Coronavirus epidemic news

Sirotkin had already posted an excellent review of the case for lab origins as of Jan. 31, 2020. As I remember, that blog post was widely referenced in the alt media at that time, including at Zero Hedge. So it may well have been the actual cause of the hubub in the emails.

This isn't what happened. The Sirotkin post wasn't quoted at Zero Hedge until this article "Sudden Militarization of Wuhan's P4 Lab Raises New Questions About The Origin Of The Deadly Covid-19 Virus" appeared on Feb. 13, 2020. (This article establishes that if the Wuhan lab wasn't a military lab before the outbreak, it certainly became such a lab afterwards.) Earlier articles appeared on Zero Hedge on Jan. 24th, Jan. 26th, and Jan. 29th.

The email discussion between Fauci and Anderson explicitly mentioned only an article in Science Magazine, "Mining coronavirus genomes for clues to the outbreak's origins", dated Jan. 31, 2020. The article discusses zoonotic theories, but the narrative demonstrates that the zoonotic source, if any, was elusive. The author goes on to mention that "conspiracy theories also abound", and says that Richard Ebright of Rutgers generally supports the possibility that lab-leak theories could be correct, but that Peter Daszak disagrees. The question is not decisively settled, at least not in this article.

...[Sky News video] ...more fascinating revelations about Fauci...

The 2012 paper seems to be in the "everybody knew but me" category.

I can't find where the featured interview with Fauci came from, though. Of course Sky News is a Murdoch outlet, like Fox in the USA. And they don't say where the interview came from, though I doubt they would stoop to creating or endorsing a deep fake.

I suspect the original source might be One America News Network? They seem to have taken down the vast majority of their videos from YouTube, presumably in hopes of avoiding censorship. And I can't find the videos on Bitchute or Odysee,
For some reason, comments on Carrier's website seem to be closed for this particular essay of his.

Well, that was my error. There's a tiny little comment box that appeared as if disabled (at least when viewed in my browser.) But it grows when you click on it, and it does allow "Patrons & Select Persons" to comment. And so I've done that.

[Those who have read Carrier's entire post, and my reply, might enjoy this interlude....]

Carrier's article makes the point that peoples' views on topics like vegetarianism, or Fauci, can be heavily influenced by their cognitive biases and preconceptions. This is certainly true about the lab-leak hypothesis! Nicholas Wade posted an article strongly arguing that the virus was a result of GOF research, which is widely credited as the cause of the renewed level of interest and credibility for the topic. That is, along with US intelligence claims that three researchers at the Wuhan lab sought hospital care for respiratory symptoms in November 2019.

Rather than reply to any of Wade's substantial arguments, the WSWS chose to attack him because of his 2014 book "A Troublesome Inheritance", which they denounce as "racist pseudo-science". I'm not going to defend Wade's 2014 book; I haven't read it and I don't agree with the reported conclusions. But I feel it's safe to say that the WSWS has not evaluated Wade's arguments scientifically, any more than they've seriously looked into the science behind the lab-leak theory. In both cases, they are reacting purely on the basis of their evaluation of the political consequences of the theories.
I've been letting my Facebook friends know about this amazing, excellent scientific journal article: Kostoff et al., "Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?" In reply, a friend-of-a-friend posted a link to this rebuttal written by Samuel Klein of Harvard's Berkman Klein Center, where Klein is "currently developing the Underlay Project for federating global public knowledge".

If I told you that Harvard has a plan for "federating global public knowledge", you'd say I'm some sort of conspiracy theorist. But there it is. And, Klein's reply to Kostoff et al. is rather alarmingly revealing about what "Federated Global Public Knowledge" is going to look like. Klein's post is so egregious, that I've decided to offer a line-by-line breakdown.

The title is a pun on a website entitled "The Cost of Knowledge", which protests Elsevier's business practices. The complaint is that Elsevier publishes a lot of journals, and offers them for sale as a "package deal" to libraries which might not subscribe to all of them otherwise. Thus, the accusation seems to be that Elsevier is making too much money. And furthermore, Elsevier supported SOPA and PIPA, which seems to be a rather out-of-date complaint since those bills failed in ~2012.

Academic publishing does seem to be something of a racket, as explained by Martin Hagve in this article: "The money behind academic publishing." The costs of research and writing are paid by research funds (public and corporate sources, or occasionally student tuition); editors and peer reviewers receive symbolic pay at best; and access is now mostly digital, so even printing costs are disappearing. As a result, traditional academic publishing is enormously profitable: Elsevier has net margins of 40% on revenues of $9.8 Billion (2019). As the single largest publisher, Hagve says they have 16% of the total market.

Hagve goes on to complain that these publishing houses sell their journals based on a quality measure, "Impact Factor", which is calculated according to the number of citations of the journal's articles. And this is the basis of Klein's accusation of "Click Bait": apparently Kostoff's article is too damn popular, and is being quoted all over the Internet and will (predictably) be discussed in other academic journal articles, much to Klein's chagrin.

As Klein is presumably aware, there's another competitive model for academic publishing now. In this model, rather than asking for libraries to pay for paper copies, or asking readers to pay by the article or for subscriptions, the authors themselves are asked to pay for the publisher's costs. Traditionalists complain that this model largely removes the publisher's incentive for quality control, or any need to appeal to the knowledge consumers' demand for a quality product. In extreme cases, this leads to "predatory publishing" (charging exorbitant prices to naive academics desperate for publication) or even "journal hijacking" (publishing a new journal under the same name as an existing successful journal).

Regardless of the complaints, the new "open access" publishing model is clearly meeting a market demand, and holding traditional academic publisher profits in check to some extent. It's possible that much of the outrage against "predatory publishing" is, in fact, turf protection by the traditionalists.

Earlier this month, Elsevier‘s Toxicology Reports (CiteScore 6.2, top quartile) published a special issue on the COVID-19 pandemic. Its includes a remarkable article by Kostoff, et al., claiming that getting a COVID-19 vaccine is, “extremely conservatively“, 5x as likely to kill people over 65 as it is to save them, and even more harmful to younger people. (Kostoff, et al., Tox. Rep. (2020), 7, 1448-1458)

So far so good. Klein correctly observes that Toxicology Reports has an Impact Factor in the top quartile, a respectable performance. And, the article does indeed make the claim that the vaccines are doing more harm than good, by a factor of at least five.

This echoes the fraudulent claims of German homeopath Harald Walach, who briefly published a similar article in MDPI Vaccines in June, before it was promptly retracted.
Klein does not mention that the article was subsequently re-published after a new peer review process, in the journal Science, Public Health Policy & the Law, a new journal published by an academic entity known as IPAK, and edited by James Lyons-Weiler. This is another type of scientific publishing: Lyons-Weiler set up a 501(c)3 educational institution, assembled a qualified board of advisors, and got himself appointed as the editor of the institute's journal. He then recruited other scientists to serve as article editors and peer reviewers. In other words, he does business in more or less the same way as any other scientific journal, aside from the scale of the operation. As far as I can tell, the costs of publication are not foisted on either the libraries or the authors, but are funded by donations to the institute.

In an editorial at the journal, Lyons-Weiler explains his view that the Walach et al. paper was retracted because the editors of the journal caved in to collective pressure from editorial board members, who resigned in protest because they disagreed with Walach's evidence and arguments.

It is sad to bear witness to the fact that science has degenerated into a war against unwanted and inconvenient results, conclusions and interpretations via the process of post-publication retraction for issues other than fraud, grave error in execution, and plagiarism. The weaponization of the process of retraction of scientific studies is well underway, and it induces a bias that could be called “retraction bias”, or, in the case in which a few persons haunt journals in search of studies that cast doubt on their commercial products, a “ghouling bias”, which leads to biased systematic reviews and warped meta-analyses.

Post-publication retraction for mere differences of opinion expressed as interpretation is a form of weak double jeopardy with strong (negative) consequences to knowledge: when journals retract studies that have been conducted and have survived peer review due to prescribed conclusions, knowledge suffers. [...] Viewed on the basis of a reader’s difference of interpretation, journals that retract to maintain a prescribed narrative are participating in the etiological equivalent of book- burning.
Continuing with the analysis of the Klein blog...

A few of the most outrageous claims are listed below. None of this is subtle – unbelievable assertions start in the second paragraph of the abstract; the lead author has no past experience in the field; and the article puts “pandemic” and “vaccine” in scare quotes, and makes regular use of bold italics to emphasize points that are exaggerated.
Indeed, statements that disagree with the consensus narrative, start in the 2nd paragraph. But that doesn't make the points "unbelievable", nor does it make them "assertions". Yes, the article does use scare quotes for “pandemic” and “vaccine”, and it explains its rationale for doing so. As to the bold italics, that seems to be a significant exaggeration, as well as a lousy reason for indignation. The article very rarely uses bold italics, and mostly for clarification.

This is why we have peer review, and editors, to distinguish research from polemic.

Here we come to Klein's view of the purpose of peer review. That is, according to Klein, there is one Consensus Truth, which is in continuous battle with Disinformation and Falsehood. Editors and peer review, according to Klein, should exist to enforce Truth and suppress Polemic.

Access to a reliable + competent body of reviewers is, in theory, a primary service that giant publishers like Elsevier offer to editors. Another is their name: being an Elsevier journal means you will be taken seriously out of the gate, and added to the major indices.

As if most academics don't personally know any other academics who are qualified to read and give opinions!

Yes, Elsevier is a prestigious publisher, and often features articles that have the Consensus Stamp of Approval, including Big Pharma. In fact, when an article like this appears in an Elsevier journal, I sit up and take notice in the same way that a courtroom goes hush when the alleged criminal 'fesses up to the crime. Coming from Elsevier, Kostoff et al. is an admission against the interest of powerful forces that dominate many of its journals.

We should all be concerned that our publishing model allowed such a deceptive essay to be given the veneer of legitimacy – for weeks now, without correction.

Oh my gosh, the journal and publisher have resisted outside pressure for literally weeks! Another ten days now, and counting, since Klein's blog came out!! Surely the axe must come down sooner or later. But if the article eventually does get retracted, that will have absolutely zero effect on my opinion about the paper itself.

Skipping ahead now in the article... I don't intend to miss any salient points, but Klein (like any author) is somewhat repetitive.

Article-level fraud (by the authors)
1. Extensive misuse of VAERS data: VAERS is an open public registry of unvetted self-reports of health events occurring after vaccination. Most events are not caused by vaccines, but this is a starting point for further analysis. Doctors are supposed to report any deaths or hospitalizations occurring within a week of vaccination, regardless of potential causal link.
The very openness of this data has led to it being widely cited in anti-vax propaganda, misinterpreting VAERS as a catalog of known harms and side-effects. (“Don’t Fall for VAERS scares“)
1a: The article mentions that VAERS data is not causal; but then after a brief hand-waving assumes it is causal in all calculations. (inflating their result by a factor of ~1000)
"Fraud!!" (And in large bold type to emphasize points that are exaggerated!!) Fraud is a crime as well as a civil tort. Furthermore, in many states it is considered to be moral turpitude, which means that false accusations of fraud are Defamation Per Se. The elements of fraud include a knowing intent to deceive a victim, justifiable reliance by the victim, and damage to the victim.

So the first example of "fraud" cited here, is "misuse of VAERS data". But, Klein's description is highly misleading. He says it's a registry of "unvetted self-reports", but then immediately contradicts himself by saying that "Doctors are supposed to report any deaths or hospitalizations." Actually the system is open to self-reports as well as reports from any medical professional. But in reality it's difficult and burdensome to use, and many professionals are actively discouraged from reporting anything, so under-reporting is legion.

The raison d'etre for VAERS is as an early warning system. If a lot of adverse events are coming in, doctors should be investigating. What's happening is that an extraordinarily powerful alarm is being raised, but only the so-called "anti-vax propaganda" sources are paying any attention.

The Kostoff article is a notable peer-reviewed attempt to draw attention to the VAERS data. Far from simply "hand-waving", Kostoff et al. fully acknowledge that challenge of attributing causality, and they show a variety of reasons that the vaccines are indeed the CAUSE of the horrendous rate of adverse events being filed into VAERS on a daily basis. What can you say about describing Kostoff et al's paper as "brief hand-waving"? I call it FRAUD. That is, Klein KNOWS it isn't true, because he's read the paper. He's hoping that his readers won't. His readers know that Klein's views are consistent with the "consensus" and so they're unlikely to question, so their reliance on Klein is justifiable. And if they get the vaxx as a result, and it's as dangerous as Kostoff et al say, they will be harmed.

The true facts matter. If the vaccines are safe, then Klein's criticism of Kostoff is still blatantly false, and his characterization of VAERS is misleading. But if someone takes the vaccine as a result of Klein's distortions, there's no harm done, and so there's no fraud.

But conversely, if the vaccines are dangerous, then Klein is the one who is defrauding his readers, as well as committing willful defamation against Kostoff, his co-authors, peer reviewers, and Elsevier the publisher.

And I put that in bold type. So sue me.

Klein says that Kostoff et al. are overestimating vaccine fatalities by a factor of 1000, because of this one issue. Where does that number come from? Klein seems to have made it up. He seems to be assuming that out of 1000 post-vaccine fatalities, only one was caused by the vaccines, and the other 999 were purely random unrelated events. Where is the research to back up that assertion? Where are the autopsies, the lab tests, the pathology reports? The problem here is, the system can't see what it won't look for. And these studies can't get done, because of the presumption that the vaccines are safe.

  • 1b: A 2010 working paper suggested that 1% of all adverse events, and perhaps 3-40% of serious adverse events, temporally following a vaccination, are reported to VAERS. The article cites this to suggest that 1% of deaths are reported, although detailed studies show that most potentially-causal deaths are reported. (adding a factor of 100)
References, please? The working paper I'm aware of, Lazarus et al, said that 1% of adverse events are reported, and didn't offer any further data about serious AE's. The authors stated that the CDC stopped returning phone calls, preventing them from carrying out "system performance assessments." Where are these "detailed studies" showing that most"potentially-causal" deaths are reported? What could be the basis for assessing "potential causation"? Until proven otherwise, I submit that Klein is lying about this: if these studies existed, Kostoff et al. would have known about them, and discussed them.
Klein continues:
  • 1c: VAERS reports of all kinds fall off quickly in the days after a vaccine is administered. However the article assumes reporting rates are constant over time, leading to a large undercounting of the base rate of non-causal events, and an overcounting of events in the first week as causal. (used to justify the inflations above)
I'm going to score this one at least partially for Klein. Kostoff et al. do assume constant reporting rates, which seems completely reasonable in that medical professionals should be equally suspicious of any death or other serious AE occurring anytime within a month or two after the jab. But human nature being what it is, perhaps the rate of reporting does fall off with time, as a result of shoddy reporting practices. In order to reach any conclusions, one would need actual data! Which is not something the CDC wants. Having said that, it's pretty unlikely that the predominance of reports within a short time after the vaccine, is entirely an artifact. And I don't think Kostoff et al. use this for any quantitative work, but only as one facet of their case for a causal relationship between vaccine hazards and VAERS reports.

2. Misstating risks of COVID:

  • 2a: The article suggests disingenuously that when COVID-19 is listed alongside other comorbidities on a death certificate, COVID is not the cause of the death; and ignores all such deaths in his calculations. This is a ridiculous claim copied directly from anti-vax propaganda. (adding a factor of ~20)
This is indeed a long-standing bone of contention, and a prime focus of "anti-vax propaganda". But the dispute is far from ridiculous. In many cases, the comorbidities obviously represent terminal conditions of elderly patients, and at most the virus brought the death forward in time to some extent. There seems to be a legitimate dispute about whether death certificate reporting policies were changed specifically to exaggerate the pandemic death toll. In my opinion, an optimal cost-benefit analysis would look at person-years lost, rather than a body count.

At any rate, there is nothing disingenuous about the presentation in Kostoff et al, which thoroughly discusses the issue and acknowledges both sides.

  • 2b: Throughout the article + appendices the authors drop in vague and counterfactual claims to claim these numbers are conservative, and actual death rates are higher. These claims only start to make sense if you read anti-vax conspiracy theories (misrepresenting how PCR tests are run, claiming no long-term effects from the disease but long-term effects from vaccines, ignoring the communicability of the disease). (adding a factor of 2-20)
Agreed that Kostoff et al. not only read the "anti-vax" literature, but also provide citations in the paper. So Klein shouldn't need to speculate about the sources. There are links to Dr. Mercola's website, Dr. Ray Sahelian's list of vaccine side effects, and David Martin's Fauci / Covid-19 Dossier. Seneff & Nigh's "Worse than the Disease" gets a mention, and also Jessica Rose's analysis of the VAERS reports.

And by the way, "anti-vaxxer" has now been re-defined to include anyone opposed to vaccine mandates, regardless of their opinions about vaccine safety or effectiveness. Who persuaded Merriam-Webster to change the definition? Sometimes a "conspiracy" seems like the best explanation.

Overall, basic statistics is abused; sources misquoted, and standard knowledge and practice misrepresented, extensively, to confirm a desired result. The topline numbers claimed in the article differ by a factor of 5 million from the best serious estimates of risk/benefit analysis for the vaccines. (Walach, in his previous attempt at the world record for vaccine risk inflation, only managed a fudge factor of 500,000.)

There certainly is a massive disagreement here. Split the difference, and say that vaccines are only 50,000 times more dangerous than the Scientific Consensus (aka Big Pharma and their captured agencies) believes? At least Kostoff et al. make some attempt to grapple with uncertainties in the data, in contrast with The Consensus and their pollyanna denialism.

The authors also did not do basic diligence in searching for existing studies of the subject — the potential adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines have been studied extensively, and good analyses exist. From the top page of a quick scholarly search:

  • Klein, et al (with a group of statisticians and epidemiologists) published a statistical analysis of 12 million shots: “Surveillance for Adverse Events After COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination“. They found exactly two significant effects – a higher risk of temporary myocarditis the week after the shot, and a lower risk of appendicitis in the 3 weeks after.
  • Canada published a comprehensive overview of the adverse effects from their first 20M vaccination shots, attributing 1 death, and contributions to 3 other deaths to those 20M shots.
This is rich!! Kostoff et al. didn't cite papers that weren't published or released yet as of their publication date! As to the data, I'm suspicious that Klein's database has the same problem as the VAERS data, with tremendous under-reporting caused by an institutional bias against seeing anything. Canada's surveillance system is no doubt similar to VAERS as well. So, these two citations do nothing to resolve the controversy.

Journal-level fraud (by the editors)
How did an article that was problematic by the end of the abstract, and fraudulent just beneath the surface, get published in a modestly successful Elsevier journal?
I'm not going to get down in the mud here with Klein, but basically his issue is that Tsatsakis, the editor of the journal, also writes articles for it. For some reason, Klein considers this not only unethical but also fraudulent, even though it's not unusual in scientific publishing, and it's fully disclosed on the masthead. And furthermore, the journal frequently features "anti-vax" authors. This also is neither unethical nor fraudulent.

Amazingly, Klein alleges (with no proof whatsoever) that the articles are not peer reviewed. What he means is, they haven't been peer-reviewed into oblivion by Big Pharma shills. They certainly look like they've received careful editing and review.

Getting down to the nitty-gritty:

The direct implication of this paper is that noone, particularly no children or elderly people, should get a COVID-19 vaccine. By all but the most fringe scholarship on the matter, this is a deadly recommendation that will lead to widespread death and chronic illness, and an ongoing degradation in public health. It was immediately picked up by explicit anti-vax campaigns.
Kostoff is killing people!! As if everyone in the Western world hasn't been ceaselessly bombarded with vaccine ads, and now threatened with expulsion from society. As if vaccine effectiveness is a proven fact! And as if people are malleable children and idiots who can't look at the controversy and make their own decisions.

What would we ever do, without Pompous Peer Reviewers to determine the Truth for us? Including, defining highly accomplished scientists away as "fringe".

Publisher-level fraud (by the managers)
In the last three months, we have seen three very high-profile examples of COVID conspiracists publishing dangerously flawed research as fact, under the banners of MDPI, JAMA, and Elsevier – some of the giants of the industry. Moreover, while extensive complaints by hundreds of readers can sometimes lead to retractions, many flawed papers are never retracted, and the visibility of retractions is always a fraction of that of the initial flawed work.
Not only is there no accountability for the publishers, they may benefit from the attention of anti-vax and anti-science networks. And they directly benefit from the high publication volume, and volume-driven reputation metrics, that lets such fraud thrive. This is a crisis at a grander scale, defrauding us all of an effective knowledge commons.
How did we get here?
Elsevier runs a popular and profitable journal factory. They encourage people to start new journals. A legitimate and respected scholar founded this one, led it for a few years, then passed on the reigns to someone else. The second lead editor began using it to publish himself and his circle of colleagues. A journal’s peer review is only as good as its reviewers and process, and there is no way to tell if opaque reviews are happening at all. Current models of scholarly recognition and tenure privilege raw publication and citation counts over most other things, so running your own journals (either publishing yourself or publishing people who can publish you) and randomly adding the names of others to your papers, directly advances your career.

There's that fraud accusation again, and this time Klein thinks that publishers like Elsevier need to micro-manage the scientists working on their journals, to make sure that no heresies slip through. He alludes darkly that Elsevier actually benefits when they publish articles that attract readers and get cited by other authors. Who knew that publishing heresy could actually be profitable, by improving Impact Factor scores? The heresy is spreading! (Actually the impact score would improve just as well with articles contesting Kostoff's conclusions, and promoting the Consensus View -- but clearly Klein thinks that the heresy is so vile that it should be mentioned as little as possible.)

How do we remedy this?
Klein proposes all sorts of remedies, which "we" need to implement. Sadly, this is likely to happen, but not because of anything "we" do. Elsevier is a corporate entity, and most such entities on a worldwide basis are solidly under control of New World Order institutions. Profitability and truth are secondary to the Great Reset agenda. It wouldn't be surprising at all if Tsatsakis's journal gets mowed down. Another voice crying out in the wilderness to be silenced. Elsevier probably would have put a stop to it already, if only they had known at headquarters.

Klein will be enthusiastic about that. Now we know what his "federated global public knowledge" is going to look like.
I've been following this gentleman's updates on pandemic news. He's no expert (maybe a good thing, in this case), but he certainly seems to know more than I do (always good), and definitely has some level of skepticism (usually a good thing). I've been meaning to post something of his for a minute, but today's video that questions why more data isn't being released more quickly seemed just too relevant to discussions here for me to continue to let my work, schoolwork, impending blizzard, etc. prevent me from posting:

Hi Marcilla, thanks for visiting.

I agree completely with Campbell and with Peter Doshi and the other editors at BMJ, who are demanding release of the covid-19 "vaccine" trial data. A significant amount of the data from Pfizer has already been released, owing to a FOIA lawsuit filed by Aaron Siri. The initial data release was rather discouraging, and now Pfizer has joined the battle with the FDA to withhold the next tranche of data.

I'm a little puzzled, though, why anyone even cares what additional clinical trial data gets released by Pfizer. Because the very same BMJ has also released a whistleblower story showing that the Pfizer trials were ridden by falsified data, poor management, overloaded staff, and lax oversight. So when it comes to data released from the trials, just call me a skeptic, regardless of how good the products look on those initial clinical trials.

For a complete report on all the bad news about the jabs, I highly recommend this Substack post by Steve Kirsch...

Moving someone from blue pill to red pill
When I first started on this journey, I thought if I put together a compelling story all backed by solid data and analysis and published in a peer-reviewed journal, we’d be done. Not so.
Consider the following real-life example: 4 neurologists in the same practice. One realizes that out of 20,000 patients they have 2,000 vaccine injured. She cannot convince her partners of this no matter how hard she tries. They all think it is bad luck. Even after the other docs get the vaccine and one of them is severely vaccine injured, he still wants to get the booster to protect himself from COVID.
My red pill doctor is amazed that her partners are so brainwashed that they cannot see what is going on; it is obvious to her.
So that’s how how bad it is and how difficult it is to change minds.
The most convincing evidence: seeing family or friends disabled or dead after vaccination
For many people, the most convincing argument is not the scientific data presented here, but seeing what happened to a formerly perfectly healthy friend or family member (or famous public figure) after they took the vaccine.
In my case, I lost confidence in the COVID vaccines when a friend told me that three of her relatives died shortly after being vaccinated (and they were all perfectly healthy before the shot). A week later, another friend had a heart attack 2 minutes after getting the vaccine and his wife developed Parkinson’s symptoms after she got her vaccine.
Today, my wife just told me that one of her friends recently got boosted and now her four kids don’t have a mother anymore. It’s tragic, but for most people, it takes many events like this before people wake up and realize they’ve been lied to.
Here’s a comment from one of my readers:
Just today I heard of another person I know who has had a sudden return of a cancer which was in remission for several years, 2 weeks after taking the vaccine. Brain tumor. Family devastated. One thing I am finding more and more personally traumatic, is the dilemma of how hard to try to convince people not to take it. I am the 'laissez-faire' type. I give information as much as I can, but I don't push once someone puts up the proverbial hands and shows a clear message that they don't want to hear it. This is the second time I have been faced with contacts or friends who I WISH I had tried harder to convince. But if they won't listen, what can we do? It's a HORRIBLE situation this. Bearing in my mind just today I heard my own parents are lining up for their boosters. What a shit show this world is today.
In most cases, the victims remain silent because they don’t want to be ostracized or receive death threats. So you rarely hear of the incidents. Also, the press will never cover the reactions because the media cannot prove the vaccine was the cause of the event.
Looking back on the Coronavirus reporting here, I think it was generally not too bad -- although perhaps I tended to err on the side of exaggerated predictions of the deadliness of the virus, and also gave too much credit to vague correlational studies about mask effectiveness. At this point, it's pretty clear that the number of fatalities from the original Wuhan strain and it's close relatives is well under a million worldwide*, and that the masks have been virtually useless.

The single post that I feel worst about, is this one about HIV / AIDS, in which I criticized a new forum member named John, because of his view that there really is no link between the two.

I've since read RFK Jr's book, The Real Anthony Fauci.

Possibly the lion's share of the book is dedicated to the story of Fauci's management of the AIDS crisis. Without reaching any conclusions, Kennedy presents a persuasive case that perhaps HIV doesn't really cause AIDS, but that the real problems are (a) the general negative health effects of the urban homosexual lifestyle, combined with (b) treatment with AZT and other highly toxic drugs, and (c) another virus, HHV6, which actually is deadly and also often occurs in AIDS. It's very possible that HIV is generally benign, but once a person is diagnosed with an HIV infection, they get treated with AZT which then generates the full spectrum of AIDS symptoms. Perhaps the victim is finished off, more often than not, by HHV6. This model accounts for most if not all the arguments advanced by the CDC in the aforementioned post by yours truly.

*Of course there's another story -- what comes next. What's up with Omicron? I really do need to recommend this series of posts by Mathew Crawford.

A four part series so far, and it's a cliff-hanger with more episodes yet to come.
Speaking only for my own anecdotal case, I've never assumed that accurate information was available, and I have assumed there is an ulterior (profit) motive. I've tried to maintain a standard of "more informed than the average person," and then just go with whatever settles my gut.

When I got the Pfizer vaccination, my reasoning for going forward was that it was only available to healthcare workers (in the general population), and certainly even the most diabolical of plots wouldn't involve killing off all healthcare workers (if only for selfish reasons), and any accidental wholesale slaughter of the medical community would bring the rest of us down, anyway. I still think that was the best decision in my case, even if I have come to recognize the possibility of long-term effects which have yet to manifest.

The booster, OTOH, I regret. I received the Moderna (nostalgic for the 90's candyflip), and fortunately have had no noticeable, lasting side effects. Nonetheless, the data which has come out since seems to indicate that its effectiveness against Omicron is limited in both effectiveness and duration. At the time, Delta was still the predominant variant - which turns out was more deadly than previous variants - so maybe I am being too self-critical.

In any event, they are talking about a 4th shot, and I'm not sure what it would take, at this point, to convince me to go along. I've given the benefit of the doubt, and it's become more clear over time how much we are being misled.

This brings me to the part that is most disturbing for me: because I can (hopefully) avoid an injection, but I cannot remove myself from the consequences of the zeitgeist. Mr. Fauci openly admits to lying, just as Mr. Trump admits to "playing it down." Yet, we are expected to put our faith in one or the other. Of these two, Mr. Fauci is considered the "safe" option of "reasonable" people, particularly as he represents "the science." But he seems less interested in serving the science, than in having the science serve him - even if it means covertly funding gain of function research that - however directly or indirectly - leads to a global pandemic, changing the definition of "gain of function" to stay out of trouble, and set himself up as the very messiah, saving the world from the very sin which he himself released into it.

I have this memory of Chairman Mao explaining the fundamental contradiction of capitalism as being illustrated by the physician whose purpose being to heal is therefore incentivized to sicken in order to raise demand for his services. However, I cannot find it now, if it ever truly existed to begin with. I think the point stands, regardless.

The mask thing has always been ridiculous with the whole ranking of "surgical masks" versus "neck gaiters," etc. Having used a gas mask in a chemically-saturated environment, I am viscerally aware of the difference between using a respirator when it has a good seal versus using anything else. For now, I wear a P100 respirator I got at Home Depot for $11 (I've never heard any media even mention that these exist) when I'm around others, and I'm pretty sure it is far more effective and less risky than any vaccine.
Substackers "Igor Chudov" and "Eugyppius" have articles this morning about the phenomenon of "Original Antigenic Sin", which they believe is causing increased Omicron infections, with the possibility of repeated bouts with the disease.

Chudov says that the UKHSA's Vaccine Surveillance Report obliquely mentions the problem. They report that vaccinated individuals never develop antibodies to the nucleocapsid proteins of the virus, even after breakthrough infection. With each new variant, the vaxx antibodies against the original Wuhan spike protein get less effective, but apparently retain high enough titer levels to prevent the immune system from reacting correctly to the N protein and other parts of the virus. Chudov found some posts at Reddit by individuals who were reinfected two or three times in spite of double vaxx and/or boosters.

Eugyppius's article is based on a neutralization assay study using convalescent plasma from patients with breakthrough infections. The researchers studied the ability of the plasma to neutralize live virus. The result was that plasma from delta breakthrough infections was effective at neutralizing the wild type virus or the delta virus, but 46.8x less effective against Omicron. Plasma from Omicron variant infection was 2.2x less effective against delta compared to wuhan type, and 6.8x less effective against Omicron compared to wuhan type. Eugyppius concludes: "It is hard to imagine a worse strategy than universal vaccination against a single, obsolete virus protein. Every booster dose just further ingrains this off-target immunity, ultimately assisting Omicron in its spread. Here we are saved only by Omicron’s starkly reduced pathogenicity. In causing mild, fleeting illness in most of those infected, Omicron spreads more effectively in virus-paranoid populations, and it provokes fewer antibodies, expanding its prospects for reinfection and continued, endemic circulation."

Chudov is less optimistic about Omicron's ultimate mildness. He speculates that "the vaccinated will get reinfected often, with likely very deleterious consequences." In the comments to the article, Chudov says that human extinction "is actually possible and I'm not kidding."

I think I must be one of relatively few people left in the Western world who haven't had a covid-19 infection yet, and who also haven't taken any "vaccine". And I've noticed that most of the covid skeptics have a cavalier attitude about the viral infection itself, correctly noting that the short-term fatality rate is reasonably low, especially for healthy younger people. So, they are fearlessly out and about, going to meetings, shopping and whatever activities aren't prohibited due to mandates.

But I still hold to the view that the SARS-Cov2 virus is a gain-of-function enhanced bioweapon, whose true purposes and long-term effects remain unknown. It could cause long-term damage to capillaries, or prion disease in the brain, perhaps in a significant percentage of victims. We don't know the long-term effects of the "vaccines", either.

So I am, selfishly, still doing everything I can to avoid exposure to the virus, even as new variants get more and more contagious. We have a couple of P100 respirators out in the workshop, and I'm thinking of putting them into service, and getting more. It will be nice to have some company, Marcilla, so it's good to know that you'll be sporting this fashion accessory.

At least nobody is worrying about sanitizing incoming mail or grocery deliveries anymore, although Omicron seems to be mysteriously able to go everywhere.

You might glance at this if you haven't noticed it yet. Joe mentioned this man's work on Powers & Principalities: Episode 249 .'s analysis of C-19 evolutionary dynamics update May 2022.pdf

The only reason why I nevertheless continue to express my concerns is that I cannot refrain from urging national and international public health agencies to immediately engage their populations in large scale antiviral chemoprophylactic campaigns, especially in highly vaccinated countries.
= 17076 s

I am guessing that the 1776 number/year was 'planted/installed' in U.S. history. Other U.S. independence dates could have been chosen.
The six based count brings the 1776 numerals up quite often. I will try to 'count' a bit of this man's text in the next week or so.
Geert Vanden Bossche received his DVM from the University of Ghent, Belgium, and his PhD degree in Virology from the University of Hohenheim, Germany. He held adjunct faculty appointments at universities in Belgium and Germany. After his career in Academia, Geert joined several vaccine companies (GSK Biologicals, Novartis Vaccines, Solvay Biologicals) to serve various roles in vaccine R&D as well as in late vaccine development. Geert then moved on to join the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Health Discovery team in Seattle (USA) as Senior Program Officer; he then worked with the Global Alliance for Vaccines....

View attachment 856

View attachment 857

Sounds like the Ghent graduate wants to pass out a chemical of some kind on a mass scale (maybe I am wrong). I will try to read a bit of his pdf.

[Post copied from Goldfish thread and edited for relevance to this thread -- JR 8/14/22]


  • 1653103942323.png
    98.9 KB · Views: 0
  • 1653104011821.png
    151.3 KB · Views: 0
Vanden Bossche has been predicting ongoing problems with mutated coronavirus for a long time: at least since this video from April 2021, and probably before that.

So far he's proven correct about continual emergence of new variants with abilities to evade the so-called "vaccines". And, fortunately, so far he's been wrong about the increased deadliness of the variants. On the contrary, each new variant has been more contagious but less likely to cause hospitalization & death.

FWIW, Chris Martenson is skeptical about Vanden Bossche's latest worries. But it can't be dismissed out of hand.

The only reason why I nevertheless continue to express my concerns is that I cannot refrain from urging national and international public health agencies to immediately engage their populations in large scale antiviral chemoprophylactic campaigns, especially in highly vaccinated countries.
= 17076 s

Even if we presume that this is deliberately designed to yield a significant number (or even if it's been supernaturally guided as such): how does this tell us whether to believe it or not? Given that presumption, it could mean that some force for good is telling us that it's true, or that it's false... or it could be some evil being or entity trying to deceive us?

Sounds like the Ghent graduate wants to pass out a chemical of some kind on a mass scale (maybe I am wrong).

I agree it would be more helpful if Vanden Bossche would specify more clearly what he has in mind. Most of the "health freedom" folks are promoting such as HCQ, ivermectin, zinc, quercetin, povidone iodine, vitamin D as antivirals. But if that's what he wants, why doesn't he say so?

[Post copied from Goldfish thread and edited for relevance to this thread -- JR 8/14/22]
Last edited:
Let me explain, Jerry, especially now that you understand the nefarious role of Genocide Gates...
... I do wish you could write a bit more about why you think this is interesting. What do all these numbers mean, if indeed there's more going on here than just simple coincidences uncovered by powerful computer search methods?
... and the hyped-up COVID scam.

The answer is that the COVID restrictions are based PRIMARILY upon mathematical modelling i.e. mismodelling reality. This is exactly the same procedure as Einstein indulges in as found in special & general relativity (SR & GR). Einstein makes predictions that lead to logical paradoxes - as you have no doubt found when you read my five articles on the General Science Journal e.g. Papers/View/8841 or Science Journals ( .

Exactly the same thing occurs with COVID mathematical modelling. E.g. mathematical modelers claim 10,000,000 people will die in the next year from the new Bidenpox variant of COVID. Masks, lockdowns and new-formula toxic COVID jabs are instituted. At the end of said year only 300,000 people, nearly all elderly, die genuinely from the Bidenpox (when the statistical falsifications are corrected for - e.g. people dying WITH Bidenpox not OF Bidenpox). This is then trumpeted as a great success for Big Pharma with their new-formula toxic COVID jabs, while ignoring a million or more damaging reactions from the jabs themselves.

This "success" is then reported in the journals as such. After a few years it will be inserted into textbooks as "hard scientific fact" even though it is total BS based upon mathematical mismodelling i.e. just the same sort of mathematics-based BS you find with Einstein's relativity! And this is what it is all about - both Liberal Democracy and Socialism believe that mathematical 'reality' underpins physical reality, whereas those aware people (e.g. Ezra Pound) condemned as Fascists understand that the physical world is primary so is NOT reducible to mathematics. E.g. Galileo said that physics was "written in the language of mathematics" but that is NOT an excuse to claim that mathematics is primary - as modern science people do now, drowned in mathematicized BS such as we get with both Einstein and the Gates-sympathetic MSM. I.e. modern science (a.k.a. scientism) is the mathematicized BS peddled in place of genuine science - but the MSM will not admit that, just like they won't admit the COVID Scam nor the Relativity Theory Scam.

But will you find 1698 reasons to disagree here?:cool::D

Yours faithfully
Claude Badley - resident Fascist!

[Post copied from Goldfish thread and edited for relevance to this thread -- JR 8/14/22]
Welcome back, Mr. Baddie! I must admit that so-called "Liberal Democracy" is looking worse every day.

I am pretty sure that some sort of mathematical modeling or calculations went into the design of the elaborate fuel injection system and engine control unit of [my new] tractor. But on the other hand, I presume the engineers were able to make it work without any compensation for length contraction or time dilation.

This is then trumpeted as a great success for Big Pharma

Can't we blame the problems with Bidenpox etc. on Big Pharma? That is, a consortium of giant corporations whose monopoly power is clearly illegal under antitrust laws; except that they've become so powerful that they can bribe every government official, and control the media through advertising and influence, and keep the people so stupid that they remain clueless, thus rendering "democracy" a cruel joke?

The union of corporate and state power to dominate the people is called "fascism", which is my label for the Big Pharma / government complex. Or would you prefer some other label?

[Post copied from Goldfish thread and edited for relevance to this thread -- JR 8/14/22]
Speaking of Big Pharma, what is going on with Dr. Fauci & President Biden (if they are still the original characters at ages 81 & 79, respectively) catching & recatching covid after both having had both vaccines and both boosters, and supposed to be among the most eminent and protected people in the country? Talk about sending mixed signals to the public, or is that the "divide and conquer" intention? I am reminded, from memory, of a scene from the 1979 movie "Caligula", where one of his courtiers (behind his back, of course) exclaims "What new madness is this?".
...what is going on with Dr. Fauci & President Biden

My guess is that this means either that Fauci & Biden aren't truly members of the elite protected class, or else that there really is no "elite protected class" -- at least in the sense that they're all delusional enough to believe their own bombastic propaganda and mass media psy-ops. There might be no truly intelligent central planning behind all the crazy, but just a bunch of elite individuals in disarray.

FWIW, I'm inclined to believe that there is no worldwide central planning committee, aside from the Davos crowd. And that Davos wusses and the WEF really are just as isolated, ineffective, stupid and self-destructive as they seem to be. There might also be some sort of Zionist cabal trying to implement Judeo-Christian motifs straight out of Revelation, and manifesting their existence in bizarre Satanic Baal Worship exercises at sporting events. But I don't believe these people are smart enough to know what they're doing, either.

...catching & recatching covid after both having had both vaccines and both boosters...

Whether or not it's real for Fauci & Biden, nearly everybody has experienced this in real life. The rate of covid infection among the double vaxxed must be approaching 100% by now, considering that most cases get tested using home antigen test kits, and go otherwise unreported. Everybody knows somebody who has gotten really sick from covid when they supposedly shouldn't have ever gotten it at all.

All too many people know someone in their circle who "died suddenly" not long after taking the vaxx, or who got seriously disabled. This is by no means uncommon.

Maybe the propaganda function of reporting on Biden and Fauci's illness is to allow them to underscore the message that "everything is proceeding according to plan". Even though everybody is still getting sick, it doesn't mean that there was ever anything wrong with the shots, or the bureaucracy that invented and tried to mandate them. Biden and Fauci still say "I'm glad I got the vaxx, it could've been worse" even as it takes them weeks to throw off the virus.

I suggest that by now, nearly everyone in the Western world is aware at some visceral level that the vaxx program is an abject failure. The objective evidence of this, is that the uptake of boosters has fallen to nearly zero. And, nobody is taking their babies to get vaxxed.

And yet the propaganda wurlitzer plays on. Public confidence in the media has plummeted to new lows.

More and more people must be thinking: "They know they're lying. And we know that they know they're lying. And, they know that we know. But still they keep lying."

In this bleak landscape, I think the most encouraging development is that Substack is flourishing. In addition to substacks from Steve Kirsch, Mathew Crawford, Igor Chudov, 'Eugyppius' and Geert Vanden Bossch linked above, I also recommend Dr. Robert Malone, Mark Crispin Miller, Toby Rogers, Glenn Greenwald, 'El Gato Malo', and 'Margaret Anna Alice'.

From a biblical / prophetic perspective, the End Times Newsletter from 'Lioness of Judah' is pretty good, although the author believes that events are the result of divine intervention rather than human artifice.

Compared to earlier social media sites, Substack is most similar to 'Medium' or '' or 'blogspot'. But all three of those have been subject to heavy-handed censorship and cancel culture during the covid epoch. Also, Substack makes it easy for the authors to own their own mailing lists, so that even if Substack itself falls to some attack, it doesn't necessarily mean the end of everything that's been built. The site has a good comments facility, and commenters can link to their own blogs. So that's a mechanism for authors to build their audience. And as a matter of design, it's very pushy about asking for money. At five dollars per blog per month, it adds up.
Bizarrely enough (synchronicity, coincidence?), there is a connection to "The secret goldfish" thread, involving Samuel "Goldfish" Goldwyn, in one of the comments to that article that you provided -
"It’s been claimed that Samuel Goldwyn, the American film producer whose company was later merged into famous studio MGM (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer), started his working life at the Bull Ring market as a barker – calling out to attract customers to the stalls.
He had left Warsaw, Poland, penniless and on foot at the age of 15 and ended up in Birmingham, staying with his mother’s sister before emigrating to the USA in 1898.
A biography of the movie mogul on the website Hollywood’s Golden Age makes no reference to the Bull Ring but confirms Goldwyn had worked in Birmingham, first as a blacksmith’s assistant and then as a sponge salesman.
He spent three years in Brum, anglicising his original surname (Gelbfisz) to Goldfish and scraped together enough money to make his next move, across the Atlantic, where his name was again changed, this time to Goldwyn. Birmingham’s markets continued their bustling life without the salesmanship of young Mr Goldfish/Goldwyn and were later given a major facelift."
My guess is that this means either that Fauci & Biden aren't truly members of the elite protected class, or else that there really is no "elite protected class"
As I mentioned, both are around 80, so perhaps "expendable puppets of the elite protected class" would be a more accurate description of them. However, Queen Elizabeth II (in her 96th year at the time) had Covid and recovered also, and she would seem to be "the real deal".
there is no worldwide central planning committee
This scene from the 1976 movie "Network" never gets old for me -
Last edited:
Bizarrely enough (synchronicity, coincidence?), there is a connection to "The secret goldfish" thread

LOL!! Everything connects to everything else, and synchronicity will foil every attempt to organize material into various threads. It's all a single thread....

But what is the point of this story? Has Birmingham always been a hotbed of Baal-worship since 1898 or presumably well before that? For that matter, was Birmingham somehow connected to the ancient Canaanites? Does this mean that Goldwyn was able to invoke the magic of Baal to become a master movie mogul? Or was Hollywood filled with Baal-worshippers, and our goldfish was just swimming with the school? This leaves way more questions, than we have answers.

This scene from the 1976 movie "Network" never gets old for me -

But it's consistent with my theory that there's no central planning, do you agree? The character 'Arthur Jensen' is preaching that corporations and money run the world. But he names off several top corporations, none of which controls any other. And he's obviously terrified that nations and ideologies will not be subordinated to his corporate heroes.
Just in case I was straying too far off topic, the latest news pertaining to this thread would appear to be that First Lady Jill Biden also caught Covid & that the CDC will be overhauled.
But it's consistent with my theory that there's no central planning, do you agree?
In that "Network" scenario Arthur Jensen appeared to be the man in charge, at least on a regional middle manager basis, and I would have loved to have seen his reaction, and revenge, after the network executives had his pet project Howard Beale assassinated.
Or was Hollywood filled with Baal-worshippers, and our goldfish was just swimming with the school?
I wonder if the "Bohemian Grove" would be connected to this in some way?