Covid19 So Far: Facts and Falsehoods

Dr. Ted Noel explains the present situation clearly in his American Thinker post What Do We Know About COVID So Far? Excerpts in italics with my bolds and some headers and added images.

With all the thousands of studies bombarding the medical community, it’s helpful to set our microscope aside and look at the bigger picture. It’s virtually certain that the virus was engineered in Wuhan with financial and technical assistance directed by that highly competent bureaucrat, Anthony Fauci. But that doesn’t tell us what we should expect as the virus moves through society. For that, we must look at the science. And I don’t mean “I am science” Fauci. I mean real scientific data, something with which Fauci has little acquaintance.

Falsehoods Exposed

Perhaps we should start with that great scientist, Oprah Winfrey, who recently opined that ending the mask mandate on airliners was “premature.” As John Adams noted at the Boston Massacre Trial, “Facts are stubborn things.” They aren’t “my truth” or “your truth.” Facts don’t care who you are or what you think. When we state facts, we are presenting a verbal picture of reality. And the fact is that public mask-wearing has never been demonstrated to have any public health benefit. The only time that mask-wearing does any good is when health care workers in high exposure environments wear properly fitted, donned, and disposed of N-95 or better respirators.

Anything else is virtue signaling that denies the fact that public masking (a) doesn’t work and (b) has serious downsides.

The next great scientist is Bill Gates, who recently opined that we are in for another COVID wave that is likely to be more transmissible (true) and more deadly (false). Every variant of COVID has followed Muller’s Ratchet, becoming more contagious and less deadly. Even Delta was a bit less virulent than Alpha, but Omicron showed that more mutations encourage virus survival by infecting more people without killing them. This is the natural course of viruses, but anyone with a vested interest in vaccine profits or lockdown power simply cannot allow this fact to be known.

And that brings us to Saint Fauci.  The Supreme Lord of NIAID popped up recently announcing that we might need more lockdowns to prevent the spread of some new variant.

The experience of the last two years should have proved to everyone that lockdowns are bad. They kill people with other medical problems due to foregone care. As then-Governor Cuomo of New York learned, sixty percent of NYC cases were directly caused by lockdowns. When people are stuck in recirculated air with infected victims, they get sick, as the Kirkland, Washington, nursing home tragedy proved. But tyrants can’t learn, and Cuomo multiplied New York’s headstone count by sending COVID patients to assisted-living facilities to kill others. All that could have been avoided if our public “health” authorities had taken a few minutes to read the epidemiology literature.

We knew that lockdowns were bad long before COVID was invented.

The occupant of the White House and the Chief Cackler are our next scientists. They both live in a protective bubble and are multiply vaccinated and boosted. They periodically opine that we may all need another “booster.” But Kamala’s re-infections prove that the booster will not work. In fact, we now know that Canada, Israel, Gibraltar, and others have increased infection rates in vaccinated individuals. This appears to be true in the US as well, but the CDC is reluctant to release the data.

This vaccine failure is due in part to direct immune suppression by the shot.

The military has made it clear to Senator Johnson’s committee that not only does it not prevent infection, but it also triples the rate of breast cancer, with even higher multiples for other cancers. Yet that great scientist, SecDef Lord Austin, mandated that all military personnel get the Fauci Ouchy. He is oblivious to the fact that many highly trained (translation: expensive) warfighters such as Special Forces and pilots have been rendered unable to serve due to the mental and physical effects of the spike protein presented by the shots.

Another reason for vaccine failure is that the virus has mutated to forms that have spike proteins markedly different from the alpha variant in the vaccine. In short, they’re different diseases, just like flu is actually a host of different diseases. The vaccine and boosters don’t have any meaningful benefit against the current ailment.

I could list a host of other “scientific” authorities who are making false claims, but all that would do is bore you. In particular, we should regard anything from the CDC or Big Pharma with great suspicion, since it is contradicted by most evidence. I’ll simply leave you with a set of bullet points, all supported by large volumes of scientific data.

Facts From Our Covid Experience

♦  COVID-19 is a mild disease with almost zero mortality for people under age 55.

♦  Serious co-existing disease is the best predictor of mortality in all age groups.

♦  Public masking has zero effect on transmission of airborne diseases, including COVID.

♦  The “vaccines” do not protect you from getting COVID or transmitting COVID. They do not lessen the severity of COVID when you get it. That is a result of the newer variants being less severe to start with. The vaccines and boosters are directed at a disease that doesn’t exist anymore.

♦  The “vaccines” reduce your immunity, making you more likely to catch symptomatic disease. This also makes it much easier for numerous cancers to grow.

♦  Natural immunity from disease recovery is far better than any supposed benefit of shots. If you got the vaccine and then got sick, your immunity afterward is less than if you didn’t get the shot at all.
Remdesivir (Fauci gets $$ when it’s used) does not improve survival and probably causes other problems.

♦  Molnuvirapir, the new oral agent, isn’t as effective as Ivermectin, which the CDC steadfastly refuses to support. If you do get sick, get immediate treatment with Ivermectin. If your illness is from a different virus, it will probably help against that as well.

♦  Locales that opened up early generally have disease and death rates better than others.

♦  The safest place is outdoors, where the sun destroys viruses and they are dispersed into infinity.

I’m sure I left something out, but I’ll leave you with a couple of key items. First, don’t get the shot. It has no benefits and a host of bad effects I don’t have space to talk about. Second, take vitamin D3 and zinc. They have been shown to reduce viral infections a lot. Third, get a stock of Ivermectin. If you do get sick, start it immediately on your way to your urgent care. And don’t stop taking it even if they say to. They can lose their licenses if they agree with you taking it.

Government-based authorities are lying to us.
I know that’s strong, but it’s the truth.

The version of COVID that’s around now is a minor illness that is largely preventable and easily treated. That is a far better choice than getting a potentially deadly shot that a bunch of power brokers love. There will be many more variants, but the final variant is communism.

Ted Noel MD is a retired Anesthesiologist/Intensivist who podcasts and posts on social media as DoctorTed and @vidzette. His DoctorTed podcasts are available on many podcast channels.

IVM and HCQ protocols provide the missing pillar in places where they are made accessible. 

Ukraine is a Fiasco Owned by Obama, Biden and EU

Two very perceptive reports remind why we should not fall for the Biden regime’s attempt to use Ukraine to distract from their horrific governance.  First is an interview with Jacques Baud, a retired Swiss Army officer who served in a variety of international posts, including a stint with NATO.  H/T Gateway Pundit. Excerpts in italics with my bolds. The full interview is at the Postil Magazine, introduced in these words:

In this penetrating interview, Jacques Baud delves into geopolitics to help us better understand what is actually taking place in the Ukraine, in that it is ultimately the larger struggle for global dominance, led by the United States, NATO and the political leaders of the West and against Russia.

As always, Colonel Baud brings to bear his well-informed analysis, which is unique for its depth and gravity. We are sure that you will find this conservation informative, insightful and crucial in connecting the dots.

In 2014, during the Maidan revolution in Kiev, I was in NATO in Brussels. I noticed that people didn’t assess the situation as it was, but as they wished it would be. This is exactly what Sun Tzu describes as the first step towards failure. In fact, it appeared clear to me that nobody in NATO had the slightest interest in Ukraine. . . .we tend to portray the enemy as we wished him to be, rather than as he actually is. This is the ultimate recipe for failure. This explains why, after five years spent within NATO, I am more concerned about Western strategic and military capabilities than before.

The current war has its roots in the events of the Maidan in 2014. Simply put, the United States and the United Kingdom facilitated a coup that removed the democratically elected President and replaced him with someone the U.S. and the U.K believed they could control. It was in the aftermath of this coup that the people of Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence One impetus for this move was the vote of the Ukrainian policy abolishing the law that permitted Russian to be used as the second official language in those regions that were Russian speaking.

Once the Donbas “republics” declared their independence, the Ukrainian Government declared them terrorists and dispatched its army to take control of the region. Despite having numerical and materiel superiority, Ukraine utterly failed to dominate Donetsk and Luhansk. Baud offers this insight:

After 2014, Ukrainian armed forces’ command & control was extremely poor and was the cause of their inability to handle the rebellion in Donbass. Suicide, alcohol incidents, and murder surged, pushing young soldiers to defect. Even the British government noted that young male individuals preferred to emigrate rather than to join the armed forces. As a result, Ukraine started to recruit volunteers to enforce Kiev’s authority in the Russian speaking part of the country. These volunteers ere (and still are) recruited among European far-right extremists. According to Reuters, their number amounts to 102,000. They have become a sizeable and influential political force in the country.

The Western narrative of a Russian intervention in Ukraine got traction, although it was never substantiated. Since 2014, I haven’t met any intelligence professional who could confirm any Russian military presence in the Donbass. In fact, Crimea became the main “evidence” of Russian “intervention.” Of course, Western historians ignore superbly that Crimea was separated from Ukraine by referendum in January 1990, six months before Ukrainian independence and under Soviet rule. In fact, it’s Ukraine that illegally annexed Crimea in 1995. Yet, western countries sanctioned Russia for that…

Think about this for a minute–if the Ukrainian Army could not defeat the militias in the republics of Luhansk and Donetsk over the last 8 years, how in the world is that Army going to defeat the Russian Army? It is delusional.

The Military Situation in the Ukraine—An Update by  Jacques Baud

Three Points Deserve to be Highlighted by Way of Conclusion

1. Western Intelligence, Ignored by Policymakers

Military documents found in Ukrainian headquarters in the south of the country confirm that the Ukraine was preparing to attack the Donbass; and that the firing observed by OSCE observers as early as February 16 heralded an imminent outbreak in days or weeks.

Here, some introspection is necessary for the West—either its intelligence services did not see what was happening and they are thus very bad, or the political decision-makers chose not to listen to them. We know that Russian intelligence services have far superior analytical capabilities than their Western counterparts. We also know that the American and German intelligence services had very well understood the situation, since the end of 2021, and knew that the Ukraine was preparing to attack the Donbass.

This allows us to deduce that the American and European political leaders deliberately pushed the Ukraine into a conflict that they knew was lost in advance—for the sole purpose of dealing a political blow to Russia.

The reason Zelensky did not deploy his forces to the Russian border, and repeatedly stated that his large neighbor would not attack him, was presumably because he thought he was relying on Western deterrence. This is what he told CNN on March 20th—he was clearly told that the Ukraine would not be part of NATO, but that publicly they would say the opposite. The Ukraine was thus instrumentalized to affect Russia. The objective was the closure of the North Stream 2 gas pipeline, announced on February 8th, by Joe Biden, during the visit of Olaf Scholz; and which was followed by a barrage of sanctions.

2. Broken Diplomacy

Clearly, since the end of 2021, no effort has been made by the West to reactivate the Minsk agreements, as evidenced by the reports of visits and telephone conversations, notably between Emmanuel Macron and Vladimir Putin. However, France, as guarantor of the Minsk Agreements, and as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has not respected its commitments, which has led to the situation that the Ukraine is experiencing today. There is even a feeling that the West has sought to add fuel to the fire since 2014.

Thus, Vladimir Putin’s placing of nuclear forces on alert on February 27 was presented by our media and politicians as an irrational act or blackmail. What is forgotten is that it followed the thinly veiled threat made by Jean-Yves Le Drian, three days earlier, that NATO could use nuclear weapons. It is very likely that Putin did not take this “threat” seriously, but wanted to push Western countries—and France in particular—to abandon the use of excessive language.

3. The Vulnerability of Europeans to Manipulation is Increasing

Today, the perception propagated by our media is that the Russian offensive has broken down; that Vladimir Putin is crazy, irrational and therefore ready to do anything to break the deadlock in which he supposedly finds himself. In this totally emotional context, the question asked by Republican Senator Marco Rubio during Victoria Nuland’s hearing before Congress was strange, to say the least: “If there is a biological or chemical weapon incident or attack inside the Ukraine, is there any doubt in your mind that 100% it would be the Russians behind it?” Naturally, she answered that there is no doubt. Yet there is absolutely no indication that the Russians are using such weapons. Besides, the Russians finished destroying their stockpiles in 2017, while the Americans have not yet destroyed theirs.

Perhaps this means nothing. But in the current atmosphere, all the conditions are now met for an incident to happen that would push the West to become more involved, in some form, in the Ukrainian conflict (a “false-flag” incident).


Society Damaged by Surge of Narcissists

Ross Pomeroy writes at Real Clear Science What Are the Effects of America’s Narcissism Epidemic? Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

There’s a strong case to be made that since the end of World War II, Americans have grown increasingly narcissistic on average – more entitled, with an inflated sense of self-importance.

Psychologists Jean Twenge and W. Keith Campbell are most responsible for collecting data and creating a narrative to support this claim. According to the duo, the rise began with the Baby Boomers, who grew up in an era of relative ease and plenty after their grandparents endured a Great Depression and their parents soldiered and sacrificed through World War II. By the time they were college-aged, Boomers eschewed the collectivist mindset of their elders in favor of individualism.

The trend continued with Boomers’ kids. As Dennis Shen wrote for the London School of Economics’ Phelan United States Centre, “One study comparing teenagers found that while only 12% of those aged 14-16 in the early 1950s agreed with the statement “I am an important person”, 77% of boys and more than 80% of girls of the same cohort by 1989 agreed with it.”

And, of course, the rise in narcissism has persisted since. In 2008, Twenge published a study comparing college students’ scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory scale to scores from students in 1979, finding that levels of narcissism had risen roughly 30 percent.

Additional research has evinced this increase. “59% of American college freshmen rated themselves above average in intellectual self-confidence in 2014, compared with 39% in 1966,” Shen wrote.

Owing to the elevated prevalence of social media services over the past decade, it’s highly likely that the rise in narcissism has only accelerated of late.

We see it on Twitter, where users flock to share their ‘brilliant’ opinions. We see it on Instagram and TikTok, where people carefully curate their online personas. We also see it in traditional media sources, where elite-educated journalists often make themselves the story and focus on tending their Twitter profiles. Narcissism also reigns on television news. Gone are the days of humble correspondents and “just the facts” anchors, replaced by talking heads and opinionated hosts more interested in their ratings than the truth.

Of course, while narcissism has risen, that doesn’t mean we are all narcissists. It exists both as a trait, which is on a spectrum, and a personality disorder, which is much more extreme and debilitating. Narcissistic personality disorder has actually remained fairly stable in the U.S. over the past decades. This means that the average American is more self-centered than they used to be, but decidedly not stuck in their own head.

What are the wider effects of this psychological transition?

As Shen speculated, partisanship has exploded as people have grown more enamored with their own beliefs and less open to others’. Debt-financed conspicuous consumption “to elevate one’s status in front of others, rather than out of necessity” has risen. And an increasing disdain for government could partly be attributed to a focus on somewhat arrogant self-sufficiency.

There is also another way to look at the rise in narcissism – as a defense mechanism. Narcissism is often driven by low self-esteem and insecurity. Since the 1950s, wealth inequality has risen, cost of living has exploded, especially for housing, and puchasing power has stagnated. Combine these economic pressures with the competitive, pressure-filled media environment since the turn of the century and you have a recipe for a rise in narcissism. And sadly, narcissism is linked to elevated hostility and aggression towards others. One hopes that Americans can find a way to cool their collective narcissism before it boils over.

Narcissism Linked to America’s Political and Economic Crises

Denis Shen adds discussion at LSE (London School of Economics) A rise in narcissism could be one of the main causes of America’s political and economic crises.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Dennis Shen tracks narcissism’s rise, the potential link to economic conditions and discusses consequences. Moreover, he notes the striking phenomena now comparably evolving in China and abroad.

At extremes, narcissism undermines institutions that underpin a strong society, with links to shallow values, less intellectual interest and value on hard work, aggression and relationship complications, and lack of empathy and concern for others. When we consider political or economic dilemmas, we should not avoid discussion of the role that cultural factors and social psychology might have.

A multi-generational change

In the aftermath of the Second World War, a rare consensus within America emerged, the result of existential crises in the form of the World War and looming Cold War. In an era when the United States’ hegemony was unchallenged in the West, a type of groupthink existed within the nation’s borders—the ‘Greatest Generation’ emphasized conformity and discouraged individuality. This was supported by earlier shared struggles and the decline of class differences during the Great Depression and war era. This post-war era of togetherness saw unprecedented economic stability and trust in the state as the steward of the people. The nation backed global reciprocity, exemplified during the founding of the United Nations, Bretton Woods institutions and Marshall Plan.

As the Baby Boomers came of age in the 1960s and 70s, the grey society of the post-war consensus had begun to vanish in favor of a more individualistic focus on self-expression and self-identity.

The problem is that this change in the narrative furthered henceforth. It became pronounced enough by the 1970s that Tom Wolfe in 1976 titled this “The ‘Me’ Decade”. The cohorts that were raised in the 70s and 80s—Generations X and Y—continued this trend: to the extent that one study comparing teenagers found that while only 12% of those aged 14-16 in the early 1950s agreed with the statement “I am an important person”, 77% of boys and more than 80% of girls of the same cohort by 1989 agreed with it. This evolution has accelerated since the 1990s and 2000s, with the rise of the internet and social media influencing the social milieu of the Millennials and Generation Z.

Cultural roots of the modern crisis

Many of the extant crises in the United States can be traced to some extent to such cultural factors and entitled behavior. The racial and ideological tensions, and consequential partisanship in Washington—which supported the election of Donald J. Trump, have been exacerbated by the self-focused and competitive behavior of separate interest groups in society and politics, with not enough of the requisite empathy to reassess the world from one another’s vantage points. The financial crisis can be explained in part by the narcissistic behaviors of bankers and consumers alike—creating a “time-delay trap” of near-term greed over long-term logic. America’s trade deficit has been exacerbated by debt-financed “conspicuous consumption”—goods purchased to elevate one’s status in front of others, rather than out of necessity. And the crisis of confidence in government can be ascribed in part to the philosophical “hunkering down” and focus on self-sufficiency, rather than on mutual dependence.

Methods to address narcissism are not simple, however, even if society is malleable. During times of economic growth and stability, narcissism tends to grow. This is due to how success and prosperity impacts people, how that then filters to more accommodating parenting norms, and how we’re affected by urbanization and changes to smaller family sizes. Conversely, economic hardship and economic down-cycles tend to support group-minded, non-self-centered people, by enforcing modesty and hard work. In that, there may be both an inherent cyclical dynamic between business cycles and narcissism, and a structural dynamic between economic development and narcissism—with too much societal hubris only correctable in the end through a form of economic or national crisis.

A crisis around the world

The issue has not been isolated to the United States. Rather, the evolution of narcissism has advanced around corners of the world.

In China, there’s been an economic revolution experienced within the span of half a lifetime—with hundreds of millions lifted out of poverty since 1980 and living standards transformed and modernized. But, with the economic miracle has come the sudden upheaval in former collectivistic norms. The rise of the ‘Little Emperors’ and ‘Precious Snowflakes’ is now evident in younger generations that have grown up in only-child households amongst growing economic abundance. Research notes the role of sociodemographic factors in this increase in narcissism. In the decades ahead, societal, political and economic dilemmas could manifest, if such trends in China advance absent pushback.

A recognition of the problematic associations with narcissism is critical to solving domestic and international issues impacted by it. In addition, greater attention needs to be placed in policy circles on how economic and political development can be furthered whilst preserving or inducing characteristics of a cohesive, self-critical community.



Musk Has Twitter All Atwitter

Sergei Klebnikov at Forbes reports Musk Says He Has ‘Sufficient Funding’ To Buy Twitter, Claims He Has ‘Plan B’ If Offer Is Rejected.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Tesla’s billionaire CEO Elon Musk, who submitted a $43 billion bid to buy Twitter on Thursday, said later in the day at a TED conference in Vancouver that he has “sufficient assets” to buy the social media company and already has a “Plan B” ready if the board decides to reject his offer.


♦  “I can do it if possible,” Musk said at the conference when asked if he could actually afford to buy Twitter, adding that he has “sufficient assets” to carry out such a deal, amid doubts that he has enough liquidity given almost all his wealth is tied up in SpaceX and Tesla stock.

♦  The Tesla billionaire also said that he “has a Plan B” if Twitter’s board of directors, which will meet to discuss his attempted acquisition, reject his offer.

♦  The comments notably contrast with what Musk said earlier in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, when he described his $43 billion takeover bid for Twitter as his “best and final offer.”

♦  Musk reiterated that he wants to buy the social media platform as it has become the “de facto town square” and it remains imperative for there to be “an inclusive arena for free speech” in society.

♦  “I don’t care about the economics at all,” Musk responded when asked about making money on Twitter, adding that he wants to convert the platform to an open-source algorithm where users could review the code, instead of “having tweets sort of be mysteriously promoted and demoted with no insight.”

Musk’s bid to buy Twitter was met with mixed reactions from Wall Street analysts on Thursday. Some experts are adamant that Twitter will have a hard time rejecting the $43 billion offer or that this is just the beginning of a hostile takeover battle. Others remain highly skeptical, with some analysts calling Musk’s latest moves a “distraction” from challenges at Tesla.


Natural Covid19 Immunity Is Real (Fauci Admits, Finally)

Jeffrey Tucker writes at the Brownstone Institute  Fauci Finally Admits Natural Immunity.  Excerpts in italic with my bolds.

Yes, Fauci has never worried about consistency or even contradicting himself one day to the next, often without explanation. Too often his doling out “the science” has felt like performance art. Still, the record is that Fauci and all his compatriots either downplayed or denied natural immunity for two years. That has been the source of vast confusion.

In fact, this might have been the most egregious science error of the entire pandemic. It amounted to giving the silent treatment to the most well-established point of cell biology that we have. It was taught to every generation from the 1920s until sometime in the new century when people stopped paying attention in 9th-grade biology class.

There’s no question that this effort to deny natural immunity
was systematic and pushed from the top.

How has this changed? In February 2022, the CDC finally published on the topic that they could not forever deny. And now, Fauci himself let the following slip in an interview on March 23, 2022:

“When you look at the cases they do not appear to be any more severe [than Omicron] and they do not appear to evade immune responses either from vaccine or prior infection.”

What’s critical here is not his debatable claim about vaccines but rather his offhand remark about prior infection. It was tossed off as if: “Everyone knows this.” If so, it is no thanks to him, the CDC, or WHO.

To be sure, everything we’ve known since two years ago – if not 2.5 thousand years – is that immunity from prior Covid infection is real. Vaccines have traditionally been a substitute version of exactly that. Brownstone has assembled fully 150 studies that demonstrate that immunity through infection is effective, broad, and lasting.

Had that messaging been around during lockdowns, the attitude toward the virus would have been very different. We would have clearly seen the present reality from the beginning, namely that endemicity generally arrives in the case of a new virus of this sort due to exposure-induced population immunity. This is how humankind evolved to live in the presence of pathogens.

If we had widespread public awareness of this, the public-health priority would not have been locking down people who can manage exposure but rather alerting those who cannot to be careful until herd immunity in one’s own circle of contacts has been realized via meeting the virus and recovering.

To those who say that is dangerous, consider that mass exposure is precisely what happened in any case, stretched out over two years rather than occurring in a single season. This delaying of the inevitable might be what allowed for variants to emerge and take hold in successive rounds, each new one hitting naive immune systems in ways that were difficult to predict. Flatten the curve amounted to “prolonging the pain,” exactly as Knut Wittkowski predicted in March 2020.

A widespread understanding of natural immunity would have changed the entire calculus of public perception of how to manage one’s life in the face of a new virus. Instead of just running and hiding, people might have considered tradeoffs, as they had always done in the past. What is my risk of infection and under what conditions? If I do get the thing, what happens then? It might also have changed the priorities from disease avoidance and vaccine subsidies and mandates to thinking about the crucial thing: what should people do if they get sick? What should doctors recommend and prescribe?

The neglect of therapeutics figures into this very highly.

If people believe that locking down, staying away, masking up, stopping travel, and generally giving up all choices in life were the right way to make a pathogen magically disappear, plus they are under the impression that the risk of severe outcomes is equally distributed across the whole population, plus they believe that 3-4% of the population is going to die from Covid (as was suggested in the early days), you end up with a much more compliant people.

If natural immunity had been rightly seen as the most robust and broad form of immunity from the beginning, and we instead followed the idea of focused protection, the vaccine mandates would have been out of the question.

In other words, the silence of this topic was critical to scaring people all over the world into going along with an unprecedented attack on rights and liberties, thus losing up to two years of childhood education, closing millions of small businesses, and denying people basic religious liberties, in addition to the collapse of public health that resulted in record-breaking alcohol and opioid-related deaths, not to mention lost cancer screenings, childhood vaccinations, and general ill-health both physical and mental.

This stuff is not without consequence. Once might expect some contrition. Instead we get a passing comment and nothing more. After all, frank talk about this subject might be risky: it would imply that their entire mitigation strategy was wrong from the beginning and should never be attempted again.

Time to Get Real About Ukraine

Kurt Schlichter writes at Town Hall Can We Have Some Real Talk About Ukraine? Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Time to get real. Ukraine is an equal opportunity crisis because it provides politicians of both parties a chance to be wrong, although it allows the Democrats the opportunity to do what they do best and be much, much more wrong. For the Republicans, it lets them indulge the desire of some to return to a time when America could focus its moral firepower – if not its firepower firepower – upon a readily-identifiable baddie like it did during the Cold War or the War on Terror. For the left, it allows them to create a moral panic to replace COVID, which, naturally, requires that we Americans “sacrifice” even more of our freedom and money.

From the perspective of someone who actually trained Ukrainian troops in Ukraine, commanded US forces, and attended the US Army War College – though it’s kind of the Chico State of war colleges – the whole way our elite is approaching the crisis is an epic clusterfark. Don’t believe anything anyone tells you – and certainly, sanity check whatever I’m telling you, too – most of these insta-experts on intra-Slavic conflict know absolutely squat-ski. Moreover, their remarkably dumb observations and credulous acceptance of conventional wisdom, which has proven long on conventional and short on wisdom, are being presented without any kind of strategic context. They don’t know where this crisis came from and certainly have no clear notion of where they want it to go beyond the vague and unhelpful idea that they want Putin (which they use interchangeably with Russia) to “lose” without knowing what that even means.

Biases are important, and here are mine. I sympathize with the Ukrainian people, partly because I worked with them and partly because I was an end-stage Cold Warrior who came up training to fight Russians. I understand that this mess is not merely the result of Putin being bad or Trump being insufficiently anti-Putin, like LTC Sausage and the rest of the failed foreign policy elite and regime media insist. Putin’s badness plays a part, but he’s merely exploiting thousands of years of bloody history, of ethnic hatred, and of Orthodox mysticism, as well as totally misguided and poorly-considered Western interference. The idea that we could just make Ukraine part of NATO and the Russians would just lump it is remarkable for its dumbness, but it is fully in keeping with our foreign policy elite’s unbroken track record of failure since the old-school military’s victory in the Gulf War – something I discuss in-depth in my upcoming Regnery book “We’ll Be Back: The Fall and Rise of America.”

My bottom line is that the Ukrainians are imperfect, and regardless of whether the Russians have some quasi-legit beefs in some cosmic sense, you don’t solve them by sending in a couple hundred thousand mechanized soldiers.

The expectation was that the Russian forces would smash through, surround the Ukrainian forces pinned down facing the Russians in the occupied regions to the east, and isolate the main cities. I did not expect them to go into the cities immediately since Russians 1) generally bypass hard defenses; 2) they have bad experiences with city fighting (Stalingrad, Grozny); and 3) that would not necessarily be necessary. It would not be necessary if the idea was to neutralize the main Ukrainian combat formations and force the government in the cities to capitulate, then have the West pressure the Ukrainians to accept a ceasefire and “peace” that recognized Russian gains and ended the idea of Ukrainian allying with the West. In fact, that is pretty much what the Russian “peace plan” consists of.

But that did not work for a couple of reasons.

First, the Russians did not fight as well as expected. You should always treat the enemy as if it is the best possible enemy. We did in the Gulf. We prepared to fight elite Republican Guard divisions of highly trained and motivated soldiers using top-shelf Soviet equipment and tactics. None of that was so; we crushed an entire national army in 100 hours.

The Russians are poorly-led, with very weak synchronization among maneuver forces and fires. Their plan is okay – in fact, you look at a map, and it’s obvious what they would do. But their gear is badly-maintained, and their troops are unsuited to the task of supporting a rapid advance. Look at all the evidently intact gear simply abandoned by the side of the road. Lots of it looks like it broke down (note all the flat tires). Much of it seems to have run out of gas. And, of course, lots of stuff had been blasted apart.

That’s the second part of the equation – the Ukrainians fought back hard. If you are a Lord of the Rings nerd, think of the Ukrainians as the dwarves. Not super-sophisticated but tough and ready to fight, and also often drunk.

If you want to see the future of this war, look at videos of Ukrainian infantry patrolling near the front. Every second guy has an anti-tank weapon, like a Javelin or some other system, and the rest are carrying spare missiles. Mechanized forces unprotected by infantry are vulnerable to ambush by anti-tank teams. The Russian armor outstripped its ground pounders and is getting pounded itself. Further, Ukrainians seem to have success with drones firing anti-tank weapons.

The war is not going to be won by conventional battalions of Ukrainians operating with conventional aircraft. It will win with light infantry and drones armed with missiles.

This is why the whole Polish MiG thing is so silly and why Republicans are so wrong to get behind it. So, the Poles will (in return for F-16s and F-15s) give up their 30-year-old MiG-29s to the US, which will then give them to Ukraine, which will then fly them to victory. No. Let’s leave the escalation part aside – and that’s a pretty big consideration. Putin has nukes, and escalation is not in our interest. If America is using a base in Germany to assemble a bunch of fighters that will be attacking Russians, are they a target and thereby a trigger for WW3? Yeah, I know the argument that it’s not an escalation, but guess what? We don’t get a vote. Putin – who we have been told is an amalgam of crazy, stupid, and evil (the third is undeniable; the first two wishful thinking) gets to decide. He’s the guy with the finger over a button, and it doesn’t say “Reset.”

Let’s look at the practical part. Fighters are part of a conventional war, which Ukraine should not fight since Russian conventional forces are so much larger. A couple of dozen hand-me-downski fighters are going to turn the tide? If the Ukrainians’ own jets flown by their top pilots got shot down already by Russia’s formidable air defenses, which is probably true (don’t buy the “Ghost of Kyiv” stuff), what’s going to happen to a bunch of planes that – assuming they are even flyable – are being flown by the Ukrainian equivalent of Randy Quaid in “Independence Day”? It’s the Bad News Bears squadron; they might as well plaster “Sponsored by Chico’s Bail Bonds” on the tails.

This war gets won by cheap drones and little groups of armed Ukrainians packing AKs and plinking tanks and IFVs with portable missiles.

But what does “won” mean? Has anyone in the US government articulated what conditions we are seeking to achieve? Is it to “beat the Russians?” What’s that mean? Our establishment is gung-ho to help, and I don’t mind, but what are we helping to do? Ukraine’s interests involve pushing Russia out of its territory. But time for some hard truth – continuing this economically disastrous war until every boot is off Ukrainian soil is not necessarily in America’s interest, and America’s interests need to come first. We could live with resolutions that the Ukrainians might not want to live with.

And if our elite can’t articulate a short-term end-state, it sure can’t articulate one for five years from now. It is in America’s interest to wean Russia from China over the long term, but are we aiming at that? Do we want to do such damage to Russia that we can never hope to recover it from China’s orbit? After all, China is the big enemy. Russia is just a Shell station guarded by Paul Blart, except instead of a whistle, he’s got H-bombs.

“Putin bad” is true, but it’s insufficient. It’s time for some real talk about America’s interests, which may not be Ukraine’s interests, and how we are pursuing them. Except no one wants to talk about that because that’s not fun. Moral panics are, and stopping for a second to think strategically spoils the party for many in both parties.

Iceland Embraces Covid Freedom

Jelena Ćirić writes at  Iceland Review Iceland to Lift All COVID Restrictions on Friday.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images

There will be no more COVID-19 restrictions in Iceland or at its borders as of Friday, February 25, 2022,  Iceland’s Health Minister has just announced. Iceland’s remaining restrictions, including a 200-person gathering limit, will be lifted on Thursday night at midnight. Health Minister Willum Þór Þórsson stated that those who are sick are still encouraged to stay at home.

Photo: Golli. Iceland’s Chief Epidemiologist Þórólfur Guðnason.

Willum announced the restrictions in an informal press conference just after 1:00 PM, following a cabinet meeting, where he says the decision was unanimous among ministers. Prime Minister Katrín Jakobsdóttir stated in the press conference that the lifting of restrictions is in line with recommendations from the Chief Epidemiologist.

The current border regulation has been in effect since October 1, 2021 and will expire at midnight Thursday. Travellers will no longer be required to register prior to arrival or to present vaccination certificates. Unvaccinated travellers will no longer be required to be tested and quarantine for five days.

Katrín pointed out that around 110,000 residents of Iceland, of the total population of some 370,000, have already had COVID-19, according to official numbers. However, research suggests the true number is significantly higher. “The virus is still with us, and we know that many people will still get infected,” Katrín stated, adding that workplaces and communities will be affected, “but we believe we can live with the virus.”

“Widespread societal resistance to COVID-19 is the main route out of the epidemic,” the ministry said in a statement, citing infectious disease authorities.

“To achieve this, as many people as possible need to be infected with the virus as the vaccines are not enough, even though they provide good protection against serious illness,” it added.

All border restrictions would also be lifted, it said.

Both Willum and Katrín emphasised that people are still encouraged to test and isolate if they are sick, though access to PCR tests has now been limited. Asked about strain on the healthcare system, Willum stated: “The going will be tough for some weeks moving forward,” due to covid infections among both patients and staff disrupting services.

Asked whether COVID-19 measures could be reimposed in the future, Katrín stated: “We are always ready for the possibility that a new variant could emerge,” and added that authorities would continue to monitor the state of the pandemic domestically and globally.


Dr. Malone’s Wisdom in His Words

Recently Dr. Robert Malone was interviewed at length by Joe Rogan and the full transcript is Joe Rogan Experience #1757 – Dr. Robert Malone, MD Full Transcript

Below are excerpts in italics with my bolds, lightly edited and rearranged to serve as a synopsis. Read the full transcript for more details and technical points.

For about the last 20 years I’ve been focused on actually doing stuff: regulatory affairs, clinical development, getting necessary training, etc. I also completed a fellowship at Harvard University medical school as a global clinical scholar to round out my cv. And I’ve run over 100 clinical trials, mostly in the vaccine space, but also in drug repurposing. I’ve been involved in every major outbreak since AIDS. This is kind of what I do. I’ve won literally billions of dollars in federal grants and contracts. I’m often brought in by NIH to serve as a study section chair for awarding 80 to 120 million dollar contracts in vaccines and biodefense.

So, my position all the way through this comes off of the platform of bioethics and the importance of informed consent. People should have the freedom of choice particularly for their children; and in order to appropriately choose to participate in a medical experiment, they have to be fully informed of the risks as well as the benefits. And so I’ve tried really hard to make sure that people have access to the information about those risks and potential benefits, the true unfiltered academic papers and raw data etc. However, the policy that’s being implemented is one in which no discussion of the risks are allowed because by definition they will elicit vaccine hesitance. So it can’t be discussed, and yet that’s the backbone of informed consent. So not only is informed consent not happening, it’s being actively blocked, which makes no sense.

Michael Callahan is a CIA agent that I’ve co-published with in the past. He was in Wuhan in the fourth quarter of 2019 and he called me from Wuhan on January 4th, 2020.  was currently managing a team focusing on drug discovery for organophosphate poisoning, ergo nerve agents for DTRA, defense threat reduction agency. It involved high-end stuff like high-performing computing and biorobot screening. And he told me, Robert you need to get your team spun up because we got a problem with this new virus. I worked with him through prior outbreaks, and so it was then that I turned my attention to this. We started modeling a key protein, a protease inhibitor of this virus when the sequence was released on January 11th as the Wuhan seafood market virus. And I’ve been pretty much going non-stop ever since to address that outbreak with drug repurposing.

I’ve got some good news to announce. Today we should have the first patient enrolled in our clinical trials of the combination of monitoring and celecoxib for treating SARS-CoV-2. These trials are being run by the company Leidos, which is one of my clients. I’ve helped them design a plan based on my discoveries and funded by a defense threat reduction agency. I haven’t pushed this drug combination feeling it was inappropriate until we got the trials running. But they’re now open and we’ve passed through the FDA screening process. We had data showing that adding Ivermectin would further improve the combination, but the FDA created such enormous roadblocks to us doing an Ivermectin arm that we had to drop it. And by we I mean the DOD decided the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze, and they just dropped that arm due to FDA creating so much grief.

There are good modeling studies that probably half a million excess deaths have happened in the United States through the intentional blockade of early treatment by the U.S. government. it’s the pushback against both Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin now. When you ask me why, you’re asking me to get into somebody’s head. What I can say as a scientist is what I observed: the behaviors, the actions, the correspondence, these bizarre things that have happened.

For example, it is well documented they conspired to cook up a strategy using emergency use authorization to make it so that Hydroxychloroquine could only be administered in the hospital, which is too late for when hydroxy should be used. The government had documents on hydroxy’s safety and effectiveness yet they asserted that there was no data on Hydroxychloroquine at the time this decision was made. Just patently false. So, what is the motivation when none of this makes sense? The only thing you know is this is a journalist problem, and you know the classic guidance is follow the money.

And it is bizarre that Merck would come out with these explicit statements about the safety of Ivermectin. Both Ivermectin and hydroxy are on the WHO list of essential medicines. They have been administered for millions and millions of doses; they’re among the safest known medicines when administered within this acceptable pharmaceutical window. Ivermectin is even safer than hydroxy, so Merck coming out of the blue and saying Ivermectin isn’t safe is really inexplicable.

In India, Uttar Pradesh has almost the same population as the United States; it’s huge, dense, urban and poor, all the characteristics of the Indian countryside. And the virus was just ripping through there, causing all kinds of death and disease. Out of desperation it was decided to deploy widely throughout the province early treatments as packages including a number of agents. The composition has not been formally disclosed but it was rumored to include Ivermectin. There was a specific visit of Biden to Modi, and thereafter a decision was made in the Indian government not to disclose the contents of those packages that were being deployed in Uttar Pradesh. The treatments are still in use there, and in Uttar Pradesh deaths have flatlined. The rest of the world is yelling about Omicron and about hospitalizations–well South Africa isn’t–and Uttar Pradesh is still flatlined in terms of deaths.

The observation that I can make if we follow the money is that hospitals are incentivized to to treat COVID patients. The thing that ties all this together, including the suppression through the government of early treatment, is hospitals are incentivized financially to treat COVID patients. For example, in the Imperial Valley of California, COVID patients are being treated outside of the hospital and prevented from going to the hospital. Brian Tyson and George Fareed have saved thousands and thousands of lives of indigenous Latinos that are coming across the border and working the fields. I mean they’re they’re breaking their backs to save the poor, an amazing story there with early treatments. I guess they’re left alone because they’re in the imperial valley nobody cares, they’re all poor, but in these urban environments there’s all these incentives for hospitals to treat COVID patients and if people are giving treatments that are keeping those people out of the hospitals then they’re not getting that revenue. Hospitals have financial incentives including death incentives to discourage early treatment. The other data point is those that are doing the attacking are almost universally hospital administrators and hospitalists, I.e. hospital-based physicians

I’m maybe the only one that has been involved deeply in the development of this tech that doesn’t have a financial stake in it, so for me the reason is that what’s happening is not right. It’s destroying my profession; it’s destroying the practice of medicine worldwide; it’s destroying public health in medicine. I’m a vaccinologist, I’ve spent 30 years developing vaccine, a stupid amount of education learning how to do it and what the rules are. And I’m personally offended by watching my discipline get destroyed for no good reason at all except apparently financial incentives, and perhaps political ass covering.

We have Covid mRNA genetic vaccines, and we have DNA virus administered genetic vaccines (that’s the J&J here in the United States). And they all have these symptoms of clotting, brain fog and other things. As you know this is basically: Does it walk like a duck and quack like a duck? What is the common variable between those three very different systems: natural viral infection, mRNA genetic vaccines, and DNA genetic vaccines? We don’t see these problems by the way with adenoviral vectored vaccines in development for my entire life. 30 years they’re licensed, adenoviral vector vaccines they don’t have these problems, so it’s something that’s not intrinsic to the platform. The common variable is spike protein just to cut to the chase.

Then then there is this fundamental logic flaw. In clinical development and non-clinical development and safety and pharmacology, I like to say the French judicial system applies. That is, you’re guilty until proven innocent. It’s the job of the pharmaceutical companies to prove that their engineered spike is safe. They never did that. And so all of this pressure that comes back you know from folks like me saying hey this isn’t right okay–and it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duc–it’s probably toxic. Because it’s the common variable. I get criticized by people saying you have to prove that it’s not safe. Sorry, that’s not the way it works. It’s pharma’s job to prove that it is safe, not my job to prove that it’s not safe. I’m observing the safety signal is there. It is associated with vectors that express spike whether it’s the vaccine the virus or the adenovirus, that is the MRNA, the virus itself or the adenoviral vectored spike. Those toxicities are there and the common variable is the spike protein. We can argue about the meaning of toxin just like so much of the rest of our language has been perverted during this. But the simple explanation, the simple definition is: Does it cause toxicity in people, and the answer is pretty clear now it does. The question that we’re all arguing about is how often and how bad.

Then we have the laboratory data that we’re seeing abnormalities in the key signaling molecules that b and t cells use to talk to each other–toll-like receptors that are associated particularly with the MRNA vaccines. So something is happening that is causing release of t cell suppression, reactivation of latent DNA viruses, maybe some signals relating to oncology, that is some changes in t cell signaling behavior. And then there’s this this increasing awareness that there’s some window of time, unsure how long after vaccination, when you’re actually more susceptible to infection. And this may be that not only is the vaccine efficacy waning, but the multiple jab strategy is actually creating more and more windows where people have this period of t-cell suppression. So there’s a whole lot in this box of immunology and what are the jabs doing to our immune system and how long does it last. Let’s gently say: That is a little worrisome to some of us that have a background in these things.

In this case there’s multiple reasons not to do the multiple jabs. The simplest one for everybody to understand is when your son develops seasonal allergies to ragweed pollen or whatever and it’s so bad that he can’t go to school his eyes are running he can’t play in sports whatever. So you say we have to do something about this: I’m going to take him to a rheumatologist an allergist and see what they can do. Well they do a bunch of tests and they say oh your son is allergic to ragweed pollen or whatever the thing is. Then what do is to give him shots- what are those shots? They’re high doses of antigen that are administered repeatedly to your child, and what it does is induce something we immunologists call high zone tolerance. High zone tolerance basically amounts to an ability by giving multiple injections at high levels of antigen to shut down t cells against a specific antigen. The other thing with the multiple jabs is that these are multiple jabs that are mismatched. Okay they don’t fit.

So there’s there’s those three things. The short term issue is we don’t know how long it lasts. There’s the high zone tolerance issue, and then there is the multiple jabs that are mismatched for the current circulating virus. That’s akin to repeatedly taking a flu vaccine from two seasons ago and hoping it’s going to protect against this flu.

So what we’re doing is with with administering a mismatched vaccine is we’re driving the effector and memory cells, b and t, towards a population that is focused on a virus that no longer exists. So what is my hypothesis for the poor durability of the vaccines? My answer is it looks to me like original antigenic sin. Let’s unpack what that terminology means–original antigenic sin. I think what could be happening with these data is that we’re driving the immune response towards responding to an antigen receptor binding domain a spike that no longer exists with Omicron. Now it it has become clear (after being initially denied) that all of us have a background immune response against Beta coronaviruses. These are naturally circulating cold coronaviruses that have significant immunologic crossreactivity with SARS-CoV-2. And the problem with that in original antigenic sin is that those existing memory cells will dominate the immune response when you get infected and when you get vaccinated. Let me unpack that in a way that kind of makes sense for the common person. We all know the adage that we’re always best prepared for the last war. That is, in your life the sum of your prior life experiences biases how you respond. In your martial arts you must know this deeply; what you’ve experienced in the past in prior fights is gonna bias how you respond to a new opponent. Same thing happens with your immune system.

Okay so we’ve got a new pathogen, but it’s got a series of of overlaps with the old ones that we’ve seen before, and our immune system is biased to respond as if it’s the old one. Now to make matters worse, we’re taking the spike protein only one of the proteins–the immunologically dominant protei–and we’re jabbing everybody multiple times. Thereby driving memory cells and effector cells to a virus that is not the one we’re encountering. So it could very well be that as you’re taking more jabs you’re further skewing your immune response in a way that’s dysfunctional for infection to Omicron. Whereas, somebody that is immunologically naive presumably either they haven’t had the virus before but they’ve had Beta coronaviruses and those that have had prior infection and are naturally immune.

When you get infected or I get infected it’s typically nasal or oral pharynx. It’s coming in through the mucosal membranes of your head. One of the good things about Omicron is that the prior strains infect mostly deep lung, and there’s really fascinating data from Hong Kong suggesting that Omicron is more infecting the upper airway. That is a characteristic of less pathogenic influenza viruses and hopefully even though Omicron is more infectious and replicates the higher levels it’s less pathogenic.

it is absolutely looking like Omicron is a mild variant. It is absolutely able to escape the control of prior vaccination typically with mismatched vaccine. It seems also able to infect a subset of people that are naturally immune probably less than the subset that get infected with vaccination. But this is a key message to your audience- the reproductive coefficient (more fancy language)–the reproductive coefficient known as the R naught. The R naught of the original Wuhan strain was about two to three, meaning that if I’m infected on average without any other interventions I’ll infect two to three other people. For Delta the R naught was more in the range of five to six. In the case of Omicron the R naught the base reproduction coefficient is the range of seven to ten, wickedly high. That is measles territory. Tto translate that into simple language: We are all going to get infected with Omicron. Whether you use masks or not, use social distancing or not, you’re going to get infected. So this gets to the key point: Find a doc that’ll administer early treatments.

So you know Joe Lapado surgeon general in the State of Florida has put out public statements also on twitter, among other things, decrying what the Federal government has done pulling back all of the regular monoclonals. Meanwhile I’m hearing from frontline docs is those older regeneron monoclonals etc. are still very effective in their hospitalized population presumably because it’s still predominantly Delta. And yet they’re no longer able to get it. So the government has literally stopped the distribution of medicine, effective medicine, for a disease that exists currently. When has that ever happened before? Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Those were off-label uses, while this is something that has emergency use authorization. This is wild.

When you see this kind of decoupling of public policy from logic, it causes thinking people to wonder what the hell’s going on here. And then we go down the rabbit hole: Is it this that or the other thing? One of the things in that spectrum of what’s going on is that the emergency use authorizations are predicated on policy determinations that were in a state of emergency. Those are now two years old. They’re expiring. I’m not saying this is what’s going on in their head but there is another perverse incentive here to amplify the fear porn. If you buy into the hypothesis that for some reason there are incentives for the government to maintain the state of emergency, one explanation could be that those declarations are expiring and will have to be re-implemented. Because if they’re not then all of this emergency use authorization vanishes like dust.

We have these reports from hospitalists and nurses–often it’s the nurses that are able to speak for some reason. The nurses are disclosing things that they’re seeing in their hospitals and the physicians are all shutting up. Is it because they have financial incentives or because they’re all owned because they have such debt burdens, I don’t know. But the nurses are speaking out and they’re saying hey we’re seeing strokes and heart attacks and these other types of problems that are known to be associated with the jabs. Well it’s hard to say because we got the virus in the vaccines overlapping; is it chicken or egg but we know that they’re happening. We know that the deaths are happening; that’s the excuses that are made about the sudden deaths in high-performing athletes that are being observed all over the world particularly in footballers. Where they’re just suddenly dropping is it because they’ve been infected or they because they’ve been jabbed? And I think it’s a mixture of both. But the thing about the vaccines is we have this principle to do no harm. And if a virus naturally infects you and you have a damage from it, I haven’t caused that damage as a physician. If I’m recommending that you take a drug or an intervention you didn’t need to have and it causes damage, well I have to own that as a physician as a representative of the medical industrial complex. And so for whatever reason there’s a under reporting bias clearly in the adult population and I think that people being be a little more sensitive to adverse events and deaths in their children.

I don’t want to get too off your topic, but our government is out of control on this and they are lawless. They completely disregard bioethics. They completely disregard the Federal common rule. They have broken all the rules that I know of that I’ve been trained on for years and years and years. These mandates of an experimental vaccine are explicitly illegal. They are explicitly inconsistent with the Nuremberg Code. They’re explicitly inconsistent with the Belmont Report. They are flat out illegal and they don’t care. And the only thing standing between us and it’s too late for many of our colleagues including my you know the unfortunate colleagues in the DoD um hopefully we’re going to be able to stop them before they take our kids.

For example: the lab leak. And for me- the disclosure of emails that um Cliff Lane, Tony Fauci, and Francis Collins actively conspired to destroy any discussion of the appropriateness of lockdown strategies and the mainstream press hardly covers it and there are no consequences. The document trail having to do with the gain of function research and the implication of NIH and by the way DTRA in that, having absolutely no consequences for anybody. We’re in an environment in which truth and consequences are fungible. This is modern media management and warfare. The truth is what those that are managing the Trusted News Initiative say it is.

And they’re taking our licenses and license to practice medicine because we are speaking about these matters. You can label me however you want, I don’t care. I’ve done what I’ve done in my career. I’m at a stage at 62 years old; I’ve got a farm it’s almost paid off, I raise horses, I love my wife, been married a long time, my kids are both married, I have grandkids, you know I don’t need this. There’s this claim I’m doing all this because I seek attention- trust me this is not a fun thing to be doing at this stage. Physicians at FLCCC in senior positions highly, like Peter Mccullough, people at the at the culmination of exceptional careers. Paul Merrick an exceptional physician by any standards- run out of his hospital demeaned destroyed, actively attacked trying to take his license. This medicine is being destroyed globally. People are losing faith in the whole system. They’re losing faith in the scientific enterprise. They’re losing faith in our government. They’re losing faith in the vaccine enterprise. What is going to be the long-term consequences of public health when you have a large fraction of the population who previously wasn’t anti-vaxxer (that pejorative), but now they’re saying oh my god if this is how these people make decisions I don’t want anything to do with it. I certainly don’t want to jabbed into my kid.

Pfizer is one of the most criminal pharmaceutical organizations in the world based on their past legal history and fines. What do those fines include? Bribing physicians okay, it is a cost benefit analysis in the pharmaceutical industry about misbehavior. They are not grounded in the ethical principles that you and I as average people believe in. They don’t live in that world. As you appropriately point out they are about profit- return on investment. And furthermore the overlords that own them BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street etc. these large massive funds that are completely decoupled from nation states, have no moral core–they have no moral purpose. Their only purpose is return on investment. And that is the core problem here. That and the fact that we as a society have become grossly fragmented through social media, electronic appliances, the stress of what we’ve experienced, and this leads into this whole issue of mass formation psychosis that Matthias DeSmet at the university of Ghent has described, as a psychologist and statistician. That is how a third of the population basically is being hypnotized and totally wrapped up in whatever Tony Fauci in the mainstream media feeds them whatever CNN tells them is true.

Now there’s ways to get out of it. Matthias’s recommendation is you have to get people to realize we’ve got a situation of global totalitarianism. In his experience in Europe making people realize there’s a bigger threat than the virus can cause a separation psychologically in this fusion. This hypnosis that has happened the problem is then you’re just substituting a bigger boogeyman for the current one and somebody else can come in and manipulate that. The real problem and it gets back to your core point- we’re sick as a society and we have to heal ourselves and one of the things we have to do is come together we have to recreate our social bonds, we have to buy into integrity, the importance of human dignity, and the importance of community. That’s how we get out of this and I think that this insight of Matthias Desmond is really central to kind of making sense of all of this crazy. We got a world in which the press is incentivized to push a storyline because they’re all controlled by the same large funds that Pfizer is and so is tech. I don’t know how we’re going to get out of it but it’s got to start with us all of us finding common ground.









Climate Law 2021 Losing Streak

William Allison provided the 2021 Climate Law roundup in his Energy In Depth article 2021 Revealed Why Climate Litigation Will Continue To Fail. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The past year has not been a great one for supporters of the climate litigation campaign.  There were several devastating blows dealt to climate lawsuits, both on the process and the merits, and as Law360 summed up:

“The U.S. Supreme Court expanded the ability for fossil fuel companies to fight climate nuisance lawsuits lodged by state and local governments, and the Second Circuit rejected one such suit outright.”

In response, the plaintiffs’ attorneys have had to call in the reinforcements and place academics on their payroll to help explain why, against all the evidence, these lawsuits aren’t failing. Meanwhile, major activist organizations are holding personal meetings with top government officials in order to recruit them to their side.

We’ve taken the liberty of compiling the climate litigation campaign’s year in review:

Major Defeats


One of the most devastating defeats of the nearly decade-long climate litigation campaign came in May when the U.S. Supreme Court overwhelmingly sided with the energy companies on a key procedural question that will help decide if these lawsuits are heard in federal or state court.

From Scotus Blog: 

The Supreme Court on Monday gave a major boost to a group of oil and gas companies that are seeking to stay out of state court and defend a lawsuit against them in federal court instead. The Supreme Court did not weigh in on the merits of the city’s case. Instead, the fight before the court was over procedure.  By a vote of 7-1 (with Justice Samuel Alito not participating), the justices agreed with the companies – which include BP, Chevron and Exxon Mobil – that a federal appeals court had the power to review an entire order sending the case back to state court, rather than only one of the grounds on which the companies relied to move the case to federal court.

The case, BP PLC v. Mayor and City of Council of Baltimore, originated three years ago as a lawsuit by the city of Baltimore seeking to hold the companies responsible for their role in climate change. The city contends that the companies knew that the use of fossil fuels would lead to global warming but continued to produce and sell fossil fuel products anyway.

In a 7-1 decision, the court ruled that the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals should have considered all grounds for removal before affirming a lower court’s decision that sent the City of Baltimore’s case back to state court. The decision had significant ramifications for the climate litigation campaign, and cases from California, Colorado and Rhode Island also landed back in the circuit courts for further consideration.

The magnitude of the ruling wasn’t lost on the media. Bloomberg Law observed that the industry now has the “the upper hand” in these cases, while Reuters reported the lopsided decision meant a difficult path now lies ahead for the plaintiffs.

New York City Defeat

On the merits of climate litigation, New York continues to be the poster child for these flailing lawsuits. The New York attorney general’s case against ExxonMobil was decisively defeated in 2019, and in April of this year, the 2nd Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of New York City’s public nuisance lawsuit, ending the case for good. The court ruled that lawsuits aren’t the proper tool for addressing climate change:

“To permit this suit to proceed under state law would further risk upsetting the careful balance that has been struck between the prevention of global warming, a project that necessarily requires national standards and global participation, on the one hand, and energy production, economic growth, foreign policy, and national security, on the other.” (emphasis added)

The defeat is a sharp rebuke to outgoing Mayor Bill de Blasio who blatantly admitted the goal of the suit was to put the oil and natural gas industry out of business, saying in 2018, “Let’s help bring the death knell to this industry.”

Despite the loss, less than a month later, de Blasio filed yet another climate lawsuit despite politicians in New York having an 0-3 record, this time focused on consumer deception claims.

King County Withdraws

In the spring of 2018, King County, Washington (home of Seattle) was among the first municipalities to file a climate lawsuit. Just over three years later, it threw in the towel on the case.

In September, the county gave “notice of its voluntary dismissal of this action,” making it the first plaintiff to give up on a lawsuit. The move also represents a blow to plaintiffs’ attorney Matt Pawa, who was a key player at the infamous La Jolla conference in 2012 where the playbook for the entire climate litigation campaign was mapped out and who was at the helm for San Francisco and Oakland’s loss as well as the New York City defeat.

Attribution Proponents Criticize Their Own Science

The use of climate lawsuits has spawned the development of so-called “attribution research” – or the flawed attempt to assign a certain amount of carbon emissions to specific companies.

In June, a group of academics – who are outspoken supporters of the climate litigation campaign – released a report that admits that the climate attribution science currently being deployed by plaintiffs’ attorneys has serious flaws:

“We find that the evidence submitted and referenced in these cases lags considerably behind the state-of-the-art in climate science, impeding causation claims.”

Hey, that’s their words – and it’s very clear why they’re speaking out, and it has nothing to do with the pursuit of greater knowledge through scientific understanding. Instead, it’s all about the litigation. As Friederike Otto, one of the authors of the report, told E&E News just a couple months earlier:

“Unlike every other branch of climate science or science in general, event attribution was actually originally suggested with the courts in mind.”

Admitting your made-up science is really about lawsuits + saying the science stinks = a big defeat for climate litigation.

Maryland Mess

When Annapolis and then Anne Arundel County each filed climate lawsuits in quick succession earlier this year, it quickly became clear that both municipalities were recruited to introduce these cases by activist groups Chesapeake Climate Action Network and the Center for Climate Integrity.

In a press conference announcing the lawsuit, Annapolis Deputy Manager for Resilience and Sustainability Jackie Guild said:

“I also received information from my contacts, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, who is busy with pushing towards energy efficiency and clean fuels. They asked me if I knew about these lawsuits and how they were progressing and I had some knowledge, and they thankfully provided me with some additional knowledge.

I asked them about different lawsuits they were aware of and I started exploring some of the information they provided, and the law firm Sher Edling appeared again and again with the lawsuits that have been brought by the twenty-four other states and cities and counties in the U.S. that are suing the fossil fuel industry, and they by far have the most experience.”

In Anne Arundel, documents uncovered through public records requests reveal further coordination, with one CCAN employing writing to the county:

“CCAN, in collaboration with the Center for Climate Integrity is very interested in facilitating lawsuits for cities in Maryland against fossil fuel companies for the ongoing damages brought on by climate change.”

Active recruitment of potential plaintiffs has become a signature for CCI, which successfully pitched Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison in 2019, while the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, CCI’s sponsor, is fronting the legal costs for Hoboken, N.J.’s lawsuit.


So, after several years of waging war in the courtroom without racking up even a single victory, and with a Congress and White House that have expressed a sincere desire to do the things that could actually tackle climate change, why are the proponents of litigation continuing to waste taxpayer resources in this vain effort so a few trial lawyers can hopefully become very rich while accomplishing precisely nothing on climate change?


Why You Need Mucosal Immunity


Paul Hunter, Professor of Medicine, University of East Anglia explains at The Conversation COVID-19 vaccines are probably less effective at preventing transmission than symptoms – here’s why.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Countries where COVID-19 vaccines have rolled out quickly, such as Israel and the UK, are starting to give an indication of how well they work. Their early results suggest the vaccines are highly effective at preventing people from being hospitalised or dying from the disease.

However, it’s less clear how good the vaccines are at stopping people from spreading the virus. But given what we know about how they work, we shouldn’t be surprised if they are less effective at stopping people transmit the virus than preventing them becoming ill. This is because the type of immunity they generate is likely to be better at fighting off severe rather than mild infections.

How immunity is created

There are a number of distinct phases in the course of a coronavirus infection. Usually the virus starts with what’s known as a “mucosal infection” because it infects the lining of the nose and throat, the nasopharyngeal mucosa.

This is the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic phase. Mild symptoms such as cough or altered taste or smell may then develop. However, in a proportion of people, the infection then spreads down the respiratory tract to the lungs, causing more serious problems. Some may develop very severe illness, leading to respiratory and other organ failure. At this point, with the virus moving around the body and causing problems in multiple areas, the infection is “systemic”.

People are most infectious during the early stages of infection, when the virus is largely restricted to the nasopharyngeal mucosa. Indeed, it’s possible for people to be highly infectious without the virus spreading to other parts of the body or causing severe illness.

Importantly, the immune system responds differently to mucosal and systemic infections.

A systemic immune response, which works across large swathes of the body, is associated with creating one type of antibody, IgG. Immunity generated in the mucosa (also called secretory immunity) is associated with creating another, IgA. As a result, immunisations that focus on generating systemic immunity – which is what injected vaccines do – rarely induce mucosal immunity. This likely applies to all the COVID-19 vaccines currently available.

And yet, the nasopharyngeal mucosa is ground zero for most coronavirus infections. So while COVID-19 vaccines may generate a response that’s highly protective against systemic disease in the lungs and other organs, the vaccines are less likely to generate strong mucosal immunity that’s effective against the mild but infectious early stage of infection in the nose and throat. We should therefore expect some difference in the vaccines’ effects on preventing severe disease and blocking infection and transmission.

We don’t yet know if there’s a difference in the development of systemic and mucosal immunity for COVID-19. Emerging evidence suggests there might be, but it isn’t conclusive, and much of this research still needs to be fully reviewed.

Finally, it’s worth remembering that even if these vaccines don’t end up blocking infections to a high degree, that doesn’t mean they won’t make a major contribution to suppressing viral spread. Even if people still get infected, COVID-19 vaccines are likely to reduce the amount of virus generated during an infection, lowering what can be passed on.

Practical Implications of Mucosal Immunity

What happened in Central Europe on Oct 10-13 so that many people started to become ill?

Nothing significant happened on Oct 10-13. But the nights turned cool and heating was needed everywhere overnight from Oct 9.  Along with the temperature drop, absolute humidity of the air also dropped. It dropped almost by half within a couple of days, it dropped to the level where it had not been since the spring.

The air arriving to the lungs should contain 35 g/kg of water. In summer, the air contained about 10 g/kg and the epithelium had to add 25 g/kg. From October 9 on, 20% more water was needed from the epithelium overnight

20% increase in any burden is tough even for a short period. Replace a 75 g racquet by a 90 g one and ask a good badminton player to play his standard play. He will need a rest very soon or be broken. Epithelium would also need a rest but it can’t. Mucus covering the upper respiratory epithelium is responsible for moisturizing the inhaled air, acting as a barrier between the environment and the epithelial cells. The mucosal microbiome also turns the inhaled viral particles harmless.

When absolute humidity drops, the water supply to the epithelium should be increased but do we know how fast such change can take place? And is there a limit to the water supply? How many have no idea of the importance of mucosal hydration of the air at all? In the winter 2020/21, Estonia had two major drops of absolute humidity. From average 8 g/kg to average 5 g/kg on Oct 14-20, triggering the rapid increase in infection. Average humidity then gradually decreased to average 4 g/kg by December, population acclimatized…

The waves of COVID-19 have broken when the absolute humidity has increased and not dropped back below customization level for a while. It happened so in the spring 2020, in the spring 2021, and also in the autumn 2021 in all Baltic countries simultaneously.

People in moderate climate have been suffering from infectious diseases from every autumn till spring and the epidemiological pattern is very similar each year. Diseases start with the beginning of the school and peaks in the second half of each winter. Since the emergence of centralized heating, the problem of indoor humidity has only become worse. Modern HVAC systems are aimed at supplying fresh air at low energy cost but these systems are still failing to address indoor humidity and maintain its healthy level.

It has been long known that the incidence of viral diseases is higher in very dry and very wet air, i.e. in nordic winter with and in tropical heat, both causing body to dehydrate. (Fig from Tamerius, Shaman et al. 2013)

My Comment:

1. The superiority of natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity is not mentioned.  Dr. Robert Clancy explains: 

Another issue is the recognition that genetic vaccines have limited value. While doctors support the current vaccine roll-out, reported “danger signals” must be clarified. Both the DNA-vector vaccine (AstraZeneca) and mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) behave as predicted by biology relevant to airways’ protection (something not understood by the vast majority of “experts”): short duration of protection limited to control of systemic inflammation, with little impact on infection of the airways.

Israel was used as a laboratory for the Pfizer vaccine. Six months after vaccination, there was essentially no protection against infection or mild disease, although protection against severe disease remained at 85-to-90 per cent. Thereafter came a rapid and progressive loss of protection against more severe disease. Infected vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects have similar viral loads and transmission capacity.

Immunity following natural infection is better and more durable than that induced by vaccination, so there is no sense in immunising those who have had COVID infection in the preceding six months.

2.  Ivermectin Effectively Blocks viral entry at ACE-2 receptors in the nasal and oral cavity. 

Article is High expression of ACE2 receptor of 2019-nCoV on the epithelial cells of oral mucosa

It has been reported that ACE2 is the main host cell receptor of 2019-nCoV and plays a crucial role in the entry of virus into the cell to cause the final infection. To investigate the potential route of 2019-nCov infection on the mucosa of oral cavity, bulk RNA-seq profiles from two public databases including The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Functional Annotation of The Mammalian Genome Cap Analysis of Gene Expression (FANTOM5 CAGE) dataset were collected. RNA-seq profiling data of 13 organ types with para-carcinoma normal tissues from TCGA and 14 organ types with normal tissues from FANTOM5 CAGE were analyzed in order to explore and validate the expression of ACE2 on the mucosa of oral cavity. Further, single-cell transcriptomes from an independent data generated in-house were used to identify and confirm the ACE2-expressing cell composition and proportion in oral cavity. The results demonstrated that the ACE2 expressed on the mucosa of oral cavity. Interestingly, this receptor was highly enriched in epithelial cells of tongue. Preliminarily, those findings have explained the basic mechanism that the oral cavity is a potentially high risk for 2019-nCoV infectious susceptibility and provided a piece of evidence for the future prevention strategy in dental clinical practice as well as daily life.

Fig. 1 A schematic of the key cellular and biomolecular interactions between Ivermectin, host cell, and SARS-CoV-2 in COVID19 pathogenesis and prevention of complications.

Ivermectin; IVM (red block) inhibits and disrupts binding of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein at the ACE-2 receptors (green). The green dotted lines depict activation pathways and the red dotted lines depict the inhibition pathways.

Ivermectin also had the highest binding affinity for TMPRSS2. By binding so well to all three — the spike, the ACE2 receptor and the TMPRSS2 secateurs that prune or prime the spike, ivermectin makes it much harder for the virus to get inside a cell.

See How Much Does Ivermectin Fight Covid19? The Count is 20 ways.