Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance
877-865-7002
Today’s Deal Zone Items... Handpicked deals...
$1398 $998
SAVE $400

$1798 $1198
SAVE $600

$151 $151
SAVE $click

$2299 $2069
SAVE $230

$240 $175
SAVE $65

$240 $175
SAVE $65

$1399 $1399
SAVE $click

$2198 $1998
SAVE $200

$2299 $1799
SAVE $500

$2000 $1500
SAVE $500

$898 $798
SAVE $100

$1799 $1699
SAVE $100

$1699 $1499
SAVE $200

$999 $799
SAVE $200

$1798 $1198
SAVE $600

$1997 $1797
SAVE $200

$3199 $3199
SAVE $click

$80 $33
SAVE $46

$199 $149
SAVE $50

$699 $549
SAVE $150

$400 $300
SAVE $100

$2090 $1690
SAVE $400

$1699 $949
SAVE $750

$1199 $1099
SAVE $100

$1199 $1099
SAVE $100

$999 $949
SAVE $50

$1699 $949
SAVE $750

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!

COVID: Do Masks Work?

re: particulate respirator

Readers might recall that on Jan 29 2020, I recommended buying P100/N100 (or N95) particulate respirators (masks) before it was too late, as we had no idea how bad the virus would be.

P100 / N100 Particulate Respirator the Smart Move for Coronavirus — not the Useless Leaky Masks That People are Seen Wearing in the News

It’s still a great idea to wear an N100/P100 mask (properly fitted) to protect yourself if you have reason to be believe you will have viral exposure. But they are not comfortable to wear for very long and can cause problems for those with impaired lungs. An N100/P100/N95 mask properly fitted should greatly reduce the odds of transmission. But they are unobtanium for most, and impractical for many and the only wearable kind (valved) are prohibited at some facilities (which allow massively leaky masks of other types, WTF). So you can’t even protect yourself.

Surgical masks and anything similar might have marginal benefit where people would in effect be spitting on each other, e.g., talking loudly a few feet away, stuffed inside a conference room, etc. But putting yourself into such situations is the core problem.

Mask debate lumps disparate masks and conditions into an incoherent mess

The debate on masks has gone into Alice in Wonderland territory, equating N100/P1oo/N95 masks properly fitted with the filthiest rag you see people wearing (some are truly disgusting) and every kind of mask in-between, fitted and worn differently and under widely varying conditions.

We have politicians repeatedly photographed with masks below the nose or with obvious leaks near the nose (e.g., figurehead Biden). I regularly see people similarly exposed/exposing, or covering their chins only! Kids playing outside masked up. Cyclists riding masked. Mask brain damage is now widespread.

The debate on masks is pointless because the science is garbage. No credible studies have emerged that anyone void giggling at. To call it science to take a dozen or so confounding variables together with wildly varying conditions and mine data for feeble statistical correlations is purely a political exercise at this stage.

Consider:

  • What’s a “mask”, exactly?
  • What material is the mask made of?
  • How is the mask fitted and worn?
  • How often is the mask handled (thus contaminating hands, and vice versa)?
  • Is it fresh, a day stale, or not washed for a week or three?
  • Does it protect the wearer at all?
  • Why do facilities prohibit N95/N100 valved masks, but allow massively leaky surgical masks and similar?
  • Ad nauseum...

And the very tests we use to claim COVID infection have been junk science. And all mask studies would be based on that junk science as one bloated manure pile of noisy data.

What do do?

Dunno about you, but I intensely dislike the masked experience, in physical terms. Communicating with masked people is a horrible experience. To ask young children to do so is child abuse that might scar them for life.

COVID is going to spread until everyone has had it. That’s an undeniable fact now that we know the vaccines do not stop infection and are not going to get us to the fantasy land of herd immunity.

So the hell with masks, excepting limited circumstances, like medical facilities, long term care, or similar higher-risk scenarios. Oh wait—I thought the vaccine solved things there? Fail.

Let anyone who wishes to mask-up do so, ideally making N95 masks available to all. It is about time that personal responsibility was respected. But tyranical mask mandates no longer serve any purpose but political browbeating.


OWC Thunderblade Thunderbolt 3 SSD

Blazing fast, up to 16TB.

YEE HAH!



√ No more slow and noisy hard drives!

COVID: Follow the Science?

re: COVID
re: Could COVID-Vaccinated People be Driving the Evolution of New and Deadlier COVID Variants?

Anyone notice a problem here?

CDC: Studies Propelling Shift in Mask Guidance Not Available

The studies that prompted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to change their mask guidance for vaccinated persons are not available, a spokesperson told The Epoch Times on Wednesday.

“They have not been published yet,” the spokesperson said.

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the CDC’s director, told reporters on July 27 that she had seen “new scientific data from recent outbreak investigations” indicating the Delta variant of the virus that causes COVID-19 was presenting more uniquely than other strains.

...

WIND: follow the narrative?

Science requires free debate, and in especially criticique by those not vested in the narrative. The zero-credibility CDC is at it again. We can safely put the CDC down as the Office of Medical Propaganda, led by the hysterical emotion-driven Dr Walensky.


View all handpicked deals...

Sony Alpha a7R II Mirrorless Digital Camera (Body Only)
$1798 $1198
SAVE $600

COVID Spreading Fast in Heavily Vaccinated California — WTF?

re: COVID
re: Could COVID-Vaccinated People be Driving the Evolution of New and Deadlier COVID Variants?

The White House, Big Tech, and our public health agencies have zero credibility left. I can’t think of anything worse when facing a threat. Credibility does not mean right or wrong, but it does mean no trust can exist.

The latest allegation* is that the viral load of the COVID Delta variant might be 1000X higher in the nose, which would explain its pernicious spread and near-total dominance today. And bear directly on vaccinated people spreading the Delta variant.

Delta Variant Outbreak in Israel Infects Some Vaccinated Adults

TEL AVIV—About half of adults infected in an outbreak of the Delta variant of Covid-19 in Israel were fully inoculated with the Pfizer Inc. vaccine, prompting the government to reimpose an indoor mask requirement and other measures to contain the highly transmissible strain. Preliminary findings by Israeli health officials suggest about 90% of new infections were likely caused by the Delta variant...

NewMath (good enough in California) equates “rare” and “some” to half. Does the Pfizer vaccine work differently on Americans vs Israelis?

* Never trust a single study, see Why Most Published Research Findings Are False and RetractionWatch.com: 128 retracted COVID-related studies.

CDC has zero credibility

Vaccinated people can spread COVID and should mask up, says the CDC today. WTF?

To maximize protection from the Delta variant and prevent possibly spreading it to others, wear a mask indoors in public if you are in an area of substantial or high transmission.

If it’s rare for vaccinated people to spread COVID, then by definition there is no need for vaccinated people to mask up. If vaccinated people are protected, then no need to mask-up. But if it’s not rare, then the CDC would issue guidance to mask up. And that’s what is being said. A lot is left unsaid, which is perhaps more significant.

Could this turn into the worst-yet example of the experts being totally wrong, about vaccines? 2022...

A reasonable person could therefore speculate that vaccinated people intermingling with others could be spreading the pandemic. And therefore sickening and killing others. Great stuff, that “vaccine”. That’s progress? Last time I checked, a vaccine is supposed to prevent infection. Now we learn that it doesn’t.

BTW, is the CDC’s repudiation of the wildly unreliably PCR tests perhaps part of a psyops campaign to flatten the infection curve to make the vaccines look better than they are? That is, by reducing the garbage-science junk data used for fearmongering for 18 months?

A reasonable person might at least speculate that it is common for vaccinated people to get infected and spread the virus, which is a separate issue from severity. A reasonable person could also conclude that the CDC is feeding us a line of bull, perhaps to avoid mass panic. Or perhaps to double down on persuading even more people to get the vaccine.

And a reasonable person might start wondering whether vaccinated people might be making COVID a permanent and increasingly dangerous problem.

Thing is, with no credibility left, nothing the CDC says settles anything. And until Big Tech and the White House and FDA and CDC go back to science—fully and free uncensored exchange of ideas—then and only then can credibility return.

Don’t get me started on the idiotic premise that one jab of Pfizer or Moderna (not “fully vaccinated”) is somehow less good than the one-jab J&J vaccine—a policy apparently driven purely by financial considerations.

California dreamin'

Higher COVID Rate Found In Some Counties With Higher Vaccination Rate might mean something, and it might not. But it is worrisome, and at least appears to repudiate the unrelenting “get the jab” coercive propaganda.

COVID is spreading fast in intensely vaccinated California. At least 36 counties in California now would qualify for purple tier status (bad), here in mid summer. Huh?

In my county of San Mateo, an astonishing 89% of people 12 and older are vaccinated, and COVID is spreading. Are you f*cking kidding me?! Where is our herd immunity? “Herd obedience” is where we are left, apparently with nothing to show for it in terms of stopping the spread.

A reasonable person might infer that the latest Big Lie is that vaccines can stop COVID. With nearly 60% of the USA now vaccinated, then if vaccines work to halt COVID, why is it spreading alarmingly fast? (or is it?) Hence the demonization of the unvaccinated as classic cognitive dissonance, which is eerily similar to the ugliest things in world history.

We now have to at least allow the hypothesis that the vaccines might not be a solution, and the outlier possibility that vaccines might be making things worse.

Immigration insanity

Could 1.2 million immigrants (many carrying COVID) be part of the spread problem? Why are we letting infected immigrants into the country, why are they not screened for COVID, and why the hell are we not requiring they be vaccinated, what with our wonderful vaccines? We even release infected immigrants into the country. Meanwhile, demonization of the Other Side continues.


Upgrade the memory of your 2020 iMac up to 128GB

COVID Vaccines and Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE): any evidence of issues here in 2021?

re: Long-Haul COVID

Back in 2020, some medical doctors were speculating about ADE, such as Is a Coronavirus Vaccine a Ticking Time Bomb?. And I mentioned ADE in several blog posts.

If ADE ( Antibody Dependent Enhancement) were a thing, wouldn’t we be seeing problems by now, what with ~160 million people now vaccinated? Is anything happening in that regard?

Robert W Malone MD, Inventor of mRNA vaccines strangely has not yet been canceled by Twitter. And he is sounding concerns about ADE and the COVID vaccines as of today, including rumors of higher levels of virus in vaccinated individuals.

ADE has happened with other vaccines in the past and is well documented. It now seems that ADE is here with us with at least Pfizer-vaccinated people, according to Dr Robert Malone, and that Pfizer protection is waning at 6 months, and those people are getting infected with the COVID Delta variant.

https://rumble.com/vkfz1v-the-vaccine-causes-the-virus-to-be-more-dangerous.html

Dr Fauci is being very disingenuous...the government is obfuscating what is happening here. What seems to be happening is the worst-case scenario... if the data are verified that the titers are higher in the blood of those who have been vaccinated, that would be the smoking gun for ADE... I’m the opposite of an anti-vaxxer, I am committed to safety and science” — Dr Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA vaccines.

If data and science existed any more, the questions above could be answered in at most a month or two. But I don’t live in the fantasy world where the CDC and FDA are going to do the science, let alone potentially reverse the vaccine program. Moreover, the CDC and FDA have been actively suppressing treatments that might work and are wholly comitted to the vaccine program.

Just today, President Biden has issued a mandate that all government employees must be vaccinated, doubling-down on what could be a disaster.

Antibody-dependent enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies

nature.com 09 September 2020

Data from the study of SARS-CoV and other respiratory viruses suggest that anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could exacerbate COVID-19 through antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). Previous respiratory syncytial virus and dengue virus vaccine studies revealed human clinical safety risks related to ADE, resulting in failed vaccine trials.

...

Conclusion

ADE has been observed in SARS, MERS and other human respiratory virus infections including RSV and measles, which suggests a real risk of ADE for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and antibody-based interventions. However, clinical data has not yet fully established a role for ADE in human COVID-19 pathology...

...

WIND: is anyone in government even looking for signs of a problem? Seems like looking for issues of any kind is a good way to get fired or reassigned on today’s climate of character assassination for raising questions that question the narrative.


Upgrade the memory of your 2020 iMac up to 128GB

Trying to Break Through Long-Haul COVID

re: Long-Haul COVID

I’m writing this hoping that at least one Long-Haul COVID sufferer might benefit, particularly athletes like myself. It has been a sore trial, worse than anything in my life, even my 2018 concussion.

For 13 months now, I’ve suffered from Long-Haul COVID. June 2020 thru late November were terrible, with brain-fog, crippling fatigue, headaches, rheumatic symptoms and muscle aches, etc. It wasn’t a question of slowing down or reducing training; it was about whether I could walk 1/4 mile slowly or not, and whether I could manage 1 hour or 3 hours of productive work each day—and for some months none at all on many days.

Then I got a break just before Thanksgiving 2020, literally overnight feeling much better—what the hell?! I thought I had cured myself. All I could figure is that grass-fed New York steak every day for 3 days had something to do with it. So I went back to moderate exercise, but could never seem to resume a normal training level.

And then a relapse starting in early March 2021 which lasted until... today, with a few hopeful streaks not lasting long in June. Long periods of little exercise and no biking failed to get me off a baseline energy slump, and sleep/rest needs remain very high. Physicians clueless as ever, normal blood work.

Typical pattern on a weekly basis, oscillating/repeating, exercise induced decline:

#1 moderate energy, #2 low energy, #3 very low energy, #4 toast, #5 toast, #6 very low energy #7 low energy.
<repeat ad nauseum>

Poking the bear

Starting last week, I resolved try something new:

  • Exercising only in the morning when most rested (afternoons were not working);
  • Exercising every day for my full ride but at an effort level as slow as needed.
  • A 1L bottle of water with 300 calories of my proven sports-drink Tailwind, to ensure available glucose since my system might be awry.

This on the theory that excercise is healing (blood flow, hormones, thyroid function, etc)—the trick being having enough energy to get therapeutic levels of exercise.

Plus: (1) eating a nutrient-dense meal after exercise, (2) a 90-minute nap mid-afternoon, (3) any additional rest needed to feel able to be up and around (1-2 hours), (4) minimum 9 hours sleep in bed by 10 PM, typically 10 hours.

I knew this might throw me into a weeklong energy overdraft, but I had signs that acupuncture might be making changes to my nervous system, so I resolved to try it. And with 20 years of experience paying close attention to my body for hard core cycling, I also felt that I had the insight to make reasonable judgments about the need to abortor continue.

Acupuncture signals

Yesterday was my 5th acupuncture appointment in just over 2 weeks. I could a lot of energy flow in my body as I lay on the table, and I suspected that something might be “up”. My body was giving me a very clear signal, and in the hours after, I felt great too.

Prior to the treatment, I had done a full ride at low pace (which the doctor said was inadvisable prior), but I nonetheless feel it was synergistic.

After the appointment, I ate as usual after a ride a nutrient-dense smoothie of 900 calories or so, and allowed myself to rest and sleep for 3-4 hours. Things seemed to settle in well and today confirmed that. Yeah, that’s part of the recovery— an absurd amount of rest and sleep. Skip it, and things go to crap.

It has been a month since I was able to ride 4 days in a row, albeit at greatly reduced pace for the first three days. So now I am gaining strength, and I need to not overdo it.

Most important of all, I felt good on the ride, I felt normal (albeit detrained), and I was not tired afterwards, at least not initiall, though I needed to take my (now) usual 90 minute nap plus extra rest. Tomorrow I need to be cautious.

Below, this is what a baseline ride looks like for me when in detrained condition, though here today power and heart rate were definitely affected by the high humidity and relatively high temperature. I’d been riding two hours earlier, which is a better plan than a 10 AM start.

Green line is power (watts), red line is heart rate, purple line is temperature.

Power (watts) and heart rate for baseline ride in detrained condition, relatively high humidity and temperature
Power (watts) and heart rate for baseline ride in detrained condition, relatively high humidity and temperature
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!

FLCCC Alliance: I-RECOVER Management Protocol for Long Haul COVID-19 Syndrome (LHCS)

re: Ivermectin

Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.

In the throes of Long-Haul COVID? At least some aspects of this protocol might be of benefit. It is a far more coherent and considered approach than the shrug you’ll get from the average physician.

Speaking for myself (and only for myself), from last July to November when I was in the muddle of brain fog, disturbed sleep, headaches, extreme fatigue, etc, I would have been delighted to try Ivermectin for starters. Though I would have also liked to try high dose intravenous Vitamin C (20K IU or more for 4 days) even before that. Again, speaking for myself and not giving advice. But Vitamin C protocol would probably get these doctors into more controversy than they want to take on, and it might not work. Still, it’s what I would demand as a safe risk-free first step. Barring that, I’d go for the Ivermectin because good luck finding an MD willing to do intravenous Vitamin C.

I am not necessarily in agreement with the particulars of this protocol, as I think it relies too heavily on pharmacological drugs that all together are a variant of the one symptom/one diagnosis/one drug approach, multiplied by half a dozen symptoms.

FLCCC Alliance: I-RECOVER Management Protocol for Long Haul COVID-19 Syndrome (LHCS)

The Long Haul COVID-19 Syndrome (LHCS) is an often debilitating syndrome characterized by a multitude of symptoms such as prolonged malaise, headaches, generalized fatigue, sleep difficulties, smell disorder, decreased appetite, painful joints, dyspnea, chest pain and cognitive dysfunction. The incidence of symptoms after COVID-19 varies from as low as 10% to as high as 80%. LHCS is not only seen after the COVID-19 infection but it is being observed in some people that have received vaccines(likely due to monocyte activation by the spike protein from the vaccine). A puzzling feature of the LHCS syndrome is that it is not predicted by initial disease severity; post-COVID-19 frequently affects mild-to-moderate cases and younger adults that did not require respiratory support or intensive care.

...

Given the lack of available treatment recommendations in the setting of large numbers of patients suffering with this disorder globally, the FLCCC developed the I-RECOVER protocol in collaboration with a number of expert clinicians including Dr. Mobeen Syed, Dr. Ram Yogendra, Dr. Bruce Patterson, and Dr. Tina Peers. Although our varied yet often overlapping treatment approaches were initially empiric, while based on both preliminary investigations into and prevailing theoretical pathophysiologic mechanisms of LHCS, the consistently positive clinical responses observed, often profound and sustained, led the collaboration to form the consensus protocol below. As with all FLCCC protocols, we must emphasize that multiple aspects of the protocol may change as scientific data and clinical experience in this condition evolve, thus it is important to check back frequently or join the FLCCC Alliance to receive notification of any protocol changes.

WIND: those suffering LHC cannot afford to wait for our jackass “experts” to come up with anything useful—they’ve had 18 months now and have come up with nothing useful. This is at least an authentic, conflict-free approach that has helped many.

https://covid19criticalcare.com: I-RECOVER Protocol
https://covid19criticalcare.com: I-RECOVER Protocol

Matt Taibbi: The Vaccine Aristocrats

re: Matt Taibbi

Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.

Just the sort of balanced perspective that much of the country lacks. Which is not to say I agree with it all.

Matt Taibbi: The Vaccine Aristocrats

by Matt Taibbi, July 27 2021

Covid-19 cases are rising, but the "Pandemic of the Unvaccinated" blame-game campaign is the worst way to address the problem

...

I’m vaccinated. I think people should be vaccinated. But this latest moral mania — and make no mistake about it, the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” PR campaign is the latest in a ceaseless series of such manias, dating back to late 2016 — lays bare everything that’s abhorrent and nonsensical in modern American politics, beginning with the no-longer-disguised aristocratic mien of the Washington consensus. If you want to convince people to get a vaccine, pretty much the worst way to go about it is a massive blame campaign, delivered by sneering bluenoses who have a richly deserved credibility problem with large chunks of the population, and now insist they’re owed financially besides. 

...

WIND: vaccination has short term benefits, but could vaccination cause long-term damage? And what if prophylactic use of Ivermectin and treatment could essentially solve the crisis without the risks of mutant viruses?

How Artificial Sweeteners Destroy Your Gut Microbiome

re: microbiome
re: Long COVID or Post-acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC): An Overview of Biological Factors That May Contribute to Persistent Symptoms
re: Typical American Diet Can Damage Immune System, Microbiome
re: excitotoxin

This summary discusses the issues with artificial sweeteners and the gut microbiome.

One of these, aspartame is also neurotoxic to the brain, being an excitotoxins.

How Artificial Sweeteners Destroy Your Gut

BY JOSEPH MERCOLA, July 24 2021.

Zero calories often means zero nutrition and a host of potential problems.

...Scientists have found that three of the most popular artificial sweeteners, including sucralose (Splenda), aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal, and Sugar Twin), and saccharin (Sweet’n Low, Necta Sweet, and Sweet Twin) have a pathogenic effect on two types of gut bacteria...

Just 2 Cans of Diet Soda Can Alter Beneficial Bacteria

The current molecular research from Angelia Ruskin University found that when E. coli and E. faecalis became pathogenic, they killed Caco-2 cells that line the wall of the intestines. Much of the past research demonstrating a change in gut bacteria had used sucralose.

However, data from this study showed that a concentration from two cans of diet soft drinks, using any of the three artificial sweeteners, could significantly increase the ability of E. coli and E. faecalis to adhere to the Caco-2 cells and increase the development of bacterial biofilms...

Artificial Sweeteners Can Sabotage Your Diet Goals

...It appears that the jump in adults using low-calorie sweeteners that occurred from 1999 to 2012 has remained steady through 2020. This may be due in part to the growing evidence that low-calorie sweeteners, such as Splenda, are a large contributor to the growing number of individuals who are overweight and obese...

Diet Drinks Increase the Risk of an Early Death

One 20-year, population-based study of 451,743 people from 10 European countries discovered there was also an association between artificially sweetened drinks and mortality....

More Health Damage Associated With Artificial Sweeteners

This same study also found a link between drinking soft drinks and Parkinson’s Disease “with positive nonsignificant associations found for sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened soft drinks.”

Aspartame is another artificial sweetener that has been studied in the past decades. In one study, researchers asked healthy adults to consume a high-aspartame diet for eight days, followed by a two-week washout and then a low-aspartame diet for eight days.

During the high-aspartame period, individuals suffered from depression, headache, and poor mood. They performed worse on spatial orientation tests, which indicated aspartame had a significant effect on neurobehavioral health.

A second study evaluated whether people with diagnosed mood disorders were more vulnerable to the effects of aspartame. Researchers included 40 individuals with unipolar depression and those without any history of psychiatric disorder. The study was stopped after 13 completed the intervention because of the severity of the reactions.

...

WIND: excess sugar of any kind is a bad idea, but artificial sweeteners are even worse.

Correlation is not causation, so I’m not ready to sign up for the excess deaths or obesity things. But evidence is building and one of these studies suggest any benefits to artificial sweeteners.

I am ready to assert that the artificial sweetener aspartame, which turns into the neurotransmitter aspartic acid is causative for neurological disorders like Parkinson’s disease. An insidious excitotoxin, aspartame-induced brain-damage builds over time until there are no longer enough neurons to do their job, leaving its victims crippled. Those (like me) who have had concussion, or those infected with COVID are at hugely increased risk while the blood-brain barrier is only partially functional, letting excitotoxins wreak havoc.


Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance

Face masks to be required inside all San Mateo County (California) facilities starting today

re: Ivermectin

Yesterday, I walked in for my acupuncture appointment at Sutter, in San Mateo County. I had forgotten a mask, but I walked all the way in to the 4th floor and checked in. No one seemed to notice, including the receptionist. I had to ask for a mask, doing so only out of courtesy for the other patients—zero concern for myself. COVID theatre is an amusing thing to watch, with some people pulling their mask down below their nose (inside) and anti-science jackasses on bikes and hikes all alone wearing masks too!

I live in San Mateo County, California. The leadership is at it again: masks are required inside all county buildings, for vaccinated and unvaccinated. Think about that: it’s not a general mandate (county buildings, medical facilities and a few other venues), so how is that going to slow any spread (in theory) when 99% of human interaction is in other venues? It’s irrational beyond belief.

With an 89% vaccination rate (!) and a handful of cases in my home county of San Mateo, and with hardly any hospital beds in use (Ivermectin surely not used!), this fearmongering and posturing does not help anyone.

The Almanac

...On July 15, San Mateo County Health recorded 74 new COVID-19 cases [WIND: over ten days, up from 13 cases in June], compared to 13 new cases recorded on June 15, the day the state reopened. Hospitalizations have also risen in the last week, with 20 confirmed COVID-19 patients hospitalized as of Wednesday, July 21.

...Board of Supervisors president David Canepa supported the mask mandate for county facilities, saying, "No one wants to ditch these damn masks more than I do but we can't do it until we are all vaccinated."

While vaccinations are highly effective against COVID-19 and its variants, county officials said they "need to take action now to protect younger children and overall public health as cases rise."...

Miniscule numbers. Virtue signaling. And younger children are not at risk. Morons.

Or maybe it is a good idea, if the vaccines don’t prevent infection and breed new variants?

April 2020: “Just two weeks of lockdown to flatten the curve”.
July 2021: Masks forever! Lockdowns coming again to a shithole near you!

Apple iPhone 7
Only $799 $295


MN9H2LL/A (USA/Global Unlocked)
Used, Mint Condition, Factory Unlocked

Could COVID-Vaccinated People be Driving the Evolution of New and Deadlier COVID Variants?

re: Covid, Ivermectin and the Crime of the Century @AMAZON
re: Ivermectin

Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.

Apply evolutionary pressure, and viruses will rapidly evolve.

Many vaccinated people are still getting infected, thus the COVID vaccines apply stiff evolutionary pressure. The COVID vaccines work to minimize severity but also serve as petri dishes for viral evolution/mutation. Apply to large populations over time, and variants should evolve as the direct result of mass vaccination. It’s just probability with a surety approaching p=1.0 over time. The frankenvirii that emerge could be far deadlier, or maybe not. No one can say.

We know that vaccinated people still get infected with COVID, and some die from it (was the vaccine totally ineffective?). How is that possible with “99% efficacy”? That we now hear might wane quickly in as little as 6 months. Perhaps the claims of efficacy are bullshit as in measuring the wrong thing as in measuring antibodies which are not the right metric. Where is the data on that and many other vaccine-related questions? The authorities seem to have no interest in finding out.

Over half the USA is vaccinated now (far higher percentage for the high-risk cohort) and an estimated half the population has already been infected. Surely that yields 70% of the population either vaccinated or prior-infected. Yet virus cases are again spiking. We were told by “experts” that 70% should be herd immunity. Something does not add up, these experts are either ignorant or lying or just morons.

This vaccination hysteria may well be setting us up for a “forever” virus that humanity will never be rid of. And that’s setting aside the unnknown long-term effects of the COVID vaccines on top of short term risks. God save the rapidly developing bodies of children from the child abusers with their COVID jabs.

Will COVID-19 Vaccines Drive Mutated Variants?

BY JOSEPH MERCOLA June 27, 2021

Despite media reports suggesting unvaccinated people will drive mutations of SARS-CoV-2 (or the CCP virus, which causes COVID-19), actual research suggests that more dangerous mutations of the virus could come from the specific nature of the vaccines now being used around the world. Half of Americans have declined the vaccine.

Only 49 percent of Americans more than 18 years of age are fully vaccinated, with 56 percent having received one dose of the two-dose Moderna and Pfizer vaccines.

Some media reports are claiming these unvaccinated people are serving as viral factories for more dangerous variants of the virus. But this false narrative hides the fact that mass vaccinations may be putting us all in a far more dire situation than necessary.

Vaccinated People Can Serve as Breeding Grounds for Mutations

...Whether you’re going to be susceptible to variants has very little to do with whether or not you have antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, because antibodies aren’t your primary defense against viruses, T-cells are. What this means is that getting booster shots for different variants isn’t going to help, because these vaccines don’t strengthen your T-cell immunity.

...

WIND: efficacy claims for vaccines were based on antibodies, not T-cells. Read that paragraph above—vaccine-induced antibodies are NOT your primary defense against COVID. And the vaccines are all about generating antibodies to the spike protein. But antibody levels decline rapidly in a few months. And perhaps even quicker in athletes* and other cohorts.

Hence it makes perfect sense that we see increasing numbers of cases in vaccinated people. Along with studies that show rapidly waning antibody levels, it should give pause as to whether vaccines are a disaster in the making, steadily declining in efficacy while fostering new more deadly variants.

Reasonable people can argue over whether these points. But reasonable people cannot dismiss the questions, nor can the wisest expert have any confidence as to what will actually evolve. But one thing we know already is that COVID has already evolved to become much more infectious ('Delta'/India variant). It would be moronic to assume that we are 'done'.

We definitely have imperfect vaccination (many people still get infected after vaccination). Such people are viral factories applying heavy evolutionary pressure on the virus. All it takes is one person and one mutation to create a new disaster.

Can the vaccines even be called vaccines? They stimulate an immune system response but they do NOT yield immunity! Could be great for Big Pharma profit margins for years to come, with more and more booster shots needed to address new mutations. What a gravy train! Follow the money—$15 to $30 billion dollars for Pfizer alone, at least $36 billion for Pfizer + Moderna + J&J. That kind of cash with the prospect of booster shot revenue corrupts absolutely.

Contrast that to unvaccinated people, who while being more at risk of serious issues than the vaccinated, do not apply evolutionary pressure to the virus. Wouldn’t it be better to prevent and cure those people than vaccinate them for short-term protection? That’s the question the authorities are seemingly intent on not answering.

Wehave no short or medium term prospect of eradicating COVID, and we have already seen half a dozen variants pop up**. The demonization of those who go unvaccinated is unjustified on so many levels, but the worst offense might turn out to be its wholly unscientific basis, as per above. As well as the unknown long-term risks, the short term risks, and turning the vaccinated into petri dishes for COVID mutations.

* When I was infected with some radically strange thing in April 2020, I was in a remote area and never got a PCR test. Instead I was laid-low for 2.5 weeks in the middle of nowhere in my Sprinter van. While weakened by the experience and still having gastrointenstinal issues, I resumed hard training a few weeks later, followed by being whacked overnight in mid-June, presumably from EBV running wild, precipitated by the COVID infection. In August (4.5 months later) my antibody test was negative. But hard training and 4.5 months and severe EBV infection are not exactly compatible with the body maintaining COVID antibodies.

** Or are some or one of the newly variants actually variants engineered and released by the Chinese Communist Party, perhaps? Can’t rule it out.

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).


Covid, Ivermectin and the Crime of the Century

re: Ivermectin @AMAZON

Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.

The current value of Ivermectin as an anti-COVID treatment is in dispute. But is it a dispute, or a conspiracy to suppress the truth?

Kicking us in the shins while we die from COVID is the intellectual authoritarianism of social media and offiicial narratives, the polar opposite of scientifc inquiry.

No progress in human history has ever come from intellectual authoritarianism.

We have geriatric parasitical desk-jockey “experts” and “doctors” with zero clinical experience with COVID dictacting treatment protocols to doctors actually working with patients, forbidding them to try what works.

So we let patients continue to die with ineffective and hyper-expensive treatments. Entering the hospital with COVID today is a sentence of sufering and a good chance of death—18 months after this all started. Isn’t it about time to use evidence-based medicine based on evidence?

Covid, Ivermectin and the Crime of the Century

Dr. Pierre Kory, Chief Medical Officer of the FLCCC Alliance, joins Bret Weinstein, host of The DarkHorse Podcast to discuss “Covid, Ivermectin and the Crime of the Century.”  This program, which many quickly called “the best podcast I have ever listened to” lays out the truth about Ivermectin and how the suppression of its efficacy against COVID-19 has cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives.

Starts at about the 5-minute mark (skip first ~5 minutes):

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/COVID19-Ivermectin-and-the-Crime-of-the-Century-Podcast-with-Pierre-Kory-Bret-Weinstein.mp4

See also the Nov 19, 2020 Senate Hearing on COVID-19 Outpatient Treatment

TIP: I extracted the audio track so I could listen to it as a podcast without having to sit at my computer, as there is nothing of value in the video portion. Download the video, open with Quicktime Player, Edit => Remove Video, save).

The core claims of Dr Pierre Kory is that (1) Ivermectin works as a prophylactic against COVID and (2) Ivermectin quickly eliminates COVID issues, preventing hospitalizations, (3) may well be preferred to vaccination as a public health solution (the video is NOT anti-vax) (4) can be effective in curing Long-Haul COVID for those suffering brain fog, extreme fatigue, etc because it can kill off lingering viral issues.

Also covered is that some large “gravitational force” is exerting immense force to suppress any and all discussion and use of Ivermectin as a treatment, in spite of numerous groups of highly-respected physicians in many countries arguing for its use. Cited are the various countries that are using Ivermectin and their massive reduction in COVID hospitalizations, e.g. Mexico.

The video is highly persuasive, and raises issues that you cannot hear on social media or the news, because of the intellectual authoritarianism we see today, which of course is the polar opposite of scientifc inquiry. Thus we have the the Gods That Decide What Science Is telling us to shut up, ignore evidence, get vaxxed, and be treated ineffectively and die. Which is what we have been doing since COVID debuted.

Studies on Ivermection

A new meta analysis on Ivermectin has popped up in late June, below. When people are dying and numerous studies show benefits and there are no other good therapies, resistance to using a well-known and widely available drug means only one thing: follow the money, because Big Pharma can’t make money on this one.

Does that prove-out the efficacy and safety profile of Ivermectin to full satisfaction? Of course not. But stiff resistance to inquiry and science from our medical overlords along with rampant censoring of dissenting viewpoints can lead a rational person only to one conclusion: it probably works and there are powerful interests keen on suppressing it.

Every time I go to my internest, he is f*cking guessing at what to do. Why is it so different with COVID and Ivermectin? Politics and censorship pressuring doctors to not step out of line with guidelines—or get fired or harrassed.

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines

June 21, 2021

...Given the evidence of efficacy, safety, low cost, and current death rates, ivermectin is likely to have an impact on health and economic outcomes of the pandemic across many countries. Ivermectin is not a new and experimental drug with an unknown safety profile. It is a WHO “Essential Medicine” already used in several different indications, in colossal cumulative volumes. Corticosteroids have become an accepted standard of care in COVID-19, based on a single RCT of dexamethasone.1 If a single RCT is sufficient for the adoption of dexamethasone, then a fortiori the evidence of 2 dozen RCTs supports the adoption of ivermectin.

Ivermectin is likely to be an equitable, acceptable, and feasible global intervention against COVID-19. Health professionals should strongly consider its use, in both treatment and prophylaxis.

...

WIND: it’s clear that resistance to Ivermectin has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics—follow the money to Big Pharma and their FDA/CDC lackees.

If it had to do with science, then we would see scientific rebuttals, but instead we get boilerplate platitudes.

The Do-Nothing Parasites at the FDA and CDC

Where do the FDA and CDC stand on Ivermectin? Let’s see if they are at least credible, which is not the same as being right or wrong.

FDA: Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19 Subscribe to Email Updates

As of July 26, 2021

...There seems to be a growing interest in a drug called ivermectin to treat humans with COVID-19. Ivermectin is often used in the U.S. to treat or prevent parasites in animals.
[WIND: incredibly misleading—also used on humans worldwide for a long time now!!!]

...

FDA has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans. Ivermectin tablets are approved at very specific doses for some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. Ivermectin is not an anti-viral (a drug for treating viruses)....

...

The FDA has not reviewed data to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or to prevent COVID-19; however, some initial research is underway. Taking a drug for an unapproved use can be very dangerous. This is true of ivermectin, too.

...
WIND: a year later, the FDA has “not reviewed data”? “Growing interest...” but not interest by the FDA. “Taking a drug for an unapproved...”. People dying, and this is all the FDA can come up with? Ivermectin is recognized as safe, having been use worldwide extensively and it is a critical drug to worldwide health. There is no science in their official position—transparent propaganda. The FDA is not a credible source.

CDC: Ivermectin

As of July 26, 2021, last updated Feb 11, 2021 (!!!!!!)

Ivermectin is a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved antiparasitic drug that is used to treat several neglected tropical diseases, including onchocerciasis, helminthiases, and scabies.1 It is also being evaluated for its potential to reduce the rate of malaria transmission by killing mosquitoes that feed on treated humans and livestock.2 For these indications, ivermectin has been widely used and is generally well tolerated.1,3 Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of any viral infection.

...

There are insufficient data for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.

...This work was inspired by the prior literature review of Dr Pierre Kory...

WIND:seriously—people dying in droves, but not updated for 5+ months in spite of numerous studies? What exactly will be “sufficient data” to get the parasites at the CDC to study it? Who the f*ck cares if the FDA has “approved” it when it seems to work better than anything else? The CDC is not a credible source.


Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance

Sebastian Rushworth MD: Does COVID Cause Brain Damage?

re: Long Haul COVID
re: Sebastian Rushworth MD

Solid reasoning on another bullshit claim about COVID studies.

Does covid cause brain damage?

by Sebastian Rushworth M.D., 26 July 2021. Emphasis added.

The latest in the long succession of attempts at maximizing people’s fear of covid is the claim that it causes brain damage. And not just in those who have spent time in the ICU, in everyone, even if all they had was a mild cold. The claim is currently doing the rounds on social media (apparently alarmist propaganda only counts as misinformation if it’s going against the dominant narrative). The assertion comes from a paper that’s recently been published in EClinicalMedicine (a daughter journal of The Lancet). The paper is actually quite illuminating about the current state of medical research, so I thought it would be interesting to go through it in some detail.

...The reason the study is causing such a stir is because of the results. All five of the “I think I’ve had covid” categories performed worse on the cognitive function test than the “I don’t think I’ve had covid” category did. The reduction in performance was correlated with the severity of disease, with the people who had been on a ventilator performing worst – according to the researchers their results were equivalent to a seven point reduction on an IQ test. If we assume that the non-covid group have an IQ of 100, this would mean that the group that had been on a ventilator have an IQ of 93.

Ok, open and shut, right? Having covid makes you more stupid, and the more severe disease you have, the more stupid you become. Well, not quite.

...The fact that the study was observational and cross-sectional, and that there were big underlying differences between the groups, is on its own enough to disqualify any claims about this study being able to show that covid causes brain damage. But it gets worse. A lot worse.

A major problem with the study is that 97%(!) of the people who thought they’d had covid lacked testing to confirm the diagnosis... If you can’t even be sure that 97% of participants actually had the disease you’re trying to draw conclusions about, then you really don’t have a leg to stand on.

...To me, the main lesson here is that we currently live in a world where junk science goes unquestioned and gets published in peer-reviewed journals as long as it feeds in to the dominant narrative. If this study had been claiming, say, that face masks didn’t work, then it would remain stuck at the pre-print stage forever, or, if it ever did get published, it would immediately have been retracted. It has become blatantly obvious over the past year and a half that it is not primarily the quality of studies that determines where and whether they get published, but rather their acceptability to the powers that be.

WIND: all that said, I cannot prove that I had COVID back in April 2020, but nothing I’ve ever had was like it, and the onset, duration, symptoms were unlike anything else I’ve ever had and matche COVID symptoms. And the ensuing effects definitely caused cognitive impairment for 6 months, and I still am weak 13 months later.

So... it might be a bullshit study, but in my view the risks are very real for Long Haul COVID.

How Many People Really Had COVID? How Many Vaccinated People are Getting COVID and Spreading it?

re: Extraordinarily Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds @AMAZON

Having had COVID is surely as good as the best vaccination*, and my bet is that past infection will be shown to be superior to vaccination*. Time will prove that out.

With hysterical thugs screaming for punishments for those who do not wish to be vaccinated, one has to ask: how many Americans have already had COVID? And why would anyone who already had COVID take the risk of vaccination, lacking forceful scientific evidence of benefits vs risks?

If you had COVID, are you happy that the mob wants to punish you for not getting vaccinated?

Since estimates are as high as 150 million Americans already having had COVID, plus some degree of natural immunity even prior to COVID, why the hysteria about those who go unvaccinated?

We were told that herd immunity was at around 2/3 of the population. If half the population has been vaccinated (161 million so far as this was written as per the CDC), and half have been infected already (the two cohorts can overlap), we should have long since reached herd immunity or be pretty darn close. But we apparently have not. Notice that the experts (aka liars and political hacks) have gone curiously silent on the herd immunity thing.

Something doesn’t add up. I smell a rat.

The CDC claims that vaccines are highly effective. A claim made some time ago. Could that now be bullshit, what with the Delta (Indian subcontinent) variant infecting people who can also infect others? That could hold true, even if the vaccine blunts the infection (which I do not dispute).

Could it be that the definition of “breakthrough cases” is so poorly tracked as to mislead (perhaps intentionally as it would undermine the case for vaccination to some degree)? Where is it proven that vaccinated persons do not get asymptotic COVID (such as 'Delta' variant) that they can also pass along to others? Say with randomized testing of 100K people.

When you see that feckless Dr Fauci is discussing bringing back mask mandates for vaccinated people, it’s just not credible that the vaccine is anywhere near as effective as claimed.

No one at the CDC or FDA or White House would like to talk about any of these questions because it would throw a monkey wrench into the official narrative.

What are the statistics? Do we have any credible data and if not, why not?

  • Were the PCR tests just one huge medical fraud, misleading us about the true rate of COVID infections?
  • Among those that definitively had COVID before, how many get infected again (including variants)? Or maybe they never had it, and the PCR test was a fraud? Where is the randomized sampling/tracking each week of vaccinated people for recurrent infection?
  • Among those vaccinated, how many are getting infected again? Are they infecting others?
  • What is the breakdown of those newly infected? Broken out by various factors (age, morbidities, etc), and by vaccine brand? If nothing else, we had damn well better know which of the vaccines is most effective!

Lacking credible data on any of these questions, the current situation looks more like fearmongering and politics than science.

* Someone please point me to multiple high quality large studies that support or refute that claim.

Did we Really Have the Pandemic it was claimed to be? Are we really seeing cases spike? CDC Now Disavows PCR tests so long used to diagnose infections

re: COVID-19: Is the PCR test used by Germany and the USA a Medical Fraud?
re: COVID-19: WHO Changes Guidance to Address False Positives PCR Tests with Absurdly High Ct Cutoff Value, and no Baseline Rate Metric
re: COVID-19: is the Cycle Cutoff Value (Ct value) for PCR Tests Way Too High? Thus False Positives Used to Justify Tyranny and Destroy Lives

Last year, I wrote about the absurdly inaccurate PCR test used to call something a “case”. Now the CDC belatedly admits that it was de facto of dubious validity.

Maybe it was a medical fraud all along?

If the PCR tests were/are scientifically valid, why now abandon them? And with an alert no less, abruptly terminating PCR tests. Doctors out there, am I missing something here?

CDC 07/21/2021: Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing

Audience: Individuals Performing COVID-19 Testing
Level: Laboratory Alert

After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.

Visit the FDA website for a list of authorized COVID-19 diagnostic methods. For a summary of the performance of FDA-authorized molecular methods with an FDA reference panel, visit this page.

In preparation for this change, CDC recommends clinical laboratories and testing sites that have been using the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR assay select and begin their transition to another FDA-authorized COVID-19 test. CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses. Such assays can facilitate continued testing for both influenza and SARS-CoV-2 and can save both time and resources as we head into influenza season. Laboratories and testing sites should validate and verify their selected assay within their facility before beginning clinical testing.

...

WIND: translation: the PCR tests were probably bullshit. The statement also suggests that it distinguishing influenza from COVID was never viable, but we should not try to get it right for a change.

Did we have a pandemic or not? Maybe, but we’ll never know what really happened in terms of COVID infections.


Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance

The Flimsy Evidence Behind the CDC’s Push to Vaccinate Children

The rush to vaccinate children is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of increasing ethical lapses in medicine.

Over in England, 5 times as many children committed suicided (probably from lockdowns!) as died (allegedly) from COVID.

Vaccinating a million children leading to unknown side effects on the developing bodies of young children to save one (1) life is absurd beyond any semblance of decency. Only a idiot or a medical expert) could think such violence is warranted. And it requires gross incompetence at basic math to argue for such a Orwellian regiment.

The Flimsy Evidence Behind the CDC’s Push to Vaccinate Children

by Marty Makary, July 19 2021. Emphasis added.

The agency overcounts Covid hospitalizations and deaths and won’t consider if one shot is sufficient.

 A tremendous number of government and private policies affecting kids are based on one number: 335. That is how many children under 18 have died with a Covid diagnosis code in their record, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet the CDC, which has 21,000 employees, hasn’t researched each death to find out whether Covid caused it or if it involved a pre-existing medical condition.

Without these data, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices decided in May that the benefits of two-dose vaccination outweigh the risks for all kids 12 to 15. I’ve written hundreds of peer-reviewed medical studies, and I can think of no journal editor who would accept the claim that 335 deaths resulted from a virus without data to indicate if the virus was incidental or causal, and without an analysis of relevant risk factors such as obesity.

...Meanwhile, we’ve already seen inflated Covid death numbers in the U.S. revised downward. Last month Alameda County, Calif., reduced its Covid death toll by 25% after state public-health officials insisted that deaths be attributed to Covid only if the virus was a direct or contributing factor.

...CDC Director Rochelle Walensky claimed that vaccinating a million adolescent kids would prevent 200 hospitalizations and one death over four months. But the agency’s Covid adolescent hospitalization report, like its death count, doesn’t distinguish on the website whether a child is hospitalized for Covid or with Covid. The subsequent Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of that analysis revealed that 45.7% “were hospitalized for reasons that might not have been primarily related” to Covid-19.

An asymptomatic child who tests positive after being injured in a bicycle accident would be counted as a “Covid hospitalization.”

The CDC may also be undercapturing data on vaccine complications. The CDC’s risk-benefit analysis for vaccinating all children used rates of complications extrapolated from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database, known as Vaers, which contains raw, self-reported data that is unverified and likely underreports adverse events.

Not only has the CDC refused to examine the possibility of a one-dose regimen for minors; Harvard epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff told me he was kicked off the advisory committee working group on Covid-vaccine safety after he expressed a dissenting opinion

...Most striking, the CDC has never systematically collected and reported the No. 1 leading indicator of the pandemic—daily new hospitalizations for Covid sickness. Instead, the CDC offers the lagging indicator of hospitalization for anyone who tests positive for Covid.

...

WIND: sad of course, but a tiny number of deaths of children from COVID! Many of which probably were not from COVID. Smells fishy in terms of deciding public policy.

So we see a tremendous amount of bad science (anti-science) is being used around COVID, with dissenting views suppressed. Propaganda and opinions form the mainstay of public policy (masks, lockdowns, jab 'em all). It is grotesque from any moral or intellectual point of view. What a clusterf*ck.

And I’d like to know how many children get Long Haul COVID.

We deserve real data, and then adult judgment as in the best traditions of medicine (rare these days!), not the hysterical fearmongering we see with the leader of the CDC and similar government figures.


Get your Travel Van While You Still Can? Mercedes Plans to Go All-Electric Soon

I rely heavily on my Mercedes Sprinter—best vehicle I have ever owned in terms of sheer value and utility and enjoyment for the outdoors.

Mercedes sketches out all-electric scenario by decade’s end

by AP, 23 July 2021

FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — Daimler AG’s luxury car brand Mercedes-Benz says it is stepping up its transition to electric cars, doubling the share of sales planned by 2025 and sketching out a market scenario in which new car sales would “in essence” be fully electric by the end of the decade.

...The company’s statement updating its electric-vehicle strategy portrayed going all-electric as a “market scenario” the company intended to be ready for, rather than as a fixed deadline for abandoning sales of diesel or gasoline cars. The company said it was “getting ready to go electric by the end of the decade, where market conditions allow.”

...

WIND: get your Sprinter while you still can? Maybe fueled vehicles like Sprinters will be available longer, and maybe not—most are sold to fleets for companies like Amazon now, where electric could make a lot of sense.

An electric version would be a worthless toy for the travel I do to remote areas, even if I didn’t use the batteries for any computing or heating purposes. There aren’t going to be any electric recharge stations anywhere interesting to me (meaning few or no people), such as at Eureka Dunes or Patriarch Grove.

What a sad turn of events that “saving” the environment might mean no longer being able to enjoy wild places because it’s not feasible to drive there anymore.

Maybe I can be pleasantly surprised, like an all-solar roof that can deliver a limp-home charge after a few days in the sun. Good luck with that in November in a canyon though.

Mercedes has a far superior V-6 Sprinter diesel engine over in Europe. The refocusing on electric makes it a near-certainty that the new engine will not make it into the USA because no company in their right mind would invest in new diesel engine production facilities at this point.


Upgrade the memory of your 2020 iMac up to 128GB

Long Haul COVID Should Raise Alarm Bells for the Unvaccinated —  Major Risk of Enduring Health Problems

Prelude — personal experience

Reader know that I am no fan of the COVID vaccines for myself, already having auto-immune and other Long-Haul COVID symptoms from my April 2020 infection, many of which have improved, but I remain at about 10% physically. And I should have immunity as good or better than the vaccine, but no one can prove or disprove that without a double-blind study which involves deliberate exposure to COVID, which will never be done.

My wife and one of my daughters have been vaccinated (Pfizer)—no issues either of the two injections, and no side effects so far. Two of my daughters have not been vaccinated, one for specific medical reasons (we deem it unwise as no data is available), and the other is young and very fit and healthy (seemingly at nil risk,we await better data, but maybe emerging data on LHC will change that reasoning).

As for myself with Long-Haul COVID—I’ve lost my life as I knew it for 13 months now, and I do not know if I will ever get my superpowers back. So yeah, I’d consider the vaccine were I my normal self, riding my double centuries and ascending peaks as usual. But these days, 3 or 4 days of the week, I am too weak for even a 1/3-of-baseline bike ride. Fortunately, the brain fog and related problems are largely gone—last year was terrible. I am losing a lot with no sign of ever getting it back. That is the context I wish to share for those considering vaccination.

I not going to engage in false-hopes about a COVID vaccine magically undoing physical damage, or reversing auto-immune symptoms, etc. I admit that it’s possible a vaccine could help if there were a hidden reservoir of COVID still in my body—but I await double-blind studies on the matter. It is also possible that the vaccine could “reset” the immune system and therefore have benefits for LHC patients. But I have been damaged badly by allopathic medicine twice in my life (incompetence, both times), and I will not risk being damaged again by generic feckless medical advice based on averages (no person is an average). My own internist confirms the risks of vaccination are real with auto-immune patients. So my decision stands at “not getting vaccinated until data exists”.

My take on COVID vaccines

This is not offered as yeah/nay advice, but rather how to rationally approach things. I have no opinion whatsoever to offer readers on their personal situations or choices in this matter. Vaccinate or not, both are valid choices.

Whether to get the COVID vaccine should come down to risk assessment for your own personal situation. That might be impossible for some, requiring a lot of knowledge and critical thinking skills, and with no access to honest doctors* and/or those who fear retribution from their peers.

COVID risks are for (most) people NOT about the risk of death, but about semi-permanent and perhaps lifelong damage following infection, even asymptotic infection. That is, Long-Haul COVID is the key thing to consider, not the risk of death.

On that basis, barring personal medical considerations, getting vacinnated (probably Pfizer) for those 25 and older seems to be the smart move.

For healthy young people under 25, the risk/reward was dubious until now, but *if* the Long-Haul COVID claims below ("25%") are even partly true**, then even young people 18-25 should probably get the vaccine (children remain a big red flag however, as their systems are not mature).

The Flimsy Evidence Behind the CDC’s Push to Vaccinate Children

* most doctors will go with the official recommendation without any consideration. “Get the vacinnation — full stop” ==> a mindless idiot lacking any credible argument.

** By “partly true”, the 25% figure sounds like a bullshit number (by happenstance, lots of people get sick randomly, too), but it might be 5-10%, perhaps even 15%. We’ll never know.

WSJ: As Vaccines Do Their Work, Focus Moves to Long Covid

by Denise Roland, July 23 2021. Emphasis added.

As vaccines blunt the threat of severe illness and death from Covid-19, millions of people remain at risk of developing an array of less serious but potentially debilitating long-term symptoms of the disease that scientists call long Covid.

Many of the most vulnerable are among younger unvaccinated people who are unprotected against the rapidly spreading Delta variant of the coronavirus, now responsible for more than 80% of America’s growing caseload.

Long Covid—a term referring to symptoms that linger for weeks or months beyond infection—affects between 10% and 30% of people who catch the virus, including those with mild or asymptomatic infections, according to experts. In some cases, symptoms persist for more than a year.

“Even if it’s not as striking as people dying, you ignore it at your peril,” said Danny Altmann, professor of immunology at Imperial College London. “In terms of healthcare burden or healthcare cost, we’re on track for this being as big a problem to us as rheumatoid arthritis, the biggest autoimmune disease in the world.”
...

Long Covid has raised alarm bells for its tendency to strike the young in a way that severe illness and death haven’t. The Imperial study found that among those aged 18 to 24, about 30% of those who had knowingly caught Covid-19 reported at least one symptom lasting 12 weeks or longer.

...Researchers suspect that long Covid likely comprises several overlapping conditions, with different causes, and several large studies are under way to try to pin some of those down. Among the leading theories are that the virus triggers some kind of autoimmune condition, that it causes lasting physical damage to various organs, and that the virus lingers in the body long after infection.

...

WIND: sorely lacking are multiple (or at least one) double-blind study on what happens to LHC patients who get the vaccination—does it help, and what issues arise? Lacking that, I won’t be getting vaccinated.

Good luck seeing the allopathic medicine establishment solve this one—it will quickly become about expensive patentable bandaid drugs that don’t cure anything. When it’s going to have to involve nutrition, in which most MDs have nil training.

See also: The Flimsy Evidence Behind the CDC’s Push to Vaccinate Children

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

COVID Misinformation, Context-Dropping and Bad Persuasion from Public Health Authorities

re: How Well do Doctors Understand Probability?

I don’t expect the average person to notice what’s wrong here, but a medical director?

Sure, why not, since most doctors are incompetent at probability. Never trust your doctor to give you the odds, at peril of your life!

49 Fully Vaccinated New Jersey Residents Have Died From COVID-19

by Zachary Stieber, July 22 2021. Emphasis added.

Forty-nine deaths among the population have been recorded since December 2020, the New Jersey Department of Health confirmed to The Epoch Times.

Some 5,300 people who had not gotten a vaccine also died with COVID-19.

The 49 deaths come from the pool of 4.8 million residents who have gotten a vaccine, making the death rate slightly greater than one in 100,000 fully vaccinated people.

“That means vaccines are about 99.999 percent effective in preventing deaths due to COVID-19,” Dr. Ed Lifshitz, medical director of the department’s Communicable Disease Service, said in an emailed statement. [WIND: FALSE claim based on invalid statistic]

...

WIND: there are multiple problems with the above as stated.

First, you cannot calculate a “death rate” versus a cohort of 4.8 million most of whom had no exposure to COVID after vaccination. It’s like saying 4.8 million people wore parachutes around all day, some unspecified number jumped off an airplane of which 49 died. The vast majority never jumped off an airplane. Did the parachutes save them too?

Second, the timeline is wrong: you cannot compare “since December”, when the vaccine only came online in significant numbers around April or so. Compare vaccinated vs unvaccinated during a relevant timeline! That would argue strongly in favor of getting vaccinated.

Third, it ignores age and risk factors. It would be a lot more meaningful to know the type of people who died (age, morbidities, etc). Again, this almost certainly argues in favor of vaccination for high-risk people. But it might argue against vaccination of young healthy people. But lumped-together statistics don’t tell us.

Fourth, the risk of Long-Haul COVID is very real (estimates are up to 25%). This argues strongly in favor of vaccination for anyone likely to get LHC. But who is likely to get LHC? That’s a risk factor conveniently ignored when hysterically demanding vaccination of children and young healthy adults, who might have very low risk of LHC (I am not aware of any solid data on this question).

Fifth, risks of vaccination (death and permanent injuries) versus going unvaccinated are not at all clear for children and young truly healthy adults. It is possible that risk of vaccination is higher in children’s very different and rapidly growing bodies.

Finally, the persuasion is awful: the 5300 dead unvaccinated vs 49 dead vaccinated is far more persuasive (but also invalid as it needs to be a rate for those actually exposed), but the “vaccination all but eliminates the risk of long-haul COVID” would be far more persuasive.

And of course the Big Life of “death with COVID” = “death from COVID” still applies—no one knows what the true COVID death rate is. Nor does anyone know whether the vaccines will case medium/long term health problems; it is a massive experiment on an unprecedented scale.

In life you often have to make a call based on incomplete information. On that basis most people 30 years old on up should probably get vaccinated barring personal factors—and that can be a serious consideration—it certainly is for me in my weakened condition and with auto-immune issues. Every doctor I’ve asked (4 or 5 now) concurs.


Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance

COVID — The Panic Pandemic: Fearmongering from journalists, scientists, and politicians did more harm than the virus

Outstanding article, covering the timeline of COVID and the death of scientific inquiry in favor of Rightthink.

The Panic Pandemic: Fearmongering from journalists, scientists, and politicians did more harm than the virus

by John Tierny, Summer 2021. Emphasis added.

The United States suffered through two lethal waves of contagion in the past year and a half. The first was a viral pandemic that killed about one in 500 Americans—typically, a person over 75 suffering from other serious conditions. The second, and far more catastrophic, was a moral panic that swept the nation’s guiding institutions.

Instead of keeping calm and carrying on, the American elite flouted the norms of governance, journalism, academic freedom—and, worst of all, science. They misled the public about the origins of the virus and the true risk that it posed. Ignoring their own carefully prepared plans for a pandemic, they claimed unprecedented powers to impose untested strategies, with terrible collateral damage. As evidence of their mistakes mounted, they stifled debate by vilifying dissenters, censoring criticism, and suppressing scientific research.

If, as seems increasingly plausible, the coronavirus that causes Covid-19 leaked out of a laboratory in Wuhan, it is the costliest blunder ever committed by scientists. Whatever the pandemic’s origin, the response to it is the worst mistake in the history of the public-health profession. We still have no convincing evidence that the lockdowns saved lives, but lots of evidence that they have already cost lives and will prove deadlier in the long run than the virus itself.

One in three people worldwide lost a job or a business during the lockdowns, and half saw their earnings drop, according to a Gallup poll. Children, never at risk from the virus, in many places essentially lost a year of school. The economic and health consequences were felt most acutely among the less affluent in America and in the rest of the world, where the World Bank estimatesthat more than 100 million have been pushed into extreme poverty.

The leaders responsible for these disasters continue to pretend that their policies worked and assume that they can keep fooling the public. They’ve promised to deploy these strategies again in the future, and they might even succeed in doing so—unless we begin to understand what went wrong.

...

WIND: a few paragraphs into the article, the majority of people in this country will have their heads explode from cognitive dissonance.

We were never “in this together”. Well-paid public employees were parasitically kept on, professionals and high-tech workers got the bonus of work from home at full pay, and my wealthy neighbors were delighted to put up “we are all in this together posters” as virtue signalling proof of their own moral degeneracy. Everyone else suffered.


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

How many people are aware of the risks?

Our prescription drugs kill us in large numbers

by Peter C. Gøtzsche, 30 October 2014. Emphasis added. See the PDF.

Our prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer in the United States and Europe. Around half of those who die have taken their drugs correctly; the other half die because of errors, such as too high a dose or use of a drug despite contraindications.

Our drug agencies are not particularly helpful, as they rely on fake fixes, which are a long list of warnings, precautions, and contraindications for each drug, although they know that no doctor can possibly master all of these.

Major reasons for the many drug deaths are impotent drug regulation, widespread crime that includes corruption of the scientific evidence about drugs and bribery of doctors, and lies in drug marketing, which is as harmful as tobacco marketing and, therefore, should be banned.

We should take far fewer drugs, and patients should carefully study the package inserts of the drugs their doctors prescribe for them and independent information sources about drugs such as Cochrane reviews, which will make it easier for them to say “no thanks”.

WIND: your doctor is part of a system that tries to fool him/her. Therefore, you cannot trust your doctor to have the right answers. Indeed, many doctors are tightly bound to follow only standard protocols, or be fired.

You have to look out for yourself, be your own advocate.

The smart move is to avoid prescription drugs unless there is an overwhelmingly evidence of safety and efficacy for people like you (e.g., the elderly if you are so).

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

Sebastian Rushworth MD: Do drug trials underestimate side effects?

re: Vaccine Safety: “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported”
re: The Dismal Anti-Science of Modern Medicine: “less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration”
re: No Plans to Develop Database for Post-COVID-19 Experimental Vaccination Deaths: FDA
re: Sebastian Rushworth MD

Should not be a surprise to anyone who understands how the world works.

Do drug trials underestimate side effects?

by Sebastian Rushworth M.D., 19 July 2021. Emphasis added.

One commonly used trick in drug trials is to exclude any group that might make the drug look worse, such as those that are more likely to experience side effects. A good recent example of this is the COVID vaccine trials, which largely excluded people with auto-immune diseases (more likely to develop an auto-immune disease after vaccination), people with allergies (more likely to have an allergic reaction to the vaccine), and, of course, the elderly (less likely to develop immunity after getting the vaccine, and more likely to become seriously sick from it).

These three groups are all frequently excluded from trials, and the exclusion is particularly galling when it comes to the elderly, because they are a big segment of the population, and they are also usually the most likely to end up actually using the drugs being tested.

When drug companies have gotten a drug approved, and move on to market the drug, they will studiously avoid mentioning the fact that large segments of the population were excluded from the trials. When drug reps show their flashy powerpoints to gatherings of doctors, say for a new drug to lower blood pressure, they will always present impressive looking graphs of benefit, and they will of course point out how safe their drug was shown to be in the trials. Not once will they mention that the groups of patients the doctors will primarily be prescribing the drug to weren’t even included in the trials

The doctors will then happily go off and prescribe the drug to multi-morbid 90 year olds, which might explain why prescription drugs are now the third leading cause of death in the western world.

The manipulation of who is included in trials is probably one of the main reasons why findings of side effects always end up being much higher in reality than in clinical trials. It might explain, for example, why muscle pain is a massively common side effect of statins in the real world, while being vanishingly rare in the statin trials (as Dr. Malcolm Kendrick has written about in detail).

...

Drug trials do not accurately represent rates of adverse events. It is likely that the true rate of side effects is often many times higher than that seen in drug trials.

WIND: better health comes from two things: first, practices like nutrition and excercise that are the ONLY approach that can ever bring health—no drug can. Second, that most prescription drugs are fraudulent in terms of the claimed risks and benefits. Think statins and anti-depressants, just for starters.

The FDA, whose purpose is purportedly to protect the public, is in fact complicit in drug trial scams in myriad ways. It’s professional incompetence to not require testing of a new drug on its target population, and yet that is exactly what is done. Let alone drug interactions. Let alone the failure to track side effects.

Vaccine Safety: “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported”

The Dismal Anti-Science of Modern Medicine: “less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration”

No Plans to Develop Database for Post-COVID-19 Experimental Vaccination Deaths: FDA

Follow the money: Big Pharma, the FDA and doctors with financial interestes in drug trials all collude to persuade rank-and-file doctors to prescribe risky and ineffective “treatments”. Once a drug is approved, a massive full court press is put in motion to foist the new poison on millions. Which is why we have massively expensive public health disaster on our hands for decades now, for no demonstrable benefit. Along with overdiagnosis, it’s a massive problem.

As I have auto-immune issues, I am extremely reluctant to get the COVID vaccine. Just as stated, those with such issues were excluded from the trials, and the CDC has explicitly stated “no data”. Somewhere around 10 million Americans have auto-immune issues!

The smart move with ALL drugs is to use them only when absolutely necessary as a last resort when the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor in risk/reward terms, which is absolutely not the case the vast majority of drugs consumed today.

* The efforts involved recommended treatment protocols (mandatory for many doctors), insurance companies, seminars, financial incentives, character assasination of doctors who disagree, etc.

Ioannidis: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

re: Sebastian Rushworth MD: How to understand scientific studies (in health and medicine)
re: Sebastian Rushworth MD: How Well do Doctors Understand Probability?

Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.

Today in 2021, this 2005 paper seems more relevant than ever.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

John P. A. Ioannidis, August 30 2005.

...Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias...

It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.

...

Corollaries

Corollary 1: The smaller the studies conducted in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true...

Corollary 2: The smaller the effect sizes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true...

Corollary 3: The greater the number and the lesser the selection of tested relationships in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true...

Corollary 4: The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true...

Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true..

Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true...

...

Most Research Findings Are False for Most Research Designs and for Most Fields

Claimed Research Findings May Often Be Simply Accurate Measures of the Prevailing Bias

...

WIND: real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.

Whether it is COVID or climate science or medicine, the only rational viewpoint is one of skepticism.

Today, the news popularizes scientific studies that support a political perspective while ignore all evidence to the contrary. And once established, scientifically fraudulent ideas like the cholesterol hypothesis become embedded and take on a life of their own even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.

OWC Envoy Pro EX SSD
Blazingly fast Thunderbolt 3 SSD!

Up to 4TB capacity, USB-C compatible.

USB-C model also available


Great for travel or for desktop!

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__