity. The Los Angeles County School District recently mandated vaccines for students ages 12 and up who want to learn in person. But young people are less likely to suffer severe or long-lasting symptoms from covid-19 than adults, and have experienced rare heart complications from the vaccines. In Israel, heart inflammation has been observed in between 1 in 3,000 and 1 in 6,000 males age 16 to 24; the CDC has confirmed 854 reports nationally in people age 30 and younger who got the vaccine.

A second dose of the two-shot mRNA vaccine like that produced by Pfizer and Moderna may not even be necessary in children who had covid. Since February, Israel’s Health Ministry has been recommending that anyone, adult or adolescent, who has recovered from covid-19 receive a only single mRNA vaccine dose, instead of two. Even though the risk of severe illness during a reinfection is exceedingly low, some data has demonstrated a slight benefit to one dose in this situation. Other countries use a similar approach. The United States could adopt this strategy now as a reasonable next step in transitioning from an overly rigid to a more flexible vaccine requirement policy. For comparison, the CDC has long recommended that kids do not get the chickenpox vaccine if they had chickenpox infection in the past.

The nonscientific, ideology-induced blind spot for natural immunity also prompted The BMJ  (the journal of the British Medical Association) to note that "[w]hen the vaccine rollout began in mid-December 2020, more than one quarter of Americans—91 million—had been infected with SARS-CoV-2…. As of this May, that proportion had risen to more than a third of the population, including 44% of adults aged 18–59."

And yet, the authors note this fact doesn't appear to be a part of any policy discussion at all: 

The substantial number of infections, coupled with the increasing scientific evidence that natural immunity was durable, led some medical observers to ask why natural immunity didn’t seem to be factored into decisions about prioritising vaccination.

This problem is reflected in the Biden administration’s drive for booster shots—announced in mid-August—even before there was any clinical research on booster shots at all. Even by mid-September, as one hospital’s chief medical officer put it, “the data is not compelling one way or another.”

But those sorts of details don’t trouble federal “public health” officials, and the Biden administration quickly moved toward pushing booster shots for everyone.

Ask About ANY Other Medicine You May Need, But NEVER Question Mr.NA Neo-Vaccinoids...,

jonathanturley |   YouTube continued the expansion of corporate censorship on the Internet with the encouragement of leading Democratic leaders. The company has banned channels associated with anti-vaccine activists like Joseph Mercola and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Once again, rather than rebutting or refuting claims made by others, many sought to silence those with opposing views. YouTube will not allow people to hear views that do not comport with an approved range of opinions.  

The move magnifies concerns that we are seeing the emergence of a new type of state media as private companies conduct censorship operations barred by the Constitution for the government to conduct directly. This move comes days after Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) asked Amazon to steer customers to “true” books on subjects like climate change to avoid their exposure to “disinformation.” It also follows YouTube censoring videos of jailed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny before Russia’s parliamentary elections. The move helped Putin and his authoritarian government crack down on pro-Democracy forces.


The Google-owned site is now openly engaged in viewpoint regulation to force users to view only those sources that are consistent with the corporate agenda. Facebook banned misinformation on all vaccines seven months ago and Twitter regularly bans those questioning vaccines.

These companies are being encouraged by many on the left to expand censorship.

Faculty and editors are now actively supporting modern versions of book-burning with blacklists and bans for those with opposing political views. Columbia Journalism School Dean Steve Coll has denounced the “weaponization” of free speech, which appears to be the use of free speech by those on the right. So the dean of one of the premier journalism schools now supports censorship.

Free speech advocates are facing a generational shift that is now being reflected in our law schools, where free speech principles were once a touchstone of the rule of law. As millions of students are taught that free speech is a threat and that “China is right” about censorship, these figures are shaping a new society in their own intolerant images.

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.

 

Thursday, September 30, 2021

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. 

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.

Using "Medicine" As A Means Of Political Punishment

brownstone |   How this began: The virus was here (the US) already for months from 2019 and life went on normally. 

Once the consciousness seeped in and the politicians panicked, we moved quickly from travel restrictions to lockdowns to mask mandates to domestic capacity restrictions to vaccine mandates. Somewhere along the way, we learned to classify people by profession, stigmatize the sick, then finally to demonize the noncompliant. It’s been 20 months of intensified controls, driven by political leaders from both parties, with precious little dissent from media organs.

The pace has been furiously fast but somehow just slow enough that people and media personalities adjust to the new, the cycle proceeds, last week’s shock becomes this week’s normal, and then politicians scramble to create the next big intervention, covering previous failures with new nostrums, all while ignoring or censoring opposing views. 

Even hard-won scientific knowledge of 100 years – for example natural immunity – has been memory holed. We reference Orwell often because there is a dystopian feel to it all, describable best by reference to stories we only imagined through the help of books and movies. Hunger Games, Matrix, V for Vendetta, Equilibrium – they all come to mind. 

The policies have been bad enough but the political polarization has been the real poison. In history, we’ve seen where this leads. New and random mandates from political leaders become loyalty tests. Compliant people are viewed as enlightened and obedient. The noncompliant are regarded as stupid and probably politically threatening. They are purgeable. 

In this particular case, the mainstream media has argued for months that noncompliance correlates very closely with Trump support, which everyone knows is a civic sin of the highest order even though he won the presidency 5 years ago. This realization was an invitation to the Biden administration to ramp up its mandates, finding any and every means to get the federal bureaucracies to penetrate the policy walls to the states that exist under the Constitution. 

They easily found the agency Occupational Safety and Health Administration, twisted a few words, and like magic discovered a basis on which to override state-based limits on vaccine mandates. It’s using medicine as a means of political punishment. 

One tip-off of the political agenda here is that the data associations of the unvaxed by Trump support only work with 50 data points, meaning state boundaries, as Justin Hart has pointed out. Expand that out by county-level data with 3,000-plus data points and the correlation almost entirely disappears. Further, if you look at vaccination by race and income, you find very low compliance among voters usually associated with Democratic support. So the war on the “red states” being waged by the federal government today is really just about consolidating political support, state by state. 

Regardless, the effects of the mandates are real and devastating for millions of people. People are losing their jobs because they are unwilling to go along. And all of this occurs in the midst of a chronic labor shortage: bosses are being told by the government to dismiss people from their jobs just when their companies are struggling for resources. 

There are many reasons to refuse these mandates. The people with previous infections know that they have better immunities than they could get with a vaccine, and they want that to count even as the CDC refuses. This is particularly true of health care workers.

Liberal COVID Discourse Is Utterly Devoid Of Science

greenwald |  It is virtually a religious belief in the dominant liberal culture that people who do not want the COVID vaccine are stupid, ignorant, immoral and dangerous. As large sectors of the population continue to question or disobey their COVID decrees, they have begun to make more explicit this condescending view.

Liberals feel free to disparage them as "stupid” notwithstanding long-standing (though diminishing) racial disparities among this group. A CNN headline from last month told part of the story: “Black New Yorkers may have the lowest vaccination rates, but community groups refuse to give up.” Citing data from the city's health agency, the network reported that “citywide, just 28% of Black New Yorkers between the ages of 18 and 44 are fully vaccinated. The Hispanic community is the second-least fully vaccinated population in that age group, with 49% being fully vaccinated.”

Two weeks ago, Bloomberg reported that while some of the unvaccinated are unable to get the vaccine (due to work pressures or health conditions), most of them are vaccine-hesitant by choice and continue to reflect racial disparities. Under the headline “U.S. Racial Vaccine Gaps Are Bigger Than We Thought: Covid-19 Tracker,” the news outlet reported: “the White vaccination rate is not as bad as it had seemed and Hispanic communities are lagging more than previously thought.”

Yet liberal elites continue to call anyone who is unvaccinated "stupid,” ignorant and immoral. On Sunday, New York's Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul, when announcing her intent to use National Guard soldiers to replace health care workers fired for refusing the vaccine, told her audience: “yes, I know you're vaccinated, you're the smart ones.” She then said those who refuse to get the vaccine are not just stupid but have turned their back on God: “there's people out there who aren't listening to God and what God wants.” Gov. Hochul added that the vaccine “is from God to us and we must say, thank you, God,” and said to her "smart” vaccinated supporters: “I need you to be my apostles.”

On September 16, CNN host Don Lemon maligned those who have chosen not to be vaccinated as "stupid,” "selfish,” filled with “ignorance,” and “not acting on logic, reason and science." He then issued this decree: “it’s time to start shaming them or leave them behind.” When controversy erupted over the lavish indoor gala former President Obama threw for himself, at which his guests were unmasked while the servants were masked, New York Times reporter Annie Karni explained on CNN that while some of Obama's neighbors on Martha's Vineyard objected, many believed that a maskless party was fine because “this is a sophisticated, vaccinated crowd." Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel suggested the unvaccinated should be deprioritized for health care in hospitals, while Howard Stern recently lambasted the unvaccinated as “imbeciles” and “nut jobs” and argued they should be denied health care and be left to die.

That the unvaccinated are inherently primitive and stupid troglodytes was always a claim as baseless and offensive as it is counter-productive. Although I personally took the vaccine the first day it was available to me — as I repeatedly said I would in every forum where I speak, including Fox News — it was always clear that there were cogent reasons while those with different circumstances and risk factors (age, health, prior COVID status) might assess their own risks differently and reach a different conclusion. And what made me most comfortable about my choice to get vaccinated, or to decide whether my kids should, was precisely that it was my choice, after informing myself: the idea of forcing someone to do it against their will, or condition people's rights and privileges on vaccine compliance — as both President Biden and the ACLU astonishingly advocated — always struck me as inconceivable.

The attempt to equate being unvaccinated with stupidity and ignorance suffered a massive blow on Wednesday night when NBA star Jonathan Isaac was asked why he was hesitant to take the vaccine. Like many unions, the NBA's player union has refused a vaccine mandate, and Isaac, the 23-year-old player with the Orlando Magic who previously had and recovered from COVID, gave a stunningly compelling, informed, well-reasoned and thoughtful exposition on his rationale for not wanting the vaccine. Isaac also defended the right of individuals to make their own choice. One need not agree with his ultimate conclusion on the vaccine to see how groundless (and obnoxious) it is to claim that anyone who chooses not to take the vaccine — like him — is stupid, ignorant and primitive. I really encourage everyone to watch his two-minute master class in demonstrating why such a choice can, depending on one's circumstances, be perfectly rational:

Is there anyone who can argue with a straight face that Isaac sounds stupid, ignorant or evil? One can cogently dispute the wisdom of his conclusion: while it is true that most people who recover from COVID (as he did) enjoy "natural immunity” in the form of antibodies — indeed, one major study found that “the natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine — some studies conclude that immunity is stronger still with the vaccine.”

Nonetheless, Issac is indisputably right that the risk of dying or becoming seriously ill of COVID is extremely low for someone like him: early 20s, healthy and with natural immunity. In fact, during the entire course of the pandemic, the total number of people aged 15-24 (Isaac's age group) who have died of COVID — in a country of 330 million people — is 1,372: fewer than the number in that age group who have died of non-COVID pneumonia. Add onto that Isaac's physical fitness and the fact that he already had COVID once, his risk from contracting the virus is vanishingly small.

It is true that the long-term effects of COVID are unknown, but that is also true of the long-term risks from these new vaccines. Isaac is also right ….

 

Wednesday, September 29, 2021

Dr. Joseph Ladapo Got Some Gatekeeping Negroe Heads Spinning....,

 

 


Fist tap Dale

A Lifetime Of Booster Shots (Immunity As A Service)

juliusruechel  |  If a plumber with a lifetime of experience were to tell you that water runs uphill, you would know he is lying and that the lie is not accidental. It is a lie with a purpose. If you can also demonstrate that the plumber knows in advance that the product he is promoting with that lie is snake oil, you have evidence for a deliberate con. And once you understand what's really inside that bottle of snake oil, you will begin to understand the purpose of the con.

One of the most common reasons given for mass COVID vaccinations is the idea that if we reach herd immunity through vaccination, we can starve the virus out of existence and get our lives back. It's the COVID-Zero strtegy or some variant of it.

By now it is abundantly clear from the epidemiological data that the vaccinated are able to both catch and spread the disease. Clearly vaccination isn't going to make this virus disappear. Only a mind that has lost its grasp on reality can fail to see how ridiculous all this has become. 

But a tour through pre-COVID science demonstrates that, from day one, long before you and I had even heard of this virus, it was 100% inevitable and 100% predictable that these vaccines would never be capable of eradicating this coronavirus and would never lead to any kind of lasting herd immunity. Even worse, lockdowns and mass vaccination have created a dangerous set of circumstances that interferes with our immune system's ability to protect us against other respiratory viruses. They also risk driving the evolution of this virus towards mutations that are more dangerous to both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated alike. Lockdowns, mass vaccinations, and mass booster shots were never capable of delivering on any of the promises that were made to the public. 

And yet, vaccination has been successfully used to control measles and even to eradicate smallpox. So, why not COVID? Immunity is immunity, and a virus is a virus is a virus, right? Wrong! Reality is far more complicated... and more interesting.

This Deep Dive exposes why, from day one, the promise of COVID-Zero can only ever have been a deliberately dishonest shell game designed to prey on a lack of public understanding of how our immune systems work and on how most respiratory viruses differ from other viruses that we routinely vaccinate against. We have been sold a fantasy designed to rope us into a pharmaceutical dependency as a deceitful trade-off for access to our lives. Variant by variant. For as long as the public is willing to go along for the ride. 

Exposing this story does not require incriminating emails or whistleblower testimony. The story tells itself by diving into the long-established science that every single virologist, immunologist, evolutionary biologist, vaccine developer, and public health official had access to long before COVID began. As is so often the case, the devil is hidden in the details. As this story unfolds it will become clear that the one-two punch of lockdowns and the promise of vaccines as an exit strategy began as a cynical marketing ploy to coerce us into a never-ending regimen of annual booster shots intentionally designed to replace the natural "antivirus security updates" against respiratory viruses that come from hugs and handshakes and from children laughing together at school. We are being played for fools. 

This is not to say that there aren't plenty of other opportunists taking advantage of this crisis to pursue other agendas and to tip society into a full-blown police state. One thing quickly morphs into another. But this essay demonstrates that never-ending boosters were the initial motive for this global social-engineering shell game ― the subscription-based business model, adapted for the pharmaceutical industry. "Immunity as a service". 

So, let's dive into the fascinating world of immune systems, viruses, and vaccines, layer by layer, to dispel the myths and false expectations that have been created by deceitful public health officials, pharmaceutical lobbyists, and media manipulators. What emerges as the lies are peeled apart is both surprising and more than a little alarming.

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” - Sherlock Homes” ― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Children Don’t Need The ‘F*cking’ COVID Vaccine Because There Are ‘Unknown Repercussions Down the Road’

projectveritas |  Project Veritas released the third video of its COVID vaccine investigative series today exposing two Johnson & Johnson [J&J] officials, who argue children do not need to take the COVID vaccine in part because of the potential long-term side effects.

One of the exposed J&J employees, a scientist by the name of Justin Durrant, laughs about inconveniencing unvaccinated adults if they refuse to comply with mandates being imposed upon them:

Justin Durrant, Johnson & Johnson Scientist: “Inconvenience [the unvaccinated] to the point where it’s like, ‘I might as well just f*cking do it [and take the COVID vaccine],’ you know what I’m saying? Like ‘I can’t go out of state,’ I can’t – ‘my grandma’s in Canada and I can’t visit her,’ you know what I’m saying? You can’t go to France unless you’re vaccinated -- you know you’ve just got to keep doing things like that where you’re almost like a second-grade citizen if you’re not vaccinated, but I know that’s awful.”

Veritas Journalist: “You’re almost what?”

Durrant: “Like a second-grade citizen, like you can’t do anything that a normal citizen can do.”

Veritas Journalist: “A second graded citizen?”

Durrant: “Yeah like top grade, like the ones that get it, and the ones that just like -- then you can’t do sh*t.”

Veritas Journalist: “So then how do we punish [the unvaccinated]?” 

Durrant: “I mean if you can’t work, I feel like that’s punishment enough.”

Veritas Journalist: “People what?”

Durrant: “Only way people really act and comply is if it affects their pockets, like if you’re working for a big company and you’re going to lose your job, best believe you’ll be the first one in line [to take the COVID vaccine].”

Veritas Journalist: “Right, so if you’re working for a big company and you’re about to lose your job, you’ll be the first one in line?”

Durrant: “Yeah.”

Veritas Journalist: “That’s so true. That’s smart, that’s what we need to do.”

Durrant: “That’s what we’re doing.”

Durrant said he does not recommend taking his own company’s vaccine. He asked the Veritas journalist to keep that information private.

“Don’t get the Johnson & Johnson [COVID vaccine], I didn’t tell you though,” he said.

Both Durrant and Brandon Schadt, J&J’s Regional Business Lead, said that applying the COVID vaccine on children would not move the needle in the battle against the pandemic.

“It wouldn’t make that much of a difference” if children are unvaccinated for COVID, Durrant said.

“It’s a kid, you just don’t do that, you know? Not something that’s so unknown in terms of repercussions down the road, you know?” Schadt said.

“It’s a kid, it’s a f*cking kid, you know? They shouldn’t have to get a f*cking [COVID] vaccine, you know?”

Schadt compared J&J’s COVID vaccine efficacy to the other pharmaceutical companies.

“J&J is like stepping in the best smelling pile of sh*t you could step in,” he said.

 

First 2/3rds Of The Spartacus Letter Straight FYRE, BCI And Speculative Last 1/3rd A Dumpster Fire....,

TAE  |  We have been forced to watch America and the Free World spin into inexorable decline due to a biowarfare attack. We, along with countless others, have been victimized and gaslit by propaganda and psychological warfare operations being conducted by an unelected, unaccountable Elite against the American people and our allies.

Our mental and physical health have suffered immensely over the course of the past year and a half. We have felt the sting of isolation, lockdown, masking, quarantines, and other completely nonsensical acts of healthcare theater that have done absolutely nothing to protect the health or wellbeing of the public from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Now, we are watching the medical establishment inject literal poison into millions of our fellow Americans without so much as a fight.

We have been told that we will be fired and denied our livelihoods if we refuse to vaccinate. This was the last straw.

We have spent thousands of hours analyzing leaked footage from Wuhan, scientific papers from primary sources, as well as the paper trails left by the medical establishment.

What we have discovered would shock anyone to their core.

First, we will summarize our findings, and then, we will explain them in detail. References will be placed at the end.

 Summary:

 • COVID-19 is a blood and blood vessel disease. SARS-CoV-2 infects the lining of human blood vessels, causing them to leak into the lungs.

• Current treatment protocols (e.g. invasive ventilation) are actively harmful to patients, accelerating oxidative stress and causing severe VILI (ventilator-induced lung injuries). The continued use of ventilators in the absence of any proven medical benefit constitutes mass murder.
• Existing countermeasures are inadequate to slow the spread of what is an aerosolized and potentially wastewater-borne virus, and constitute a form of medical theater.
• Various non-vaccine interventions have been suppressed by both the media and the medical establishment in favor of vaccines and expensive patented drugs.
• The authorities have denied the usefulness of natural immunity against COVID-19, despite the fact that natural immunity confers protection against all of the virus’s proteins, and not just one.
• Vaccines will do more harm than good. The antigen that these vaccines are based on, SARS-CoV- 2 Spike, is a toxic protein. SARS-CoV-2 may have ADE, or antibody-dependent enhancement; current antibodies may not neutralize future strains, but instead help them infect immune cells. Also, vaccinating during a pandemic with a leaky vaccine removes the evolutionary pressure for a virus to become less lethal.
• There is a vast and appalling criminal conspiracy that directly links both Anthony Fauci and Moderna to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
• COVID-19 vaccine researchers are directly linked to scientists involved in brain-computer interface (“neural lace”) tech, one of whom was indicted for taking grant money from China.
• Independent researchers have discovered mysterious nanoparticles inside the vaccines that are not supposed to be present.
• The entire pandemic is being used as an excuse for a vast political and economic transformation of Western society that will enrich the already rich and turn the rest of us into serfs and untouchables.

Tuesday, September 28, 2021

NBA Mandingo Rebellion As Star Players Refuse To Submit To The Evil Mr. NA

rollingstone |  Monday, September 27th: Irving was not present for Nets Media Day at Barclays Center in Brooklyn, where city law requires athletes to have at least one dose of Covid vaccination to participate in team activities.

Appearing from his home for a brief press conference with reporters, Irving declined to answer directly four separate questions regarding his vaccination and playing status. “Living in this public sphere, there’s a lot of questions about what’s going on in the world of Kyrie,” he said, “and I would love to just keep that private and handle that the right way with my team and go forward with a plan.”

The Nets dodged questions about what such a plan might be. San Francisco city officials removed religious and medical exemptions from their policy on Friday, making the NBA’s decision on Wiggins easier. A league source said any comment on further applications for exemptions in New York would make too clear who had applied; the New York Knicks have said their team is 100-percent vaccinated.

One by one, the basketball players — non-vaccinated star here, fully-inoculated veteran on mute down there, a full-on anti-vaxxer front-and-center — logged into the video conference. The annual summer meeting of the powerful NBA union had gone virtual again on August 7, and high on the agenda for the season ahead was a proposed mandate from the league office that 100 percent of players get vaccinated against Covid-19.

One response echoed from squares across the screen, according to players and an executive on the call: Non-starter. Non-starter.”

The NBA had relied on science above all to lead the sports world through the Covid nightmare, from the league’s outbreak-driven shutdown to a pandemic-proof playoff bubble in Disney World to game after game with fans back in the stands. But after two plagued seasons of non-stop nasal swabbing, quarantining and distrust, unvaccinated players were pushing back. They made their case to the union summit: There should be testing this year, of course, just not during off-days. They’d mask up on the court and on the road, if they must. But no way would they agree to a mandatory jab. The vaccine deniers had set the agenda; the players agreed to take their demands for personal freedom to the NBA’s negotiating table.

This month, league officials caught a break: Two of America’s most progressive cities, New York and San Francisco, would require pro athletes to show proof of one Covid-19 vaccination dose to play indoors, except with an approved medical or religious exemption. Which meant that one of the NBA’s biggest stars — one known for being receptive to conspiratorial beliefs — would be under heavy pressure to get a shot. And if Brooklyn Nets superstar Kyrie Irving could be convinced to take the vaccine, then maybe, just maybe, the whole league could create a new kind of bubble together.

When asked directly about Irving’s vaccination status — or his plans to change it — multiple people familiar with his thinking declined to answer directly. But one confidant and family member floated to Rolling Stone the idea of anti-vaxx players skipping home games to dodge the New York City ordinance… or at least threatening to protest them, until the NBA changes its ways.

“There are so many other players outside of him who are opting out, I would like to think they would make a way,” says Kyrie’s aunt, Tyki Irving, who runs the seven-time All-Star’s family foundation and is one of the few people in his regular circle of advisors. “It could be like every third game. So it still gives you a full season of being interactive and being on the court, but with the limitations that they’re, of course, oppressing upon you. There can be some sort of formula where the NBA and the players can come to some sort of agreement.”

 

The Weaponization Of Safety As A Way To Criminalize Students

 Slate  |   What do you mean by the “weaponization of safety”? The language is about wanting to make Jewish students feel saf...