Upgrade the memory of your 2020 iMac up to 128GB
Memory Upgrades for 2019 Mac Pro - Save Up to 65% vs Factory Costs

Jay Bhattacharya: SCOTUS Ruling on Health Care Vaccine Mandate a ‘Big Mistake,’ Stanford Professor Says

re: ethics in medicine
re: Jay Bhattacharya
re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
re: How Well do Doctors Understand Probability?
re: How to understand scientific studies (in health and medicine)

Science will limp along less than wholly ruined so long as honest folk like Jay Bhattacharya are willing to speak out, exerting some drag on intellectually bankrupt researchers.

The Epoch Times: SCOTUS Ruling on Health Care Vaccine Mandate a ‘Big Mistake,’ Stanford Professor Says

2022-01-14, By Mimi Nguyen Ly and Jan Jekielek. Emphasis added.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Thursday allowing the Biden administration to continue mandating COVID-19 vaccines for most health care workers is “really unfortunate” and a “big mistake” from a health policy perspective, said Dr. Jay Bhattacharya a professor at the Stanford University School of Medicine.

Bhattacharya, a senior scholar of Brownstone Institute, told The Epoch Times the ruling presents a situation that is “FUBAR,” a military slang term that stands for “[expletive] up beyond all repair.”

“That’s what this is, right? This is FUBAR,” he said, adding, “From a health policy perspective, from a public health perspective, it is a big mistake.”

The Supreme Court on Thursday let stand a vaccination requirement for health care workers at places that receive funding from Medicare or Medicaid—this accounts for about 10.4 million workers at 76,000 health care facilities as well as home health care providers, according to the federal government, down from the over 17 million it originally said...

Bhattacharya said the SCOTUS ruling is “really unfortunate,” and likely to create labor shortages in American hospitals for the foreseeable future. “It’s already the case that there’s a reduction in staff hospital beds—tens of thousands—and that’s because they’ve lost so many workers in hospitals. [Health care workers] left because they didn’t want the vaccine.”


The professor said there are two aspects that amount to what he calls a “real strange situation.”

Firstly, many health care workers who left due to the vaccine mandates are “COVID-recovered, because they’ve worked for the frontlines [for] all of 2020,” Bhattacharya said, adding that these people are “better protected against transmitting the disease than the vaccinated.”

Secondly, health authorities across the United States are allowing health care workers who have mild or no symptoms who have COVID-19 to return to work to alleviate staffing shortages amid the spread of the highly contagious Omicron variant, Bhattacharya noted. “Of course, they’re vaccinated, and so they’re allowed to come back,” he said.

“So put those two pieces together, this vaccine mandate gets rid of the natural immune-unvaccinated [and] basically induces hospitals to permit COVID-positive vaccinated workers to work,” Bhattacharya said.

On Twitter, he said, “The vax does not halt transmission, so no marginal benefit to patients regarding covid risk either.”

“The vaccine mandate in this case actually may result in more exposure of patients to the virus than otherwise would have happened without the vaccine mandate,” Bhattacharya told The Epoch Times.


WIND: the law of unintended consequences.

I’d say follow the money here, except that the Supreme Court is really about follow the stupidity, or some such.

Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance

The Old Testamant and New Testament of Science, by Scott Adams

re: Scott Adams

Here’s all you need to know about how science works.

Sorry, only for subscribers, but you can afford $7 for one month. Nobel prize material.


View all handpicked deals...

FUJIFILM GFX 50R Medium Format Mirrorless Camera
$4499 $2999
SAVE $1500

John Ioannidis: High-cited favorable studies for COVID-19 treatments ineffective in large trials

re: John Ioannidis
re: Sebastian Rushworth MD: How to understand scientific studies (in health and medicine)
re: Sebastian Rushworth MD: How Well do Doctors Understand Probability?
re: Ioannidis: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Professor of Medicine at Stanford, John Ioannidis is one of the best minds on the planet in epidemiology and best of all he is one of the few voices of scientific integrity willing to speak out.

Timely and apropos when anecdotes and guessing deliver better results than the crap scientists poop out.

High-cited favorable studies for COVID-19 treatments ineffective in large trials

2022-01-11, view full PDF.

Objective. To evaluate for COVID-19 treatments that showed no benefits in subsequent large RCTs how many of their most-cited clinical studies had declared favorable results for these interventions.


Findings. 40 articles of clinical studies on these index interventions had received >150 citations (7 exceeded 1,000 citations). 20/40 (50%) had favorable conclusions and 4 were equivocal. Highly-cited articles with favorable conclusions were rarely RCTs while those without favorable conclusions were mostly RCTs (3/20 vs 15/20, p=0.0003). Only 1 RCT with favorable conclusions had sample size >160. Citation counts correlated strongly with Altmetric scores, in particular news items. Only 9 (15%) of 60 recent citations to the most highly-cited studies with favorable or equivocal conclusions were critical to the highly-cited study.

Conclusion. Many clinical studies with favorable conclusions for largely ineffective COVID-19 treatments are uncritically heavily cited and disseminated. Early observational studies and small randomized trials may cause spurious claims of effectiveness that get perpetuated.

WIND: learn more about how science really works from Scott Adams.

Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance

Supreme Court Sets Dangerous Precedent Of Letting The American People Make Medical Decisions For Themselves

re: The Babylon Bee

When farce meets reality.

The Babylon Bee: 'Supreme Court Sets Dangerous Precedent Of Letting The American People Make Medical Decisions For Themselves


U.S.—The SCOTUS has struck down Biden’s vaccine mandates on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. Experts say this sets a dangerous precedent of letting individuals make their own medical decisions.

“What am I supposed to do now that I don’t have private companies working with the Federal government to force me to inject a foreign substance into my body?” said Linda Waddlebum, a concerned mother of 6 cats. “So dangerous and shortsighted. How will I stay healthy? I don’t even recognize this America anymore.”

In response to the court’s decision, a large group of protestors has gathered outside of the Supreme Court building. “Pfizer knows best! What they inject, I can’t object!” they chanted while ripping up copies of the constitution. “Give us petty tyranny or give us death! Abolish the Supreme Court!” 

“You can’t give people choices! What if they make the wrong one? One that isn’t what I wanted them to do?” said Waddlebum. “Next thing you know, people will decide to send their kids back to school and return to work in person without masks.”


WIND: how many injustices does it take to rule whether you have the right to your own life?

Upgrade the memory of your 2020 iMac up to 128GB

The Epoch Times, Dr Scott Atlas: Denial of Natural Immunity in CMS Vaccine Mandate ‘Unprecedented in Modern History’

re: ethics in medicine
re: Dr Scott Atlas

A voice of reason drowning in a sea of lies.

The Epoch Times, Dr Scott Atlas: Denial of Natural Immunity in CMS Vaccine Mandate ‘Unprecedented in Modern History’

2022-01-08 by Bruce Pardy. Emphasis added.

Denying natural immunity in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service (CMS) vaccine mandates is “unprecedented in modern history,” a prominent public health expert said.

Dr. Scott Atlas, a former White House COVID-19 Task Force adviser during the Trump administration, made the remarks after the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decide to uphold the CMS vaccine mandates in a Thursday ruling.

He told The Epoch Times that the ruling is “another serious denial of scientific fact” specifically mentioning the denial of natural immunity in CMS vaccine mandates.

“Our continued denial of superior protection in recovered individuals, with or without vaccination, compared to vaccinated individuals who’ve never had the infection,” he said. “The denial of that is simply unprecedented in modern history, proven fact and decades of fundamental immunology are somehow denied.”

“If we are a society where the leaders repeatedly deny the fact, I’m very concerned about the future of such a society,” he added.


WIND: ask the AMA for its stance, which also denies the principle of informed consent, also unprecedented, as well as being grossly immoral.

OWC Thunderbolt 3 Dock
Ideal for any Mac with Thunderbolt 3

Dual Thunderbolt 3 ports
Gigabit Ethernet
5K and 4K display support plus Mini Display Port
Analog sound in/out and Optical sound out

Works on any Mac with Thunderbolt 3

Matt Taibbi: Vaccine Aristocrats Strike Again

re: Matt Taibbi

Matt Taibbi is always worth a read.

Matt Taibbi: Vaccine Aristocrats Strike Again

2022-01-13, by Matt Taibbi.

As yokel-bashing reaches impressive new heights, reports of yet another year of record profits and a widening wealth gap go unnoticed

Jimmy Kimmel Live, fast becoming Leonid Brezhnev’s never-realized dream of a Soviet Tonight Show, just put out a high-effort gag called “Anti-Vax Barbie.” It’s impressively on-message:


...Mocking the hayseeds is always fun, but what a bonus, when you can jack off some of TV’s biggest advertisers at the same time! 

Kimmel’s riff came as Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik ran a piece entitled, “Mocking anti-vaxxers’ COVID deaths is ghoulish, yes — but may be necessary.” The priceless part about Hiltzik’s column: he makes a whole range of arguments about why mockery may be “necessary,” but never gets around to saying that laughing at dead anti-vaxxers is actually funny. These people have such shit instincts for humor, they can only embrace it as political necessity. They’re like Putinites who have to chant, “Remember the mammoths!” to get young people to have sex. 

The spectacle of posh celebs sneering at hicks who won’t take the jab has been compelling theater for a while now, especially since the smartypants act has often come packaged in outrageous errors. Whether it’s MSNBC’s Joy Ann Reid suggestinghorse paste eaters clogging emergency rooms in Oklahoma be stuck at the back of the line for leaving “gunshot victims” untreated (there were no gunshot victims, the story turned out to be bunk), or Goldman analyst-turned-CNN-anchor Erin Burnett joining imperious colleagues Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon, Bakari Sellers, Jim Acosta, and industry mascot Brian Stelter in blasting Joe Rogan for taking a drug “intended for livestock” (Rogan’s human ivermectin dose was prescribed by a doctor), or even Joe Biden announcing he was mandating vaccines for health care workers so you can have “certainty” they can’t “spread it to you” (they can still spread it to you), the endless campaign of maladroit scolding almost seems designed to make fence-sitters refuse the shot out of spite, confusion, or both.

While the shame campaign has been a catastrophe as public health strategy, it has been effective as aristocratic misdirection, a way to keep the public’s eyes off the vault. Maybe that’s what it’s for.


WIND: Maybe?

I call again for a windfall profits tax on Big Pharma.

Save Big $$$$ on Memory for 2019 Mac Pro

Up to 65% better pricing than Apple

Lloyd recommends 32GB RDIMM modules for most users (more expensive LRDIMMS are for 512GB or more).

“Create a Quick and Devastating public takedown of epidemiologists at Harvard, Stanford, Oxford...”

re: ethics in medicine
re: Jay Bhattacharya
re: Martin Kulldorff
re: Sunetra Gupta
re: Dr Anthony Fauci

No winners here. We all have lost a great deal, and the damage is far from over. It will endure for many years for many.

Newly-revealed emails show that Dr Fauci is the man responsible for the effort to “create a quick and devastating public takedown of three prominent epidemiologists at Harvard, Stanford, Oxford”.

That is, rather than engage in scientific debate, Dr Fauci aimed to discredit the world-class experts Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford, Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration. Dr Fauci wields enormous power over the medical community via billions of dollars of budgeting control (grants, etc). He is a man you do not want to 'cross' if you are in the field.

Watch the video ( starting about 02:00... “I’ll do it” was in his reply back to Collins). What you’ll see from Dr Fauci is evasion, lying, refusing to answer questions, attempts to distract, change the topic, and so on. All the hallmarks of a pathological liar. Which is exactly what we have observed for the past two years.

"You slandered colleagues who did not surrender to you, you turned the people against each other, divided society and polarized the discourse.

Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance

NCAA updates COVID-19 guidelines for Winter Sports to include Natural Immunity

re: ethics in medicine

It’s a start.

NCAA updates COVID-19 guidelines for Winter Sports to include Natural Immunity

2022-01-06. Emphasis added.

The NCAA released its updated COVID-19 guidance for winter sports on Thursday, adjusting its definition of "fully vaccinated" individuals and also updating its suggested protocols following a positive test.

...Fully vaccinated individuals now include those within two months of receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, five months of receiving the Pfizer vaccine series or six months of receiving the Moderna vaccine series; and individuals who are beyond the aforementioned timeline and have received the booster vaccine.

Individuals within 90 days of a documented COVID-19 infection fall within the equivalent of "fully vaccinated".


WIND: walk before running.

Thunderbolt 4 Dock

Thunderbolt 4 hub and ports!

Any Mac with Thunderbolt 3.

Professor Ehud Qimron: “Ministry of Health, it’s time to admit failure”

re: ethics in medicine


Professor Ehud Qimron: “Ministry of Health, it’s time to admit failure”

2022-01-10. Emphasis added.

Professor Ehud Qimron, head of the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Tel Aviv University and one of the leading Israeli immunologists, has written an open letter sharply criticizing the Israeli – and indeed global – management of the coronavirus pandemic.

Original letter in Hebrew: N12 News (January 6, 2022); translated by Google/SPR. See also:Professor Qimron’s prediction from August 2020: “History will judge the hysteria” (INN).

Professor Ehud Qimron (center) at Tel Aviv University (Haaretz)

Ministry of Health, it’s time to admit failure

In the end, the truth will always be revealed, and the truth about the coronavirus policy is beginning to be revealed. When the destructive concepts collapse one by one, there is nothing left but to tell the experts who led the management of the pandemic – we told you so.

Two years late, you finally realize that a respiratory virus cannot be defeated and that any such attempt is doomed to fail. You do not admit it, because you have admitted almost no mistake in the last two years, but in retrospect it is clear that you have failed miserably in almost all of your actions, and even the media is already having a hard time covering your shame.

You refused to admit that the infection comes in waves that fade by themselves, despite years of observations and scientific knowledge. You insisted on attributing every decline of a wave solely to your actions, and so through false propaganda “you overcame the plague.” And again you defeated it, and again and again and again.

You refused to admit that mass testing is ineffective, despite your own contingency plans explicitly stating so (“Pandemic Influenza Health System Preparedness Plan, 2007”, p. 26).

You refused to admit that recovery is more protective than a vaccine, despite previous knowledge and observations showing that non-recovered vaccinated people are more likely to be infected than recovered people. You refused to admit that the vaccinated are contagious despite the observations. Based on this, you hoped to achieve herd immunity by vaccination — and you failed in that as well.

You insisted on ignoring the fact that the disease is dozens of times more dangerous for risk groups and older adults, than for young people who are not in risk groups, despite the knowledge that came from China as early as 2020.

You refused to adopt the “Barrington Declaration”, signed by more than 60,000 scientists and medical professionals, or other common sense programs. You chose to ridicule, slander, distort and discredit them. Instead of the right programs and people, you have chosen professionals who lack relevant training for pandemic management (physicists as chief government advisers, veterinarians, security officers, media personnel, and so on).

You have not set up an effective system for reporting side effects from the vaccines, and reports on side effects have even been deleted from your Facebook page. Doctors avoid linking side effects to the vaccine, lest you persecute them as you did with some of their colleagues. You have ignored many reports of changes in menstrual intensity and menstrual cycle times. You hid data that allows for objective and proper research (for example, you removed the data on passengers at Ben Gurion Airport). Instead, you chose to publish non-objective articles together with senior Pfizer executives on the effectiveness and safety of vaccines.

Irreversible damage to trust

However, from the heights of your hubris, you have also ignored the fact that in the end the truth will be revealed. And it begins to be revealed. The truth is that you have brought the public’s trust in you to an unprecedented low, and you have eroded your status as a source of authority. The truth is that you have burned hundreds of billions of shekels to no avail – for publishing intimidation, for ineffective tests, for destructive lockdowns and for disrupting the routine of life in the last two years.

You have destroyed the education of our children and their future. You made children feel guilty, scared, smoke, drink, get addicted, drop out, and quarrel, as school principals around the country attest. You have harmed livelihoods, the economy, human rights, mental health and physical health.

You slandered colleagues who did not surrender to you, you turned the people against each other, divided society and polarized the discourse. You branded, without any scientific basis, people who chose not to get vaccinated as enemies of the public and as spreaders of disease. You promote, in an unprecedented way, a draconian policy of discrimination, denial of rights and selection of people, including children, for their medical choice. A selection that lacks any epidemiological justification.

When you compare the destructive policies you are pursuing with the sane policies of some other countries — you can clearly see that the destruction you have caused has only added victims beyond the vulnerable to the virus. The economy you ruined, the unemployed you caused, and the children whose education you destroyed — they are the surplus victims as a result of your own actions only.

There is currently no medical emergency, but you have been cultivating such a condition for two years now because of lust for power, budgets and control. The only emergency now is that you still set policies and hold huge budgets for propaganda and psychological engineering instead of directing them to strengthen the health care system.

This emergency must stop!

Professor Udi Qimron, Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University

WIND: will he be fired or arrested today or next week?

Upgrade the memory of your 2020 iMac up to 128GB

'What’s The Difference Between A Human And A Toaster?' Asks One Of Nine Most Powerful People In Country

re: How Many Misinformed Ignoramuses are on the Supreme Court?

How many justices does it take to rule whether a light bulb needs replacing?

The Babylon Bee: 'What’s The Difference Between A Human And A Toaster?' Asks One Of Nine Most Powerful People In Country U.S


WASHINGTON, D.C.—Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the most powerful people in American politics, has been getting philosophical lately as she contemplates the difference between a human being and a malfunctioning toaster. The question first arose last week when she heard oral arguments for a national vaccine mandate, but in the days since, the question has consumed her.

"Like, seriously, what is the difference?" she said to her fellow justices. "Malfunctioning toasters that spew sparks don't have human rights, so why should humans?" 

"I think..." said Justice Alito while stroking his chin, "it's because human rights are only for humans. And humans are special somehow, but I forget why."

"It's like asking the difference between an ice-cold beer and a bottle of red wine," added Justice Kavanaugh as he pounded a few brewskis. "The answer is in the question."


WIND: see also CDC Recommends Being Fully Vaccinated And Also Getting COVID For Strongest Immunity.

Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance

WSJ, Jay Bhattacharya: Deceptive Covid Study, Unmasked

re: ethics in medicine
re: Jay Bhattacharya
re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
re: How Well do Doctors Understand Probability?
re: How to understand scientific studies (in health and medicine)

Science will limp along less than wholly ruined so long as honest folk like Jay Bhattacharya are willing to speak out, exerting some drag on intellectually bankrupt researchers.

WSJ, Jay Bhattacharya: A Deceptive Covid Study, Unmasked

2022-01-11, by Jay Bhattacharya and Tom Nicholson. Emphasis added.

Duke researchers look at transmission in schools and end up reinforcing their prior assumptions

‘Follow the science,” we keep hearing, but sometimes scientists and the media present findings in a misleading way. Consider a new study by Duke University’s ABC Science Collaborative, conducted in partnership with the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. Researchers examined the effect of a “test to stay” approach to schoolchildren identified as “close contacts” of Covid-positive people. Test to stay excuses these children from quarantining if they test negative for the virus. The study’s primary conclusion was that test to stay is a good way to move away from lengthy quarantine.

That’s reasonable and useful. But the researchers peppered their report with rhetorical sleights of hand aimed at misleading readers into other, less well-founded conclusions that were mostly inevitable products of their own study design. One of their primary conclusions is that “in schools with universal masking, test-to-stay is an effective strategy.” That invites readers to assume that test-to-stay doesn’t work without forced masking. But since they studied no unmasked schools, this conclusion is baseless. An honest report would either have said so or not mentioned masking at all.

Duke’s Press office amplified the unfounded conclusion... media took this press release and added a further layer of falsehood...

True, the ABC researchers found a higher rate of transmission during sports. But that was entirely a product of how the researchers defined Covid “exposure.” Students were counted as exposed only if they were unmasked during the interaction with an infected person. In mask-mandatory schools, that happened only during lunch and sports. If a transmission occurred in a masked classroom, the definition didn’t count it as a close contact. And the study found only three sports-related positives out of 352 tests. When combined with the three lunch-related positives, the six total positives resulted in a mere 1.7% of maskless exposures ending up with a Covid-19-positive contact. 


This isn’t a first for the ABC collaborative and the Duke press office. In July they made a series of bold claims about the efficacy of masking children in schools based on a study that didn’t include an unmasked control group. Scientific communication should limit itself to the communication of science, rather than to the manipulation of human behavior.

WIND: dishonest scientists are ruining science, which is now shot through with the rot of financial incentives, and career advancement/prestige the quid-pro-quo of desired outcomes. Follow the money, and it doesn’t matter if the biases are conscious or not!

This kind of researcher cooking-the-books should be grounds for a lifetime ban on publishing anything ever again. OMG!

Students were counted as exposed only if they were unmasked...

The smart move is to assume every scientific study is false and might be persuasion and biases disguised as science, at least in the realms of anything even mildly controversial. And probably everywhere, since there is almost always a desired finding that leads to further research dollars.

See also: Stanford Medicine: Garbage Studies Masquerading as Science and Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.

Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance

COVID: two-thirds of deaths for Americans with COVID are people with six or more comorbidities

re: ethics in medicine
re: Dr Scott Atlas

The narrative is changing remarkably fast, regrettably not a fart in the wind given the massive and lasting damage to so many lives, more like nuclear fallout. But the nasty stuff will mostly pass for most fairly quickly, albeit with a long half-life for some of the damage. That is, many unnecessary deaths from COVID policies will follow in the ensuing years, while economic and educational damage might be permanent for some.

This quote exemplifies the mountain-sized pile of bullshit we’ve been fed for two years. See the interview of Dr Scott Atlas.

Dr Scott Atlas then said something truly surprising that will further devastate those on the left: "We know now that two-thirds of deaths for Americans with COVID are people with six or more comorbidities."  In other words, unless your health is fragile to begin with, you're going to be fine:

Six or more co-morbidities?! Biggest fraud and crime perpetrated in this history of this country? See also A Plague Upon Our House, by Dr Scott Atlas @AMAZON. The public should be rising up in anger, but the psy-ops campaigns have been all too effective.

American Thinker: It Turns Out If You Doubted COVID Headlines, You Were Correct


Something peculiar has become clear over the last two years: leftists seem to enjoy the COVID panic.  For them, it started with the camaraderie of lockdowns and morphed in the smug self-righteousness of the masks and vaccinations, all made shiveringly delicious with that soupçon of fear that pairs well with totalitarian mandates.  CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky's appearance on Monday's Good Morning America, however, may destroy that delightful emotional castle in which leftists have immured themselves.  It turns out that most vaccinated people no longer need fear imminent death.

It's been very weird for those of us who have maintained some degree of objectivity about the whole COVID uproar to see leftists maintain their high degree of terror about COVID despite their being vaccinated and boosted.  JP Sears perfectly captures the illogical combination of fear and the lust for power that has seen the leftists ramp up their paranoia even as omicron proves to be innocuous and they're madly injecting mRNA treatments into their bodies:

However, it's going to be very hard for them to maintain both the panic and that undeserved power they're exerting over others.  Walensky has acknowledged that, when it comes to vaccinated people who still died from COVID, almost 80% of them had one foot in the grave and one foot on a banana peel:

"The overwhelming number of deaths, over 75%, occurred in people who had at least four comorbidities. So, really, these are people who were unwell to begin with. And yes, really encouraging news in the context of Omicron; this means not only just to get your primary series but to get your booster series. And yes, we're really encouraged by these results."

The study, from the CDC, says: "Among 1,228,664 persons who completed primary vaccination during December 2020–October 2021, severe COVID-19–associated outcomes (0.015%) or death (0.0033%) were rare. Risk factors for severe outcomes included age ≥65 years, immunosuppressed, and six other underlying conditions. All persons with severe outcomes had at least one risk factor; 78% of persons who died had at least four."

Another interesting thing that emerged during the same appearance is that, as with any other virus, people are most contagious when they're not yet symptomatic.  This renders much of the ten-day lockdown period irrelevant, as even Walensky conceded:

Isolation, we talk about isolation in the context of people who've had a positive test, who know that they are infected. And we now have dozens of studies referenced on the CDC website that have demonstrated that you are most infectious in the one to two days before your symptoms and the two to three days after your symptoms. So by five days after your symptoms, the vast majority of your contagiousness is really behind you.


Dr. Scott Atlas appeared on Tucker Carlson to discuss Walensky's revelations and was unimpressed.  When it comes to morbidity, he said, it's long been known, only it was kept from the American public.  Atlas also reminded Tucker and his audience that there's a huge difference between being hospitalized for COVID and being hospitalized with COVID.  As even Fauci conceded, the latter was mostly true for children.

Atlas then said something truly surprising that will further devastate those on the left: "We know now that two-thirds of deaths for Americans with COVID are people with six or more comorbidities."  In other words, unless your health is fragile to begin with, you're going to be fine:


WIND: I love wading.

Upgrade the memory of your 2020 iMac up to 128GB

Fully Life-Jacketed?

re: ethics in medicine

See the more detailed post.

This video is not to be missed.

Project Veritas: Military Documents About Gain of Function Contradict Fauci Testimony Under Oath

re: ethics in medicine

Should be interesting to see how this plays out.

Project Veritas: Military Documents About Gain of Function Contradict Fauci Testimony Under Oath


...The report states that EcoHealth Alliance approached DARPA in March 2018, seeking funding to conduct gain of function research of bat borne coronaviruses. The proposal, named Project Defuse, was rejected by DARPA over safety concerns and the notion that it violates the basis gain of function research moratorium.

According to the documents, NIAID, under the direction of Dr. Fauci, went ahead with the research in Wuhan, China and at several sites across the U.S.

Dr. Fauci has repeatedly maintained, under oath, that the NIH and NAIAD have not been involved in gain of function research with the EcoHealth Alliance program. But according to the documents obtained by Project Veritas which outline why EcoHealth Alliance’s proposal was rejected, DARPA certainly classified the research as gain of function. 

...Major Murphy’s report goes on to detail great concern over the COVID-19 gain of function program, the concealment of documents, the suppression of potential curatives, like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, and the mRNA vaccines.


WIND: I have no opinion on it as yet, but looks like it could get interesting.

OWC Envoy Express

World’s first Thunderbolt 3 M.2 NVME SSD enclosure.

Super fast, bus-powered, 3.3 oz, DIY easy, rugged and compact!

See also OWC Express 4M2
√ No more slow and noisy hard drives!

Great Barrington Declaration and Collateral Global Charity

re: ethics in medicine

Jay Bhattacharya, Sunetra Gupta, Martin Kulldorff write in an email about the new Collateral Global website.

From the depth of our hearts, a belated thank you for signing the Great Barrington Declaration. With over 850,000 signatures, together we opened up the pandemic debate. While many governments continued with their failed lockdown and other restrictive policies, things have moved in the right direction. For example, most schools have re-opened, most countries prioritized older people for vaccination and Florida rejected restrictions in favor of focused protection without the negative consequencesthat lockdowners predicted.

While occasionally censored, we have not been silenced. Since authoring the Declaration in October 2020, the three of us have actively advocated for focused protection through social media, op-eds and interviews on, for example, vaccine passports and natural immunity.

We have also launched Collateral Global, a charity staffed with academics from across the world to document and disseminate information about the collateral damage of the restrictive measures so that we don’t repeat the mistakes of this pandemic and are able to inform future policy with evidence and analysis. Collateral Global is crowdfunding so that this work can be done to the highest possible standards. You are welcome to join us and help us in those efforts at www.collateralglobal.org, as well as follow us on Twitter, etc. We are also planning an initiative on scientific freedom soon.

 With enormous gratitude,

 Jay Bhattacharya    Sunetra Gupta    Martin Kulldorff

Twitter: @gbdeclaration@collateralglbl, @DrJBhattacharya@SunetraGupta@MartinKulldorff
Facebook: GreatBarringtonDeclaration
LinkedIn: Jay BhattacharyaMartin Kulldorff

The Epoch Times: Think Twice Before You Vaccinate Your Kids,’ Dr. Robert Malone Warns Parents on COVID-19 Shots

re: ethics in medicine

I’d bet that some of Dr Malone’s views are wrong, and some are right.

The Epoch Times: Think Twice Before You Vaccinate Your Kids,’ Dr. Robert Malone Warns Parents on COVID-19 Shots

2022-01-09. Emphasis added.

Dr. Robert Malone, a virologist and immunologist who has contributed significantly to the technology of mRNA vaccines, issued a strong caution for those who seek to have their children vaccinated against COVID-19.

“Think twice before you vaccinate your kids. Because if something bad happens, you can’t go back and say, ‘whoops, I want a do-over,'” Malone told EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” program in an interview, Part 1 of which premiered on Sunday.

He also said, “It is clear that parents should think twice about vaccinating their child,” adding that serious adverse events can occur and can be “so severe that it puts your child in the hospital.”

Malone noted that with regard to myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart, “there’s a good chance that if your child takes the vaccine, they won’t be damaged, they won’t show clinical symptoms—[but] they may have subclinical damage.”

“But the question is, do you want to take that chance with your child? Because if you draw the short straw and your child was damaged, most of these things, if not all of them, are irreversible. There is no way to fix it,” he said. “And I get these emails all the time: ‘Doctor, doctor, what can we do? This has happened.’ And that once it’s happened, there’s … you can’t go back you can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.”

He pointed to information compiled on his website, which includes a list of peer-reviewed studies related to COVID-19 vaccine adverse events in children, the main one being myocarditis. The website also includes a collection of adverse events reports as well as death reports in the pediatric community, submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

... One page on Malone’s website points to a paper published in the Toxicology Reports journal in which authors noted, using data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), that normalized data on COVID-19 deaths per capita are “negligible in children,” while deaths after COVID-19 vaccination are “small, but not negligible, in children.”

“For children the chances of death from COVID-19 are negligible, but the chances of serious damage over their lifetime from the toxic inoculations are not negligible,” the authors wrote in the paper, titled “Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?”


WIND: “subclinical” damage is the stuff that the medical industry loves to not study.

Wen it comes to children at nil risk of COVID, it’s a no-brainer to not vaccinate them for COVID—no benefits, all the risks including possibly lifelong damage.

Upgrade the memory of your 2020 iMac up to 128GB

WSJ: Slow the Spread? Speeding It May Be Safer

re: WSJ

Nice to see a practical viewpoint for a change.

WSJ: Slow the Spread? Speeding It May Be Safer

2022-01-1, by By Vivek Ramaswamy and Apoorva Ramaswamy.

The Omicron variant is spreading across the globe, but so far the strain appears to be less deadly than its predecessors. That’s good news, but here’s a risk that policy makers in every country should appreciate: Policies designed to slow the spread of Omicron may end up creating a supervariant that is more infectious, more virulent and more resistant to vaccines. That would be a man-made disaster.

To minimize that risk, policy makers must tolerate the rapid spread of milder variants... To understand why, first consider an important scientific distinction, between antigenic drift and antigenic shift. Antigens are molecules—such as the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2—that an immune system detects as foreign. The host immune system then mounts a response. 

Antigenic drift” describes the process by which single-point mutations (small genetic errors) randomly occur during the viral replication process. The result is minor alterations to antigens such as the spike protein. If a point mutation makes the virus less likely to survive, that variant gradually dies off. But if the mutation confers an incremental survival advantage—say, the ability to spread more quickly from one cell to another—then that strain becomes more likely to spread through the population.

Each time an immune host is exposed to a slightly different antigenic variant, the host can tweak its immune response without becoming severely ill. And the more similar the new strain is to the last version the person fought off, the less risky that strain will be to the host.

By contrast, “antigenic shift” refers to a discontinuous quantum leap from one antigen (or set of antigens) to a very different antigen (or set of antigens). New viral strains—such as those that jump from one species to another—tend to emerge from antigenic shift. The biological causes of antigenic shift are often different from those of antigenic drift. For example, the physical swap of whole sections of the genome leads to more significant changes to viral genes than those caused by individual point mutations.

...Vaccinated and naturally immune people can revamp their immune response to new viral strains created by antigenic drift. Yet social distancing and masking increase the risk of vaccine-resistant strains from antigenic shift by minimizing opportunities for the vaccinated and naturally immune to tailor their immune responses through periodic exposures to incrementally “drifted” variants.


WIND: I’m not buying the idea that masks and social distancing work in any meaningful way—Omicron is unstoppable. But it’s obvious that the measures are highly destructive, COVID itself aside.

Protect the most vulnerable, but on Feb 1, declare it all over and move on.

COVID Vaccines Mandate: How Many Misinformed Ignoramuses are on the Supreme Court?

re: Jonathan Turley
re: Marty Makary

See the news coverage links further below.

Ignoramus Supreme Court Justices

The job of a Supreme Court Justice heretofore has been to hear evidence presented to the court (ideally listen and consider it), and then at least pretend to rule objectively. We were all largely content to accept that charade, and in spite of it the country has been well-served more than half the time, even if it takes 50-100 years to correct wrongs (eg slavery, universal suffrage, etc).

These justices are not asking questions, they are making political statements, having already decided to ignore the law and apply their own ideological viewpoint. This case vaporizes the last shred of credibility of the Supreme Court—just another political body makeing pretenses. They want the outcome they want, damn the Constitution and the law.

Justice Sotomayer’as COVID misinformation:

Even raging leftist fake-news CNN gagged on this turd sausage.

  • Omicron is just as deadly for the unvaccinated
  • Omicron variant is so severe that we have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition, many on ventilators
  • Why is the human being not like a machine if it’s spewing a virus, blood-borne viruses?”
  • There's no requirement here. It's not a vaccine mandate. It's something totally different”.

Humans are not machines, COVID is not a blood-borne illness and a mandate hurts many people, and natural immunity is a thing, which Sotomayer is apparenetly totally ignorant of. Dumb-fuck award of the year.

Justice Kagan:

  • We all know what the best policy is. By this point, two years later, we know that the best way to prevent spread is to get vaccinated. And to prevent dangerous illness and death, is for people to get vaccinated. That is by far the best”.
  • This is by far the greatest public health danger we've faced in more than a century”.

Non-factual bullshit from Kagan, with the pandemic of the vaccinated in full swing. And masks have NEVER been shown to prevent community spread.

Justice Breyer

  • hospitals are full almost to the point of maximum” = absolutely false.
  • 750 million new cases yesterday or close to that” = WTF?
  • “...more may quit when they discover they have to work together with unvaccinated others because that means they may get the disease”.

We have three people on the Supreme Court unfit to judge any case of any kind whatsoever: to be that clueless and uninformed and detached from reality, you have to be a dumb-fuck in the 10% dumbest most gullible part of the population. Yet these jackasses get to decide how you can live your life.

Jonathan Turley: Will Justice Sotomayor Be Banned On Twitter? Don’t Bet On It

2022-01-10, by Jonathan Turley.

That led Justice Elena Sotomayor to make a claim about children with Covid that even the Washington Post called “absurdly high” and worthy of “four Pinocchios.”

The incident raised a sensitive issue for some of us who oppose the massive censorship programs on Twitter and other social media platforms. Justice Sotomayor was spreading “disinformation” on Covid-19, so could she be barred from Twitter? As you might expect the answer is no, but that is precisely the problem with the corporate censorship embraced by many today.

The controversial statement of Justice Sotomayor could not have come at a worse time. She and her two liberal colleagues were arguing against substantial judicial review of the mandate orders in favor of extreme deference for the agencies. They argued that there was no time to waste in light of the dire crisis facing the country.

However, all three justices made claims that were challenged in terms of their accuracy. Justice Stephen Breyer, for example, declared there were “750 million new cases yesterday, or close to that.” He added that “is a lot. I don’t mean to be facetious.” It was not facetious, it was false.

Yet, Sotomayor’s claims were the most alarming:

“Those numbers show that omicron is as deadly and causes as much serious disease in the unvaccinated as delta did. … We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators.”

In an interview on Fox News, CDC chief Dr. Rochelle Walensky confirmed that there are actually fewer than 3,500 kids with the virus in hospitals.

...Clearly, Justice Sotomayor’s statement was false. As the Washington Post stated, it was “absurdly” false. However, overstating the risks of Covid-19 is not considered “harmful.” The social media companies target skeptics, not zealots.


WIND: I don’t support banning/canceling anyone, but given the recent behavior of Twitter, Sotomayer should absolutely be banned.

But why doesn’t Turley go after the elephant in the room—Justices presenting their own “facts”. What the hell is the point of a court that can make shit up to fit its own pre-conceived notions? And even if you think Sotomayer was “only” misinformed, that should chill your blood.

Dr. Makary: Kagan’s Argument for Mandates Is ‘Medically Inaccurate’

Posted 2022-01-08.

On Friday’s broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “Evening Edit,” Fox News Medical Contributor and Johns Hopkins School of Medicine Professor Dr. Marty Makary stated that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s argument that a vaccine mandate is the best policy to stop the pandemic is “medically inaccurate” because vaccinated people are getting infected and we have treatments that cut coronavirus deaths.

Makary said, “I understand Justice Kagan is well-intended. But what she said was wrong. It was medically inaccurate. She said more and more people are getting sick every day, and regarding the mandate, she says the key to stopping all of this — there is nothing else that will perform that function better than the vaccine mandate. Well, that’s not true anymore. Vaccinated people are getting Omicron just as the unvaccinated are. And we do have drugs that cut COVID deaths to zero. Now, if you want to mandate a parachute out of an airplane, okay. But when you’re jumping 5 feet into a swimming pool, that changes the dynamic. It changes the calculus. It renders mandates obsolete.”

WIND: what a nice way of saying the Injustice Sotomayer is a totally clueless dumb-fuck deciding how we can live our lives, on every important issue of the day.

Jonathan Turley: No, Justice Gorsuch Did Not Say Hundreds of Thousands Die From Flu Each Year After

2022-01-10, by Jonathan Turley.


The official court transcripts confirm that Gorsuch got his facts right. Mystal (who has a history of inflammatory writings) later admitted that Gorsuch said hundreds or thousands die from flu each year. However, he insisted that in all caps again that statement “IS ALSO WRONG.”

Thousands do die each year. Indeed, if anything, Gorsuch was being . . .  well . . .  too conservative. It is tens of thousands which only supports his argument that, despite such a large number of deaths, OSHA has not previously used this authority to mandate a flu vaccine for all workplaces with over 100 employees.


WIND: Gorsuch also did not specify USA or the world.

Jonathan Turley: The Vaccine Mandate: The Supreme Court Considers a Trip To “Major-Questions-Land”

2022-01-10, by Jonathan Turley.

“Major-question-land,” the term used by Louisiana solicitor general Elizabeth Murrill during Friday’s oral arguments over the Biden vaccine mandates, has an almost Disneyesque sound to it. However, unlike Yesterland or Tomorrowland, major-question-land clearly holds no attraction for the Biden administration or the court’s liberal justices.

The defenders of the mandates worked mightily to avoid the fact that it’s the first-ever national vaccine mandate and was decided without the approval of Congress.  Chief Justice John Roberts, a vital vote needed by the administration, noted that this administration was relying on language passed roughly 50 years ago — closer to the Spanish Flu than the novel coronavirus — and stated ominously, “This is something the federal government has never done before.” That sounds not just like a question but a major one.

The major-questions doctrine maintains that courts should not defer to agency statutory interpretations when the underlying questions concern “vast economic or political significance.”

The controversy over the mandates shows the wisdom of the doctrine demanding that Congress not only take action but responsibility, too, for such major decisions.

... It was not a good sign for the administration that the most referenced individual during oral argument was Biden’s chief of staff, Ron Klain, who tweeted that the mandates were “workarounds” of the Constitution. Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Neil Gorsuch, and others referred to Klain’s admission as the administration’s lawyers tried to argue that the executive had the constitutional authority to implement a national mandate...

WIND: the Constitution will be in tatters even with a mixed ruling.

Upgrade the memory of your 2020 iMac up to 128GB

The Epoch Times: It’s Time to Drop the Hysteria and Learn to Live With COVID

re: ethics in medicine

Another voice calling explicitly for opening, See also the WSJ opinion piece.

See also: Prescription drugs are now the third leading cause of death in the western world

The Epoch Times: It’s Time to Drop the Hysteria and Learn to Live With COVID

2022-01-08 by Bruce Pardy. Emphasis added.

For most people, Omicron is a highly contagious cold. Lots will catch it, and most will get sniffles and a sore throat. Yes, even with Omicron, as with the flu, some people will get seriously ill, and a few will die. Masking, social distancing, capacity limits, lockdowns, curfews, and “vaccines” are not stopping the spread. People who dodge Omicron this time will face the next variant, or the one after that. Like other respiratory viruses in circulation, COVID-19 is here to stay. Therefore, COVID is done. Either mild Omicron is the end of COVID madness, or there is no off-ramp. The panic-demic must finish or we will be doing this forever.

For the past 23 months, the real pandemic has not been COVID but anxiety. According to Mattias Desmet, professor of clinical psychology at Ghent University in Belgium, the COVID crisis is a product of “mass formation,” a collective psychosis that can occur when a significant portion of the population develops an irrational fixation on an external cause. Mass formation is most likely to occur, Desmet says, when a critical mass of people suffers from a lack of social bonds, a lack of meaning in their lives, free-floating anxiety that has no specific source or cause, and free-floating frustration and aggression not directed at a particular target.


WIND: there are lots of mass psychoses out there, it's hardly a surprise for COVID, and definitely nothing new.

Profession John Ioannidis: “Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in community-dwelling populations with emphasis on the elderly: An overview”

re: John Ioannidis

Professor John Ioannidis is one of the few experts I trust. The data in this study comes from seroprevalance of antibodies—not perfect, but far more credible than the GIGO data from PCR tests and/or hospital data.

And here we are months later from this study with the Omicron variant, spreading like a wind-driven wildfire with not much impact on deaths and massive infection rates.

0-19 99.9987% 0.0013% 76923 WIND: child abuse to vaccinate children
20-29 99.9912% 0.0088% 11364 WIND: grossly irresponsible to vaccinate most young people
30-39 99.9790% 0.0210% 4762 WIND: far more people die from drug overdose each year!
40-49 99.9580% 0.0420% 2381
50-59 99.8600% 0.1400% 714
60-69 99.3500% 0.6500% 154 <=== WIND: less than the baseline death rate!
70+ 97.1000% 2.9000% 34 non institutionalized
70+ 95.1000% 4.9000% 20 all
Source: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.08.21260210v2.full

No figures like this would be complete without at least some context:

  • About 659,000 people in the United States die from heart disease each yearabout 1 in 500!
  • About 100K people die from drug overdoses each each — about 1 in 3600 — but real rate (almost all adults) is far higher.
  • Prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer in the United States and Europe, an estimated 128000 Americans or about 1 in 2578 (and probably more here in 2021/2022).
  • Baseline death rate prior to COVID is about 1 in 115 in 2018, changed only a little from COVID (about 1 in 111 in 2021 as per this chart). The future will show us how many will die from COVID policies (hint: far more than from COVID).

Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in community-dwelling populations with emphasis on the elderly: An overview

Posted 2021-12-23.

For persons 0-19 years, the median IFR was one death per 76,900 persons with COVID-19 infection, followed by estimates of 1:11,300 in ages 20-29, 1:4800 in ages 30-39, and 1:2400 in ages 40-49. The Imperial College study (62) has ∼10 times higher estimates for persons 0-19 years and ∼3 times higher for persons 20-29 years old; otherwise estimates in age groups <50 years are fairly consistent across previous (45) and current analyses despite methodological differences.

Results Twenty-five seroprevalence surveys representing 14 countries were included. Across all countries, the median IFR in community-dwelling elderly and elderly overall was 2.9% (range 0.2%-6.9%) and 4.9% (range 0.2%-16.8%) without accounting for seroreversion (2.4% and 4.0%, respectively, accounting for 5% monthly seroreversion). Multiple sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. IFR was higher with larger proportions of people >85 years. Younger age strata had low IFR values (median 0.0013%, 0.0088%, 0.021%, 0.042%, 0.14%, and 0.65%, at 0-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, and 60-69 years even without accounting for seroreversion).

Conclusions The IFR of COVID-19 in community-dwelling elderly people is lower than previously reported. Very low IFRs were confirmed in the youngest populations.

And, previously:

Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data



Positive controls for the antibody assays used were typically symptomatic patients with positive polymerase chain reaction tests. Symptomatic patients may be more likely to develop antibod- ies.87–91 Since seroprevalence studies specifically try to reveal undiagnosed asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic infections, a lower sensitivity for these mild infections could lead to substantial underestimates of the number of infected people and overestimates of the inferred infection fatality rate.

A main issue with seroprevalence studies is whether they offer a repre- sentative picture of the population in the assessed region. A generic problem is that vulnerable people at high risk of infection and/or death may be more difficult to recruit... This sampling obstacle would result in underestimating the seroprevalence and overestimating infection fatality rate.

...An unknown proportion of people may have responded to the virus using immune mechanisms (mucosal, innate, cellular) without generating any detectable serum antibodies.


Acknowledging these limitations, based on the currently available data, one may project that over half a billion people have been infected as of 12 September 2020, far more than the approximately 29 million documented laboratory-confirmed cases. Most locations probably have an infection fatality rate less than 0.20% and with ap- propriate, precise non-pharmacological measures that selectively try to protect high-risk vulnerable populations and settings, the infection fatality rate may be brought even lower.

WIND: in other words, COVID is far, far less serious than the fear-mongering propaganda has made it out to be. And here we are 15 months later, with the Omicron variant. The real fatality rates are clearly much lower.

OWC Envoy Pro Elektron

Ultra-high performance across entire capacity, outperforms the competition.

Tiny, bus-powered, rugged, compact!

√ No more slow and noisy hard drives!

Most Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in New Jersey Admitted for Non-COVID Reasons: Officials+

re: The Epoch Times

“Admitted for other reasons” could be due to COVID provoking a problem. But I call that ludicrous on a percentage/odds basis.

Omicron variant is the gift that we’ve been waiting for. It should end this pandemic of the vaccinated, barring some new development.

The Epoch Times: Most Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in New Jersey Admitted for Non-COVID Reasons: Officials

2022-01-10 by Zacharay Stieber. Emphasis added.

The majority of people hospitalized with COVID-19 in New Jersey were actually admitted for reasons other than COVID-19, officials said on Jan. 10.

Of the 6,075 people with COVID-19 and hospitalized in the state, just 2,963 were admitted for COVID-19, New Jersey Health Commissioner Judith Persichilli said during a briefing.

We have a fair number of what I’ve started to call COVID incidental, or incidental COVID, meaning you went in because you broke your leg, but everyone’s getting tested and it turns out you’ve got COVID. You didn’t even know it,” Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, said. “My wife didn’t know it and still she’s not back in the in the game, but never had any symptoms, so there is a significant amount of that.”

Previously during the pandemic, states largely neglected to distinguish COVID-19 hospitalizations from incidental COVID-19.


WIND: “neglected” means “knowingly misled”.

Beware headlines about “hospitals near capacity”, “hospitalized with COVID”, etc. Such headlines evade the most crucial aspects of the situation—fear-mongering propaganda.

Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance

California Says COVID-Positive Health Workers Can Get Back to Work Amid Shortages

re: ethics in medicine
re: The Epoch Times

If an unvaccinated and uninfected person is a risk (we the demonized and hated of the world now), particularly someone with natural immunity, what’s the risk of someone with COVID actually in their body?

The Epoch Times: California Says COVID-Positive Health Workers Can Get Back to Work Amid Shortages

2022-01-09 by Jack Philips. Emphasis added.

The California Department of Public Health issued guidance that allows health care networks to enable COVID-19-positive employees to keep working if they don’t show any symptoms.

“The department is providing temporary flexibility to help hospitals and emergency services providers respond to an unprecedented surge and staffing shortages. Hospitals have to exhaust all other options before resorting to this temporary tool. Facilities and providers using this tool, should have asymptomatic COVID-19 positive workers interact only with COVID-19 positive patients to the extent possible,” the Department of Public Health said in a statement to news outlets over the weekend.

Health care workers in the state now don’t have to isolate or show a negative COVID-19 test, the guidance said, before coming back to work if they are asymptomatic. The guidance, which remains in effect until Feb. 1, stipulates that staff wear N95 respirator masks while on the job.

After the guidance was handed down, several unions that represent nurses and other hospital staff expressed alarm.


WIND: hypocrisy of the narrative knows no bounds. But I am 'good' with this approach as it is sensible, and the more sensible things get, the better.

Asymptomatic COVID-positive healthcare workers wearing N95 masks are probably very low risk, not that N95 particulate respirators are proven for blocking COVID. But some of them might become symptomatic. Even so, if Omicron dominates, it seems unlikely that a healthcare worker with Omicron is going to cause harm to someone already infected with it.

Pfizer Promises Omicron Vaccine Will Be Ready In Time For Their Q1 Earnings Report

re: The Babylon Bee
re: Omicron variant

Sniffles to us all, please.

The Babylon Bee: Pfizer Promises Omicron Vaccine Will Be Ready In Time For Their Q1 Earnings Report

NEW YORK—During their monthly shareholder meeting, Pfizer announced that an updated vaccine for the Omicron variant will be ready in time for their Q1 Earnings Report.

"We are committed to the longevity of this company," said Pfizer CEO, Derrick Pfizer. "As they say in the vaccine business, 'if you're not jabbing, you're lagging.' We understand that endless new vaccines are critical to our bottom line ever since I bought that giant space yacht...

"We need to maintain our rigorous testing standards, but we should still be in good shape if we skip animal testing and go straight to children. You can't make an omelet unless you break a few eggs, I always say."


WIND: two weeks to flatten the curve.

Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance

Hypertension and Vaccines?

re: hypertension

Anon writes:

I had a flu vaccine two weeks ago and ended up in A&E with a blood pressure of 199/111….

Took 3 days… I thought i was going to have a stroke or heart attack.. the last time I had a flu vaccine was 5 years ago and I still got the flu that season.

WIND: I gave up on the flu vaccine. Maybe that's a bad idea, but I haven't had the flu for ten years or so. Maybe 15.

Doctors totally monitor blood pressure after vaccination. Hint: that’s sort of a Babylon Bee comment.

It got me wondering though, and the research appears to be rudimentary:

Web search: Hypertension vaccine

Methinks the topic is largely verbotten for medical research. You can totally trust the experts who never thought about it before because they are the experts.

AND... doctors have lots of time to track post-vaccination problems since they get paid for making sure All This Great Stuff works great, as any doctor can tell you based on your age. Ummm....

Doctors need to behave more like Tigger: if a cupboard door is open, there might be a rat in there, best to doggedly check it out.

Whenever you see “rare” for a side effect, translate that to “we don’t know because we don’t fucking bother to look, let alone track or report those damned annoying anecdotal things”—as in my experience with Metronidazole which to this day deals me lingering problems. Trust your doctor—to lie to you—as mine did. It’s why for example it took the FDA took 17 years or so to figure out the ciprofloxacin could cause all sorts of problems—like ruptured tendons—those pesky anecdotes.

All that said, you betcha they’re looking hard into such things? Could it be that the claims of heart attacks in young people have some merit based on bursting levels of blood pressure?

Upgrade the memory of your 2020 iMac up to 128GB

Is the Actual COVID Omicron Infection Rate Perhaps 5X to 10X Higher? Boston Wastewater COVID Levels

re: pandemic of the vaccinated

Shit happens. With COVID RNA too.

No idea if this data is reliable, but see the stunning graph, below.

Boston.com: Even as Mass. reports record COVID-19 cases, wastewater data suggests uncounted infections are ‘more substantial than ever’


...spiking COVID-19 samples from the Boston area’s wastewater this week suggest that the true number of cases is far higher than the official count, which comes from positive tests that report to the Department of Public Health.

Biobot Analytics, the Cambridge-based company that collects the wastewater data, said Thursday that “undercounting is now more substantial than ever.”

In fact, since early December, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority has had to quintuple the y-axis on their chart to capture the exponential spike, which now dwarfs the previous surges in the spring of 2020 and last winter.

...While it’s a somewhat murky science, experts say that coronavirus samples taken from local wastewater facilities can provide a good window into spread that isn’t being picked up by traditional testing.


WIND: Never mind the unjustified predictions (“hospitals will face a bad crunch in the coming weeks”)... fear-mongering with no scientific basis. It might work out that way. And it might not. All such sources should be required to post a large cash bond that is forfeit if their fearmongering is proven false?

I’m interested in this method of COVID infection surveillance because people have to crap at pretty much the same rate, day in and day out. I mean... only so many BigMacs and fries can go into the pie-hole before things have to move along. I don’t know if scatology has been validated as good or a #2. It makes a shit-ton of sense though, and would be a fertile area for research.

Maybe people could bottle their farts and send them in for research instead of selling them?

Can’t rule out bad things, but this could be great news: massive numbers of infections with relatively minor impact on hospitalizations/deaths yielding solid natural immunity (resistance to infection) and the holy grail of herd immunity (herd resistance to infection). That is, the vaccination gift we’ve been waiting for, with the vaccinated pitching in to help end this semi-farce, via the pandemic of the vaccinated that started last August or so.

Viral RNA in Boston wastewater, 2021-01-06
Viral RNA in Boston wastewater, 2021-01-06
Make an Old Dog Run Like a Young Puppy
with an OWC SSD

SATA, USB3, Thunderbolt, internal upgrades and PCIe SSD options for Mac or PC.
View All OWC SSDs...

Legal Experts Ask Justice Sotomayor To Recuse Herself From Case Due To Her Being An Idiot

Not even satire.

The Babylon Bee: Legal Experts Ask Justice Sotomayor To Recuse Herself From Case Due To Her Being An Idiot


WASHINGTON, D.C.—Legal experts are begging Justice Sonia Sotomayor to recuse herself from hearing further arguments in vaccine mandate case, Biden v. Missouri, because she is "a dumb idiot."

Earlier today she interrupted oral arguments to ask why the sky was blue. She later grilled the attorney on whether the Pope is Catholic. The Biden administration's lawyer was taken off guard by this and lost the flow of his argument. Court transcripts reveal this caused the court to cut to a brief recess so he could regain his composure.

"If I don't win this case I'll be ruined!" said James Vanderpathy Esq. to reporters outside the Supreme Court Building. "They only pay me if I violate constitutional freedoms!"

When the court reconvened to hear additional arguments Sotomayor explained she couldn't hear the attorneys over the sound of her banging gavel. When Justice Thomas suggested she stop banging said gavel she stared at him as if offended.

"But it's my gavel," said Sotomayor.

At that point Justice Kavanaugh said, "Peace, I'm out!" and the session was adjourned. Justice Alito rolled his eyes while Thomas buried his head in his hands.


WIND: but millions of children will DIE without her wisdom on the court!

OWC Easy SSD Upgrade Guide
MacBook Pro and MacBook Air
iMac, Mac Pro, MacMini, more!

COVID Omicron Variant Can Reinfect People even After Recent Delta Infection?

re: natural immunity
re: COVID Omicron variant

Here I have an anecdotal report from my own family.

The situation suggests that Omicron may be highly infectious even for those with recent prior infection with Delta. And obviously Omicron is sweeping through the vaccinated population as well*. Which might be a feature and not a bug for most of us, wether vaccinated or with natural immunity, both of which are really resistance to COVID, not immunity.

* That it had turned into a pandemic of the vaccinated was obvious even last August, for those willing to open their minds to evidence.


My brother recently attended a dinner party, at which 11 people were in attendance, one of whom was symptomatic (the next day) and tested positive for COVID that day, using a rapid antigen test as noted.

My brother and his companion (total 7 of 11) were infected with something, presumed COVID given the aforementioned positive test in the 21-year-old male attendee plus several other positive tests in some of the symptomatic attendees. But also one (1) negative test in a symptomatic individual. Symptoms were concerning but relatively mild for my brother, and quite serious for his previously-infected and double-vaxxed companion, still recovering. The 4 attendees not infected were unvaccinated, but one showed a positive test a year prior for COVID antibodies (natural immunity).

And yet my brother very recently had COVID (symptom onset ~Nov 22 2021). His companion’s prior COVID infection goes back some months, a much longer gap between prior infection plus she was double-vaxxed on top of infection. But for my brother, it has been only about 5 weeks after getting over it (presumably Delta).

I’m a big fan of natural immunity and COVID has not touched me since April 2020 in spite of an infected wife and daughter, from whom I did not isolate (!). But if this is indeed COVID at work, then the mutated Omicron virus is showing a very impressive ability to reinfect.

Is it possible that the infection was something else, such as influenza or RSV? Maybe, but multiple positive tests in multiple people suggest otherwise. Also, my brother states that the feel of the infection was the same as with his late November ordeal, just much less bad.

I wonder if Vitamin D is involved? Because he lives moderately far north, and has had zero sun exposure in any clinical sense.

The bright side

Suppose that Omicron is going to infect all vaccinated people and all those with natural immunity. Then I reiterate my “gift to the world” suggestion about Omicron. Because COVID is here to stay forever (endemic), apparently and we are all going to get it. So we might as all deal with it as a population with a relatively mild variant, gaining natural immunity for nearly everyone. Which like vaccinations, will give us all resistance to reinfection, not unqualified immunity.

Brownstone Institute: 144 Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to Covid-19: Documented, Linked, and Quoted

re: The Brownstone Institute

The list has surely grown substantially since Oct 17 2021.

And the pandemic of the vaccinated is now in full swing.

Brownstone Institute: 144 Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to Covid-19: Documented, Linked, and Quoted

2021-10-17. Emphasis added.

We should not force COVID vaccines on anyone when the evidence shows that naturally acquired immunity is equal to or more robust and superior to existing vaccines. Instead, we should respect the right of the bodily integrity of individuals to decide for themselves. 

Public health officials and the medical establishment with the help of the politicized media are misleading the public with assertions that the COVID-19 shots provide greater protection than natural immunity.  CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, for example, was deceptive in her October 2020 published LANCET statement that “there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection” and that “the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future.” 

Immunology and virology 101 have taught us over a century that natural immunity confers protection against a respiratory virus’s outer coat proteins, and not just one, e.g. the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein. There is even strong evidence for the persistence of antibodies. Even the CDC recognizes natural immunity for chicken-pox and measles, mumps, and rubella, but not for COVID-19. 

The vaccinated are showing viral loads (very high) similar to the unvaccinated (Acharya et al. and Riemersma et al.), and the vaccinated are as infectious. Riemersma et al. also report Wisconsin data that corroborate how the vaccinated individuals who get infected with the Delta variant can potentially (and are) transmit(ting) SARS-CoV-2 to others (potentially to the vaccinated and unvaccinated). 

This troubling situation of the vaccinated being infectious and transmitting the virus emerged in seminal nosocomial outbreak papers by Chau et al. (HCWs in Vietnam), the Finland hospital outbreak (spread among HCWs and patients), and the Israel hospital outbreak (spread among HCWs and patients). These studies also revealed that the PPE and masks were essentially ineffective in the healthcare setting. Again, the Marek’s disease in chickens and the vaccination situation explains what we are potentially facing with these leaky vaccines (increased transmission, faster transmission, and more ‘hotter’ variants). 

Moreover, existing immunity should be assessed before any vaccination, via an accurate, dependable, and reliable antibody test (or T cell immunity test) or be based on documentation of prior infection (a previous positive PCR or antigen test). Such would be evidence of immunity that is equal to that of vaccination and the immunity should be provided the same societal status as any vaccine-induced immunity. This will function to mitigate the societal anxiety with these forced vaccine mandates and societal upheaval due to job loss, denial of societal privileges etc. Tearing apart the vaccinated and the unvaccinated in a society, separating them, is not medically or scientifically supportable. 


This follow-up chart is the most updated and comprehensive library list of 144 of the highest-quality, complete, most robust scientific studies and evidence reports/position statements on natural immunity as compared to the COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity and allow you to draw your own conclusion. 


WIND: see the table of 144 studies with the details/note.

Individuals should always be presumed innocent, but government should always be presumed guilty. No other system is viable. But we got it wrong (again) with COVID.

Public health officials are liars and propagandists, never to be trusted again. What they have done should be criminally prosecuted, for they have harmed hundreds of millions. and irreparably damaged the reputations of our institutions that we badly need for a future pandemic.

Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance

Sebastian Rushworth MD: COVID Vaccine vs infection myocarditis risk

re: Sebastian Rushworth MD

Kudos to doctors like this with the courage to speak out.

Sebastian Rushworth MD: COVID Vaccine vs infection myocarditis risk

2022-01-09. Emphasis added.

It’s been clear that the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines cause myocarditis for some time. What hasn’t been clear, though, is whether the risk of myocarditis after vaccination is greater than it is after infection. If the risk after infection is even greater than it is after vaccination, then a pretty good case can be made for not worrying too much about vaccine induced myocarditis, under the assumption that almost everyone who doesn’t get vaccinated is sooner or later going to get COVID, and thereby be exposed to the risk of post-infection myocarditis.

If, on the other hand, the risk is greater after vaccination, then a more careful weighing of risks needs to be done. For the large segments of the population that face infinitesimal personal risk from COVID-19 (basically everyone under 40 years of age who is not overweight and who doesn’t have any underlying health issues), even a small risk of serious disease from the vaccines could be enough to tip the scales in favour of not vaccinating.

And myocarditis is a serious disease, make no mistake. Lately, I’ve been hearing this sentence alot: “but the myocarditis caused by the COVID vaccines is mild!”. I’d never heard of “mild” myocarditis pre-COVID. Pre-COVID, myocarditis was always considered a serious disease. What the people saying this mean is that the patients admitted to hospital with myocarditis after vaccination are usually able to go home after a few days, and don’t generally end up in an ICU. Which is true.

But we don’t say that most heart attacks are “mild” just because they don’t result in a stay in an ICU, and just because the patient is usually able to leave the hospital within a week. A heart attack is a heart attack, and is by definition serious. The same goes for myocarditis. Our heart muscles are not very good at repairing themselves, and it is impossible to know today the extent to which an episode of vaccine induced myocarditis increases the person’s future risk of serious long-term complications, such as chronic heart failure or atrial fibrillation.

So, myocarditis is always serious, regardless of whether it puts you in an ICU or not, and we need to know whether the risk of myocarditis caused by the vaccines is greater than the risk caused by infection.

Thankfully, a study was recently published in Nature Medicine that helps us to answer that question... the objective of the study was to see what the risk of myocarditis was within 28 days of vaccination vs infection, and relate that to the background rate of myocarditis.

There is one big problem with taking the numbers in this study at face value, and that is that it used a positive COVID test as the indicator for COVID infection. But we know that up to half of all COVID-infections are asymptomatic, and on top of that there is an unkown number of people who have symptoms but don’t take the test... whatever risk rate we get for myocarditis after infection should probably be halved, to more accurately reflect reality.

...The first thing that is important to note is that the relative risk of myocarditis after vaccination vs infection appears to vary massively depending on how old you are. Among people over the age of 40, there was no sign that the vaccines increased risk of myocarditis at all. A positive COVID-19 test, on the other hand, increased the risk 12-fold in this group. So for people over the age of 40, the risk of myocarditis after infection was much higher than the risk after vaccination.

Among people between 16 and 40 years of age, however, the situation was very different... In other words, in people under 40, the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine causes roughly the same number of cases of myocarditis as an actual COVID infection, while the first dose of the Moderna vaccine causes roughly twice as many cases of myocarditis.

Ok, so let’s get to the second dose. The second dose of the Pfizer vaccine increased the risk of myocarditis three-fold, while the risk after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine was increased 21-fold!


Considering that decreasing age also means decreasing risk of a bad outcome from COVID (including decreasing risk of myocarditis after COVID), it is reasonable to think that there is an inflection point at which the harms of vaccination outweigh the benefits. On top of that, there is evidence that increasing the number of doses increases the risk of myocarditis. With those two factors in mind, it’s my measured opinion that giving boosters to healthy young people, and especially to children, is nuts.

On top of that, many, if not most, young adults and children have already had COVID, and therefore have as good immunity as it’s possible to get, so boosting literally exposes them to risk of harm without any possibility of benefit. When the benefits of vaccination are zero, any non-zero risk is unacceptable.

WIND: this summary hits a nerve on the concerns I’ve had regarding the future risks from the damage caused by myocarditis, particularly to young people. The doctors blithely suggesting that the patients were treated for “mild” myocarditis and then recovered are first class irresponsible assholes for minimizing the significance. Treat them as propagandists who should never be trusted again.

Then we have things like neurological damage, auto-immune problems, and a variety of other things that medical science propaganda has yet to study fabricate.

Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance

The Epoch Times: Health Experts Admit Outdoor Mask Wearing Is Ineffective

re: particulate respirator

I was an early advocate for N100/P100 particulate respirators when COVID first appeared. Because we had no idea what we were dealing with.

But here in early 2022, there isn’t a single credible study that shows that masks as actually worn by the public do anything thing to impede community transmission. It’s COVID theatre. Indeed, masks as as actually worn by the public should be proven to not increase transmission as the default working assumption—that would be real science—trying to disprove a hypothesis, not prove the desired outcome!

The Epoch Times: Health Experts Admit Outdoor Mask Wearing Is Ineffective

2022-01-07 by Joseph Mercola. Emphasis added.


The Only Type of Mask That Is Safe and Effective

To provide any benefit whatsoever, users must be fitted with the right type and size of respirator, and must undergo fit testing by a trained professional. However, N95 respirators, even when fitted properly, will not protect against viral exposures but can adequately protect against larger particles.

Surgical masks, which do not seal to your face, do not filter out anything. They are designed to prevent bacteria from the mouth, nose and face from entering the patient during surgical procedures, and researchers have warned that contaminated surgical masks actually pose an infection risk. After just two hours, a significant increase in bacterial load on the mask was observed.

Nonmedical cloth masks are not only ineffective, but also particularly dangerous as they’re not engineered for effective purging of exhaled carbon dioxide, making them wholly unsuitable for use.

The only type of mask that is actually safe and effective to wear is the gas mask kind of respirator you’d use to protect yourself against painting fumes, organic vapors, smoke and dust. These respirators are built to filter the air you breathe in, and to get rid of the carbon dioxide and humidity from the air you breathe out, thereby ensuring there’s no dangerous buildup of carbon dioxide or reduction in oxygen inside the mask.

WIND: the only mask that works IMO is an N100/P100 particulate respirator. All the science so far rejects all other inferior masks (including N95) as showing a demonstrable benefit. But N100/P100 masks cannot be worn for extended periods without, even the valved kind. And the non-valved kind can cause respiratory issues for some impaired persons. I use them for heavy pollen days, forest fire smoke, etc, but they’re too hot and unpleasant otherwise, and even the valved ones impede heavy breathing to some extent (cycling).

Upgrade the memory of your 2020 iMac up to 128GB

Dr Jay Bhattacharya: AMA Submits “stunningly ignorant amicus brief, filed by medical organizations in favor of the OSHA vax mandate, is the end of the credibility of public health”

re: ethics in medicine
re: Zero Hedge
re: Dr Jay Bhattacharya

And you wonder why Supreme Court decisions can be predicted 95% of the time.

re: Fauci Goes There: Finally Admits Kids Not Being Hospitalized From COVID

Zero Hedge: Supreme Court Justice Exhibits Shocking Lack of Basic COVID Knowledge During Hearing

2022-01-06 by Katabella Roberts. Emphasis added.

Update (1143ET): The Supreme Court, which is hearing arguments over vaccine mandates, displayed a stunning lack of knowledge of basic Covid-19 facts during today's oral arguments.

The worst offender - Justice Sotamayorwho not only claimed that there are "100,000 children in serious condition," with many on ventilators (there are 3,342 per HHS with many or most being incidental covid positives alongside other conditions), but that Omicron is as deadly as Delta.

...So the fate of one of the most medically authoritarian schemes in US history is now in the hands of people who have no clue how this virus behaves.

The plaintiffs have argued that the Biden administration exceeded its authority by imposing requirements that were never authorized by Congress, and that it failed to follow the proper administrative rules for issuing emergency regulations. 

Of note - and possible relevance to the argument; in July, Biden explicitly stated that people who take the vaccine will not get COVID-19, a statement we know (and knew at the time) was false.


WIND: what’s most abhorrent is a Supreme Court justice uttering “facts” that she has no business assuming, let alone stating/claiming as true (and that are radically unhinged vs the reality). The job of a justice is to rule on evidence presented to the court!

Instead, Sotomayer presents her own “evidence”—a patently false opinion crudely presented as “fact”.. That perversion of the justice system should have the rest of the court censuring her, but they value collegiality over integrity, apparently. Had Sotomayer any honor she would now recuse herself, and better yet, resign in shame for raping the Court’s integrity. But this is the same clown that actively politicizes the court with her ideological comments over and over again. We expect justices to take pains to pretend they are objective even though they clearly ar not. But this is what passes for jurisprudence these days. My contempt for the court system has grown ten-fold in recent years, and yet the court system is the last bastion we have against totalitarianism. We rely on these losers to avoid total destruction of our constitutional rights, like relying on witch doctors for heart surgery.

And so hope fades with ignoramous ideologues on the court like Sotomayer. You really cannot believe this shit, so it has to be that Sotomayer is either (a) stupid as a rock, or (b) an ideologue with a degree from MSNBC, though that seems to imply (a). So it’s a conundrum—what can you possibly make of a mind so ignorant, so biased... on the Supreme Court? One who makes life or death decisions on so many cases.

Dr Jay Bhattacharya comments on the amicus brief by the American Medical Association (a readically politicized group that embodies everything wrong with medicine):

This stunningly ignorant amicus brief, filed by medical organizations in favor of the OSHA vax mandate, is the end of the credibility of public health. Is it really possible that scientists in those organizations are so unaware of the underlying science about which they write?


To avoid suspension, I cannot tweet about vaccine safety, something I have done research on for two decades. For such information, you may instead follow me on @GETTRofficial , @getongab or Speaqs.

Scientists are as corrupt as any profession and probably much more, since government funding feeds most of them, and there is a groupthink mentality that precludes real intellectual discussion, lest one be locked out of grant money. And outsiders are deemed non-credible, not being scientists. At least with many professions there are accountants and lawyersand lawsuits to provide some checks and balances—not so with science; it’s an area ripe for fraud and con artists.

Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance

The Epoch Times: India Won’t Add Merck’s COVID-19 Pill to National Treatment Protocol, Citing Safety Concerns

re: ethics in medicine

Isn’t “markedly less effective than previously thought” a huge red flag?

Big Pharma surely sees the risk of vaporizing profits from the vaccines, now that the pandemic is just about over what with most people having or soon to have natural immunity. So they’ll push anything short of Ivermectin. Together with their lackeys at the FDA, it’s just a question of “investment”.

See also: Prescription drugs are now the third leading cause of death in the western world

The Epoch Times: India Won’t Add Merck’s COVID-19 Pill to National Treatment Protocol, Citing Safety Concerns

2022-01-06 by Katabella Roberts. Emphasis added.

India’s top health research body announced on Wednesday that it won’t be adding Merck’s COVID-19 antiviral pill molnupiravir to its national treatment protocol, citing concerns over its safety.

The state-run Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) said it had become aware of “major safety concerns” that prompted the decision, despite India’s drug regulator in December approving the drug for emergency use.

It comes after France in December also canceled its order for the drug, developed by Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, following disappointing trial data suggesting its drug was markedly less effective than previously thought.

Molnupiravir has major safety concerns including teratogenicity, mutagenicity, muscle and bone damage. If this drug is given, contraception must be done for three months as the child may have problems,” ICMR Director-General Balram Bhargava told local media on Wednesday...

...the drug causes teratogenicity, or the ability to cause defects in a developing fetus, mutagenicity, or permanent transmissible changes in the structure of genetic material of cells, cartilage damage, and can also be damaging to muscles...

...contraception would also have to be given to individuals who take the drug—regardless of whether they are male or female— because “the child born could be problematic with teratogenic influences.”


WIND: maybe molnupiravir works well? If it doesn’t kill you or maim your children. OMG.

Businesses Now Requiring Positive COVID Test As Proof Of Vaccination

re: The Babylon Bee
re: pandemic of the vaccinated

Bring on the anal-swab COVID tests?

The Babylon Bee: Businesses Now Requiring Positive COVID Test As Proof Of Vaccination


U.S.–American businesses are now requiring employees to test positive for COVID before beginning their workday, since catching COVID is now the best way to prove you've been vaccinated.

The new self-imposed mandates come hot on the heels of President Biden threatening to maybe require it among federal employees at some arbitrary point in the future possibly.

Dr. Anthony Fauci has applauded the businesses for the new approach. "You know, since the vaccine has been so perfect, but ineffectual, this will enable people to take advantage of natural immunity as if it were a sort of booster shot. I think the sooner we all get sick the better because it'll really bump up that vaccine efficacy."


WIND: apropos given the other mass hysteria of the day well there are many others, some not likely to see the light of day on the “news”.

Could Cardiologists be Endangering Patients by Pushing Blood Pressure Meds?

re: ethics in medicine
re: overdiagnosis

re: Modern Medical Practice: Overdiagnosis, Ignoring What Matters
re: Overdiagnosis is Damaging Health and Happiness America

In Over-Diagnosed, the authors comment on well-documented cases of severe life-changing injuries caused by patients blacking-out on blood pressure medications (falling down, essentially).

Meds based on irresponsibly little data of questionable objectivity

I’ve just recently been told by a cardiologist that I need a blood pressure med. That recommendation is based on zero (zero!) inquiries about my history, activities, diet, familial history, etc. Based on three (3) samples taken when I was stressed and out of sorts (4PM, 3PM, and 12:30 AM in ER). That’s all this cardiologist based his meds recommendation on. I am a dehumanized database entry, having no characteristics other than a few numbers—assembly line medicine.

Time of readings

I confirm that my BP can be high later in the day (eg 145/89 or similar). I also confirm that I have been out of sorts for several weeks—something has been nagging at me. Is it any wonder that my BP could rise given that?

I am told by another cardiologist that what really matters is blood pressure in the morning, since that reflects a long period in which BP is crucial—sleeping. And yet, the diagnosing cardiologist has zero insight into BP readings anywhere prior to 3PM! And zero interest in that or anyhing about me, since zero questions were asked in my initial consulatation farce.

Body weight

Due to the lingering damage from Long-Haul COVID or EBV (still cannot do more than 1/3 my traditional training workouts and still at relatively slow pace), I am 25 pounds heavier— heaviest in 12 years.

With blood pressure directly related to body weight, wouldn’t it make sense for a physician to recommend getting body fat down, before putting someone on a lifelong medication? Particularly someone who has until relatively recently been an ultra endurance athlete 25 pounds lighter?!

My condition has made it difficult to exercise consistently and therefore drop body fat via my usual method: riding 50 miles a day for 3 weeks straight for an average daily caloric deficit of ~1350 calories each and every day. So with the new year and hoping to avoid a relapse into last year’s pathetic low-energy state, I will drop some body fat as best I can, if my body does not betray me with a 3rd major relapse.

Real data

Cardiologist I saw had no clue about this paper: BMJ: “Subclinical magnesium deficiency: a principal driver of cardiovascular disease and a public health crisis”

I will not go on BP meds before I confirm with solid data that accurately evaluates where my BP stands. I find it shockingly irresponsible that a physican, who should follow real data and real science, just paints by numbers off a few haphazard readings.

So I’ve started morning and evening BP readings, charting them.

Ditto for examining dietary factors. As well as whether magnesium can be of help in lowering blood pressure (it acts as a vasodilator). But since I am not deficient in Mg (having supplemented heavily for 18 months), maybe it would not help much at this point.

Would any responsible cardiologist prescribe BP meds for these blood pressure readings?

Eight morning blood pressure reads + heart rate, left arm and right arm, seated 9:45 AM:
L: 119/72 @ 46
L: 111/73 @ 45
L: 118/74 @ 46
L: 113/74 @ 47
R: 116/79 @ 46
R: 129/78 @ 46
R: 125/73 @ 45
R: 124/73 @ 47

My HR has been low my entire life; I don’t think it ever rested above 52, and 20 years ago when highly fit it would go as low as 33 at night and rest at 37-39 in the morning (these days, ~43 bpm).

Of course this same cardiologist tags my low heart rate as bradychardia (slower than “normal” HR), which is intellectual malfeasance: applying epidmiological statistics for a grossly overweight/unfit population to arrive at a “normal” heart rate for everyone? Do these physicians comprehend what a normal curve is (Gaussian distribution), let alone the massive variation based on diet and activity? It’s as stupid as when I was tagged “borderline obese” at 8% body fat ~11 years ago. Assembly-line medicine doesn’t give a damn what personal characteristis and history you might have.

Injury or death from too-low blood pressure?

What happens to me with BP meds on a morning when my normal BP would be 116/72? It would be lower, maybe a lot lower. Especially if there are gyrations in homeostatis from ascending or descending in altitude by 10K feet or more.

And so maybe I’m traveling out in the backcountry, wake up, step out of my van to take a piss and tumble to the ground after blacking-out (it’s a big step down), and die from a head injury, or just freeze to death with an broken something? Ditto for moving around on class 3 stuff, resting a bit, standing up, and tumbling. No one would ever trace it back to the irresponsible cardiologist prescribing that death-causing medication.

Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance

The Epoch Times: “The Defenestration of Dr. Robert Malone”

re: ethics in medicine

Science was sickly and stank of gangrene in 2019, hospitalized in 2020, and on its deathbed here in early 2022. Maybe the patient will revive a little.

The Epoch Times: “The Defenestration of Dr. Robert Malone”

2022-01-03 updated Jan 5, by John Mac Ghlionn. Emphasis added.

Dr. Robert Malone is a U.S. virologist and immunologist who has dedicated his professional existence to the development of mRNA vaccines.

In the 1980s, Malone worked as a researcher at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, where he conducted studies on messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology. In the early 1990s, Malone collaborated with Jon A. Wolff and Dennis A. Carson, two eminent scientists, on a study that involved synthesization.

In fact, Malone is the father of mRNA vaccines. He has served as an adjunct associate professor of biotechnology at Kennesaw State University, and he co-founded Atheric Pharmaceutical, a company that was contracted by the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases in 2016.

As you can see, Malone is no ordinary man. In fact, he’s a rather extraordinary man. Before embarking on a distinguished career in science, Malone worked as a carpenter and as a farmhand. Becoming a doctor was a lofty aspiration, but through hard work and determination, his dream became a reality. Over the course of three decades, Malone has established himself as one of the most competent people in the fields of virology and immunology.

Why, then, is he considered “a pariah” (in his own words) by so many of his peers? Why did Twitter recently suspend his account?

Malone is arguably the most qualified person in the world to speak on what we as a society should and shouldn’t be doing during the pandemic. Yet for reasons that will become abundantly clear, he finds himself ostracized, largely silenced, and cut off from the scientific community. Why?

Two months before his Twitter account was suspended, Malone wrote a rather prophetic Twitter post:

“I am going to speak bluntly,” he wrote. “Physicians who speak out are being actively hunted via medical boards and the press. They are trying to delegitimize us and pick us off one by one.”

He finished by warning that this is “not a conspiracy theory” but “a fact.” He urged us all to “wake up.” Sadly, many of us are still asleep.


Over the course of the past 18 months, Malone has been painted as some kind of anti-vax fringe scientist, a man of questionable merit who’s spouting nonsense.

Well, he’s not. Malone happens to be vaccinated. All he has ever asked for is the chance to have frank and honest discussions on vaccines.

In his own words, vaccines have “saved lives. Many lives.”

“But it is also increasingly clear that there are some risks associated with these vaccines,” Malone said. “Various governments have attempted to deny that this is the case. But they are wrong. Vaccination-associated coagulation is a risk. Cardiotoxicity is a risk. Those are proven and discussed in official USG communications, as well as communications from a variety of other governments.”

Malone isn’t a crazed conspiracy theorist: He’s a man who’s intimately familiar with the benefits and the risks of vaccines. He’s a proponent of informed consent. Perhaps before letting someone inject a vaccine into your body, you should be fully informed of the risks involved, he says. He isn’t an unreasonable man.


But wait, if science can’t be questioned, doesn’t this make it propaganda? Hush now. Don’t you love America? Don’t you want people to live, rather than die? Then shut up and get the vaccine, then the booster shot, then the booster-booster shot. We, the arbiters of truth, know what’s best for you. Somewhat ironically, these self-appointed arbiters of truth spout no shortage of lies.

Is it any surprise, then, that more and more Americans continue to lose faith in the mainstream media and the government? Yet here we are, being condescended to by the likes of CNN’s Don Lemon and MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace. Worse still, we’re supposed to take orders from Fauci, a man who supposedly represents science, yet goes out of his way to smear scientists. Why would a man of science attack the very thing that he’s supposed to represent? According to numerous reports, Fauci has repeatedly deceived the American people. It’s important to remember that Fauci is, first and foremost, a talking head for the U.S. government. In reality, he’s a politician with a medical degree.


WIND: the tsunami of silencing voices hurts everyone badly.

OWC Thunderblade Thunderbolt 3 SSD

Blazing fast, up to 16TB.


√ No more slow and noisy hard drives!


re: ethics in medicine

Just yesterday I saw a group of Kindergartners lined up outside, all masked up. It is revolting to see this kind of active child abuse.

I was an early advocate for masks aka particulate respirators, recommending to my readers to get them while you could way back in Jan 2020. I still support masks in the (very few) situations in which there is real risk, and the mask is a properly fitted N95 or N100. Otherwise, it’s COVID theatre that feeds into COVID terrorism.


2022-01-05, by Kevin Roche. Emphasis added.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune has actually been pretty good about publishing my op-eds.  But I apparently went a heresy too far this week.  I submitted the piece below and it was declined.  Strong the mask religion is.  And I am guessing they aren’t that willing to rock the boat with the state.  But I mean every word I say here.  And if the stupid masks can’t stop Delta, how the hell would anyone think they will stop Omicron.  But I see doctors everyday on Twitter claiming masks work and wear N95s, maybe two or three of them.  They have no evidence to support that recommendation.  This is simply, as I titled the piece, a mas(k) delusion.


The policy response to the epidemic has been marked by a series of unprecedented and untested actions. There is generally no evidence to support the intervention at its initiation, other than an “expert’s” belief that it will have the desired effect, which typically is slowing or suppressing spread of CV-19. And once initiated, the process of evaluating evidence of effectiveness becomes highly politicized. So it is with the notion that widespread wearing of masks has any impact on transmission of CV-19 in the community.

When forced masking was first discussed, I read the existing literature and found no evidentiary support for the practice. And despite the best efforts of what can only be described as the mask religionists, there continues to be no credible data or research favoring a positive impact. Other than on my blog I have avoided discussing those views, because you can’t change an emotional belief with reason. But as with many things in the epidemic, events in the passage of time make avoiding a reconsideration of those beliefs very difficult. And the tide has begun to turn in regard to the impact of masking.

In the last few weeks two Democratic Governors have come out strongly against renewed mask mandates, saying there is no evidence that they work, and pointing to neighboring states with longstanding mandates and very high transmission levels. The Atlantic magazine, the epitome of woke progressivism, recently penned an article debunking one of the CDC’s worst mask studies, which was widely used to support forcing children to wear masks for hours and hours, which I view as akin to child abuse. There simply is no well-designed study which shows any impact of mask wearing, much less mask mandates, on the community spread of CV-19.

How do we know masks do nothing to slow transmission? I always encourage people to evaluate any intervention at two levels, the individual one and the population one. At an individual level, in an isolated encounter between a person and the virus, a mask may prevent exposure and infection. But even if a mask were 90% effective, and they aren’t, over large numbers of encounters at some point you will be exposed. And the best mannequin head study, one which tracked particle flow for hours, not a few minutes, found that masks during extended wearing funneled viral aerosols into the respiratory tract and concentrated them on inner and outer mask surfaces where they eventually were pushed or pulled through.

I have jokingly referred to masks as virus collection devices, but that is exactly what they are designed to be. A study done by the UK public health agency found that among all surfaces, CV-19 survived second longest on masks, up to 20 hours. Eventually that virus finds its way into the wearer’s or others’ respiratory system. It isn’t just CV-19 that is collected, and scientists have been remarkably incurious about the total number and type of pathogens collected in a mask over hours of wearing, and the ultimate fate of those pathogens. This lack of research is almost certainly politically motivated.

At a population level, one has only to look at any chart of cases versus population mask-wearing level (I avoid comparisons with mandate presence, since that may or may not correlate with actual wearing behavior, but those comparisons are even worse for masks). These charts constantly show that there is no correlation. Minnesota is a perfect example, in which the level of cases after the mask mandate was promulgated through when it was ended never dipped to the level before the mandate. Anyone who says it would have been worse without masks should take a good luck at the curves, especially pre-vaccine last fall, and explain how that could be true.

As I noted above, it is particularly egregious to force masks on children, who despite ongoing mis-information regarding serious illness and hospitalizations (as Dr. Fauci finally admitted, most have nothing to do with treatment for CV-19, but rather reflect incidental positives on admission) have a miniscule risk from the virus, but whom we are terrorizing and depriving of normal social development and interactions by forced mask wearing which makes no difference in their risk of being infected. Those who claim that children are resilient and fine are ignoring the clear data showing a massive uptick in mental health issues.

The state has evidence in its possession showing that masks have no impact, either in general or in schools, but refuses to release that information and is stonewalling my Data Practices Act requests, which is itself evidence that they know the lack of effect. It is time for everyone to ask themselves what evidence really supports masking as an effective tool against spread and why we continue to encourage, much less force, futile and potentially damaging measures.

WIND: amen. Could it be on balance that masks as actually worn by the public have increased the spread? We cannot rule that out.

I am seeing more people walking or biking wearing COVID masks—all alone outdoors. I consider it an IQ test, but I pity the mental damage it takes to feel the need.

Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance

At Least Two States Come to Their Senses by Urging Reporting on “with COVID” vs “from COVID” Hospitalizations

re: ethics in medicine

Why wasn’t it federal policy, starting two years ago, to report actionable/accurate data instead of misleading/dishonest data?* Rational decisions cannot be made with highly subjective (biased!) and/or outright wrong data. But at least it’s (maybe) going to change.

Of course, there mimght be a greater disparity of with vs from COVID now with Omicron, than with Delta/Alpha, but we’ll never know for sure.

* Perhaps because COVID terrorism needed the fake data to instill fear to garner public support for the carpet-bombing of America’s economy and liberties?

If you don’t trust FoxNews reporting it, follow the link to the video of Governor Hochul herself, around 14:30 mark.

Fox News: NY makes major adjustment to COVID hospitalization reporting during omicron surge

Gov. Hochul says she wants to 'always be honest with New Yorkers about how bad this is'

"So we're looking at a critical moment, but we're going to start asking some questions. We talked about the hospitalizations. I have always wondered, we're looking at the hospitalizations of people testing positive in a hospital," Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul said Monday. "Is that person in the hospital because of COVID or did they show up there and are routinely tested and showing positive and they may have been asymptomatic or even just had the sniffles."

"Someone is in a car accident, they go to the emergency room, they test positive for COVID while they're there. They're not there being treated for COVID."

Hospitals must now clarify if patients with the virus came to the hospital due to symptoms of COVID or because of some other ailment... Hochul said she made random calls to a handful of hospital leaders about patient intake reporting and found 20%-to-50% differences in patients being treated for COVID versus patients being treated for other ailments and also testing positive. 

"I just want to always be honest with New Yorkers about how bad this is. Yes, the sheer numbers of people infected are high, but I want to see whether or not the hospitalizations correlate with that," she said.


WIND: well, that’s a breath of fresh air from a politician. Usually it’s just intellectual flatulence.

Meanwhile, in AOC’s party state:

Fox News: DeSantis urges hospitals to distinguish those hospitalized due to COVID and those who just happen to have it


"I think that’s an important distinction to make when you have a variant like omicron which is much more widespread," DeSantis said. "You are going to have people who get into a car accident and go into the emergency room. They’re swabbing everybody, and you’re going to have people that have incidental positives."

The governor said the Jackson network anticipates "about half of their COVID-positive patients within their system were not being treated for COVID," which shows that hospital case numbers alone do not tell the whole story of the pandemic.


WIND: does this mean that all COVID data on hospital admissions was GIGO, and still will be until sane reporting policies are implemented?

Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance

Impressions on Joe Rogan’s Interview with Dr Robert Malone

re: ethics in medicine

I’m not a fan of videos in general, let alone long ones—awfully tedious. But I did not feel that I could ignore the recent interview by Joe Rogan of Dr Robert Malone. So far, I'm ~40 minutes into it.

Joe Rogan’s Interview with Dr Robert Malone (Spotify Episode #1757)

I would very much like to see a complete and accurate transcript. Videos suck big-time for finding things, quoting things, etc.

The most important things I look for in an interview are honesty and forthrightness, and a freedom from 'tells' that would make me suspicious of the intentions/veracity/earnestness of the interviewee. Not the details, but the demeanor and character of the person.

My impression is that Dr Robert Malone is telling the truth as he sees it. I see no duplicity or dishonesty, or any attempt to deceive by dropping context. That does not make his claims “true”, but I am satisfied that he is an honest voice that is worth listening to.

What we do need to make this whole mess better is an expert of his caliber that can competently debate his claims. There are few such people in the world today that can claim anything close to his credentials, so that might be a challenge. Especially since there is little honesty left in the medical profession, let alone people free from financial conflicts.

I would also like to see several of Dr Malone’s colleauges who has worked on projects with him before to chime-in and agree. Basically, is he able to garner support among fellow researchers/doctors. But if we can’t get that, can we at least here a good rebuttal?

I would divide Dr Malone’s claims into two broad areas:

  • Medical claims: efficacy, risks, etc about drugs, vaccines, etc. These are best handled by spirited debate within the medical community, evidence based with all data (and new data) open to critique. Funding for proper study without preconceived notions of efficacy.
  • Management/people claims: who did what and why. These would be ideally handled by a special counsel (legal system) for the areas which may have cause suffering and the loss of lives.

Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance

diglloyd.com | Terms of Use | PRIVACY POLICY
Contact | About Lloyd Chambers | Consulting | Photo Tours
Mailing Lists | RSS Feeds | Twitter
Copyright © 2020 diglloyd Inc, all rights reserved.
Display info: __RETINA_INFO_STATUS__