KPMG: A Tale of Two Economies: Pandemic dictates contour of GDP for 2021
this is NOT MMT:
Evaluating Proposals to Increase the Corporate Tax Rate and Levy a Minimum Tax on Corporate Book Income
President Joe Biden and congressional policymakers have proposed several changes to the corporate income tax, including raising the rate from 21 percent to 28 percent and imposing a 15 percent minimum tax on the book income of large corporations. The proposals are being considered to raise revenue for new spending programs… We estimate that this would reduce long-run economic output by 0.8 percent, eliminate 159,000 jobs, and reduce wages by 0.7 percent. Workers across the income scale would bear much of the tax increase.
Just Don’t Expect “Pent-up Demand” from Consumers. Here’s Why
Free money whipped consumers into a rollicking eight-month splurge on goods. There’s nothing “pent up.” And services are not a shoo-in for “pent-up demand.”
Will “Go Crazy” Drive The Bear Out Of Hibernation?
The economy will “go crazy” this summer. There is not a day that goes by in which we do not hear an economic forecast with an extreme optimism based on pent-up demand. The argument certainly appears plausible and is widely subscribed to by professionals.
Is There Pent Up Demand? .. let’s consider the merits of the “go crazy” thesis. How might consumer habits change when consumers are free to go anywhere and do anything? Retail Sales, despite a severe recession, are 6.00% higher than in January of 2020. Is spending “pent-up”? .. Not surprisingly, gas stations, restaurants and bars, and clothes and electronics appliance stores had a tough year. However, the nine other economic sectors saw improvements in sales versus 2019.
We have little doubt the four sectors with declines will post more robust sales once consumers are comfortable returning to those establishments. There is no doubt; pent-up demand will boost those sectors. Even if we assume the four sectors witness a pickup in business, can we also presume consumers will continue to spend freely in the sectors they were spending in last year? …. We do not rule out the “go crazy” thesis, but it’s not the slam dunk it appears to be either.
Americans Are Sitting On Lots of Spare Cash. It May Not Boost Growth Much.
So, who actually has more cash to spend? According to the Fed, about 28% of the increase in liquid assets from the end of 2019 through the end of September went to Americans in the top 1% of the income distribution. Fully 70% of the extra cash went to Americans in the top quintile.. with only 14% of the extra cash – just $330 billion out of $2.3 trillion – held by Americans in the bottom 60% on the income distribution.
Is the Post-COVID Boom Going to Bust?
American Homeowners Are Adding Fuel to Bond Market Sell-Off
There comes a point in any big selloff in Treasury bonds when the move becomes so pronounced that it starts to feed on itself. Increases in yields force a crucial group of investors to sell Treasuries, which in turn leads to further increases in yields. Two months into this rout, that moment appears to have arrived … The forced sellers are investors in the $7 trillion mortgage-backed bond market. Their problem is that when Treasury yields -- which strongly influence home-loan rates -- suddenly rise sharply, many Americans lose interest in refinancing their old mortgages. A reduced stream of refinancings means mortgage-bond investors are left waiting for longer to collect payments on their investments. The longer the wait, the more financial pain they feel as they watch market rates climb higher without being able to take advantage of them. Their answer: unload the Treasury bonds they hold with long maturities or adjust derivatives positions -- a phenomenon known as convexity hedging -- to compensate for the unexpected jump in duration on their mortgage portfolios. The extra selling just as the market is already weakening has a history of exacerbating upward moves in Treasury yields -- including during major “convexity events” in 1994 and 2003.
Albert Edwards: We Are At The Breaking Point
Malinen: Is hyperinflation on the horizon?
From time-to-time historically, national authorities have resorted to financing by their central bank to cover budget shortfalls. Another word for this is monetization of debt or deficit-financing by the central bank.
Asset purchase (or “QE”) programs can be viewed as modern versions of deficit-financing. With them, central banks buy (mostly) sovereign bonds from the capital markets, resulting in artificially low yields on government bonds. As these programs essentially provide credit from the central bank, they do increase the money in circulation quite a bit.
In the U.S., for example, the quantity of money, measured by M2, has increased by a whopping 26% in a single year. This is the largest annual increase since 1943.
The combination of the fast growth of money in circulation and the decline in production capacity, whatever the cause, is the pre-condition for ravaging inflation. Worryingly, we are seeing those pre-conditions met.
In this blog we detail the process of hyperinflation.
…
If a fast inflation emerges, central banks will eventually be forced to raise rates, almost certainly toppling over-leveraged, zombified firms and over-indebted, zombified European nations. Total chaos in the financial markets would obviously follow with world descending into recession or depression
Powell Pushes Back on Concerns of Prices Rising, Overheating
Bubble Fare:
We’re Getting Closer to a Breaking Point – interview with David Rosenberg
We are in another massive bubble. Not every single part of the market is in a bubble, but we have speculative frenzies in many pockets. There is not just this view that the central banks are always going to have your back and we have tremendous growth in money supply and liquidity, but there is also this extremely high level of confidence that life is going back to normal starting in the second half of this year. That’s really the primary driver of this tremendous confidence, whether you’re talking about corporate bonds, crypto currencies or the stock market.
…
Let me put it this way: The level of outstanding debt in the United States today at all levels of society, government, households, businesses, is just about $80 trillion. .. The US economy can’t really afford to have bond yields back up more than they already have.
…
This move up in yields has been based on assumptions as opposed to reality.
The Death of Logic
Throughout the cyclical history of delusional market bubbles and their subsequent implosions, otherwise “logical” and/or intelligent market participants always find themselves in the comforting presence of crowds.
…
Thus, rather than mire one’s self in the “logical” debate of timing a crisis (a fool’s errand), more informed, and hence logical minds, should be otherwise engaged in preparing for one.
What happens if bitcoin succeeds?
MMT Fare:
Have mainstream economists really embraced large deficits and central bank bond purchases?
They say that finally economists are giving voice to the ideas I have advocated all my career and that Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is now the flavour of the epoch.
Well, not quite. It might look like this but I suspect another agenda is at work.
Remember that mainstream economics serves the interests of the ruling class and in the modern era has advocated policies that have undermined the working class.
… So when you ask me whether I am happy that all these rats are jumping ship, think about whether they are really leaving the ship or just disguising it to sail under the radar for a while, to give the surplus extracting system time to reorganise after the two shocks in a decade – GFC then the pandemic.
When in crisis, capital always calls up the state’s financial capacity to bail it out.
Its economists may have made the journey across the line. But then they may (probably) have not.
(not just) for the ESG crowd:
This Obscure Energy Treaty Is the Greatest Threat to the Planet You’ve Never Heard Of
RWE is suing under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), a little-known international agreement signed without much public debate in 1994. The treaty binds more than 50 countries, and allows foreign investors in the energy sector to sue governments for decisions that might negatively impact their profits – including climate policies.
‘Hidden cost’ of energy and transport could add up to $25 trillion, research estimates
New global synthesis adds up the hidden social, environmental and health costs of our largely fossil fuel-based energy and transport systems
Don’t believe the hype: The sustainable investing challenge
Until sustainability is embedded in the asset-allocation process, writes James Purcell, our industry will continue to overstate and under deliver
… The solution to overstatement and under delivery is dispensing with the trade-off paradigm and instead embedding sustainability in the asset-allocation process – from future asset-price forecasts, to the asset-class universe. To do so, there are three pragmatic and return maximising actions asset allocators can take. First, environmental and social themes (such as energy transition, income inequality, diversity and inclusion) can be explicitly factored into the macro underpinnings of an asset allocation model, namely inflation, productivity and economic growth. …
What’s Really Behind Corporate Promises on Climate Change?
Many big businesses have not set targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Others have weak goals.
Lifespan of infrastructure, transportation, and buildings
What follows is from the IEA 2020 report “Energy technology perspectives” on how to transition to net zero emissions by 2050. This might require the replacement of just about everything, since power plants, steel blast furnaces, cement kilns, buildings, trucks, cars, buses and more that run fossil fuels now would have to be replaced or greatly modified to run on hydrogen, electricity, or other renewables since most of this infrastructure will last for decades, and much of it is quite young, especially in China. Since mining uses 10% of all energy, and many elements are likely to run out or are controlled by China, and energy transitions take 50 years or more (Smil 2010 Energy myths and realities), making such a transition is unlikely.
We are nowhere near keeping warming below 1.5°C despite climate plans
UN: New national climate pledges will only cut emissions ‘by 2%’ over next decade
Why aren’t we more afraid of global warming? The psychology of procrastinating on climate change
Gulf Stream System at its weakest in over a millennium
Combating ecosystem collapse from the tropics to the Antarctic
A tale of two provinces: how coal mining plowed ahead in the B.C. Rockies while Alberta hit the brakes
Cutting down forests: what are the drivers of deforestation?
Since the turn of the millennium, the world has been losing around 5 million hectares of forest every year. Nearly all of this occurs in the tropics; almost half of all deforestation takes place in Brazil and Indonesia. Three-quarters is driven by agriculture. Beef production is responsible for 41% of deforestation; palm oil and soybeans account for another 18%; and logging for paper and wood across the tropics, another 13%.
A completely made up story about the history of economics and ecology
COVID-19 notes:
Yaneer Bar-Yam: A worrying trend is emerging: as many countries reported significant reductions in cases over the past several months, resurgences are beginning, and cases are creeping upward in recent weeks. We’re likely seeing the beginning of the next “wave” of infections.
Charts of the Week:
Exponential growth is the baseline
“This is a relief from the standpoint of the challenges of population density and resource usage, but it’s deeply worrying from the standpoint of continued scientific, technological, and economic progress.”
EXTRA [controversial or non-market-related] FARE:
ESG Fare:
The Climate Crisis, Rationing and Conscription
Let’s take a trip to fantasyland, to a world in which the U.S. addresses climate change in a meaningful way.
What does a meaningful response to climate change entail? Among other things, it means enacting the following two policies — energy rationing and conscription — and starting to enact them now. (Both are inevitable, of course, but probably not until after it matters, and not in an orderly way.)
Re-framing the threat of global warming: an empirical causal loop diagram of climate change, food insecurity and societal collapse
Abstract
There is increasing concern that climate change poses an existential risk to humanity. Understanding these worst-case scenarios is essential for good risk management. However, our knowledge of the causal pathways through which climate change could cause societal collapse is underdeveloped. This paper aims to identify and structure an empirical evidence base of the climate change, food insecurity and societal collapse pathway. We first review the societal collapse and existential risk literature and define a set of determinants of societal collapse. We develop an original methodology, using these determinants as societal collapse proxies, to identify an empirical evidence base of climate change, food insecurity and societal collapse in contemporary society and then structure it using a novel-format causal loop diagram (CLD) defined at global scale and national granularity
Why aren’t we more afraid of global warming? The psychology of procrastinating on climate change
those who believe in climate change - but just aren’t feeling the fear - are likely being defended by an automatic response in their brain. “When we face a threat, it triggers a defense against the anxiety that that threat will generate in us,” she explains. “It happens automatically, and it happens outside of awareness, unconsciously.
…
“People who appear to not be frightened are very defended, they’re not allowing that anxiety to penetrate,” Hickman, who is part of the Climate Psychology Alliance, continues.
As well as suppressing difficult emotions about climate change, Salamon says many people aren’t aware of the “stakes” and human cost attached to the climate emergency.
“People just aren’t getting the full story, which is that the food system is going to collapse. civilisation is going to collapse,” she says. “Billions of people are going to die, you could very well die, your family could die, the stakes could not be higher. But we just don’t hear that.”
…
Salamon says this can lead to what is known as pluralistic ignorance. “Humans evaluate risk socially, not rationally,” she tells me
COVID Fare:
Drug used to treat lice and scabies could cut Covid deaths by up to 75%, research suggests
· New study suggests ivermectin cuts Covid infections by around 75 per cent
· More than 30 trials globally found the drug caused improvements in treatment
· The study is set to be published in the US journal Frontiers of Pharmacology
Coronavirus Fact-Check #10: Why “new cases” are plummeting.
As you can see, the global decline in “Covid deaths” starts in mid-to-late January.
What else happened around that time?
Well, on January 13th the WHO published a memo regarding the problem of asymptomatic cases being discovered by PCR tests, and suggesting any asymptomatic positive tests be repeated.
This followed up their previous memo, instructing labs around the world to use lower cycle thresholds (CT values) for PCR tests, as values over 35 could produce false positives.
Essentially, in two memos the WHO ensured future testing would be less likely to produce false positives and made it much harder to be labelled an “asymptomatic case”.
In short, logic would suggest we’re not in fact seeing a “decline in Covid cases” or a “decrease in Covid deaths” at all.
What we’re seeing is a decline in perfectly healthy people being labelled “covid cases” based on a false positive from an unreliable testing process. And we’re seeing fewer people dying of pneumonia, cancer or other disease have “Covid19” added to their death certificate based on testing criteria designed to inflate the pandemic.
Covid-19 - Surfing The Third Wave
The second wave of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic has receded and the people have had enough of restrictions. There is immense pressure to end the lockdowns and many politicians will do as their voters wish. But there will be a third wave and it is likely to become larger than the second one. Below I try to explain why that is the case and what it means for our societies. My conclusions may sound alarmist, and I may be all wrong, but the scenario is neither impossible nor am I the only one who thinks it is likely.
…
The number of new infections is growing again. The third wave has started.
…
Non-pharmaceutical measures like lockdowns and mask mandates have helped during the first and second wave to push the replication rate R below 1. But the next wave will come with a 50% more infectious variant of the virus. To keep the replication rate under 1 in the third wave would thus require stronger non-pharmaceutical measures to keep the virus under control.
…
Behavior: There is a growing share of the population that ignores lockdown and mask mandates. These are not all Covidiots. The people have just had enough of it.
…
All this makes it likely that the third wave of this pandemic, with a stronger virus, less effective interventions, little herd immunity, will become much bigger than the second wave. Instead of 250,000 new cases per day in the U.S. during the top of the second wave we may see 2.5 million new cases per day during the third wave.
Almost a Year Later, There’s Still No Evidence Showing Governments Can Control the Spread of Covid-19
In light of everything our officials have taught us about how this virus spreads, it defies reality that Florida, a fully open and popular travel destination with one of the oldest populations in the country, currently has lower hospitalizations and deaths per million than California, a state with much heavier restrictions and one of the youngest populations in the country. While it is true that, overall, California does slightly better than Florida in deaths per million, simply accounting for California's much younger population tips the scales in Florida’s favor.
Florida has zero restrictions on bars, breweries, indoor dining, gyms, places of worship, gathering sizes, and almost all schools are offering in-person instruction. California, on the other hand, retains heavy restrictions in each of these areas. At the very least, Florida's hospitalizations and deaths per million should be substantially worse than California's.
Synthetic mRNA COVID Vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis
Two formulations have received interim approval from the FDA, and Health Canada: Pfizer/BioNtech and Moderna. Both these injections are employing the same technology, synthetic gene therapy (SGT), which is being dispensed to the populace for the first time in human history.
…
The Covid synthetic gene therapy injections employ synthetic, thermostable nucleotide sequences which are wrapped in a PEG (polyethylene glycol)-lipid nanoparticles to protect from destruction in the bloodstream and facilitate entry into the cells. The claim is that the cellular machinery will engage with these synthetic sequences and produce segments which code for the SarsCov2 S1 spike protein. It is believed that the immune system will mount a sufficient antibody response. Dr David Martin, emphasized that this technology does not meet the definition of a traditional vaccine as per the manufacturers’ claims. The trials do not test for reduction in transmission. These therapies do not prevent infection, merely reduction in one or more symptoms.
…
Media outlets, politicians, and public health officials have blared the 95% efficacy for both formulations. To the casual observer, this would denote 95% reduction in hospitalizations or deaths. When in fact the 95% is calculated, based upon the “Primary Efficacy Endpoints.”In the trial literature these endpoints are described by both companies as non-severe cold/flu SYMPTOMS coupled with a positive PCR.
…
Furthermore, people are not being informed that “95%” or so efficacy, is calculated based on a useless metric of relative efficacy and is therefore very misleading.
Eg.Pfizer/BioNtech:
8 “cases” in vaccine group
162 “cases” in placebo group
8/162 = 5%
100%-5%= 95%
Therefore, they are claiming that the synthetic gene therapy injections are 95% efficacious. What they are not factoring in is the size of the denominator. If it is large, then with 8 vs 162, the difference becomes less significant. It matters how many people were in each group, for example, whether this be 200, 2,000, or 20,000.
This is the absolute risk reduction for Pfizer/BioNtech, each group had over 18,000 people!
Injection Group: 8/18,198 = 0.04%
Placebo Group: 162/18,325= 0.88%
Therefore, the absolute risk reduction for Primary Efficacy Endpoint is 0.84%. (ie. 0.88-0.04)
…
The British Medical Journal has reported:
Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.”
…
According to the data, and elaborated by Tal Zaks (CMO of Moderna)the trials are not designed to demonstrate a reduction in transmission, due to “operational realities”… The manufacturers have also made it clear that efficacy beyond 2 months or so is unknown.
…
When Health Canada shockingly agreed to interim authorization of the Pfizer/BioNtech injection, it came alongside a caveat: The company must submit 6 months of trial data when it is available. … it is difficult to embark on a comprehensive risk-benefit analysis, as there is no safety data beyond a couple of months. New vaccines typically take about 7 to 20 years of research and trials before going to market.
…
Yet, the more disconcerting side effects are the potential mid-long term effects. Many doctors and researchers around the world have promulgated concerns about the well-documented phenomena referred to as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) seen in some viruses such as coronaviruses. In previous SARS, MERS, Dengue fever and RSV virus vaccine trials the exposure of wild viruses to vaccine recipients resulted in severe disease, cytokine storms, and deaths in some animal and human trials. The phenomenon of ADE did not present initially in vaccine recipients, rather it presented after vaccine recipients were exposed to wild viruses. This is the reason we do not have a vaccine for the common cold, MERS and SARS which is 78% homologous with SarsCov2 (based on analysis of the digital genome). Immunology Professor Dolores Cahill warnedthat this disease enhancement may cause many vaccine recipients to die months or years down the road. Esteemed German infectious disease specialist, Dr Sucharit Bhakdi opined: “This vaccine will lead you to your doom.”
Researchers in The International Journal of Clinical Practice stated: “The absence of ADE evidence in COVID-19 vaccine data so far does not absolve investigators from disclosing the risk of enhanced disease to vaccine trial participants, and it remains a realistic, non-theoretical risk to the subjects. Unfortunately, no vaccines for any of the known human CoVs have been licensed, although several potential SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV vaccines have advanced into human clinical trials for years, suggesting the development of effective vaccines against human CoVs has always been challenging.”
Traditional vaccines involve injection of the pathogen/toxin in whole/part to elicit an immune reaction. For the first time in history, the recipients’ cells will manufacture the pathogen, the S1 spike protein of SarsCov2 virus.
In a presentation for Emergency Use Authorization to the FDA, Moderna reps explained that the mRNA stays in the cytoplasm of the cells, manufactures the S1 Spike Protein and then is destroyed. As Dr Sucharit Bhakdi and others have queried: “Where else do these packages go?”
Also, based on a couple of months of safety data, we do not know that these mRNAs last long enough to manufacture the protein but not long enough to exert deleterious effects. This nascent technology is risky.
Firstly, the RNA sequences are synthetic. Therefore, we do not know how long they will last in the cells. Dr Judy Mikovits has expressed concerns in that they may not be degraded immediately, and perhaps linger for days, months, years.
Moderna previously tried to use this same technology to treat Crigler-Najjar syndrome and was not able to strike the balance between therapeutic dose and toxic side effects.
It’s encased in nanolipid to prevent it from degrading too rapidly, but what happens if the mRNA degrades too slowly, or not at all? What happens when you turn your body into a “viral protein factory”, thus keeping antibody production activated on a continual basis with no ability to shut down?
So, taking a synthetic messenger RNA and making it thermostable — making it not break down — [is problematic]. We have lots of enzymes (RNAses and DNAses) that degrade free RNA and DNA because, again, those are danger signals to your immune system. They literally drive inflammatory diseases.
Moderna boldly claims that these synthetic mRNAs will not integrate with the host cell DNA. The discovery of epigenetics has revealed that DNA expression is in flux and constantly interacts with environmental signals. Dr Lanka explained that RNA-DNA is also a two-way process, dynamic.
There is the potential for this synthetic RNA to integrate into human DNA via the enzyme, reverse transcriptase. This may lead to mutagenesis, possibly cancer. It may lead to birth defects if it integrates into the germ cells of the injected. Reassurances cannot be made based on such limited safety data.
…
Whilst natural infections are benign and self-limiting for the vast majority of affected people, autoimmune diseases are mostly irreversible. This is even more terrifying with the mRNA treatment.
If the translation of SarsCov2 S1 spike protein persists there is potential to cause amplification of the expression of autoimmunity. As the SGT recipients’ cells are now producing the viral spike proteins, there is the potential for explosion of auto-immune diseases in coming years.
Syncytin-1’s primary function is in the placenta as well as sperm. Dr Wodarg and Yeadon’s Stay of Action, included concerns that the potential for antibodies against Syncytin-1 proteins (part of the placenta) may result in permanent infertility in women and possibly men as well. The manufacturers give the caveat: “It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility.”
…
In the longer term, she suspects we’ll see a significant uptick in migraines, tics, Parkinson’s disease, microvascular disorders, different cancers, including prostate cancer, severe pain syndromes like fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis, bladder problems, kidney disease, psychosis, neurodegenerative diseases such as Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) and sleep disorders, including narcolepsy. In young children, autism-like symptoms are likely to develop as well, she thinks.
Heart attacks are another documented side effect. Loved ones of the deceased have shared on social media that these deaths are not considered vaccine reactions and are therefore not recorded as such.
Cardiothoracic surgeon and researcher, Dr Hooman Noorchashm, wrote a letter of warning to the FDA. His concern, the spike protein will cause inflammation, clot formation and heart attacks in SGT recipients who previously were exposed to SarsCov2:
“So if a person with a recent or active COVID-19 infection is vaccinated, the highly effective and antigen specific immune response incited by the vaccine will, very likely, attack the inner lining of the blood vessel and cause damage, leading to blood clot formation. This could result in major serious problems like strokes and heart attacks, at least in some people…Additionally, if the immunological risk I am prognosticating herein is in reality material, over the next months as millions more Americans are immunized, it will become quite visible to the public..Thromboembolic complications, 10–20 days following activation of a vaccine induced antigen specific immune response, in elderly frail vasculopaths, will not register as classical “vaccine related complications.”
…
Dr Whelan expressed concern that the spike protein alone is sufficient to cause injury: “I am concerned about the possibility that the new vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein have the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in a way that does not currently appear to be assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs.”
There are many avenues of potential harm and death, many are unknown as this experiment is only a few months old.
In contemplation of risk-benefit analysis, one must also consider low-risk efficacious treatments. It is well established that vitamin D deficiency is linked to presentation of severe respiratory distress, and cytokine storm sequelae, which also includes Covid.
…
Pfizer has projected a profit of 15 billion for 2021. A very lucrative start for all companies benefitting from the Covid Industrial Complex.
Sadly, people are not being informed that Phase 3 trials are ongoing. The FDA and Health Canada have not approved these injections for licensure. The injections are highly experimental. These SGTs were designed and “assessed” at a record speed of less than a year and then given interim approval based on 2 months of safety data.
…
Dr Michael Yeadon, former Vice-President of Pfizer has also stated: “All vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus are by definition novel. If any such vaccine is approved for use under any circumstances that are not EXPLICITLY experimental, I believe that recipients are being misled to a criminal extent.”
The American Frontline Doctor’s white paper reports: “An Experimental Vaccine Is Not Safer Than a Very Low IFR.”
…
The new normal breeds hysteria, “safe and effective” are the cacophonous mantras. Only a heretic dare analyze the actual data or initiate rational query. The unscrupulous message proclaimed from on high: “Covid is extremely fatal, the injections are extremely safe and effective. Full stop”.
It’s Gene Therapy, Not a Vaccine
Dr. David Martin, founder and chairman of M-CAM Inc, challenges our presuppositions about the new mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. Quoting the pharmaceutical companies themselves, David suggests that these are not vaccines, but, in actuality, gene therapy. He explains what the vaccines may do to us, what they are promising they can do for us, and how to distinguish the difference.
…
Q: I have a friend that works in the school system. She got a letter suggesting that she’s an essential worker and that she needs to get this one of these new vaccines being developed against this COVID virus. What should she know before she goes for it?
A: Let’s start with your opening sentence. None of the words in the order that you use exist in reality. Let’s unpack that. First of all, there is no vaccine that is in development or contemplated that is a vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. That doesn’t exist. That hasn’t been developed. It isn’t even, in 2021, in contemplation. It’s one of the unfortunate things about what’s going on in the propaganda war, which is in February, the World Health Organization made it abundantly clear that SARS-CoV-2 or the virus and COVID-19, which is a series of clinical presentations of illness were two distinct things.
Q: You’re making an interesting distinction. I have heard that SARS-CoV-2 is “the virus” and that COVID-19 is the disease. Is that what you’re saying?
A: COVID 19 is not a disease. It is a series of clinical symptoms. It is a giant umbrella of things associated with what used to be associated with influenza and with other febrile diseases. The problem that we have is that in February, the World Health Organization was clear in stating that there should not be a conflation between the two of these things. One is a virus, in their definition and one is a set of clinical symptoms. The illusion in February was that SARS-CoV-2 caused COVID-19. The problem with that definition and with the expectation is that the majority of people who test positive using the RT-PCR method for testing, for fragments of what is associated with SARS-CoV-2 are not ill at all. The illusion that the virus causes a disease fell apart. That’s the reason why they invented the term asymptomatic carrier.
Q: In other words, I might get a positive result from this PCR test and the reason I’m not asymptomatic, what’s happening is I’m not sick at all. They’ve made a false assumption that SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19.
A: That’s never been the case, never has been the case and never will be the case. There is a causal statement that is made in the media where, for example, Johns Hopkins or the COVID tracker platform or any of these things has intentionally misled the people. There are not 5,000 new cases in Virginia. There potentially may be several thousand positive PCR tests but most of the people who have a positive test will never have a single symptom. Most of the people who have symptoms do not have positive tests.
Q: I know some individuals who said that thing. They were like, “I was feeling sick and I got a negative test. My sister-in-law, who was feeling great, got a positive test.”
It will always be the case. The causal link that the media, the CDC made and the COVID tracker, which is the collaboration between the Bloomberg Foundation, the Gates Foundation, Zuckerberg Foundation and others, the official numbers that we get traped across the screens every morning of our computers in our televisions, those numbers are willfully lying. They have been willfully lying since the inception of this. There is not a causal link between these things that have never been established. It has never even been close to established. We have a situation where the illusion of the problem is that people say, “I don’t want to get COVID-19.” What they mean is they don’t want to get infected with a virus. The problem is those two things are not related to each other.
A viral infection hasn’t been documented in the majority of what is called cases. There is no basis for that conflation other than the manipulation of the public. That’s the first half of the problem. The second half of the problem is that what is being touted as a vaccination, which as you well know when somebody says the word vaccination, the public understanding is that you are being treated with an attenuated or alive virus or a fragment of an attenuated and that the treatment is meant to keep you from getting an infection and it is meant to keep you from transmitting the infection that vaccine in the common definition of a vaccine is meant to do.
The problem is that in the case of Moderna and Pfizer, this is not a vaccine. This is gene therapy. It’s a chemotherapy agent that is gene therapy. It is not a vaccine. What is this doing? It’s sending a strand of synthetic RNA into the human being and is invoking within the human being, the creation of the S1 spike protein, which is a pathogen. It’s a toxin inside of human beings. This is not only not keeping you from getting sick, it’s making your body produce the thing that makes you sick.
Q: In that sense, it does sound like a vaccine?
A: No, not at all because a vaccine is supposed to trigger immunity. It’s not supposed to trigger you to make a toxin.
Q: That’s how this differs.
A: It’s not somewhat different. It’s not the same at all. This is a public manipulation of misrepresentation of clinical treatment. It’s not a vaccination. It’s not a prohibiting infection. It’s not a prohibiting transmission device. It’s a means by which your body is conscripted to make the toxin that then allegedly your body somehow gets used to dealing with, but unlike a vaccine, which is to trigger the immune response, this is to trigger the creation of the toxin.
Q: What you’re saying is different from what most of us have heard in the mainstream news and even from the press releases from big companies.
A: That’s because people aren’t reading the actual clinical trials. If you read the clinical trials, nothing that I’m saying is even remotely different. As a matter of fact, the companies themselves have said what I’m saying. They said, they could not test for the existence or absence of the virus and they could not test for the transmissivity because they said it would be impractical. The companies themselves have admitted to every single thing I’m saying but they are using the public manipulation of the word vaccine to co-opt the public into believing they’re getting a thing, which they are not getting. This is not going to stop you from getting Coronavirus. It’s not going to stop you from getting sick. In fact, on the contrary, it will make you sick far more often than the virus itself.
Q: How can you say that so definitively?
A:Because the data is nothing but that, for people receiving by the time they got the second shot, 80% of people had one or more clinical presentations of COVID-19, 80% of people who have an infection according to RT-PCR have no symptoms at all.
Q: People are getting it more from the “vaccine?”
A: Yes. You will get COVID-19 symptoms from getting the gene therapy passed off as a vaccine. You will get COVID symptoms from that 80% of the time. If you’re exposed to SARS-CoV-2 according to RT-PCR, 80% of the time, you will have no symptoms at all.
Q: What is the purpose of getting this vaccine or this gene manipulation as you call it?
A: It’s a gene therapy technology. That’s Moderna’s own definition. Let’s stick with what they say they are. The benefit is non-existent. A human being is going to be potentially exposed to unclassified, both short-term and long-term risks of altering their RNA and DNA from exposure to this gene therapy. This is important to understand, there is no clinical benefit except that in certain instances of CoV infection and/or COVID-19 exposure, there were a few. By that, I mean less than a few hundred out of nearly 40,000 in the clinical trial. A few hundred people had a few days less severe symptoms with the gene therapy when compared to the other control group. Even in that comparison, if you look at the methodology that’s in the published papers for the clinical trials, they play games with the data because what they’re doing is, they’re separating reactivity, meaning the way in which a person responds to being exposed to the gene therapy, they separate out adverse events from actual COVID symptoms.
The problem is that COVID symptoms include things like fever, body ache, muscle pain, muscle weakness and things like that. They got rid of a lot of what would have been considered to be COVID symptoms by calling them adverse events. If you pull that data out and you say, “Compare the population that got the gene therapy with the population that didn’t get the gene therapy.” The population that got the gene therapy had way more illness, including COVID-19 symptoms, than the population that didn’t get the gene therapy but because they classified an enormous number of things as adverse events, they technically wiggled themselves into what was this ridiculous 90% plus effectiveness. Effectiveness was not effective in blocking illness. It was effective in allegedly shortening the duration of symptoms.
Q: People are afraid that they are ready to believe what they want to believe and holding onto that one bit of information that you shared, that the likelihood with the flu vaccine, “At least it will tamp down my symptoms and limit the duration of my illness.” They held onto that one bit of information that was data manipulation, as you’re saying and they’re holding out hope that this will be their saving grace to help them avoid COVID-19.
A: Nothing about this will avoid COVID-19 and nothing about this will avoid SARS-CoV-2.
Q: We’ve been talking mostly about the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine that is gene therapy. Is there another one in the works or getting to the market that is not using gene therapy?
A: The AstraZeneca Oxford trial is using a viral fragment. It is more along the technological lines of what you and I might consider historically, to be a vaccine. The AstraZeneca Oxford trial has been an interesting one to watch because they have a methodology problem that is quite challenging in terms of trying to fool data and understand what’s happening either on the safety or efficacy side. The reason is simple, that in certain instances, the AstraZeneca Oxford trial has not used a saline control group. They’ve used another vaccine as the control. In other words, they’ve stacked the deck. They’re making it look like they are somehow neutral compared to another vaccination in several of their data collection efforts.
As a result of that, we have both a methodology problem, which by the way, has been criticized by a number of clinical scientists. The bigger problem is that they’re still not measuring viral susceptibility and viral transmission. Those are the two legs of the stool that is required for anyone to say that they are vaccinating a population for public health reasons. There is no means by which. This is a simple thing to wrap your head around. If I said, “Everybody needs to take chemotherapy for cancer they might get.”
Q: People would laugh in your face.
A: That’s exactly what is happening. This is not prophylactic. This is not helping us. We’re being told to take a treatment for a disease we don’t have and most likely will not have. We’re being told that using careful marketing manipulation and propaganda, calling these things vaccines for public health.
Q: Historically vaccines, we’ve taken them for that reason. “I don’t have the measles. I don’t want to get the measles, so I’m going to get this measles shot.” We’ve been primed to accept that approached.
A: That’s the narrative everybody expects.
Q: Why don’t you expect that though? What’s made you dive deep?
A: That’s not what’s being measured. That’s not what’s being done and that’s not what this technology is about. mRNA is not a vaccination. It’s a gene therapy that was originally developed for cancer treatment. That’s why I’m using the chemotherapy analogy. This is not a vaccination.
Q: I have colleagues, I’m sure you do too, friends and acquaintances who are going for it. What can we tell these people or share with them that might wake them up?
A: That’s a complex issue and I have chosen a long time ago to not engage in the energy of this waking-sleeping metaphor because the fact of the matter is if people are conditioned to react to fear, this is reflexive and it’s not conscious. If we examine our behavior and what we do is engage in self-harm because we are convinced that somehow or another, there’s a worse future ahead of us, that’s something that I don’t have an ability to say facts are going ever to overcome. I have yet to meet in my life someone who allowed a fact to overwhelm a belief. Once you’ve adopted a belief, facts are not welcome because what they do is, they not only indict your belief but they indict the energy that you hold that says, “I have to believe what I’m told.”
The minute you try to engage with facts, all you do is trigger conflict. What I do is I try to take the complex science and the complex reporting, and I try to make it accessible and easily understood. The goal is that in certain instances, people will go, “I can’t even believe that what he said was true.” The cool thing is you don’t have to believe what I’m saying is true because I don’t value belief. I value the objective reality of facts. It turns out that in this particular case, it is simple and straightforward to say to any person in Moderna’s own SEC filings, they make it abundantly clear that their technology is a gene therapy technology. In their clinical trial, they’ve made it abundantly clear that they could not measure the presence or absence of the virus and they could not measure the presence or the absence of the transmission of the virus. Every single thing that they represented to be doing that preys on the public understanding of what vaccination is, they explicitly said, “They’re not doing that.”
Q: I’ve interviewed Dr. Tom Cowan and Dr. Andy Kaufman, and they say the same thing. The person who came up with or developed the PCR test says that it’s not to be used to diagnose anything.
A: So does the FDA so does everybody else. The only reason we are using PCR tests is that governors and the Department of Health and Human Services are maintaining a state of emergency. The second that that state of emergency is lifted in any state or in the country, the PCR test won’t be allowed to be used. We’re maintaining a state of emergency so that manufacturers can keep selling a thing that would never be approved if it was subject to a clinical trial. It goes for what’s being called vaccines too. The gene therapy that Moderna and Pfizer are doing, both of those would be suspended immediately if the state of emergency got lifted. People don’t understand that if you lift the state of emergency, the whole house of cards falls.
Q: That is something else that you and your team are advocating for?
A: It’s because the emergency use authorization falls with the state of emergency.
Q: Is this one reason, do you think that they have cast aspersions on hydroxychloroquine or any other protocols that could possibly treat the symptoms of SARS-CoV-2?
A: There’s no question. If you look historically, for many years, Dr. Anthony Fauci at NIAID has held his annual advisory committee meeting. Every year he laments the fact that they’re trying to build this universal influenza vaccine, which he refers to using as an infant in-print vaccine. They’ve been trying to do this for years and it hasn’t worked. This happens to be an opportunity for Anthony Fauci to get what he has not been able to get through legal means, which is he wants to get to a place where he forces a vaccine on a population. He’s manipulating this situation to force a vaccine on a population. The fact of the matter is he forgot that if he’s going to force a vaccine on a population, it should at least be a vaccine.
Q: What would his motives be for that?
A: Always has been financial. There are billions of dollars at stake and NIAID is essentially the incubator for the pharmaceutical industry. He’s serving the paymasters that have let him manage $191 billion in his career at NIAID.
Q: There are lots to consider here. You’ve given us a lot of food for thought. We want to have another conversation with you again but let’s say I’m an individual that was reading all these facts and I’ve been persuaded. I do not want to get this gene therapy technology. I don’t want even to get the AstraZeneca vaccine. I don’t want to get any of this but I’m under pressure either because of my job or for travel purposes to do so, what would you advise me to do?
A: I can’t advise a person at all. That’s not my role but what I can tell you is that this is a decision that any human being is going to ultimately have to make based on whether or not they choose to live or they choose to be enslaved. This is like any point in history where you have to make decisions that are based on what is moral and ethical and right with respect to your own sense of responsibility and accountability. The fact of the matter is like wearing a seat belt, like doing a whole bunch of other things, your choice to engage in an activity is ultimately going to be a decision that you have to live with. I will not touch a thing and I will not allow my body to be invaded with a thing that is been developed in an unethical and illegal way. I am not going to let anybody have the opportunity to manipulate my genetic code. It’s not going to happen. If that means that it comes at a cost of a particular employer or a particular relationship or whatever else, my life happens to be worth more than that.
International Alert Message about COVID-19. United Health Professionals
We are health professionals of the international collective : United Health Professionals, composed of more than 1,500 members (including professors of medicine, intensive care physicians and infectious disease specialists) from different countries of Europe, Africa, America, Asia and Oceania and, on August 26, 2020, we addressed to governments and citizens of countries around the world an alert message regarding the COVID outbreak.
First, let’s start with the conclusions of the 2010 report of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the management of the H1N1 epidemic :
« The Parliamentary Assembly is alarmed about the way in which the H1N1 influenza pandemic has been handled, ot only by the World Health Organization (WHO) but also by the competent health authorities at the level of the European Union and at national level. It is particularly troubled by some of the consequences of decisions taken and advice given leading to distortion of priorities of public health services across Europe, waste of large sums of public money and also unjustified scares and fears about health risks…grave shortcomings have been identified regarding the transparency of decision-making processes relating to the pandemic which have generated concerns about the possible influence of the pharmaceutical industry on some of the major decisions….unregulated or secret lobbying may be a danger and can undermine democratic principles and good governance ».
Know that the same mistakes made in the H1N1 epidemic are being repeated today in the COVID epidemic. You are the victims of the biggest health scam of the 21st century regarding the real danger of the virus, the measures to be taken, the figures, the tests and the treatments, and this was done with the same techniques of manipulation used during the epidemic of H1N1 or the Iraq war. Experts, professors of medicine as well as scientific and medical collectives began to alert others of this as early as March 2020.
The countries of the world (except rare cases like : Sweden, Belarus or Tanzania), without thinking, have only imitated and blindly followed others.
This epidemic is amplified, dramatized and instrumentalised by criminals who take advantage of it to achieve economic, political and ideological goals and agendas that are harmful to humanity and we will prove this to you. You must stop this global scam quickly (because it is a serious danger to your people and your country in terms of : health, economy, education, ecology and human rights) by immediately taking the following actions :
1-Lift all restrictions
….
9-Stop the vaccination campaigns and refuse the scam of the pseudo-health passport which is in reality a politico-commercial project
– « We don’t need it [the vaccine] at all…All this is about purely commercial goals » (Prof. Christian Perronne, June 16, 2020).
– « It is an old marketing principle of pharmaceutical companies : if they want to sell their product well, consumers must be afraid and see it as their salvation. So, we create a psychosis so that consumers crack up and rush on the vaccine in question » (Prof. Peter Schönhöfer).
– « As a doctor, I do not hesitate to anticipate the decisions of the government ; we must not only refuse these vaccines [against COVID-19], but we must also denounce and condemn the purely mercantile approach and the abject cynicism which guided their production » (Dr Pierre Cave, August 7, 2020).
– The COVID vaccine is « so, so unnecessary » (Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, December 2, 2020).
– « I have never seen in the history of medicine that we urgently develop vaccines to vaccinate millions, billions of individuals for a virus that no longer kills except people at risk that we can identify, that we can treat…I have never seen a vaccine coming out after 2 months !…it takes years ! » (Prof. Christian Perronne, December 2, 2020).
– « We’re going too fast. If there was an emergency,…if today COVID-19 kills 50% of people, I will say let’s take risks…but here we have a virus that kills 0,05% and we will take all the risks ! I know there are billions behind this…Be carefull, this is very dangerous ! » (Prof. Christian Perronne, December 2, 2020).
“This is a relief from the standpoint of the challenges of population density and resource usage, but it’s deeply worrying from the standpoint of continued scientific, technological, and economic progress.”
EXTRA [controversial or non-market-related] FARE:
ESG Fare:
The Climate Crisis, Rationing and Conscription
Let’s take a trip to fantasyland, to a world in which the U.S. addresses climate change in a meaningful way.
What does a meaningful response to climate change entail? Among other things, it means enacting the following two policies — energy rationing and conscription — and starting to enact them now. (Both are inevitable, of course, but probably not until after it matters, and not in an orderly way.)
Re-framing the threat of global warming: an empirical causal loop diagram of climate change, food insecurity and societal collapse
Abstract
There is increasing concern that climate change poses an existential risk to humanity. Understanding these worst-case scenarios is essential for good risk management. However, our knowledge of the causal pathways through which climate change could cause societal collapse is underdeveloped. This paper aims to identify and structure an empirical evidence base of the climate change, food insecurity and societal collapse pathway. We first review the societal collapse and existential risk literature and define a set of determinants of societal collapse. We develop an original methodology, using these determinants as societal collapse proxies, to identify an empirical evidence base of climate change, food insecurity and societal collapse in contemporary society and then structure it using a novel-format causal loop diagram (CLD) defined at global scale and national granularity
Why aren’t we more afraid of global warming? The psychology of procrastinating on climate change
those who believe in climate change - but just aren’t feeling the fear - are likely being defended by an automatic response in their brain. “When we face a threat, it triggers a defense against the anxiety that that threat will generate in us,” she explains. “It happens automatically, and it happens outside of awareness, unconsciously.
…
“People who appear to not be frightened are very defended, they’re not allowing that anxiety to penetrate,” Hickman, who is part of the Climate Psychology Alliance, continues.
As well as suppressing difficult emotions about climate change, Salamon says many people aren’t aware of the “stakes” and human cost attached to the climate emergency.
“People just aren’t getting the full story, which is that the food system is going to collapse. civilisation is going to collapse,” she says. “Billions of people are going to die, you could very well die, your family could die, the stakes could not be higher. But we just don’t hear that.”
…
Salamon says this can lead to what is known as pluralistic ignorance. “Humans evaluate risk socially, not rationally,” she tells me
COVID Fare:
Drug used to treat lice and scabies could cut Covid deaths by up to 75%, research suggests
· New study suggests ivermectin cuts Covid infections by around 75 per cent
· More than 30 trials globally found the drug caused improvements in treatment
· The study is set to be published in the US journal Frontiers of Pharmacology
Coronavirus Fact-Check #10: Why “new cases” are plummeting.
As you can see, the global decline in “Covid deaths” starts in mid-to-late January.
What else happened around that time?
Well, on January 13th the WHO published a memo regarding the problem of asymptomatic cases being discovered by PCR tests, and suggesting any asymptomatic positive tests be repeated.
This followed up their previous memo, instructing labs around the world to use lower cycle thresholds (CT values) for PCR tests, as values over 35 could produce false positives.
Essentially, in two memos the WHO ensured future testing would be less likely to produce false positives and made it much harder to be labelled an “asymptomatic case”.
In short, logic would suggest we’re not in fact seeing a “decline in Covid cases” or a “decrease in Covid deaths” at all.
What we’re seeing is a decline in perfectly healthy people being labelled “covid cases” based on a false positive from an unreliable testing process. And we’re seeing fewer people dying of pneumonia, cancer or other disease have “Covid19” added to their death certificate based on testing criteria designed to inflate the pandemic.
Covid-19 - Surfing The Third Wave
The second wave of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic has receded and the people have had enough of restrictions. There is immense pressure to end the lockdowns and many politicians will do as their voters wish. But there will be a third wave and it is likely to become larger than the second one. Below I try to explain why that is the case and what it means for our societies. My conclusions may sound alarmist, and I may be all wrong, but the scenario is neither impossible nor am I the only one who thinks it is likely.
…
The number of new infections is growing again. The third wave has started.
…
Non-pharmaceutical measures like lockdowns and mask mandates have helped during the first and second wave to push the replication rate R below 1. But the next wave will come with a 50% more infectious variant of the virus. To keep the replication rate under 1 in the third wave would thus require stronger non-pharmaceutical measures to keep the virus under control.
…
Behavior: There is a growing share of the population that ignores lockdown and mask mandates. These are not all Covidiots. The people have just had enough of it.
…
All this makes it likely that the third wave of this pandemic, with a stronger virus, less effective interventions, little herd immunity, will become much bigger than the second wave. Instead of 250,000 new cases per day in the U.S. during the top of the second wave we may see 2.5 million new cases per day during the third wave.
Almost a Year Later, There’s Still No Evidence Showing Governments Can Control the Spread of Covid-19
In light of everything our officials have taught us about how this virus spreads, it defies reality that Florida, a fully open and popular travel destination with one of the oldest populations in the country, currently has lower hospitalizations and deaths per million than California, a state with much heavier restrictions and one of the youngest populations in the country. While it is true that, overall, California does slightly better than Florida in deaths per million, simply accounting for California's much younger population tips the scales in Florida’s favor.
Florida has zero restrictions on bars, breweries, indoor dining, gyms, places of worship, gathering sizes, and almost all schools are offering in-person instruction. California, on the other hand, retains heavy restrictions in each of these areas. At the very least, Florida's hospitalizations and deaths per million should be substantially worse than California's.
Synthetic mRNA COVID Vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis
Two formulations have received interim approval from the FDA, and Health Canada: Pfizer/BioNtech and Moderna. Both these injections are employing the same technology, synthetic gene therapy (SGT), which is being dispensed to the populace for the first time in human history.
…
The Covid synthetic gene therapy injections employ synthetic, thermostable nucleotide sequences which are wrapped in a PEG (polyethylene glycol)-lipid nanoparticles to protect from destruction in the bloodstream and facilitate entry into the cells. The claim is that the cellular machinery will engage with these synthetic sequences and produce segments which code for the SarsCov2 S1 spike protein. It is believed that the immune system will mount a sufficient antibody response. Dr David Martin, emphasized that this technology does not meet the definition of a traditional vaccine as per the manufacturers’ claims. The trials do not test for reduction in transmission. These therapies do not prevent infection, merely reduction in one or more symptoms.
…
Media outlets, politicians, and public health officials have blared the 95% efficacy for both formulations. To the casual observer, this would denote 95% reduction in hospitalizations or deaths. When in fact the 95% is calculated, based upon the “Primary Efficacy Endpoints.”In the trial literature these endpoints are described by both companies as non-severe cold/flu SYMPTOMS coupled with a positive PCR.
…
Furthermore, people are not being informed that “95%” or so efficacy, is calculated based on a useless metric of relative efficacy and is therefore very misleading.
Eg.Pfizer/BioNtech:
8 “cases” in vaccine group
162 “cases” in placebo group
8/162 = 5%
100%-5%= 95%
Therefore, they are claiming that the synthetic gene therapy injections are 95% efficacious. What they are not factoring in is the size of the denominator. If it is large, then with 8 vs 162, the difference becomes less significant. It matters how many people were in each group, for example, whether this be 200, 2,000, or 20,000.
This is the absolute risk reduction for Pfizer/BioNtech, each group had over 18,000 people!
Injection Group: 8/18,198 = 0.04%
Placebo Group: 162/18,325= 0.88%
Therefore, the absolute risk reduction for Primary Efficacy Endpoint is 0.84%. (ie. 0.88-0.04)
…
The British Medical Journal has reported:
Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.”
…
According to the data, and elaborated by Tal Zaks (CMO of Moderna)the trials are not designed to demonstrate a reduction in transmission, due to “operational realities”… The manufacturers have also made it clear that efficacy beyond 2 months or so is unknown.
…
When Health Canada shockingly agreed to interim authorization of the Pfizer/BioNtech injection, it came alongside a caveat: The company must submit 6 months of trial data when it is available. … it is difficult to embark on a comprehensive risk-benefit analysis, as there is no safety data beyond a couple of months. New vaccines typically take about 7 to 20 years of research and trials before going to market.
…
Yet, the more disconcerting side effects are the potential mid-long term effects. Many doctors and researchers around the world have promulgated concerns about the well-documented phenomena referred to as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) seen in some viruses such as coronaviruses. In previous SARS, MERS, Dengue fever and RSV virus vaccine trials the exposure of wild viruses to vaccine recipients resulted in severe disease, cytokine storms, and deaths in some animal and human trials. The phenomenon of ADE did not present initially in vaccine recipients, rather it presented after vaccine recipients were exposed to wild viruses. This is the reason we do not have a vaccine for the common cold, MERS and SARS which is 78% homologous with SarsCov2 (based on analysis of the digital genome). Immunology Professor Dolores Cahill warnedthat this disease enhancement may cause many vaccine recipients to die months or years down the road. Esteemed German infectious disease specialist, Dr Sucharit Bhakdi opined: “This vaccine will lead you to your doom.”
Researchers in The International Journal of Clinical Practice stated: “The absence of ADE evidence in COVID-19 vaccine data so far does not absolve investigators from disclosing the risk of enhanced disease to vaccine trial participants, and it remains a realistic, non-theoretical risk to the subjects. Unfortunately, no vaccines for any of the known human CoVs have been licensed, although several potential SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV vaccines have advanced into human clinical trials for years, suggesting the development of effective vaccines against human CoVs has always been challenging.”
Traditional vaccines involve injection of the pathogen/toxin in whole/part to elicit an immune reaction. For the first time in history, the recipients’ cells will manufacture the pathogen, the S1 spike protein of SarsCov2 virus.
In a presentation for Emergency Use Authorization to the FDA, Moderna reps explained that the mRNA stays in the cytoplasm of the cells, manufactures the S1 Spike Protein and then is destroyed. As Dr Sucharit Bhakdi and others have queried: “Where else do these packages go?”
Also, based on a couple of months of safety data, we do not know that these mRNAs last long enough to manufacture the protein but not long enough to exert deleterious effects. This nascent technology is risky.
Firstly, the RNA sequences are synthetic. Therefore, we do not know how long they will last in the cells. Dr Judy Mikovits has expressed concerns in that they may not be degraded immediately, and perhaps linger for days, months, years.
Moderna previously tried to use this same technology to treat Crigler-Najjar syndrome and was not able to strike the balance between therapeutic dose and toxic side effects.
It’s encased in nanolipid to prevent it from degrading too rapidly, but what happens if the mRNA degrades too slowly, or not at all? What happens when you turn your body into a “viral protein factory”, thus keeping antibody production activated on a continual basis with no ability to shut down?
So, taking a synthetic messenger RNA and making it thermostable — making it not break down — [is problematic]. We have lots of enzymes (RNAses and DNAses) that degrade free RNA and DNA because, again, those are danger signals to your immune system. They literally drive inflammatory diseases.
Moderna boldly claims that these synthetic mRNAs will not integrate with the host cell DNA. The discovery of epigenetics has revealed that DNA expression is in flux and constantly interacts with environmental signals. Dr Lanka explained that RNA-DNA is also a two-way process, dynamic.
There is the potential for this synthetic RNA to integrate into human DNA via the enzyme, reverse transcriptase. This may lead to mutagenesis, possibly cancer. It may lead to birth defects if it integrates into the germ cells of the injected. Reassurances cannot be made based on such limited safety data.
…
Whilst natural infections are benign and self-limiting for the vast majority of affected people, autoimmune diseases are mostly irreversible. This is even more terrifying with the mRNA treatment.
If the translation of SarsCov2 S1 spike protein persists there is potential to cause amplification of the expression of autoimmunity. As the SGT recipients’ cells are now producing the viral spike proteins, there is the potential for explosion of auto-immune diseases in coming years.
Syncytin-1’s primary function is in the placenta as well as sperm. Dr Wodarg and Yeadon’s Stay of Action, included concerns that the potential for antibodies against Syncytin-1 proteins (part of the placenta) may result in permanent infertility in women and possibly men as well. The manufacturers give the caveat: “It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility.”
…
In the longer term, she suspects we’ll see a significant uptick in migraines, tics, Parkinson’s disease, microvascular disorders, different cancers, including prostate cancer, severe pain syndromes like fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis, bladder problems, kidney disease, psychosis, neurodegenerative diseases such as Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) and sleep disorders, including narcolepsy. In young children, autism-like symptoms are likely to develop as well, she thinks.
Heart attacks are another documented side effect. Loved ones of the deceased have shared on social media that these deaths are not considered vaccine reactions and are therefore not recorded as such.
Cardiothoracic surgeon and researcher, Dr Hooman Noorchashm, wrote a letter of warning to the FDA. His concern, the spike protein will cause inflammation, clot formation and heart attacks in SGT recipients who previously were exposed to SarsCov2:
“So if a person with a recent or active COVID-19 infection is vaccinated, the highly effective and antigen specific immune response incited by the vaccine will, very likely, attack the inner lining of the blood vessel and cause damage, leading to blood clot formation. This could result in major serious problems like strokes and heart attacks, at least in some people…Additionally, if the immunological risk I am prognosticating herein is in reality material, over the next months as millions more Americans are immunized, it will become quite visible to the public..Thromboembolic complications, 10–20 days following activation of a vaccine induced antigen specific immune response, in elderly frail vasculopaths, will not register as classical “vaccine related complications.”
…
Dr Whelan expressed concern that the spike protein alone is sufficient to cause injury: “I am concerned about the possibility that the new vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein have the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in a way that does not currently appear to be assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs.”
There are many avenues of potential harm and death, many are unknown as this experiment is only a few months old.
In contemplation of risk-benefit analysis, one must also consider low-risk efficacious treatments. It is well established that vitamin D deficiency is linked to presentation of severe respiratory distress, and cytokine storm sequelae, which also includes Covid.
…
Pfizer has projected a profit of 15 billion for 2021. A very lucrative start for all companies benefitting from the Covid Industrial Complex.
Sadly, people are not being informed that Phase 3 trials are ongoing. The FDA and Health Canada have not approved these injections for licensure. The injections are highly experimental. These SGTs were designed and “assessed” at a record speed of less than a year and then given interim approval based on 2 months of safety data.
…
Dr Michael Yeadon, former Vice-President of Pfizer has also stated: “All vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus are by definition novel. If any such vaccine is approved for use under any circumstances that are not EXPLICITLY experimental, I believe that recipients are being misled to a criminal extent.”
The American Frontline Doctor’s white paper reports: “An Experimental Vaccine Is Not Safer Than a Very Low IFR.”
…
The new normal breeds hysteria, “safe and effective” are the cacophonous mantras. Only a heretic dare analyze the actual data or initiate rational query. The unscrupulous message proclaimed from on high: “Covid is extremely fatal, the injections are extremely safe and effective. Full stop”.
It’s Gene Therapy, Not a Vaccine
Dr. David Martin, founder and chairman of M-CAM Inc, challenges our presuppositions about the new mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. Quoting the pharmaceutical companies themselves, David suggests that these are not vaccines, but, in actuality, gene therapy. He explains what the vaccines may do to us, what they are promising they can do for us, and how to distinguish the difference.
…
Q: I have a friend that works in the school system. She got a letter suggesting that she’s an essential worker and that she needs to get this one of these new vaccines being developed against this COVID virus. What should she know before she goes for it?
A: Let’s start with your opening sentence. None of the words in the order that you use exist in reality. Let’s unpack that. First of all, there is no vaccine that is in development or contemplated that is a vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. That doesn’t exist. That hasn’t been developed. It isn’t even, in 2021, in contemplation. It’s one of the unfortunate things about what’s going on in the propaganda war, which is in February, the World Health Organization made it abundantly clear that SARS-CoV-2 or the virus and COVID-19, which is a series of clinical presentations of illness were two distinct things.
Q: You’re making an interesting distinction. I have heard that SARS-CoV-2 is “the virus” and that COVID-19 is the disease. Is that what you’re saying?
A: COVID 19 is not a disease. It is a series of clinical symptoms. It is a giant umbrella of things associated with what used to be associated with influenza and with other febrile diseases. The problem that we have is that in February, the World Health Organization was clear in stating that there should not be a conflation between the two of these things. One is a virus, in their definition and one is a set of clinical symptoms. The illusion in February was that SARS-CoV-2 caused COVID-19. The problem with that definition and with the expectation is that the majority of people who test positive using the RT-PCR method for testing, for fragments of what is associated with SARS-CoV-2 are not ill at all. The illusion that the virus causes a disease fell apart. That’s the reason why they invented the term asymptomatic carrier.
Q: In other words, I might get a positive result from this PCR test and the reason I’m not asymptomatic, what’s happening is I’m not sick at all. They’ve made a false assumption that SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19.
A: That’s never been the case, never has been the case and never will be the case. There is a causal statement that is made in the media where, for example, Johns Hopkins or the COVID tracker platform or any of these things has intentionally misled the people. There are not 5,000 new cases in Virginia. There potentially may be several thousand positive PCR tests but most of the people who have a positive test will never have a single symptom. Most of the people who have symptoms do not have positive tests.
Q: I know some individuals who said that thing. They were like, “I was feeling sick and I got a negative test. My sister-in-law, who was feeling great, got a positive test.”
It will always be the case. The causal link that the media, the CDC made and the COVID tracker, which is the collaboration between the Bloomberg Foundation, the Gates Foundation, Zuckerberg Foundation and others, the official numbers that we get traped across the screens every morning of our computers in our televisions, those numbers are willfully lying. They have been willfully lying since the inception of this. There is not a causal link between these things that have never been established. It has never even been close to established. We have a situation where the illusion of the problem is that people say, “I don’t want to get COVID-19.” What they mean is they don’t want to get infected with a virus. The problem is those two things are not related to each other.
A viral infection hasn’t been documented in the majority of what is called cases. There is no basis for that conflation other than the manipulation of the public. That’s the first half of the problem. The second half of the problem is that what is being touted as a vaccination, which as you well know when somebody says the word vaccination, the public understanding is that you are being treated with an attenuated or alive virus or a fragment of an attenuated and that the treatment is meant to keep you from getting an infection and it is meant to keep you from transmitting the infection that vaccine in the common definition of a vaccine is meant to do.
The problem is that in the case of Moderna and Pfizer, this is not a vaccine. This is gene therapy. It’s a chemotherapy agent that is gene therapy. It is not a vaccine. What is this doing? It’s sending a strand of synthetic RNA into the human being and is invoking within the human being, the creation of the S1 spike protein, which is a pathogen. It’s a toxin inside of human beings. This is not only not keeping you from getting sick, it’s making your body produce the thing that makes you sick.
Q: In that sense, it does sound like a vaccine?
A: No, not at all because a vaccine is supposed to trigger immunity. It’s not supposed to trigger you to make a toxin.
Q: That’s how this differs.
A: It’s not somewhat different. It’s not the same at all. This is a public manipulation of misrepresentation of clinical treatment. It’s not a vaccination. It’s not a prohibiting infection. It’s not a prohibiting transmission device. It’s a means by which your body is conscripted to make the toxin that then allegedly your body somehow gets used to dealing with, but unlike a vaccine, which is to trigger the immune response, this is to trigger the creation of the toxin.
Q: What you’re saying is different from what most of us have heard in the mainstream news and even from the press releases from big companies.
A: That’s because people aren’t reading the actual clinical trials. If you read the clinical trials, nothing that I’m saying is even remotely different. As a matter of fact, the companies themselves have said what I’m saying. They said, they could not test for the existence or absence of the virus and they could not test for the transmissivity because they said it would be impractical. The companies themselves have admitted to every single thing I’m saying but they are using the public manipulation of the word vaccine to co-opt the public into believing they’re getting a thing, which they are not getting. This is not going to stop you from getting Coronavirus. It’s not going to stop you from getting sick. In fact, on the contrary, it will make you sick far more often than the virus itself.
Q: How can you say that so definitively?
A:Because the data is nothing but that, for people receiving by the time they got the second shot, 80% of people had one or more clinical presentations of COVID-19, 80% of people who have an infection according to RT-PCR have no symptoms at all.
Q: People are getting it more from the “vaccine?”
A: Yes. You will get COVID-19 symptoms from getting the gene therapy passed off as a vaccine. You will get COVID symptoms from that 80% of the time. If you’re exposed to SARS-CoV-2 according to RT-PCR, 80% of the time, you will have no symptoms at all.
Q: What is the purpose of getting this vaccine or this gene manipulation as you call it?
A: It’s a gene therapy technology. That’s Moderna’s own definition. Let’s stick with what they say they are. The benefit is non-existent. A human being is going to be potentially exposed to unclassified, both short-term and long-term risks of altering their RNA and DNA from exposure to this gene therapy. This is important to understand, there is no clinical benefit except that in certain instances of CoV infection and/or COVID-19 exposure, there were a few. By that, I mean less than a few hundred out of nearly 40,000 in the clinical trial. A few hundred people had a few days less severe symptoms with the gene therapy when compared to the other control group. Even in that comparison, if you look at the methodology that’s in the published papers for the clinical trials, they play games with the data because what they’re doing is, they’re separating reactivity, meaning the way in which a person responds to being exposed to the gene therapy, they separate out adverse events from actual COVID symptoms.
The problem is that COVID symptoms include things like fever, body ache, muscle pain, muscle weakness and things like that. They got rid of a lot of what would have been considered to be COVID symptoms by calling them adverse events. If you pull that data out and you say, “Compare the population that got the gene therapy with the population that didn’t get the gene therapy.” The population that got the gene therapy had way more illness, including COVID-19 symptoms, than the population that didn’t get the gene therapy but because they classified an enormous number of things as adverse events, they technically wiggled themselves into what was this ridiculous 90% plus effectiveness. Effectiveness was not effective in blocking illness. It was effective in allegedly shortening the duration of symptoms.
Q: People are afraid that they are ready to believe what they want to believe and holding onto that one bit of information that you shared, that the likelihood with the flu vaccine, “At least it will tamp down my symptoms and limit the duration of my illness.” They held onto that one bit of information that was data manipulation, as you’re saying and they’re holding out hope that this will be their saving grace to help them avoid COVID-19.
A: Nothing about this will avoid COVID-19 and nothing about this will avoid SARS-CoV-2.
Q: We’ve been talking mostly about the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine that is gene therapy. Is there another one in the works or getting to the market that is not using gene therapy?
A: The AstraZeneca Oxford trial is using a viral fragment. It is more along the technological lines of what you and I might consider historically, to be a vaccine. The AstraZeneca Oxford trial has been an interesting one to watch because they have a methodology problem that is quite challenging in terms of trying to fool data and understand what’s happening either on the safety or efficacy side. The reason is simple, that in certain instances, the AstraZeneca Oxford trial has not used a saline control group. They’ve used another vaccine as the control. In other words, they’ve stacked the deck. They’re making it look like they are somehow neutral compared to another vaccination in several of their data collection efforts.
As a result of that, we have both a methodology problem, which by the way, has been criticized by a number of clinical scientists. The bigger problem is that they’re still not measuring viral susceptibility and viral transmission. Those are the two legs of the stool that is required for anyone to say that they are vaccinating a population for public health reasons. There is no means by which. This is a simple thing to wrap your head around. If I said, “Everybody needs to take chemotherapy for cancer they might get.”
Q: People would laugh in your face.
A: That’s exactly what is happening. This is not prophylactic. This is not helping us. We’re being told to take a treatment for a disease we don’t have and most likely will not have. We’re being told that using careful marketing manipulation and propaganda, calling these things vaccines for public health.
Q: Historically vaccines, we’ve taken them for that reason. “I don’t have the measles. I don’t want to get the measles, so I’m going to get this measles shot.” We’ve been primed to accept that approached.
A: That’s the narrative everybody expects.
Q: Why don’t you expect that though? What’s made you dive deep?
A: That’s not what’s being measured. That’s not what’s being done and that’s not what this technology is about. mRNA is not a vaccination. It’s a gene therapy that was originally developed for cancer treatment. That’s why I’m using the chemotherapy analogy. This is not a vaccination.
Q: I have colleagues, I’m sure you do too, friends and acquaintances who are going for it. What can we tell these people or share with them that might wake them up?
A: That’s a complex issue and I have chosen a long time ago to not engage in the energy of this waking-sleeping metaphor because the fact of the matter is if people are conditioned to react to fear, this is reflexive and it’s not conscious. If we examine our behavior and what we do is engage in self-harm because we are convinced that somehow or another, there’s a worse future ahead of us, that’s something that I don’t have an ability to say facts are going ever to overcome. I have yet to meet in my life someone who allowed a fact to overwhelm a belief. Once you’ve adopted a belief, facts are not welcome because what they do is, they not only indict your belief but they indict the energy that you hold that says, “I have to believe what I’m told.”
The minute you try to engage with facts, all you do is trigger conflict. What I do is I try to take the complex science and the complex reporting, and I try to make it accessible and easily understood. The goal is that in certain instances, people will go, “I can’t even believe that what he said was true.” The cool thing is you don’t have to believe what I’m saying is true because I don’t value belief. I value the objective reality of facts. It turns out that in this particular case, it is simple and straightforward to say to any person in Moderna’s own SEC filings, they make it abundantly clear that their technology is a gene therapy technology. In their clinical trial, they’ve made it abundantly clear that they could not measure the presence or absence of the virus and they could not measure the presence or the absence of the transmission of the virus. Every single thing that they represented to be doing that preys on the public understanding of what vaccination is, they explicitly said, “They’re not doing that.”
Q: I’ve interviewed Dr. Tom Cowan and Dr. Andy Kaufman, and they say the same thing. The person who came up with or developed the PCR test says that it’s not to be used to diagnose anything.
A: So does the FDA so does everybody else. The only reason we are using PCR tests is that governors and the Department of Health and Human Services are maintaining a state of emergency. The second that that state of emergency is lifted in any state or in the country, the PCR test won’t be allowed to be used. We’re maintaining a state of emergency so that manufacturers can keep selling a thing that would never be approved if it was subject to a clinical trial. It goes for what’s being called vaccines too. The gene therapy that Moderna and Pfizer are doing, both of those would be suspended immediately if the state of emergency got lifted. People don’t understand that if you lift the state of emergency, the whole house of cards falls.
Q: That is something else that you and your team are advocating for?
A: It’s because the emergency use authorization falls with the state of emergency.
Q: Is this one reason, do you think that they have cast aspersions on hydroxychloroquine or any other protocols that could possibly treat the symptoms of SARS-CoV-2?
A: There’s no question. If you look historically, for many years, Dr. Anthony Fauci at NIAID has held his annual advisory committee meeting. Every year he laments the fact that they’re trying to build this universal influenza vaccine, which he refers to using as an infant in-print vaccine. They’ve been trying to do this for years and it hasn’t worked. This happens to be an opportunity for Anthony Fauci to get what he has not been able to get through legal means, which is he wants to get to a place where he forces a vaccine on a population. He’s manipulating this situation to force a vaccine on a population. The fact of the matter is he forgot that if he’s going to force a vaccine on a population, it should at least be a vaccine.
Q: What would his motives be for that?
A: Always has been financial. There are billions of dollars at stake and NIAID is essentially the incubator for the pharmaceutical industry. He’s serving the paymasters that have let him manage $191 billion in his career at NIAID.
Q: There are lots to consider here. You’ve given us a lot of food for thought. We want to have another conversation with you again but let’s say I’m an individual that was reading all these facts and I’ve been persuaded. I do not want to get this gene therapy technology. I don’t want even to get the AstraZeneca vaccine. I don’t want to get any of this but I’m under pressure either because of my job or for travel purposes to do so, what would you advise me to do?
A: I can’t advise a person at all. That’s not my role but what I can tell you is that this is a decision that any human being is going to ultimately have to make based on whether or not they choose to live or they choose to be enslaved. This is like any point in history where you have to make decisions that are based on what is moral and ethical and right with respect to your own sense of responsibility and accountability. The fact of the matter is like wearing a seat belt, like doing a whole bunch of other things, your choice to engage in an activity is ultimately going to be a decision that you have to live with. I will not touch a thing and I will not allow my body to be invaded with a thing that is been developed in an unethical and illegal way. I am not going to let anybody have the opportunity to manipulate my genetic code. It’s not going to happen. If that means that it comes at a cost of a particular employer or a particular relationship or whatever else, my life happens to be worth more than that.
International Alert Message about COVID-19. United Health Professionals
We are health professionals of the international collective : United Health Professionals, composed of more than 1,500 members (including professors of medicine, intensive care physicians and infectious disease specialists) from different countries of Europe, Africa, America, Asia and Oceania and, on August 26, 2020, we addressed to governments and citizens of countries around the world an alert message regarding the COVID outbreak.
First, let’s start with the conclusions of the 2010 report of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the management of the H1N1 epidemic :
« The Parliamentary Assembly is alarmed about the way in which the H1N1 influenza pandemic has been handled, ot only by the World Health Organization (WHO) but also by the competent health authorities at the level of the European Union and at national level. It is particularly troubled by some of the consequences of decisions taken and advice given leading to distortion of priorities of public health services across Europe, waste of large sums of public money and also unjustified scares and fears about health risks…grave shortcomings have been identified regarding the transparency of decision-making processes relating to the pandemic which have generated concerns about the possible influence of the pharmaceutical industry on some of the major decisions….unregulated or secret lobbying may be a danger and can undermine democratic principles and good governance ».
Know that the same mistakes made in the H1N1 epidemic are being repeated today in the COVID epidemic. You are the victims of the biggest health scam of the 21st century regarding the real danger of the virus, the measures to be taken, the figures, the tests and the treatments, and this was done with the same techniques of manipulation used during the epidemic of H1N1 or the Iraq war. Experts, professors of medicine as well as scientific and medical collectives began to alert others of this as early as March 2020.
The countries of the world (except rare cases like : Sweden, Belarus or Tanzania), without thinking, have only imitated and blindly followed others.
This epidemic is amplified, dramatized and instrumentalised by criminals who take advantage of it to achieve economic, political and ideological goals and agendas that are harmful to humanity and we will prove this to you. You must stop this global scam quickly (because it is a serious danger to your people and your country in terms of : health, economy, education, ecology and human rights) by immediately taking the following actions :
1-Lift all restrictions
….
9-Stop the vaccination campaigns and refuse the scam of the pseudo-health passport which is in reality a politico-commercial project
– « We don’t need it [the vaccine] at all…All this is about purely commercial goals » (Prof. Christian Perronne, June 16, 2020).
– « It is an old marketing principle of pharmaceutical companies : if they want to sell their product well, consumers must be afraid and see it as their salvation. So, we create a psychosis so that consumers crack up and rush on the vaccine in question » (Prof. Peter Schönhöfer).
– « As a doctor, I do not hesitate to anticipate the decisions of the government ; we must not only refuse these vaccines [against COVID-19], but we must also denounce and condemn the purely mercantile approach and the abject cynicism which guided their production » (Dr Pierre Cave, August 7, 2020).
– The COVID vaccine is « so, so unnecessary » (Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, December 2, 2020).
– « I have never seen in the history of medicine that we urgently develop vaccines to vaccinate millions, billions of individuals for a virus that no longer kills except people at risk that we can identify, that we can treat…I have never seen a vaccine coming out after 2 months !…it takes years ! » (Prof. Christian Perronne, December 2, 2020).
– « We’re going too fast. If there was an emergency,…if today COVID-19 kills 50% of people, I will say let’s take risks…but here we have a virus that kills 0,05% and we will take all the risks ! I know there are billions behind this…Be carefull, this is very dangerous ! » (Prof. Christian Perronne, December 2, 2020).
late addition:
Emergency vs Humanity
Emergency vs Humanity
If there is no Public Health Emergency, then there can be no Emergency Use Authorization, and the Covid vaccines could not be widely distributed until getting FDA approval after years of testing.
Even if there is a Public Health Emergency, the Covid vaccines could not obtain Emergency Use Authorization if an effective treatment is acknowledged to be available.
With a Public Health Emergency in place, the PREP act (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID-19) provides liability immunity to both public and private distribution channels for the vaccines, including those who prescribe, dispense, and administer the vaccines.
“Liability immunity” means that the “covered person is immune from suit and liability under Federal and State law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration or use of a covered countermeasure [such as a vaccine].”
In addition, “to the extent that any State law that would otherwise prohibit the employees, contractors, or volunteers who are a “qualified person” from prescribing, dispensing, or administering COVID-19 vaccines or other Covered Countermeasures, such law is preempted.”
......
Dissenting views on safety are relegated to the fringes, and the existence of vaccines other than just the two mRNA ones (with different, more conventional modes of action) is never mentioned in the Western media. There are several promising aspects to mRNA technology, and still more unknowns about it, particularly long-term effects which most likely would manifest as autoimmune disorders. Being a new technology, early animal studies were often plagued with unexpected negative results as the methods and delivery agents were refined. So where are we in our knowledge and expertise as a species with mRNA, now that we are jabbing tens of millions of people with these vaccines?
The straightforward questions I have are, “How do we know how safe mRNA vaccines are? How well-studied are their long-term effects?”
...
Again, it does not suggest that mRNA technology is dangerous – it suggests that we do not have enough data. I find insufficient evidence to support the assertion that mRNA technology is “safe and effective” – we SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW.
The Vaccine (Dis)Information War
So, good news, folks! It appears that GloboCap’s Genetic Modification Division has come up with a miracle vaccine for Covid! It’s an absolutely safe, non-experimental, messenger-RNA vaccine that teaches your cells to produce a protein that triggers an immune response, just like your body’s immune-system response, only better, because it’s made by corporations!
OK, technically, it hasn’t been approved for use — that process normally takes several years — so I guess it’s slightly “experimental,” but the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency have issued “Emergency Use Authorizations,” and it has been “tested extensively for safety and effectiveness,” according to Facebook’s anonymous “fact checkers,” so there’s absolutely nothing to worry about.
This non-experimental experimental vaccine is truly a historic development, because apart from saving the world from a virus that causes mild to moderate flu-like symptoms (or, more commonly, no symptoms whatsoever) in roughly 95% of those infected, and that over 99% of those infected survive, the possibilities for future applications of messenger-RNA technology, and the genetic modification of humans, generally, is virtually unlimited at this point.
…
The important thing at the moment is to defeat this common-flu-like pestilence that has no significant effect on age-adjusted death rates, and the mortality profile of which is more or less identical to the normal mortality profile, but which has nonetheless left the global corporatocracy no choice but to “lock down” the entire planet, plunge millions into desperate poverty, order everyone to wear medical-looking masks, unleash armed goon squads to raid people’s homes, and otherwise transform society into a pathologized-totalitarian nightmare. And, of course, the only way to do that (i.e., save humanity from a flu-like bug) is to coercively vaccinate every single human being on the planet Earth!
OK, you’re probably thinking that doesn’t make much sense, this crusade to vaccinate the entire species against a relatively standard respiratory virus, but that’s just because you are still thinking critically. You really need to stop thinking like that.
The 2020 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”
Political Fare:
Glenn Greenwald: House Democrats, Targeting Right-Wing Cable Outlets, Are Assaulting Core Press Freedoms
Not even two months into their reign as the majority party that controls the White House and both houses of Congress, key Democrats have made clear that one of their top priorities is censorship of divergent voices. On Saturday, I detailed how their escalating official campaign to coerce and threaten social media companies into more aggressively censoring views that they dislike — including by summoning social media CEOs to appear before them for the third time in less than five months — is implicating, if not already violating, core First Amendment rights of free speech. “Now they are going further — much further.
Lee Camp: It’s Time for Major Wealth Redistribution — Yes, I Mean It.
.. So we — the 99 percent — would take everything over $10 million from the people who have over $10 million. And we would give it out with the bottom 50 percent getting the vast majority of it. This means 99.5 percent of Americans would benefit from this redistribution of wealth. … and if you are the one person with over $10 million reading this, don’t give me that horse shit about, “I worked for that money. I earned that money.” No, no, no, no, you did not earn over $10 million. I know you didn’t because that’s impossible. It’s madness. It’s Gary Busey inside Charlie Sheen inside Ted Nugent. Taking the laws of physics into account, there is no way you worked a thousand times harder than a janitor or a sanitation worker or a nurse or a busboy or a fluffer or a fluffer’s second assistant fluffer intern. It’s physically impossible that you worked a thousand times harder than every “essential worker.” (Yes, fluffers are essential.)
What you did was merely take advantage of a system that is set up to exploit the vast majority of the society while most people don’t even realize what happened. That’s what you did because you’re a sociopath. Indeed, most of the Americans with over $10 million are sociopaths. They would kick a puppy down a flight of stairs into the teeth of a wool thresher if it meant they could make an extra $1,000. But I will acknowledge that not all of them are sociopaths. Some of them are relatively okay people working inside a breathtakingly corrupt system. So for the ones who are sociopaths, why should we feel bad for taking their wealth — over $10 million — and redistributing it? (They’re sociopaths after all. Lest we forget: they kick puppies.)
The Next US President
So my bet is that the next President of the US will be a Republican “right wing populist.” The only possible antidote would be someone like AOC getting the nod. She has problems, but she can run a campaign of hope. However, it’s clear that the Democrats will do everything up to an including cheating to avoid a progressive as Presidential candidate, .. Hope everyone’s looking forward to Trump again, or Trump 2.0.
Under Trudeau, Canada Is Saudi Arabia’s Most Dedicated Gunrunner
during Trudeau’s time as prime minister, Canada has exported more weapons abroad than at any point in its history. Some of these arms sales have been directed to the most repressive regimes in the world. Canada’s top customer for arms, apart from the United States, is Saudi Arabia, a regime that is guilty of human rights abuses at home and war crimes abroad. The Saudi Kingdom is the leader of a coalition that has committed well-documented international humanitarian law violations — including the indiscriminate targeting of civilians — in Yemen’s civil war. By approving the export of arms to the Saudi regime, Trudeau’s government is complicit in such atrocities.
Big Thoughts:
The People Haven’t Risen Up For The Same Reason Abuse Victims Don’t Leave Their Abusers
Vast fortunes are poured into keeping us from realizing that we are being exploited by powerful wealth hoarders while our nation’s resources are sent to fight wars of planetary domination. That our ecosystem is being destroyed for profit with no real plan for what to do when it’s gone. That we are being increasingly oppressed and impoverished to keep us from having enough awareness and wealth to dethrone our rulers. And that it doesn’t have to be this way at all.
Radically Progressive Degrowth: Reducing Resource Use by Eliminating Inequality
In the real world, billionaires continue to multiply. But suppose they didn’t. Imagine instead that we taxed billionaires out of existence. Then we taxed millionaires out of existence. And we kept going until we harmonized all incomes down to what the bottom half of society now lives on. How much would this rich-ridding scheme reduce our consumption of resources?
I call this thought experiment ‘radically progressive degrowth’. It’s about reducing resource consumption not by lowering everyone’s standard of living, but by taxing the rich out of existence. It’s politically unthinkable, yes. But as I will show, getting rid of the rich could lead to significant degrowth.
[Extended] Quote of the Week:
Caitlin Johnstone: This is all so very typical of the American supremacist worldview that is being aggressively shoved down our throats by all western mainstream news media. The US can bomb who it likes, whenever it likes, and when it does it is only ever doing so in self defense, because the entire planet is the property of Washington, DC. It can seize control of entire clusters of nations, and if any of those nations resist in any way they are invading America’s sovereignty. It’s like if you broke into your neighbor’s house to rob him, killed him when he tried to stop you, and then claimed self defense because you consider his home your property. Only in the American exceptionalist alternate universe is this considered normal and acceptable.
Satire of the Week:
Honest Government Ad | News Corp Bargaining Code.
Long [MMT] Read of the Week:
Bill Mitchell: Some historical thinking about the Job Guarantee
A Job Guarantee is an important part of a new order but it should really be just a very small part of the policy offerings, which I think is a point that is missed by those who think of it as a job creation program rather than the way I conceived of it initially in 1978 as a price stabilisation framework with the added advantage that jobs replaced unemployment.
In this blog post, I am really building on the notions I developed in this post – Setting things straight about the Job Guarantee (July 30, 2020).
Let’s construct our thinking in a logical manner.
Capitalism is a crisis-prone monetary production system.
Marx knew it. Kalecki knew it. Keynes got to know it.
The policy interventions that defined the period after World War 2 up until the Monetarist coup were built on that understanding.
We knew that unregulated capitalism would enter crises whenever pessimism increased and spending fell.
We also knew that without government intervention by way of fiscal stimulus, that the capitalist system could get stuck in an equilibrium state which would coincide with very high unemployment.
When people say they are Keynesian, above all else, they are referring to that understanding and that operational sense – for government to intervene into the private system that was stuck in crisis and restore confidence and income and employment growth. ….
Pic of the Week:
No comments:
Post a Comment