Escape from Covid in 2022

With the end of 2021 many are wondering if there is light at the end of this tunnel, or do we face an oncoming train. This post takes up the issue in three parts:  How Did We Get Here? What is keeping us here? What is the Way Out?

How Did We Get Here?

The best and briefest summary I’ve seen comes from C.J. Baker’s American Thinker article COVID-19 in 10 sentences.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

As we approach the end of annus horribilis 2 (also known as 2021 A.D.), it seems worthwhile to to look back and summarize the events that have brought us where we are in the COVID-19 saga.

Here, in ten sentences, is how we got here.

  1. Since at least 2014, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), through Anthony Fauci’s NIAID division, have sent millions of U.S. tax dollars to communist China to fund research involving the genetic alteration of coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

  2. Around October 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic began when a new coronavirus leaked out of the same Wuhan Institute of Virology and into the human population.

  3. The Communist Chinese Party imposed a tight lockdown of its own population, while simultaneously allowing international travel to and from China, facilitating the virus’s worldwide spread.

  4. As the pandemic unfolded, public health officials and the media used grossly overestimated death rates and false promises of self-limited measures (“two weeks to flatten the curve”) to promote unprecedented policies of prolonged, widespread quarantine of heathy populations, which continue to this day — two years later.

  5. Simultaneously, in places such as New York State under former governor Andrew Cuomo, authorities knowingly put sick COVID-19 patients into close contact with highly vulnerable persons such as nursing home residents, resulting in tens of thousands of unnecessary and avoidable deaths.

  6. Despite definitive evidence from the early stages of the pandemic that COVID-19 poses minimal risk of severe illness and statistically zero chance of death in children, and that children are not significant drivers of its spread, the Democrat party and the public teachers’ unions — with the help of health officials and the mainstream media — have forced schools to close for in-school learning for multiple school years, and continue to push for renewed school closures in many areas of the country.

  7. As cheap, existing, and safe medications and treatments were identified that showed effectiveness in treating COVID-19, a systematic, worldwide movement to suppress and discredit such treatments was instigated by Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, the mainstream media, Big Pharma, and social media corporations, to protect their financial interests in vaccines and other proprietary medicines they had in development, resulting in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

  8. As COVID-19 vaccines became available in the U.S. through Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA, these extremely new treatments were heavily promoted by Fauci, Gates, the media, Big Pharma, and social media under knowingly false pretenses, including repeated false claims that the vaccines 1) would provide herd immunity, 2) were equal or even superior to natural immunity, 3) stopped contraction and transmission of the virus, and 4) were safe and effective for all ages.

  9. Even as the COVID-19 vaccines have now been shown to 1) lose effectiveness in a matter of weeks; 2) be ineffective at stopping transmission and spread of the virus; and 3) be inferior to natural immunity, and even as more than 20,000 vaccine-related deaths have been reported in the CDC’s own Vaccine Emergency Reporting System (VAERS) — with a similar level of reports in EudraVigilance (the E.U.’s reporting system), the likes of Fauci, President Joe Biden, current New York governor Kathy Hochul, and New York City mayor Bill de Blasio continue to press ever harder for repeated doses of these same vaccines, including among young children.

  10. Although the current dominant strain of COVID-19 — the omicron variant — has been demonstrated to be more transmissible and much less deadly than prior strains, as well as dramatically mutated from the original strain after which the vaccines were modeled, Fauci, the Biden administration, the Democrat Party, and the mainstream media are now employing a policy of endless boosters with the increasingly obsolete yet lucrative vaccines, alongside the systematic scapegoating of unvaccinated persons, rather than employing the focused protection of the vulnerable and promotion of normal life and natural immunity among the healthy that has already been successfully implemented in numerous “free” states.

What conclusions can we draw from this series of events? Here are a few:

First, the “health care industry” is largely a syndicate run by government bureaucrats like Tony Fauci and Francis Collins, Big Pharma, and ultra-rich investor-influencers like Bill Gates.

Second, the mainstream media and major social media platforms like Google, Facebook, and Twitter are diametrically opposed to freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas. In fact, their goal is the opposite: an Orwellian thought control of the population and the suppression of all dissenting voices.

Third, the Democrat party is utterly corrupt and power-hungry, while the Republican Party is hopelessly gutless and ineffective.

Lastly, the formula has been revealed for the permanent extinguishing of the civil liberties outlined in the Bill of Rights: declare an emergency, terrify the populace, control the message, stifle all dissent, and revoke the citizens’ freedoms indefinitely, all while grabbing and consolidating political power. Coming soon: the climate “emergency.”

What is Keeping Us Here?

There appear to be three principal obstacles to any pivot away from the Covid morass: Vested Interests, Addiction to Power, and Need to Save Face.

Vested Interests

Forbes reported in April 2021 Meet The 40 New Billionaires Who Got Rich Fighting Covid-19.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Shortly after the World Health Organization declared Covid-19 a global pandemic on March 11, 2020, markets collapsed and economies around the world plunged into recession. At the same time, hundreds of billionaires fell from the ranks of Forbes’ World’s Billionaires list, capturing a snapshot of the pandemic’s impact on the fortunes of the world’s wealthiest people.

One year later, things couldn’t be more different: a record 493 new billionaires joined the list this year, propelled by a red-hot stock market and unprecedented economic stimulus. Among those newcomers are at least 40 new entrants who draw their fortunes from companies involved in fighting Covid-19. Some, such as Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel and BioNTech cofounder Uğur Şahin, have become household names thanks to the vaccines they helped develop. Others got rich making everything from personal protective equipment and diagnostic tests to antibody treatments and software that helps authorities schedule vaccination campaigns, which will be essential in reopening economies and returning to normal life.

So the pandemic has morphed into an industry whose prosperity depends on continuing fearful demand for its products and services.  It also boosted the wealth of the very richest moguls, like Amazon’s Bezos and Big Tech tycoons like Zuckerberg, because social lockdowns made their services essential.  As Jeffrey Tucker noted, lockdowns divided classes:

The working classes were assigned the job of delivering groceries, tending to the sick, driving the trucks filled with goods, keeping the lights on, and keeping the fuel running. The professional class, among whom were the people who pushed lockdowns in the name of disease avoidance/suppression, were assigned the job of staying home in their pajamas and staying safe.

Addiction to Power

Kit Knightly writes at Off-Guardian The Covid narrative is insane and illogical…and maybe that’s no accident.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Maybe forcing people to believe your lies, even after you admit you’re lying, is the purest form of power.

We already know it’s not about a virus, it’s not about protecting the health service and it’s not about saving lives. Every day the people running the “pandemic” admit as much by their actions, and even their words.

Rather, it seems to be about enforcing rules that make little to no sense, requiring conformity at the price of reason, drawing arbitrary lines in the sand and demanding people respect them, making people believe “facts” that are provably untrue.

But why? Why is the story of Covid irrational and contradictory? Why are we told on the one hand to be afraid, and on the other that there is nothing to be afraid of?

If you want to control people, you need to lie to them, that’s the only way to guarantee you have power.

You can never control people with the truth, because the truth has an existence outside yourself that cannot be altered or directed. It may be the truth itself that controls people, not you.  You can never force people to obey rules that make sense, because they may be obeying reason, not your force.

True power lies in making people afraid of something that does not exist, and making them abandon reason in the name of protecting themselves from the invented threat.

To guarantee you have control, you must make people see things that are not there, make people live in a reality you build around them, and force people to follow arbitrary, contradictory rules that change day by day.

To truly test their loyalty, their hypnosis, you could even tell them there’s nothing to be afraid of anymore, but they need to follow the rules anyway.

Maybe that’s the point. Maybe the story isn’t supposed to be believable. Maybe the rules aren’t meant to make sense, they are meant to be obeyed.  Maybe the more contradictory & illogical the regulations become, the more your compliance is valued.

Maybe if you can force a person to abandon their judgment in favour of your own, you have total control over their reality.

The Need to Save Face

Let’s consider the plight of political leaders at local, state or province, and national agencies.  Most are not getting rich or getting off on the power from telling pandemic-stricken people what to do.  But they have gone along with the Covid narrative and instigated and enforced the crazy rules.  How can they walk back the controls they claimed as necessary?

Some of us remember the backlash from Catholics in the 1960s after Pope Paul VI loosened fasting rules, declaring that eating fish on Fridays was not strictly required any more.  It didn’t go down well that behavior considered bad enough to be confessed was now optional.

Laura Rosen Cohen writes at Newsweek Let Omicron Spell the End of the Pandemic—and the COVID Shaming.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The morality tale superimposed onto the virus persists. As people in blue states get infected with Omicron, they seem to be following a script in which they go out of their way to prove that their infection was not due to misbehavior, God forbid—they got the vaccines and the booster and wear their masks everywhere they go and regularly get tested. See Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Cory Booker, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, and Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson for examples of the template.

Why the need to go into detail about never having sinned? Some are saying the quiet part aloud: “There is a strange feeling of shame and embarrassment around us getting covid,” as one person admitted. “We did everything we thought was right to avoid it- masks, tests, vaccines, boosters- and we still got it.”

“As an ultra-cautious, triple vaccinated, always-masker I was shocked and very afraid,” another tweeted. “To my surprise, I also felt ashamed. And embarrassed. How could *I* have let this happen? How could *I* have put my family at risk?”

These people want you to know they are the “good” Americans, those who wear two or three masks, didn’t see family, travel or socialize for two years, and didn’t leave their houses. “We did everything right,” followed all the rules, and still got it!

It’s the new confessional, not Catholic but COVID. “Forgive me, Dr. Fauci, for I have sinned,” they cry out. And it’s not just individual citizens that are posting their COVID Confessions. It’s politicians and public health officials, journalists and other public figures. And it’s really weird.

These tweets and the culture they emerged from betray the truth about much of the “fight” against COVID that liberals seem unable to let go of, even when the virus comes for them. Rather than admit that a virus doesn’t care about your virtue, they experience getting infected with COVID as shameful—because they wanted others to feel shame.

Since when in human history has someone’s vaccination status ever been included in an obituary? These obligatory COVID/Vaccine Acknowledgement Statements are like some kind of new Land Acknowledgements for the COVID Zero faithful. If only blue state liberals could acknowledge the truth: that no one should feel guilt or shame for getting a highly infectious disease.

After all, we don’t shame people for getting chickenpox or seasonal influenza or any number of other highly contagious respiratory viruses or diseases. It’s something many liberals actually know in other contexts; they would never shame someone for getting an illness that is even related to their behavior, like obesity, alcoholism and some forms of diabetes. Why is this a thing with COVID?

Now especially, as we hopefully transition to the endemic phase of COVID-19, the COVID shaming has got to stop. The only entities that should feel guilt, shame or be blamed for the spread of this virus are China and the Wuhan Virology Lab. The “Scarlet C” belongs squarely upon them.

If only liberals would relinquish it.

What is the Way Out?

Jennifer Jones writesAs C.S. Lewis wrote in God In The Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (a quotation many of us have read more than once this year), “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. …those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” After close to two years of decisions being made for our own good, his words could not be more poignant.

At this point in the pandemic, there are two distinct paths: (1) Continue down the government’s rabbit hole of lockdowns, vaccine passports, triple jabs, quadruple jabs, segregation, masking, isolation, and divisive rhetoric erroneously blaming one group of people for the woes of the pandemic or (2) common-sense risk acceptance predicated on the belief that medical autonomy based upon being an informed consumer is a God-given right.

Fortunately, there are numerous jurisdictions that mostly avoided the “rabbit hole” and provide examples for a balanced approach to managing the virus.  (Sweden, Japan, South Africa, Florida, Uttar Pradesh, etc.)

Clean Up the Dashboard


Stop showing cumulative statistics all the way to beginning of 2020.  These are not informative, only serve to drive fear of numbers that can only rise.  The public needs to see what is the situation now.

Cease use of the categories “cases” and “hospitalizations”.  Both have been corrupted from original definitions and can no longer serve.  Instead report “inpatients” and “outpatients”.  These are people who are in a physician’s care for sickness following infection with SARS-CV2.

Inpatients are those admitted into hospital with a prior covid diagnosis, not anyone testing positive after entering hospital for some other reason. Outpatients are those undergoing a treatment protocol at home under the supervision of a doctor who determined an illness deriving from SARS-CV2 infection.

The only other statistics are “covid deaths” which must be defined as dying from Covid19 not dying with Covid19. This outcome is only valid for inpatients and outpatients (no others) within 28 days of first diagnosed with Covid19. “Recoveries” should be reported daily, meaning patients who survive after 28 days.

Empower Primary Care for the General Population

Over-the-counter medical products should be provided comparable to those to treat cold and flu infections. People with mild symptoms should have access to home tests as well as anti-viral medicines and nutritional supplements shown to be effective against SARS-CV2.

Stop Discrimination Against Persons Based on Vaccination Status or Mask Wearing

Those who are vaccinated are protected and do not threaten others.  Unvaccinated people are trusting their own immune systems.  Likewise, wearing masks is an individual protection choice based upon circumstances.

Outpatients need to self-isolate during treatment, and when symptoms are over, new testing is not required.  People who have contact with others who tested positive do not need to test or to self-isolate if they are without symptoms.

Basically, it is a return to common sense citizen responsibility for public health.  When you are sick, you seek care and medical advice and treatment and isolate until you are well.


Israel Mulls ‘Herd Immunity’ Covid Strategy As Global ‘Pox Party’ Pivot Continues

The end of the pandemic will not be televised

The Zoom Class Gets Covid









Covid19–You’re Safer than You Think, Part 2

An earlier post suspected that the extreme push for 100% vaccination is motivated by a need to deprive analysts of enough unvaccinated persons to serve as a control population for comparison.  We can see that import in a UK report assessing the efficacy of being vaccinated or not.  Andy Zhao writes at American Thinker The real efficacy rates of the COVID vaccines.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The Biden administration and the mainstream media have been pushing a mandate of the experimental COVID vaccines for the American people. Their talking point is that “COVID vaccines are effective and work against the pandemic.” That’s not true. I have been following the “U.K. vaccine surveillance report” since last September and have seen enough evidence about the real efficacy of the COVID vaccines to show that they’re not as good as advertised.

On the surface, it appears that using that unadjusted rate per 100,000 people seems fair because it compares vaccinated and unvaccinated from the same base number. But that’s a deception. Each individual, either vaccinated or unvaccinated, are in different health conditions and live in different environments. An individual may not be infected with COVID in one area, but he could be in the other. That’s why “real efficacy rate” should be used, especially for the comparisons of hospitalizations and deaths. The real efficacy rate is calculated based on the number of actual infected people, both vaccinated and unvaccinated. This can measure how many people would be preserved from hospitalization or even death after they were infected by the virus if they had been vaccinated.

Next, let’s take a look at the summary I created based on the U.K. vaccine surveillance report series. I added two highlighted columns to show what the real efficacy rate of the COVID vaccines are, along with the rates for the unvaccinated. Actually, they look great at first glance!

The real efficacy rate for hospitalization by vaccination status is calculated by the hospital admission number divided by the infection case number. For the Week 51 report, that’s 1 – (4,027/268,654) = 0.98501, or 98.501%. That means that the COVID vaccines prevented more than 98 people being hospitalized out of 100 who were infected. The same can be said for the death rate, where only 1 person dies out of 100 people who were infected.

From the chart, we can also see that the unvaccinated were doing better, 99.152% and 99.796%, respectively, for Week 51, when omicron started to be dominant in the U.K. The same is true for Week 47 and Week 45, when the delta variant was dominant.

But I and most people are more concerned about the real effectiveness of those COVID vaccines in combatting the COVID pandemic, not artificial rates created for propaganda. By the way, many research reports have pointed out that the efficacy rate of the COVID vaccines is quickly reduced after being administered, even dropping to negative numbers in three months after getting the third shot!

Natural Immunity Includes T-Cells

Add to that this report from Bloomberg (H/T Tyler Durden) T Cells Come to the Rescue as Studies Show They Buck Omicron. Excerpts in italics with my bolds

♦ Unlike antibodies, the cells hold up against variant in tests
♦ Findings may explain disconnect between case load and severity

The Dutch researchers looked at 60 vaccinated health-care workers and found that while their antibody responses to omicron were lower or nonexistent compared with the beta and delta variants, T cell responses were largely unaltered, “potentially balancing the lack of neutralizing antibodies in preventing or limiting severe Covid-19.”

The study from the University of Cape Town’s Institute of Infectious Disease and Molecular Medicine looked at patients who had recovered from Covid or been vaccinated with shots from Pfizer Inc. and partner BioNTech SE or Johnson & Johnson. They found that 70% to 80% of the T cell responses they assessed held up against omicron.

T cells are white blood cells that can remember past diseases, kill virus-infected cells and rouse antibodies to marshal defenses. People infected with another coronavirus that was responsible for the SARS outbreak in 2003, for example, were found to still have a T-cell response to the disease 17 years later.

Recent weeks have brought evidence that the new strain can erode vaccine protection, prompting governments to push for booster shots to raise the level of antibodies that can fight off the variant.

But immune protection has several layers. While antibodies block infection, T cells kill infected cells, preventing the virus from spreading and causing worse disease, Wendy Burgens, one of the University of Cape Town study authors, wrote on her Twitter account Virus Monologues. “They can’t prevent you from getting infected, but they can minimize the damage that comes afterwards,” she said.

Covid19–You’re Safer than You Think, Part 1

The political and media messaging about the coronavirus prevents the citizenry from connecting the dots and realizing how fear is exaggerated in order to impose social controls.  Let’s put the pieces together.

1.  Natural Immunity is as Good or Better Than Vaccine Immunity

Michael Nadler explains at American Thinker Director of the National Institutes of Health grossly misstates the science on vaccination vs. natural immunity.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

On the August 12, 2021 Special Report, Bret Baier asked NIH director Francis Collins: “Can you definitely say to somebody that the vaccine provides better protection than the antibodies you get from actually having had COVID-19?”

Dr. Collins replied to Bret and the almost 2 million viewers of Special Report:

“Yes, Bret, I can say that. There was a study published by CDC just ten days ago in Kentucky, and they looked specifically at people who had had natural infection and people who had been vaccinated and then ended up getting infection again. So what was the protection level? It was more than two-fold better for the people who had had the vaccine in terms of protection than people who had had natural infection. That’s very clear in that Kentucky study. You know that surprises people. Kind of surprised me that the vaccine would actually be better than natural infection. But if you think about it, it kinda makes sense[.] … That’s a settled issue.”

I was one of those who did find this quite surprising, given my familiarity with studies such as this one from the Cleveland Clinic and my basic understanding of how immunity is conferred by mRNA vaccines versus the natural immunity arising from prior infection.

However, based on the unequivocal statement on national TV by Dr. Collins, a highly respected scientist leading one of our nation’s pre-eminent public health agencies, that the issue is settled, I adjusted my thinking about vaccine immunity versus natural immunity from prior infection.

Fast-forward to the following night’s Special Report to watch and listen to Admiral Brett Giroir, former assistant secretary for health during the Trump administration while concurrently serving in several other public health positions. Dr. Giroir responded to a question about the confusion that arose from Dr. Collins’s conversation on Special Report the night before. He pointed out that Dr. Collins’s statement the previous night about the superiority of vaccine immunity over natural immunity and his citation of the Kentucky/CDC study as evidence were “factually incorrect.”

It is worth watching the whole conversation, but key points made by Dr. Giroir include the following:

It has not been shown that natural immunity, the immunity you have after infection, is any inferior to the immunity you have after vaccination. And, in fact, there is growing evidence that natural immunity lasts a long time and is highly protective against infection and hospitalization[.] … The study that Dr. Collins quoted did not have anything to do with people who had been vaccinated or who had natural immunity. What it proved [is] that if you were previously infected, your chance of getting COVID in the middle of Delta in Kentucky was about 1 in a thousand to get COVID again. If you got vaccinated that dropped it to 1 in 2500 so that’s a reduction but still your risks were very, very low[.] … This does not deal with people who were naturally immune vs. vaccinated. That’s a whole different question and it begs the question about whether you have antibodies, is that as good as being vaccinated? And the data right now pretty much say it is.

To clarify, the CDC published a report on a Kentucky study of people who had previously been infected with COVID-19. The study addressed the question of whether being vaccinated after already being infected provides additional protection; and the findings suggest that vaccination does provide additional protection when added to immunity provided by previous natural infection. But Dr. Collins relied on this study to make a definitive statement in response to an entirely different question: whether vaccination of people who were not previously infected provides better protection than does immunity obtained from previous infection. This study sheds absolutely no light on that question.

Given the factually incorrect statements made by the head of the NIH on national TV, we are left to wonder how much we can trust about what our highest-level public health officials tell us. And when they do mislead us, is it intentional, is it carelessness in communications, or is it because they are mistaken in their understanding of the science? In the case of Dr. Collins’s statement on Special Report, all but the most cynical have to conclude it is the third.

This then raises the question as to how such an eminent scientist can get it so wrong. This is a much tougher question to answer without discussing the issue directly with Dr. Collins. I would speculate that we have a case of confirmation bias, the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one’s existing beliefs or theories. What might the source of this bias be?

The Biden administration has made vaccination numbers a key measure of its progress in leading the fight against COVID-19, as it should. However, in order to keep the public focused on vaccination as a universal necessity, and in its apparent approval of vaccine mandates, the public health bureaucracy has been quite conspicuous in minimizing any mention of the role, effectiveness, and extent of natural immunity arising from previous infection.

According to a number of outside experts such as Marty Makary, “[r]equiring the vaccine in people who are already immune with natural immunity has no scientific support.” So as part of the public health bureaucracy which is invested in President Biden’s objective of universal vaccination, Dr. Collins might easily have misread the Kentucky/CDC study as strong evidence that natural immunity is not nearly as effective as vaccination.

In this regard, I don’t hold the CDC blameless. For example, I’m not sure if the CDC has even acknowledged studies like the one at the Cleveland Clinic showing strong protection due to natural immunity arising from previous infection. And particularly after Dr. Collins’s misreading, it would behoove the CDC to add a statement in the Summary or Discussion sections of its report on the Kentucky study making it clear that it does not address the question of the relative effectiveness of vaccination vs. natural immunity.

2.  One of Three Americans Have Natural Immunity

Columbia Public Health published this report One in Three Americans Already Had COVID-19 by the End of 2020.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Undocumented Infections Accounted for Estimated Three-Quarters of Infection Last Year

A new study published in the journal Nature estimates that 103 million Americans, or 31 percent of the U.S. population, had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the end of 2020. Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health researchers modeled the spread of the coronavirus, finding that fewer than one-quarter of infections (22%) were accounted for in cases confirmed through public health reports based on testing.

The study is the first to comprehensively quantify the overall burden and characteristics of COVID-19 in the U.S. during 2020. The researchers simulated the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 within and between all 3,142 U.S. counties using population, mobility, and confirmed case data.

The portion of confirmed cases reflected in the study’s estimates, i.e. the ascertainment rate, rose from 11 percent in March to 25 percent in December, reflecting improved testing capacity, a relaxation of initial restrictions on test usage, and increasing recognition, concern, and care-seeking among the public. However, the ascertainment rate remained well below 100 percent, as individuals with mild or asymptomatic infections, who could still spread the virus, were less likely to be tested.

“The vast majority of infections were not accounted for by the number of confirmed cases,” says Jeffrey Shaman, PhD, professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. “It is these undocumented cases, which are often mild or asymptomatic infections, that allow the virus to spread quickly through the broader population.”


A person infected but without enough viral load to be sick is not likely to be contagious.  The exception is the first few days for someone who goes on to be severely ill afterward. All of these people (infected but not “cases”) had immune systems that stopped the virus from replicating in their bodies.  Ironically, had they been subjected to PCR tests, they would have shown as positives, and then mislabeled as “cases” despite their wellness.

Because of the political drive to vaccinate everyone, the powers-that-be deny that nearly a third of the population is already blessed with immunity without being vaccinated.  And this goes without considering the evidence that youngsters’ immune systems are superior to adults when it comes to coronaviruses (SARS-CV2 being the fifth one in circulation).  Superior here means preventing illness severe enough to be life-threatening, or to require hospital or extended care.  Neither vaccines nor natural immunities prevent infections, only limit the effects to runny noses and/or coughs.

For a discussion of natural immunity mechanisms see SARS Cross-Immunity from T-cells

3.  Vaccine Mandates Are Not Justified

Evidence is building that immunity after infection is superior to vaccine-induced immunity.  This Israeli study is a recent example: Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections.  Excerpts below with my bolds.

Background Reports of waning vaccine-induced immunity against COVID-19 have begun to surface. With that, the comparable long-term protection conferred by previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear.

Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study comparing three groups: (1)SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals who received a two-dose regimen of the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine, (2) previously infected individuals who have not been vaccinated, and (3) previously infected and single dose vaccinated individuals. Three multivariate logistic regression models were applied. In all models we evaluated four outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic disease, COVID-19-related hospitalization and death. The follow-up period of June 1 to August 14, 2021, when the Delta variant was dominant in Israel.

Results SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.

Conclusions This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

Martin Kulldorf of Harvard weighs in:

“In Israel, vaccinated individuals had 27 times higher risk of symptomatic COVID infection compared to those with natural immunity from prior COVID disease [95%CI:13-57, adjusted for time of vaccine/disease]. No COVID deaths in either group.”

Jon Miltimore draws the implications: Harvard Epidemiologist Says the Case for COVID Vaccine Passports Was Just Demolished. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

A Death Blow to Vaccine Passports?

The findings come as many governments around the world are demanding citizens acquire “vaccine passports” to travel. New York City, France, and the Canadian provinces of Quebec and British Columbia are among those who have recently embraced vaccine passports.

Meanwhile, Australia has floated the idea of making higher vaccination rates a condition of lifting its lockdown in jurisdictions, while President Joe Biden is considering making interstate travel unlawful for people who have not been vaccinated for COVID-19.

Vaccine passports are morally dubious for many reasons, not the least of which is that freedom of movement is a basic human right. However, vaccine passports become even more senseless in light of the new findings out of Israel and revelations from the CDC, some say.

Harvard Medical School professor Martin Kulldorff said research showing that natural immunity offers exponentially more protection than vaccines means vaccine passports are both unscientific and discriminatory, since they disproportionately affect working class individuals.

“Prior COVID disease (many working class) provides better immunity than vaccines (many professionals), so vaccine mandates are not only scientific nonsense, they are also discriminatory and unethical,” Kulldorff, a biostatistician and epidemiologist, observed on Twitter.

Nor is the study out of Israel a one-off. Media reports show that no fewer than 15 academic studies have found that natural immunity offers immense protection from COVID-19.

The Bottom Line

Vaccine passports would be immoral and a massive government overreach even in the absence of these findings. There is simply no historical parallel for governments attempting to restrict the movements of healthy people over a respiratory virus in this manner.

Yet the justification for vaccine passports becomes not just wrong but absurd in light of these new revelations.

People who have had COVID already have significantly more protection from the virus than people who’ve been vaccinated. Meanwhile, people who’ve not had COVID and choose to not get vaccinated may or may not be making an unwise decision. But if they are, they are principally putting only themselves at risk.

Climate & Covid Year in Review

Dave Barry provides at Miami Herald his usual droll witty take on events Dave Barry’s Year in Review: Wait, wasn’t 2021 supposed to be better than 2020?.  Some excerpts in italics along with my added comments and images.

Year in review 2021

Fortunately in 2021, we followed the Science, which decided that the coronavirus does not observe floor arrows. On the other hand, the Science could not make up its mind about masks, especially in restaurants. Should everybody in the restaurant wear them? Should only the staff wear them? Should people who are standing up wear them, but not people who are sitting down, which would seem to suggest that the virus can also enter our bodies via our butts? We still don’t know, and we can’t wait to find out what the Science will come up with for us next.

Anyway, our point is not that 2021 was massively better than 2020. Our point is that at least it was different. A variant, so to speak. And like any year, it had both highs and lows.

No, we take that back. It was pretty much all lows, as we will see when we review the key events of 2021, starting in…

January 2021

The spotlight now shifts to incoming President Joe Biden, who takes the oath of office in front of a festive throng of 25,000 National Guard troops. The national healing begins quickly as Americans, exhausted from years of division and strife, join together in exchanging memes of Bernie Sanders attending the inauguration wearing distinctive mittens and the facial expression of a man having his prostate examined by a hostile sea urchin.

Bjorn Lomborg:  Joe Biden will rejoin the Paris climate agreement soon after being inaugurated as president of the United States. Climate change, according to Biden, is “an existential threat” to the nation, and to combat it, he proposes to spend $500 billion each year on climate policies — the equivalent of $1,500 per person.

For Americans, President Barack Obama’s Paris promises carried a price tag of nearly $200 billion a year. But Biden has vowed to go much further, with a promise of net-zero by 2050. There is only one nation that has done an independent cost estimate of net-zero, namely New Zealand. The Kiwis found the average best-case cost is 16 percent of GDP, or a US cost of more than $5 trillion a year by mid-century.

These figures are unsustainable. Moreover, the US and other developed countries can achieve very little on their own. Imagine if Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries stopped all their emissions today and never bounced back. This would be utterly devastating economically yet would reduce global warming by the end of the century by less than 0.8 degrees.

There is a smarter way: investing a lot more in green-energy ­research and development. As Bill Gates says, “We’re short about two dozen great innovations” to fix climate. If we could innovate the price of green energy below fossil fuels, everyone would switch, eventually fixing climate change.

Joe Biden’s climate agenda is all about creating a crisis — not actually fixing one

February 2021

A massive ice storm blasts much of the nation, taking an especially brutal toll on Texas, where record-setting cold temperatures knock out power to large areas and wreak devastating havoc upon millions of cells in the brain of Sen. Ted Cruz, who, despite being (Just ask him!) the smartest person on the planet, decides this would be a good time to dash off to Cancun. Meanwhile the management of the Texas power grid is harshly criticized by members of Congress who could not personally reset a home circuit breaker without the help of at least four consultants and a pollster.

The Mars rover Perseverance collects scientific evidence proving that Mars is mostly dirt. AP

In the month’s most positive news, the NASA rover “Perseverance,” after traveling 293 million miles through space, lands safely on the surface of Mars. Technically it was supposed to land on Venus, but as a NASA spokesperson observes, “a planet is a planet.” The rover sends back breathtaking video revealing that Mars has an environment consisting — as scientists have long suspected — of dirt.

March 2021

Congressional Democrats pass the Biden administration’s COVID-19 relief package, which will cost $1.9 trillion, which the United States will pay for by selling baked goods to foreign nations. In a prime-time address after signing the bill, President Biden says there is “a good chance” that Americans will be able to gather together “by July the Fourth.” He does not specify which one.

Three hundred years ago, Vivaldi wrote “The Four Seasons.” It portrays the natural world, from birdsong to summer storms.  But the warming climate could radically alter the natural world by 2050, so a new version of “The Four Seasons” has been altered, too.

“We really wanted to walk that line between being too ridiculously catastrophic and kind of meaningfully changing this to make it sound what we think it might feel like to live in that time,” says Tim Devine of AKQA.

The design agency partnered with composers and scientists to develop an algorithm that translates projected environmental changes into musical changes. It allows them to create localized versions for any place where the piece is performed.

In the version played by Australia’s Sydney Symphony Orchestra, missing notes reflect declining bird populations, and the summer storm is more intense and prolonged.

April 2021

There is some welcome news on the COVID-19 front as the CDC declares that it is not necessary to wear a face mask “provided that you are fully vaccinated, and you are outdoors, and you are part of a small gathering, and everybody in this gathering has also been fully vaccinated, and all of you periodically, as a precaution, emit little whimpers of terror.” The CDC adds that “we, personally, plan to spend the next five to ten years locked in our bedroom.”

President Biden, in his first speech to Congress, promotes his infrastructure plan, which would cost $2.3 trillion, and his American Families plan, which would cost $1.8 trillion, with both plans to be funded by what the president describes as a “really big car wash.”

May 2021

The CDC further relaxes its COVID-19 guidelines in response to new scientific data showing that a lot of people have stopped paying attention to CDC guidelines. At this point these are the known facts about the pandemic in America:

— Many Americans have been vaccinated but continue to act as though they have not.

— Many other Americans have not been vaccinated but act as though they have.

— Many of those who got vaccinated hate Donald Trump, who considers the vaccines to be one of his greatest achievements.

— Many who refuse to get vaccinated love Donald Trump.

What do these facts tell us? They tell us that we, as a nation, are insane. But we knew that.

See Four Myths Drove Covid Madness

Myth: Sars-CV2 is a new virus and we have no defense.
Fact: Sars-CV2 has not been scientifically established as a virus.
Myth: Testing positive for Sars-CV2 makes you a disease case and a spreader.
Fact: PCR tests say nothing about you being ill or infectious.
Myth: Millions of people have died from Covid19.
Fact: Life expectancy is the same before and after Covid19.
Myth: Wearing masks prevents viral infection.
Fact: Evidence shows masks are symbolic, not effective.
June 2021

President Biden goes to Europe to participate in an important and historic photo opportunity with the other leaders of the G7 economic powers, which are Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, Google, Facebook and Mattress Giant. In a formal joint statement issued after the meeting, the leaders declare that everybody had, quote, “a nice time.” Biden also meets with Queen Elizabeth II, who has met with every U.S. president since we started having them.

July 2021

COVID-19, which we thought was almost over — this is like the eighth or ninth time we have thought this — appears to be surging again in certain areas because of the “Delta Variant,” which gets its name from the fact that it is spread primarily by fraternities. The problem is that many Americans have declined to be vaccinated, despite the efforts of pro-vaccine voices to change the minds of the skeptics by informing them that they are stupid idiots, which is usually a persuasive argument. In response to the surge, the CDC issues new guidelines urging Americans to “do the opposite of whatever we said in our previous guidelines, not that anyone is paying attention.”

In the month’s most upbeat story, Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos pioneer a new era in billionaire leisure travel by going up in private suborbital spacecraft. The two flights are radically different: Branson’s takes off in New Mexico and returns to earth in New Mexico; whereas Bezos takes off in Texas and comes down in Texas. Space enthusiasts say these missions will pave the way toward a future in which ordinary people with millions of spare dollars will be able to travel from one part of a state to a completely different part of that state while wearing matching outfits.

Athletes in the scaled-back Tokyo Olympics compete in the two-person flag-wave event. Koji Ito AP

In Tokyo, the pandemic-delayed 2020 Olympic games (motto: “Later, Smaller, Sadder”) finally get underway with the majestic Nasal Swab of Nations. This is followed by the ceremonial lighting of the Olympic Torch, which for safety reasons is a small vanilla-scented bath candle that is immediately extinguished to prevent it from attracting crowds. Let the games begin!

August 2021

The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan is similar to a soccer riot, but not as organized. Shekib Rahmani AP

American forces are withdrawn from Afghanistan, a country that, thanks to 20 years of our involvement, has been transformed — at a cost of many lives and more than $2 trillion — from a brutal, primitive undemocratic society into a brutal, primitive undemocratic society with a whole lot of abandoned American military hardware lying around. Most Americans agree that we have accomplished our mission, which is the same mission that the Russians had in Afghanistan before us, and the British had before them; namely, to get the hell out of Afghanistan.

The Biden administration, noting that the president has more than 140 years of experience reading Teleprompter statements about foreign policy, assures everyone that it has a Sound Exit Plan allowing for Every Possible Contingency, and insists that the withdrawal is going well. This assessment is confirmed by observers on the ground, particularly Jen Psaki, with the ground in her case being the White House Press Briefing Room. Observers who are actually in Kabul paint a somewhat darker picture of the withdrawal, more along the lines of what would have happened if the Hindenburg had crashed into the Titanic during a soccer riot.

Meanwhile global climate change continues to be a big concern as scientists release disturbing satellite images showing that the Antarctic ice sheet, for the first time in thousands of years, has developed a Dairy Queen.

September 2021

Massive leftist backlash against Ivermectin Explained

Treatment protocols with HCQ or Ivermectin + nutritional supplements fill the the need for early home treatment.

Connor Harris explains in his City Journal article Try a Dose of Skepticism.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Ivermectin may or may not work against Covid-19, but media coverage of the drug has been sneering, inaccurate—and revealing.

“You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” read a recent viral tweet warning readers away from using a certain medication to treat Covid-19. The tone of affectedly folksy condescension would be expected from any of thousands of Twitter-addicted progressive journalists, but less so from the official account of the United States Food and Drug Administration. Perhaps even more surprising, the tweet linked to a warning advising readers not to take a drug, ivermectin, that has been used in humans for decades and is a standard Covid-19 treatment in much of the world.

The media’s recent reporting on ivermectin is a fitting sequel to their reporting on hydroxychloroquine near the beginning of the pandemic—but not, as received opinion would have it, because both are tales of red-state yokels duped into taking poisonous phony remedies. As in the earlier case, media coverage of ivermectin exemplifies how the liberal political class’s bias, and its confusion of respect for science with blind trust in a scientific establishment, impairs their skepticism and their capacity to appraise complex scientific questions.  See Why the Leftist Backlash Against Ivermectin

October 2021

Speaking of threats: American military and intelligence officials express concern over reports that China has tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile, although a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson states that it was “probably a bat.”

In other disturbing developments, Facebook suffers a worldwide outage lasting several harrowing hours, during which billions of people are forced to obtain all of their misinformation from Twitter. Later in the month Facebook Chief Execudroid Mark Zuckerberg announces that, to better reflect Facebook’s vision for the future, the parent company is changing its name to the Washington Redskins.

One of the year’s celebrity space travelers is William Shatner, 90, whose suborbital voyage lasts 10 minutes, including two bathroom breaks. Mario Tama TNS

But there is also inspiring news in October, provided by 90-year-old actor William Shatner, who boards a Blue Origin suborbital capsule and successfully travels from one part of Texas to another part of Texas in a subhistoric mission lasting 10 minutes, including two bathroom stops.

November 2021

Biden heads to Glasgow, a city located in Scotland or possibly Wales, to participate in COP26, a 190-nation conference on climate change attended by 30,000 political leaders, diplomats, bureaucrats, experts, spokespersons, observers, aides, minions, private-jet pilots and of course Leonardo DiCaprio. After an incalculable number of catered meals and lengthy impassioned speeches making the points that (1) the climate crisis is real, (2) this is an emergency, (3) the time for action is NOW, (4) we cannot afford to wait ONE DAY longer, and (5) WE ARE NOT KIDDING AROUND THIS IS SERIOUS DAMMIT, the participating nations hammer out a historic agreement declaring, in no uncertain terms, that they will definitely, no excuses this time, gather next year for another conference, which, in a clear indication of progress, will be named “COP27.” Take that, climate change!

On the economic front, the Biden administration, seeking to counteract the steep rise in gasoline prices, orders the Energy Department to release 50 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Within minutes a dozen towns in east Texas are flattened by an oil wave estimated to be 200 feet high. “Apparently,” states a red-faced department spokesperson, “you’re supposed to release the oil into a pipeline.”

Meanwhile, in response to a global shortage of maple syrup, the Quebec Maple Syrup Producers announce that they are releasing 50 million pounds of syrup from their strategic reserve. You probably think we are making this item up, but we are not.

As the month draws to a close, anxiety mounts worldwide over yet another coronavirus variant, called “omicron,” which we are pretty sure is also the name of one of the lesser villains in “Avengers: Endgame.” Everyone — government officials, medical authorities and the news media — assures the public that while the new variant is a cause for concern, there is no reason to panic because OHMIGOD THEY’RE BANNING TRAVEL FROM AFRICA THE STOCK MARKET IS CRASHING THE VACCINES MIGHT NOT WORK WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE POSSIBLY AS SOON AS THE MONTH OF …

December 2021

… which begins with the nations of the world united in a heartwarming humanitarian effort to make sure that omicron stays in the other nations of the world. The U.S. government considers tough new restrictions on international travelers, including requiring their planes to circle the airport for seven days before landing, but eventually settles on a compromise under which the planes will be allowed to land, but the passengers must remain in the airport eating prepackaged kiosk sandwiches until, in the words of a CDC spokesperson, “all of their germs are dead.”

President Biden, in a reassuring address to the nation on his strategy for dealing with a potential winter coronavirus surge, urges Americans to “do what it says on the teleprompter.”

In a historic video summit, President Biden and President Putin discuss the issue of how the “mute” button works. Adam Schultz AP

Meanwhile the news media, performing their vital, constitutionally protected function of terrifying the public, run story after story documenting the relentless advance of omicron, with headlines like “First Omicron Case Reported in Japan,” “Omicron Now Reported In California,” “Omicron Heading Your Way,” “OMICRON IS IN YOUR ATTIC RIGHT NOW,” etc.

The big economic story continues to be inflation, which is the worst it has been for decades, with the hardest-hit victims being low-income consumers and major college-football programs, which are being forced to pay tens of millions of dollars to obtain the services of even mediocre head coaches. In another disturbing economic development, the Federal Reserve Board issues a formal statement admitting that it has no earthly idea what a “bitcoin” is, and it’s pretty sure nobody else does either.

Elsewhere abroad, the state-run Saudi Press Agency reports that a prestigious Saudi beauty pageant for camels, with $66 million in prize money, disqualified over 40 contestants because they received Botox injections, facelifts and other artificial touch-ups. We are not making this item up.

In sports, Major League Baseball’s collective bargaining agreement expires, raising the possibility of a work stoppage next season, not that anyone would notice, inasmuch as the average professional baseball game this season lasted as long as the gestation period of a yak, but with less action.

In holiday-season news, travel in the Midwest is snarled when the U.S. Department of Agriculture, seeking to alleviate a shortage of Christmas hams, releases 17 million head of pig from the Strategic Pork Reserve, blocking every major road into and out of Iowa and causing the region to smell, in the words of Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, “even worse than usual.”

Finally, mercifully, the troubled year nears its conclusion. As the nation prepares to celebrate New Year’s Eve, the mood is subdued and thoughtful. People are still getting drunk and throwing up, but they’re doing this in a subdued and thoughtful manner. Because nobody knows what 2022 will bring. Will it suck as much as this year? Will it suck more? Or will it suck a LOT more? These appear to be our choices.

OK, so that’s not very hopeful. But don’t let it stop you from ringing in 2022 on a festive note. For one night, forget about the bad things. Be festive, party hard, and, in the words of Dr. Anthony Fauci, “lower your mask before you throw up.”

Two sides of the same coin.


Japan’s Bad Christmas Gift–Molnupiravir

I happened upon the website of Japan’s PMDA, Parmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency where a table of Covid drug approvals appeared:

This is a bad move for the Japanese population, as explained in a previous post:

Ivermectin Is Safe and Effective, Merck’s New Pill is Dangerous

An earlier post discussed how Merck debunked its own drug Ivermectin as a Covid fighter to clear the way for a new Merck patent pill costing 40 times the generic Ivermectin.  Now comes a revelation that the PR about the new drug Molnupiravir’s trial being cut short, was not because it was so successful, but because it didn’t work on moderate Covid cases, and is capable of dangerous long-term side effects (which won’t appear for months or years, long after the trial period). See Why Merck Dissed Its Own Invention Ivermectin

Leo Goldstein provides the analytics in his essay Merck Ignores Molnupiravir’s Cytotoxicity,  His report was also referenced at Trial Site News Is Molnupiravir a Global Catastrophic Threat? Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Overview from Trial Site News:

Merck’s Molnupiravir (also known as EIDD-2801 and MK-4482) is a mutagenic nucleotide analogue [1]. It introduces errors in the SARS-COV-2 RNA at the time of replication after proofreading, and causes lethal mutagenesis [2]. This threatens to accelerate the evolution of the coronavirus.

Any major variant of the coronavirus represents local optimum (in mutations space), maximizing coronavirus’ fitness. One- or two-point mutations cannot accomplish this. A new variant can only rise through the change of the virus-host-conditions systems, or through larger mutations set. Even a moderate increase in the point mutations frequency causes a big increase in the frequency of multi-point mutations and dangerous recombinations. Such events are too rare to be caught in small trials, but inevitable in large populations, and might lead to catastrophic consequences.

The authorization and broad use of Molnupiravir is likely to breed very dangerous SARS-COV-2 variants.

Leo Goldstein:

Merck has just applied to the FDA for an emergency use authorization of Molnupiravir for early treatment of COVID-19. Molnupiravir is a mutagenic nucleotide analogue. It increases the rate of mutations in the coronavirus’ RNA and in human DNA.

The application is based on alleged interim results of an unfinished trial, where this drug was given to 385 patients in 173 sites all over the world, and the patients were then observed for 29 days since recruitment and randomization.

Molnupiravir is mutagenic and toxic for human cells. Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics have flatly denied this and proceeded with human trials. The consequences of Molnupiravir’s DNA mutagenesis, such as cancer or birth defects, take months or years to develop. The 24 days of patient observation after 5 days treatment is obviously not enough to detect anything.

The broad use of Molnupiravir is a global catastrophic risk because the increased rate of coronavirus mutations is likely to create more dangerous variants.

All Molnupiravir trials were conducted by Merck or its partners. No results have been published in peer reviewed journals. Nevertheless, Dr. Fauci gave it a nod of approval. The US government has already purchased 1.7 million “treatment courses” from Merck, and it is on the course to manufacture and ship 10 million of them by the end of 2021. The relevant parties act as if the EUA approval is just a formality and are proceeding as if it were already granted.


Molnupiravir is a mutagenic [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] nucleotide analogue, and its potential cytotoxicity and genotoxicity are not in doubt [7]. Its use for some categories of patients could be justified if benefits were exceeding harm and risk. Instead, Merck elected to deny existence of these risks. Molnupiravir’s metabolites cause mutations in human DNA [4], just like they do in viral RNA. This is not in question. If the rate of mutations at therapeutic doses were sufficiently low, Merck should have shown that. Merck’s researchers dismissed this danger by alleging that they had conducted tests showing an absence of cytotoxicity [8], without showing any data. Their response was rebutted [7 [9] and laughed at by other scientists [9]
The therapeutic dosage — 800 mg, twice daily, for 5 days — is at the upper limit of the investigated range 50 – 800 mg [10], suggesting it is higher than what was initially expected.  Molnupiravir was initially developed to treat Equine Encephalitis virus diseases, and its most valuable property was its ability to cross brain-body barrier and achieve high concentration in the brain and very high concentrations in spleen [11] . Its concentration in the spleen is higher than in lungs [3]
[3]showed that meaningful inhibition of SARS-COV-2 without cytotoxicity is impossible in Vero cells (Fig.1B) . The data for human epithelial cells is inconsistent but does suggest cytotoxicity (Supplementary Materials, the data for Fig. S1).

More Mercky Business

[9] Merck researchers admitted to the necessity of in-vivo mutagenicity studies for this drug before proceeding to human trials. They therefore claimed that such studies (Pig-a and the Big Blue® (cII Locus)) have been conducted and that no danger of mutagenicity was found even at higher doses [12]. This is highly unlikely. Moreover, other scientists argued that these studies had significant limitations and do not allow Merck to make such claims [9]. To make matters worse, Merck failed to publish any data from these studies, making it impossible to peer review or replicate them.

This raises suspicions not only about the toxicity of Molnupiravir, but also about Merck’s conduct before and during clinical trials.

No data about concentrations and effects of Molnupiravir’s metabolites in the most vulnerable tissues, such as bone marrow, can be found.

Dubious Results from Animal Trials

Animal trials also failed to provide evidence of Molnupiravir’s effectiveness, at the manufacturer’s recommended dose – 800 mg (equivalent of 10 mg/kg or 370 mg/m2) twice daily. The mass of the drug per body area of the human or animal is the preferred quick approximation for comparison between human and animal doses [13].

The “Phase 3” Trial

In this trial, Merck gave patients in the treatment group 800 mg x 2/day x 5 days. After observing 775 participants (including 385 in the treatment group) for 24 (= 29-5) days after that, Merck published a press release [17] claiming that the trial was successful.

It is not true. A formally registered clinical trial should be conducted according to the plan until the end to provide statistically valid results. It was registered to enroll, randomize, and observe 1550 participants, and Merck had to spend another month to do that. Its October 1 press-release stated that the recruitment was more than 90% complete at the time it was stopped, between September 5 and September 30.

After 20 months of the pandemic, making decisions one month before completion of the single Phase 3 trial looks fishy.

If we combine this trial with a few dozen patients who received the same dose of Molnupiravir in other trials, there are less than 500 patients in total, who were treated with this drug and observed for 29 days. Should a drug be authorized for tens of millions of people, based on a trial involving less than 500 patients?

This trial was conducted in 173 sites all over the world. Such a wide range of sites cannot be properly controlled. This trial looks like a reality show, in which the organizers control the outcome. Gilead used a similar methodology to push Remdesivir, with deadly results. Merck’s Molnupiravir gambit is even more dangerous, because it can be administered to millions, with catastrophic global risks [18]
Finally, no study plan or protocol of the trial has been published and of course, no results. The only morsels of information to be found on this trial comes from Merck’s press release and [16], which does not contain even the protocol ID.

Two Indian companies also started clinical trials for Molnupiravir but decided to stop, apparently because of futility [19], but another Indian company Hetero applied for an EUA in India.  See Aurobindo Pharma, MSN Seek CDSCO Panel Nod To Cease Molnupiravir Trial On Moderate COVID Patients

Conflicts of Interest and Hidden Motives

The conflict of interest is unusually high. Merck has been manufacturing Molnupiravir at risk [17] Payment is conditional on EUA:

“In anticipation of the results from MOVe-OUT, Merck has been producing molnupiravir at risk. Merck expects to produce 10 million courses of treatment by the end of 2021, with more doses expected to be produced in 2022.”

The US and other governments, who ordered Molnupiravir [20], carry an even bigger risk. They have created expectations that would go unfulfilled if Molnupiravir is properly rejected. Such an evident alignment of interests between government bureaucracies and Merck is very dangerous and requires extreme scrutiny.


With the current limited information about Molnupiravir, one might compare its effects, at the “therapeutic dosage”, to a medium dose of radiation. There might be acute sickness, temporary immune-suppression, and long-term consequences including cancer and birth defects. The specific dosage may have been selected to be just below the threshold of acute sickness. We will not know until the results are published.

Footnote: In a separate article, another researcher drew this analogy.  Suppose that your body has four doors by which SARS-CV2 can enter.  Molnupiravir can close one door, while Ivermectin closes them all. There is no reason for this new Merck pill except for obscene profits to be gained.

For Ivermectin Background, see Ivermectin Invictus: The Unsung Covid Victor



In Zinc We Trust

Our immune systems fail us without zinc in our bodies. Diana Kwon explains at Knowable magazine How zinc helps you fight off infections.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Our bodies require the vital mineral for the healthy functioning of the immune system

As researchers learn more about how our bodies use zinc, they’re finding that the element plays a surprisingly key role, particularly within the immune system. “We think zinc is a gatekeeper of immune function,” says Lothar Rink, an immunologist at RWTH Aachen University in Germany who recently coauthored an overview of zinc’s roles in the immune system in the 2021 Annual Review of Nutrition.

And, although scientists still struggle to find good ways to measure zinc levels in the body, it looks as though many people may indeed not have enough zinc in their diet for full immune function.

An essential element

Too little zinc is clearly bad news for your health. A severe shortage — often the result of a genetic defect or an extremely restricted diet — can cause myriad problems, such as stunted growth in infants and children, hair loss, roughened skin, delayed wound healing and weakened defenses against infections.

But the extent and consequences of more subtle zinc deficiencies have proven harder to pin down. That’s largely because it’s extremely difficult to measure zinc levels accurately in people. Zinc is often on the move both inside and outside our cells. During an infection, for example, blood levels drop as zinc is siphoned out of the bloodstream into cells that help launch an immune response. Zinc levels can also be perturbed by diet, certain drugs and hormones, and health status.

For these reasons, although it is possible to detect zinc levels in blood, these measurements are often imprecise. And unlike iron, which is easily assessed by measuring levels of iron-containing blood proteins like hemoglobin and ferritin, there is no biomarker that can be used as an indicator of zinc levels. “There’s still no 100 percent accurate way to measure zinc in a human being, especially if they have an illness of some kind,” says Daren Knoell, a zinc biologist at the University of Nebraska. Currently, the best way to determine a potential zinc deficit is to look at someone’s dietary intake, he adds.

Because of these limitations, most physicians diagnose zinc deficiency only if patients show symptoms of major deficiency such as rough skin or hair loss, Rink says. “But immune deficiency takes place much earlier, when you have a slight zinc deficiency.” Researchers have found that zinc-deficient individuals are more vulnerable to infection than those with adequate levels of the mineral. Studies have shown, for example, that in healthy elderly individuals, zinc supplements reduced the frequency of infections. (The possible use of zinc supplements to help ward off Covid-19 is an area of active investigation, although the National Institutes of Health states that there is currently not enough evidence to say if it will be beneficial.)

From the data available so far, it appears that zinc deficiency is relatively common. Based on assessments of diet and the prevalence of stunted growth, a common consequence of inadequate zinc consumption during development, some studies estimate that around 17 percent of the world’s population are at risk of zinc deficiency — and that in certain low- and middle-income regions, such as parts of South Asia, that proportion is as high as 30 percent.

Aging, genetics, pregnancy, illness and other factors all contribute to this shortfall, but diet is the main culprit, when individuals don’t eat enough zinc-rich foods such as seafood, red meat and nuts. Consuming too many phytates, substances found in whole-grain bread, cereals and other sources, can also be a problem. Phytates bind to zinc and prevent it from being absorbed into the body.

What does zinc do?

Studies show that zinc is important in almost all aspects of the immune system: It helps skin cells and cells lining our organs prevent pathogens from entering, and it keeps the thymus and bone marrow, which are responsible for generating immune cells, functioning normally. Zinc “crops up in all parts of the immune system,” says Sophie Hambleton, an immunologist at Newcastle University in the UK — and zinc-deficient people show a wide range of immune dysfunctions.

Most of the research to date has focused on the role of zinc in the innate immune system, the body’s frontline defense that launches fast, non-specific attacks against foreign invaders. Zinc appears to be involved in making physical barriers — such as the cells that line our organs — more resistant to invasion, as well as ensuring the proper functioning of macrophages, key white blood cells that gobble up pathogens and send out chemical signals to recruit other cellular soldiers.

To ensure that there’s enough zinc to carry out these many jobs, concentrations of the mineral within the body are tightly controlled. At the onset of an infection, for example, immune cells such as macrophages rapidly produce a zinc-transporting protein called ZIP8. This protein controls how much zinc enters these cells, which is important for maintaining the cells’ ability to mop up pathogens and regulating the production of important defense-related molecules, including chemical messengers called cytokines, Knoell and others have found.

How much zinc does a person need?

Given how important zinc is to a healthy immune system — and the difficulty of knowing whether a person might be deficient — Rink says zinc supplementation is probably a good idea, especially for people who are at higher risk of being deficient, such as vegetarians, vegans and the elderly. (Rink has consulted for or received research grants from three companies that sell zinc supplements).

Most nutritional supplements are safe and don’t cause any serious side effects at the recommended daily intake, 8 milligrams and 11 milligrams for women and men, respectively, but Rink warns that at very high concentrations zinc can have adverse effects. In 2009, the US Food and Drug Administration warned against the use of Zicam nasal spray and swabs, a common cold remedy containing zinc levels so high that it led to a loss of the sense of smell. Due to this and other potential harms, experts recommend that adults consume no more than 40 milligrams of zinc per day.

Many open questions remain. For one, the authors of that 2021 review note that there were limitations to the available trials, such as small sample sizes. In addition, the time frame for zinc’s benefits is unclear. Most of the trials looking at the benefits of zinc after infection reported that supplements work only within 24 hours of when symptoms begin — but the team found evidence that window might be longer, and that zinc might be beneficial even when consumed up to three days after the onset of symptoms. And we need better zinc supplements, Knoell says. Most now come in salt form, as zinc sulfate or chloride, but these are not readily taken up by the body, so better formulations would be beneficial, he adds.

W. Edwards Deming was a scientific pioneer and the most widely known proponent of statistical quality control.


For years I have taken Zinc + vitamin C lozenges at the first sign of sinus or throat infection.  With the onset of covid19 alarms, I started taking 50 mg. Zinc tablets daily.  My pharmacist advised me to use zinc gluconate or sulfate rather than chloride or citrate, for better absorption by my body.

See also:  COVID-19 is a lack of nutrients, exploited by a virus

Why Federalized Science is Rotten

J Scott Turner writes at American Mind Modern Science’s Broken Bargain.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The founding manifesto of the modern scientific enterprise—Vannevar Bush’s 1945 classic Science: The Endless Frontier—laid down a promise: that federalizing the academic sciences would protect the universities as bastions of free inquiry and curiosity-driven research. Without such support, Bush argued, the academic sciences would be captured and enslaved by government and corporate political interests. That argument was persuasive to the political authorities of the time. Now, seven decades later, that promise stands broken. Science’s “endless frontier” has become Big Science, a self-aggrandizing cartel organized around the aggressive pursuit of federal money.

Science is grounded in Enlightenment virtues. Its core attributes are unfettered freedom of intellect; cultivation of curiosity; skepticism; dispassionate reason; and dedication to evidence. A robust modern science immensely enriches our society. In return, our society affords the sciences enormous privilege and prestige. This mutually beneficial bargain held for many generations. Scientists were free to roam the intellectual frontiers, the public mostly watched from a respectful distance, and both science and society flourished.

That bargain is now unraveling, damaging both science and the society that supports it.

Less and less do the sciences serve as bulwarks of reason against political and corporatist aims. To the contrary, the sciences are becoming stridently politicized, acting as a vanguard for an authoritarianism of “expertise”. Increasingly, science is being used as a cloak to shield political agendas from normal scrutiny and debate, thereby betraying the scientific ideal.

These trends, and the reasons for them, are not hard to discern. Scientists’ careers are no longer charted by the esteem of peers, but increasingly by conformity to institutional and political interests. The natural immunity of tenure, which is intended to protect university scientists’ intellectual freedom, is being systematically gutted. Adhering to science’s core virtues, listed above, is becoming a career hazard. In the face of this, fellow scientists either remain silent, or become eager participants in a masquerade of “consensus.” Public trust in science, which turns on the common perception that scientists are avatars of dispassionate and independent inquiry, is becoming increasingly tattered.

The COVID-19 spectacle is demonstrating just how fragile that public trust is.

This trend is not new, but the intrusion of identity politics into the sciences has made it toxic. Distinguished scientific careers are snuffed out in an instant. The interests of favored identity groups become the primary criteria for advancement, trumping credentials, ability, and qualification. Fealty to dogma, not respect for reason, now determines whether careers will grow, be terminated prematurely, or be aborted before they begin. Conformity and risk-aversion, behaviors once alien to the scientific enterprise, are now pervasive, enforced in Star Chamber Human Resources inquisitions.

The roots of this problem were planted in the aftermath of World War II, with the political decision to federalize scientific research. Academic science is now the client of an enormous federal spending program, dwarfing all other sources of support. This spending does not just support the work of scientists, it also provides universities a lucrative revenue stream which enables the growth of political, administrative and institutional power, to the detriment of scientists.

With the growth of the Big Science cartel, the culture of discovery that had so long been the source of scientific greatness, has been transformed into a culture of “production,” where scientists are incentivized and rewarded through bogus measures of scientific “productivity.” These metrics have only tenuous relation to intellectual innovation and discovery. They are, however, powerful conformity machines that reward grantsmanship, crowd-following, mediocrity, and allegiance to political and institutional masters. Scientific discovery has been shoved to the back of the line.

In short, the academy is no longer the vigorous custodian of the core values of a robust science. Rather, the academy has become the place where those virtues are facing their gravest threat. The academic sciences have become utterly debased, turning all members of the Big Science cartel into participants in a massive grift on the public treasury. Climate “science”, for example, is not science per se, but the stalking horse for a diversion of tens of trillions of dollars into the hands of favored political and corporate interests. There is simply no scientific basis for claiming a climate “crisis”, despite the attempts of politicians to stampede the public into thinking so. The political heavy-handedness behind COVID-19 pandemic policy has been remarkable in its suppression of science.

Lurking beneath is a barely-hidden web of collusion between governments, NGOs, universities, and self-interested scientists, all motivated by the desire to keep the money flowing.

The modern social bargain struck with science after the War was founded on the assumption that independent, skeptical, and dispassionate scholars would be an invaluable source of methodical good judgment and resistance to half-cocked political and corporate agendas. The Big Science cartel, propped up by enormous federal subsidies, has mostly subordinated those virtues. It is time to face a hard truth: the seventy year experiment to federalize the sciences has been a failure. The task now is to prevent the Big Science cartel from further dehumanizing society and delegitimizing science.

There is a second hard truth: the necessary reforms will not come from within. Rather, it will be the people and their representatives that will have to impose them. To restore science to its rightful and valuable place, break up the Big Science cartel.

J Scott Turner is an emeritus professor of biology at the SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry.

See also Wokeness Worms Eating Science Academies

Hooray For Antibodies


Yesterday I gave a blood sample for SARS CV2 antibody testing and today I got back encouraging results.


In Canada (and elsewhere including US and UK) Roche provides a panel of two serum antibody tests.  First developed was the N test to identify antibodies against the Nucleocapsid protein. This test will accurately detect responses to natural infection, but not an immune response triggered by a vaccine.

The S test seeks antibodies against the S (Spike) proteins.  The Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay characteristics are described at Roche diagnostic website.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

A positive result means that you have developed protective IgG antibodies to the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Our report will also provide you with a numeric count of these antibodies which is standardised and allows you to compare with other available tests and published WHO standards.

This test will detect antibodies amongst individuals who have been naturally infected but also received one of the following vaccines: AstraZeneca, Pfizer / BioNtech, Moderna.

If antibodies are detected, it means that the immune system will recognise the SARS-CoV-2 virus if met in the future and this will prevent serious reinfections from occurring. There is no way of predicting the level of that protection.

A negative result tells you that you likely have not been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or that the level of protective antibodies have subsequently decreased to a point where they can no longer be detected.

How Immunity Deploys Antibodies

Testingforall in UK provides this helpful information Understanding your Roche Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (S) test result

The body has a range of ways to fight off infection, but the scientific community has centred the development of vaccines for COVID on triggering the creation of antibodies to the spike protein of coronavirus. These “spikes” are what gives coronaviruses their name, and it is through this spike mechanism that the virus binds to healthy human cells in order to replicate itself.

A natural infection creates a wide ranged defence, often involving a T cell response to destroy human cells infected by SARS-SoV-2 to stop virus from replicating, and by the creation of a range of antibodies to different proteins in the virus that attempt to deactivate it before it can bind to host cells. The original COVID-19 Home Total Antibody Test we launched in Sept 2020 detects antibodies to the Nucleocapsid protein that surrounds the RNA of the coronavirus, and is useful for detecting previous exposure, which has provided many people with an understanding of whether past or ongoing symptoms that they experienced were related to a coronavirus infection that occurred before PCR testing was widely available.

The COVID-19 Immunity Test provides an accurate calibrated measurement of the level of antibodies to the spike protein, and is therefore considered to be a good view of your immune response and status. In the testing that we have carried out with our laboratory partner, we have compared the result of the both the Roche N and S test tests on positive blood samples and see very good agreement so if you tested positive on our COVID-19 Home Total Antibody Test then you will very likely test positive on the COVID-19 Immunity Test. The difference between the two tests is that they are looking at different viral protein targets, and that the Immunity Test gives you a calibrated antibody titer that can be compared to other tests and the emerging WHO standard.

To enlarge open image in new tab, or double-click.

The Results in My Case

My N test was negative while my S test was highly positive at >2500 U/ml.  Here is the range of reported results:

Result Type Level (U/mL)
Negative –
Antibodies not found
< 0.4 (less than 0.4)
Between 0.4 and 0.8
Positive –
Antibodies found
Between 0.8 and 10
Between 10 and 100
Between 100 and 250
Between 250 and 1,000
Between 1,000 and 2,500
> 2,500 (more than 2,500)

Conclusion:  My Pfizer jab #1 was in April, #2 in June.  Six months later I have the highest rating for antibodies against the Spike protein, a combination of natural and vaccine-induced immunity.

Footnote:  For a review of all the ways Ivermectin defeats SARS CV2, see How Much Does Ivermectin Fight Covid19? The Count is 20 ways.


I noted that 2500 units per milliliter is the same number as the air molecules (mostly N2 andO2) surrounding each CO2 molecule in the atmosphere.  The analogy is clear:  Just as IR-inactive gases keep our planet warm without overheating, our immunity antibodies keep us from Covid19 fever.

Pandemic On Demand

The Quebec Story Today

As reported in Global News article Quebecers wait in long lineups for free rapid COVID-19 test kits.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Quebecers lined up outside local pharmacies Monday morning looking to get their hands on free rapid COVID-19 testing kits.

At a Jean-Coutu in Anjou, lines were forming as early at 7 a.m. as people looked to nab one of the 108 available kits.

By 9 a.m., the store’s supply had run out, with a number of people left empty-handed, forced to seek elsewhere.

Provincewide, 4.3 million tests are being distributed to 1,900 pharmacies. Another two million are being sent to seniors’ homes.

According to the Quebec Order of Pharmacists, supply is limited, with pharmacies receiving boxes of only 108 kits.

Each kit holds five tests. Anyone over the age of 14 is eligible for one kit per 30-day period to prevent hoarding supply.

The ministry of health says there are both advantages and disadvantages of rapid antigen testing. They are easy to use and you can get a result in less than 15 minutes, but they can also sometimes provide false positives.

Rapid tests can be used for added protection over holidays, but experts warn they aren’t perfect
If your rapid test comes back positive, you should book a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, which is considered the gold standard for COVID-19 testing, and self-isolate until you receive a negative test result.

On December 20, 2021,  Quebec Health Minister Christian Dube announced tough new restrictions in an effort to stem the rapid growth of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations in the province, and he warned further measures may come soon.

Dube called the situation “critical” as he announced that bars, movie theatres and other entertainment venues were to close as of 5 p.m. Monday. Restaurants will be allowed to operate at 50 per cent capacity but will be required to close by 10 p.m.

The Quebec Back Story From January 2021

January 30, 2021 I posted this Covid Rapid Tests Finally Out from Quebec Storage (200 Scientists Ask)  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

A group of 213 scientists, professors, health-care workers and patients published an open letter to the Legault government Thursday calling on Quebec to roll out rapid COVID-19 tests to curb outbreaks more quickly and to step up its communications strategy.

“We have 1.2 million of those tests just sitting in a warehouse in Farnham,” Roxane Borgès Da Silva, a professor with the Université de Montréal’s school of public health, said in an interview Wednesday night. “We have reached a point in the evolution of the pandemic where the health system is at the breaking point. It is time that we use every tool at our disposal.

Quebec has been hesitant to use the tests widely because it fears their lack of sensitivity could clear people for COVID-19 when they actually have the virus. But Da Silva said the tests are close to 90-per-cent accurate when used on patients who are in an extremely contagious phase, which is crucial to stopping the most dangerous transmitters. The tests could be used at workplaces, high schools and CHSLDs, or be made available at pharmacies and doctors’ offices to allow the public to get tested quickly, Da Silva said.

The main COVID-19 test used in Canada is the polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, test — which uses the nasal swab that most Quebecers who have gotten a COVID-19 test are familiar with. They are extremely sensitive. They rarely — if ever — declare someone negative who actually has COVID-19; if there is viral material present in someone’s nasal cavity, a PCR test will find it. They are so sensitive that they can detect dead viral material leading to positive results long after the person is no longer infectious, and they are resource intensive, requiring health-care workers to take swabs and lab technicians to process the results.

The tests’ lack of sensitivity and the chance of getting a false negative result worried federal officials, who gave a caveat when they approved the rapid tests, Quebec Health Minister Christian Dubé said at the National Assembly last week.

“It says in small print, ‘be sure to do the second test at the same time. To avoid giving a false negative, continue to do the (PCR) test,” Dubé said.

So Quebec is still double-checking each rapid test result with a PCR test, a cumbersome process that reduces their utility. As a consequence, Dubé said the province has more than one million rapid tests sitting unused or just beginning to be used in pilot projects, as health officials decide the best way to deploy them.

Quebec Public Waits to be Empowered, Gets Controls Instead

Treatment protocols including Ivermectin or HCQ plus nutritional supplements fill the need for early home treatment.

As you can see from the above, the purpose of rapid tests is countermanded by policymakers.  The empowerment idea is that people feeling ill can readily at home test for infection from SARS CV2. They can then through telemedicine administer anti-viral treatment protocols to clear the virus without severe sickness or requiring hospitalization.

Instead of that, the rapid tests are only employed as a screening for PCR testing.  Officials do not want to lose control over case statistics.  Nor do they admit or recommend any therapeutics for curing Covid19.  They only advise to be vaccinated (again and again), and then isolate when infected until health returns or hospital care is required.

And don’t overlook how the PCR tests are manipulated. See CDC Test for Vaxxed People Comes a Year Too Late.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

From the CDC’s instructions for state health authorities on handling “possible breakthrough infections” (uploaded to their website in late April):

For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing. (Sequencing is not feasible with higher Ct values.)

Throughout the pandemic, CT values in excess of 35 have been the norm, with labs around the world going into the 40s.

Essentially labs were running as many cycles as necessary to achieve a positive result, despite experts warning that this was pointless (even Fauci himself said anything over 35 cycles is meaningless).

But NOW, and only for fully vaccinated people, the CDC will only accept samples achieved from 28 cycles or fewer. That can only be a deliberate decision in order to decrease the number of “breakthrough infections” being officially recorded.

Secondly, asymptomatic or mild infections will no longer be recorded as “covid cases”.

That’s right. Even if a sample collected at the low CT value of 28 can be sequenced into the virus alleged to cause Covid19, the CDC will no longer be keeping records of breakthrough infections that don’t result in hospitalisation or death.

The CDC is demonstrating the beauty of having a “disease” that can appear or disappear depending on how you measure it.

To be clear: If these new policies had been the global approach to “Covid” since December 2019,  there would never have been a pandemic at all.

Critical Thinking Vs. Trusting “The Science”

Brandon Smith writes at his blog Why Don’t People “Trust The Science?” Because Scientists Are Often Caught Lying.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

There has been an unfortunate shift in Western educational practices in the past few decades away from what we used to call “critical thinking.” In fact, critical thinking was once a fundamental staple of US colleges and now it seems as though the concept doesn’t exist anymore; at least not in the way it used to. Instead, another brand of learning has arisen which promotes “right thinking”; a form of indoctrination which encourages and rewards a particular response from students that falls in line with ideology and not necessarily in line with reality.

It’s not that schools directly enforce a collectivist or corporatist ideology (sometimes they do), it’s more that they filter out alternative viewpoints as well as facts and evidence they do not like until all that is left is a single path and a single conclusion to any given problem.

They teach students how to NOT think by presenting thought experiments and then controlling the acceptable outcomes.

For example, a common and manipulative thought experiment used in schools is to ask students to write an “analysis” on why people do not trust science or scientists these days. The trick is that the question is always presented with a built-in conclusion – That scientists should be trusted, and some people are refusing to listen, so let’s figure out why these people are so stupid.

I have seen this experiment numerous times, always presented in the same way. Not once have I ever seen a college professor or public school teacher ask students: “Should scientists today be trusted?”   Not once.

This is NOT analysis, this is controlled hypothesis. If you already have a conclusion in mind before you enter into a thought experiment, then you will naturally try to adjust the outcome of the experiment to fit your preconceived notions. Schools today present this foolishness as a form of thinking game when it is actually propaganda.

Students are being taught to think inside the box, not outside the box.
This is not science, it is anti-science.

Educational programming like this is now a mainstay while actual science has taken a backseat. Millions of kids are exiting public schools and universities with no understanding of actual scientific method or science in general. Ask them what the equations for Density or Acceleration are, and they’ll have no clue what you are talking about. Ask them about issues surrounding vaccination or “climate change”, and they will regurgitate a litany of pre-programmed responses as to why the science cannot be questioned in any way.

In the alternative media we often refer to this as being “trapped in the Matrix,” and it’s hard to think of a better analogy. People have been rewarded for so long for accepting the mainstream narrative and blindly dismissing any other information that when they are presented with reality they either laugh at it arrogantly or recoil in horror. The Matrix is so much more comfortable and safe, and look at all the good grades you get when you say the right things and avoid the hard questions and agree with the teacher.

Given the sad state of science in the West these days surrounding the response to covid as well as the insane and unscientific push for forced vaccinations, I thought it would be interesting to try out this thought exercise, but from an angle that is never allowed in today’s schools:

Why don’t people trust the science and scientists anymore?

This is simple: Because many scientists have been caught lying and misrepresenting their data to fit the conclusions they want rather than the facts at hand. Science is often politicized to serve an agenda. This is not conspiracy theory, this is provable fact.

That’s not to say that all science is to be mistrusted. The point is, no science should be blindly accepted without independent examination of ALL the available facts. This is the whole point of science, after all. Yes, there are idiotic conspiracy theories out there when it comes to scientific analysis, but there are a number of scams in the world of science as well.

Most people have the capacity to sift through scientific data as long as it’s transparent. When the facts are obscured or spun or omitted this causes confusion, and of course only the establishment scientists can untangle the mess because they are the ones that created it.

There are clear and openly admitted ideological agendas surrounding covid science which have nothing to do with public health safety and everything to do with political control.

When you have the head of the World Economic Forum applauding the covid pandemic as a perfect “opportunity” to push forward global socialist centralization and erase the last vestiges of free markets and individual liberty, any rational person would have to question if the covid science is also being rigged to support special interests.

Luckily, the covid issue is so massive that it is impossible for them to control every study. Instead, the establishment ignores the studies and data they don’t like.

Science is quickly becoming a political religion rather than a bastion of critical thought. Conflicting data is ignored as “non-science” or even censored as “dangerous.” Government and corporate paid studies are treated as sacrosanct. Is it any wonder that so many people now distrust the science?

Any reasonable person would have questions and suspicions. Those who do not have been indoctrinated into a cult they don’t even know they are a part of.


Connor Harris connects this subservient attitude to the prevailing progressive post-modern mindset;
See Why the Leftist Backlash Against Ivermectin

Liberals have no monopoly on gullibility or lazy journalism, but the biased coverage of ivermectin springs from one of the worst pathologies of liberal discourse in particular: conflation of respect for science with fealty to established scientific institutions. A “pro-science” disposition has long been integral to American liberals’ self-conception (a ubiquitous yard sign reads, in part, “In this house, we believe science is real”); it grew especially strong during the George W. Bush years as a reaction to the administration’s stance on global warming and alliance with the religious Right.

But most Americans are scientists neither by training nor by temperament, and “pro-science” politics usually calcifies into blind trust in a few politically congenial authorities—such as universities and government health agencies, which have enjoyed high levels of liberal confidence throughout the pandemic despite such actions as reversing longstanding advice on face masks based on a dubious judgment call.

Conflating science with the scientific establishment not only corrodes the capacity for skepticism but also helps questionable or corrupt actions by authorities escape scrutiny. The hullabaloo over ivermectin poisoning, for example, far exceeds the attention given to another questionable treatment pushed not by right-wing hucksters but by the FDA itself: remdesivir, an antiviral produced by the pharmaceutical giant Gilead Sciences that is still the only Covid-19 treatment with full FDA approval.



Facebook Censors BMJ Under Guise of “Fact-checking”

BMJ (British Medical Journal) publishes more than 70 medical and allied journals.  They report unwarranted censorship by Facebook in an article Facebook urged to act over incompetent “fact check” of BMJ investigation.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Editors ask Mark Zuckerberg to correct errors relating to The BMJ’s Pfizer vaccine trial investigation

Editors at The BMJ are urging Facebook to correct a “fact check” of a recent investigation that they say is “inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.”

In an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg, Fiona Godlee, outgoing editor in chief, and Kamran Abbasi, incoming editor in chief, say this matter “should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as The BMJ for reliable medical information.”

They also urge parent company Meta to reconsider its investment in and approach to fact checking overall following other examples of incompetence.

On 2 November, The BMJ published an investigation into poor clinical trial research practices at Ventavia, a contract research company helping carry out the main Pfizer covid-19 vaccine trial.

It was based on dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails provided to The BMJ by a former employee of Ventavia, and it raised serious concerns about data integrity and patient safety.

The article went through The BMJ’s usual high level legal and editorial oversight and peer review.

But beginning on November 10, readers began reporting a variety of problems when trying to share the article and were directed to a “fact check” performed by a Facebook contractor named Lead Stories.

Godlee and Abbasi say they find the “fact check” performed by Lead Stories to be “inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.”

For example, it fails to provide any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong, it contains a screenshot of the article with a stamp over it stating “Flaws Reviewed,” despite the Lead Stories article not identifying anything false or untrue in The BMJ article, and it published the story on its website under a URL that contains the phrase “hoax-alert.”

Cochrane, the international provider of high quality systematic reviews of the medical evidence, has experienced similar treatment by Instagram (also owned by Meta).

The BMJ complained to Lead Stories, “but they refused to change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.”

The BMJ has also complained to Facebook, requesting that Facebook immediately remove the “fact checking” label and any link to the Lead Stories article, “thereby allowing our readers to freely share the article on your platform.”

The editors say they hope Facebook will “act swiftly” to correct the error relating to The BMJ’s article and to review the processes that led to the error. They added a general call for parent company Meta to reconsider its investment in and approach to fact checking overall.

“Rather than investing a proportion of Meta’s substantial profits to help ensure the accuracy of medical information shared through social media, you have apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task.”