Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[stickdog99]

https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... field.html

...

During the run-down to closing that practice, I was approached to work in a corporate-run facility, only a three-hour round-trip drive from home. I spent nine years there. In one respect, not being their employee gave me a degree of freedom employees did not have. The nine years, however, was no joyride, since it fell during The Time of COVID.

The two years of pandemic hysteria and rollout of the “vaccine” allowed me to go farther along a path I had started down well over a decade earlier, once medical training had ended, debt cleared, and financial stability was in sight.

As an undergraduate, I was a history major. By the early 2000s, I became more skeptical about mainstream historical narratives. When the COVID deluge began, I delved into aspects of medicine not discussed in medical training or journals. Why question historical narratives only when medical “science” also offered much that appeared sketchy?

It became glaringly obvious that most physicians toed the party line in what to accept or question. Prior to DIE, and as I mentioned earlier, medical school entrants reflected in large part their ability to memorize an enormous volume of technical information dressed up in a foreign language. As all things COVID demonstrated, critical thinking was not a forte for many. For those, this quote by Pat Shannon would not resonate: “Who is more dangerous: the liar or the people who believe the lies?”

Questioning the only accepted mechanisms of infection and contagion, formulation of medical definitions, laboratory testing methods, the basis of virology, electron microscopy, and vaccine development and effectiveness and side effects was a heresy to many. Ignoring the role of Big Pharma in funding medical science research or the whispers of scientific fraud, as noted by publication retractions, was common. Too many physicians did not consider alternative explanations or, worse, nefarious intent. There would be little consideration for ideas such as expressed by John “Birdman” Bryant: “There is no reason to suppress a viewpoint unless it is true.”

To be fair, few in any endeavor will stick their neck out when threatened, especially physicians, pinned under large educational debt, years spent in specialized training, potential loss of licensure, and for most no other way to make a living commensurate with that obtained through the practice of medicine. Physicians, with few exceptions, became masked in silence, got jabbed, and continued as instructed.

As with my other jobs, this one was to end as well. The corporation leased the property from the local hospital, which became part of a different medical center’s merger-acquisition process of folding in smaller hospitals. Eventually, I was offered a position within the hospital to continue as the town’s physician in my specialty.

It is here that I now sit. My office resembles a supply closet, or, as I refer to it, a room on Cell Block A. However, I am lucky. The specialists on the other side of the wall are four “providers” housed in a larger cell. Yes, once you finish schooling/training, become instructed on the Big Pharma narrative, and follow the rules as directed by men in suits or part-time white coats, your reward is the title “provider.”

There is no longer an “art” to practicing medicine. I have seen it morph from independent judgment to insurance guidelines to hospital protocols. As the larger entity takes over the smaller, the protocols change, seemingly by whim. “It’s how we do it at [fill in the blank].” That is, unless a patient’s medical insurer requires “precertification” of my proposed treatment. Interestingly, no other entity or individual is listed on my malpractice policy.

Our “unique fund of knowledge,” laughable on its face since every trade, profession, and activity possesses such, turned into “consensus,” a squishy word not necessarily meaning complete agreement. Bertrand Russell summed it up: “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatsoever that it is not utterly absurd.”

...

[stickdog99]

From December 2020: The Myth of "Objective Constraint"

Why Corona is Not a Material-Technical Problem

Arguably the deepest insight of Isaak Illitch Rubin (1886-1937), the well-known Soviet value theorist, was the clear recognition of Marx’s differentiation between the material-technical and the social properties of economic phenomena. In asking ‘what is a commodity’, Marx – according to Rubin – was the first to observe not its ‘technicality’ or its function – to be worn, to be eaten, to be applied in a work process – but its social dimension: why does human labour in capitalism assume the form of the commodity at all?

Obviously, commodities have not existed in every historical epoch. Marx’s question hence concerns the form of the commodity as the form by which a certain society – capitalist society – organises its production process: a production process whose ultimate aim is the production of exchangeable units of commodities for a certain sum of money. Asking the question of the social form of the commodity, or, which is the same, “why does human labour assume the form of the commodity at all?” implies the investigation of the preconditions that make the commodity form possible in the first place. And for Marx, the foremost among these is the existence of a labouring class and a capitalist class: a class that produces surplus-value by means of the wage form, and a class that appropriates the surplus value through ownership of the objective conditions of production. For Marx, there is no commodity form without social class, and no value without surplus value, a social relation implied by particular property relations.

In sum, the social dimension of the commodity concerns a particular relation between people which generates the commodity form.

We still live in a capitalist society, i.e., a class society. [font=]This also means that society must remain obscure to itself, a task for which the theoretical expression of identity politics, intersectionality theory, has proven extremely effective. Class is either denounced as irrelevant or subsumed under the race-gender-class-trinity formula, in which the meaning of class is not only obscured, but mystified and, ultimately, perverted.[/font][1]

If we admit that the social form of the society we live in is that of a class society, this also entails that monetary exchange drives production relations, and that production relations drive monetary exchange – since production and exchange for profit is its raison d’être. In this sense, the idea that there exists a social realm ‘outside’ of the precondition of valorisation is nonsense. Since production has been organised in such a way as to make the devaluation of labour power the condition for higher profits, we live in a world of a real (and not just formal) subsumption of labour to capital – and this means that capital has a free pass to deal with labour as it likes, as long as there is no organised resistance. The automatism of real subsumption is quite astounding: everywhere we look, everywhere we go, we face the same old principle – the ‘objective constraint’, which the production of surplus value inflicts on the world we live in. ‘Objective constraint’ is the formula for every rationale, every political decision, every self-styled ‘level-headed’ political realism. ‘Objective constraint’ is the paradigmatic bipartisan fetish, a reification par excellence of all-encompassing dimensions that exerts its power in reverse proportion to the extent one closely looks at or even dares to question it.

I remember a time when my peers regarded the discourse of ‘objective constraint’ (objektiver Sachzwang) as a scheme to undermine political and economic change. I recall Michael Heinrich’s excellent Intro to the Three Volumes of Capital, in which he unmasked the ‘talk’ of ‘objective constraint’ as ideology. But with the advent of the Corona regime, all of this has changed. The Left that once almost dared to speak its name has now completed its perversion into a Middle-Class Leviathan, made up of left-liberal PMC, tenured radicals, unconsciously false activists, and half-wit journalists – self-registered ‘leftists’ all - who see their primary mission as denouncing the slightest dissidence - not even regarding the necessity, but the usefulness of the current measures: imposing lockdown after lockdown, keeping old people and children behind locked doors, closing schools, isolating last stage-cancer patients from their closest family, shutting down every occasion to make life worth living: meeting friends, travelling, going out, performing or watching sports/music/shows, even singing in schools (now officially unlawful), teaching face-to-face – not to speak of stifling the critique of the class character of these impositions: for ‘essential workers’, the Corona regime means work-life-imbalance as usual.[2]

“Because of Corona”

What has happened? Why does the ‘objective constraint’ allegedly implied by Corona receive such a different reception than the profit/value postulate, which is rightfully dismissed as ideological? It may seem that the virus and everything concerning the technical-material or the natural-biological world is “naturally” beyond social determination. But, as noted above, in our present world, there is no longer a ‘natural world’ unaffected by the law of value. In more banal terms: “saving the health system” is a question of money, not of personal goodwill. Where money is in abundance, the national economy can provide 2 million intensive care beds, or more, if needed. But never in the history of capitalism has the economy provided use-values without a price tag attached: and why should it be different this time? Hence, in the pandemic, it’s not about the health service protecting and caring for people’s health, but the reverse, people caring for and protecting the health service. This inversion has reached a preliminary peak with the claim that it is the fault of the people, not a badly funded health service, if we face shortages and triage in hospitals. As Timandra Harkness has recently observed:

“In previous winters, when routine operations were cancelled, or acutely ill patients died on trolleys or in ambulances, the debate was about why the NHS failed to provide what we, the public who fund it and expect it to be there for us, needed. Now it is more likely to be about what we, the public, should be doing to reduce demand.”

It’s the money-mediated market which holds sway over life and death. It is irrelevant whether the health service is already privatised or still publicly funded, funded it must be. Just imagine what states can do when banks fail. Indeed, the real subsumption of labour under capital has been provided with a correlate: the real subsumption of life under the Corona regime.

To put it more bluntly – the virus is not about biology. The virus is about money. And not only the virus: even the climate was never about ‘nature’. Buy carbon emission certificates, save the planet.[4] The real question therefore is not “what can we do to save lives?” – but “how much money is needed to save lives?” In a world where no change is implemented without its monetary equivalent, the talk of Corona as a “material-technical/natural-scientific problem” has the function of obscuring its real stakes. The same obscuration is found in bourgeois political economy who only knew capital in its technical-material function, as “that part of wealth of a country which is employed in production, and consists of food, clothing, tools, raw materials, machinery, etc., necessary to give effect to labour’[5], and not as a social relation between people. The concealment from view of the social implications of the pandemic, a phenomenon utterly at the grace of political decisions, can justly be called a public farce.

And yet, the material-technical, natural-scientific aspect of Corona became the single horizon within which political decision-making has been able to present itself this year. No other turn of phrase was heard and said, written and read more often this year than “BECAUSE OF CORONA”. BECAUSE OF CORONA working class children will have no future. BECAUSE OF CORONA Jeff Bezos saw his private wealth rise by an estimated $70 billion. BECAUSE OF CORONA the infant death rate in the developing world will triple. BECAUSE OF CORONA production has surged. BECAUSE OF CORONA production has stopped. BECAUSE OF CORONA you won’t get this job. BECAUSE OF CORONA you have to die alone.

In my lifetime, I have not experienced such a deep correlation between obvious social mediation and public reluctance to address it as such, insisting against all evidence that it forms an “objective constraint”. In other words, we are currently facing a total and complete reification of the social sphere. The bourgeois fetish – social relations as relations of things, and relations of things as social relations – has come full circle with the Corona regime.

And the PMC-Leviathan loves it – much so that the rescue from this predicament promised by the vaccine – “we will hug each other again!” in the words of a clothing distributors marketing campaign – is viewed as an outright threat to the ‘new normal’ global society has established to the comfort of tech giants[6] and their ideological acolytes. “Here’s Why Vaccinated People Still Need To Wear Masks” says the NYT[7], and ‘experts’ all over the globe warn people of becoming too confident with their newly won liberties: “Just for the viewers out there who are planning on travelling after the second dose…this is a source of confusion…just because you get vaccinated…does not mean you should be participating in things like travelling… or that you’re liberated from masks,”, contends Dr Vin Gupta MD in an interview with MSNBC on December 15th, 2020. There is a “frustration with the slack Corona measures”, as a news platform informs the reader who has just reminded their Kindergarten-aged kid to that they won’t be allowed to sing in school.

Identity Politics as Ideological Accomplice

But far from being the only aspect responsible for elevating Corona to the status of ‘objective constraint’, there is another, perhaps even more forceful one at work: the rise of a moralistic narcissism that proved to be the social pathology needed for the glorious (and global) triumph of identity politics. Narcissism, as anyone who had the sorry luck of dealing with narcissists knows, is unapologetic. The narcissist has no shame. He presents his subjective interest as the interest of all, for all. And only in a society that is thoroughly unshaken by class perceptions, absolutely immune to a view of class as the primary structuring mechanism of the present, can the richest of the rich assume the position of moral mouthpieces. If someone told me only 6 years ago that one of the richest individuals on the planet has publicly announced that putting “he/him” pronouns in a Twitter bio makes one an ‘oppressor’, I’d have snorted with laughter.[8] And I’d have spilled a few cups of tea at Prince Harry’s – net worth: a meagre 30 million US $, upholstered with a 100 million $ Netflix-deal – pathetic admonitions of ‘structural racism’ and ‘unconscious bias’ as the biggest social problem of our times.

And yet today, who is an oppressor and who is not, is decided by the likes of Elon Musk and the Windsors. And no one even as much as winks. And the story goes on: Unilever, a ‘global player’ in the strict sense, “with plantations, palm oil forests, and factories around the world and a global workforce of over 150,000 people serving 2.5 billion consumers”, pushing the identitarian social responsibility card for years, has announced that “the immutable laws of intersectionality mean that the better the job that we do for women of color, the better chance we have of progressing gender equality everywhere” – regardless of the labour, sexual exploitation and even deadly assaults on the same female workers on their Kenyan tea picking fields.[9]

With Musk, the Windsors, Unilever, Amazon’s Jeff “we-don’t-mind-losing-customers-because-of-our-stance-on-Black-Lives-Matter-while-we-sell-surveillance-gear-to-the-police”-Bezos, or Goldman-Sachs as moral instances, what could possibly go wrong? And yet, it is not merely in the world of business and finance that moralising has become the dominant form of social participation. Quite to the contrary: the academic hard left has discovered this gap in the market and turned it into an opportunity for wider distribution. On a regular basis now, academic calls-for-papers concentrate on issues that breathe the air of a damsel-in-distress attitude to social problems. Marxism-feminism’s ”Social Reproduction Theory” (SRT) is a particularly sorry variant of this kind of moralistic behavioural therapy that shows the score to lazy men who never clean up after themselves, a theoretical stream reserved for particularly dim-witted sociologists who have never made an actual argument in their lives.[10]

Needless to say, it would not occur to them that the “social constructivism” they claim for gender (which they, at the same time, hypostasise as absolutely real) could be more rightfully applied to Covid-19. What is at stake with the Corona regime and the neoliberal restructuring[11] following from it will make social reproduction’s lament of “gendered exploitation” look like a bad airbrush mural from the 1980s.

In sum, whether in the allegations of Marxism-feminism, the insufferable “trans debate”, or the latest racial hygiene demands from the left, “vulnerable” is a big word here – and so is the demand to “respect life”, neck and neck with the slightly stronger “you want people to die!” that still lights up Twitter like-buttons. Both the ferocity and the argument itself is heavily reminiscent of the ‘pro-life’ rhetoric of anti-abortionists whose demand to ‘respect life’ is equally uninterested in the specific conditions in which this ‘life’ must be led.

The Seamless Trajectory from Idpol Authoritarianism to Corona Authoritarianism

Once this kind of language was socially accepted however – in the media, the workplace, schools, universities - the same rhetoric, the words and language of the wokeria has now seamlessly attached itself to Corona and ‘Corona deaths’, the moralising framework without which politics no longer exists. The dystopianism of Giorgio Agamben’s “Homo Sacer” looks like a Morrissey lyric compared to the admonitions on the ‘sanctity of human life’ we find in the media today. Switzerland’s “Sunday Paper” (“SonntagsZeitung”) recently published the names of 5000 deceased Corona patients, in lachrymose “names in shape of the number 5000” graphics, titled “Relatives of Victims Criticise Swiss Indifference”[12], and accompanied by reports of relatives mourning the passing of their 90+-year old kin. “Where is your shame?” cries the narcissist who never thought to ask the same question with regard to pension cuts that left the elderly poorer than any generation of pensioners since 1945. Old people? They are both an argument and a counterargument, depending on your current moralistic mission.

But something deeper is at stake here: the function of this rhetoric is the exertion of private control on the ‘use of public reason’ (Kant), a private self-regulation of affectations – while our lives continue to be miserable. This is a perfect template for those missionary theorists of disciplinary control mechanisms, that we remember as our Foucaultian roommates, the guys (and girls) who wouldn’t shut up about Foucault, whether discussing strawberry shortcake recipes or “The Handmaid’s Tale”. For some reason however, in this historical moment when for once they could be useful – we hear very little from them. But I’m instantly reminded of Foucault’s theoretical (and personal) partiality to neoliberalism, in both its ideological and economic dimensions[13], and I think better of my indignation. The vast majority of today’s Foucaultians have consequently embraced the Corona regime, a biopolitical événement par excellence, and go along with the belief in the pandemic as ‘objective constraint’.

However, without the constant drumming of the identity political drum over the last decade, the Corona regime would have faced a much harder job at attaching itself to its narcissistic moralising and, hence, maintaining its scheme of a new ‘material-technical’ world order. In absence of a global triumph of bad moral philosophy disguising itself as ‘social justice’, the regime, I’d wager, would have faced more serious political obstacles and widespread resistance. But because identity politics already represented the ideology of the ruling class, a justification of the world as it is, the Corona regime could go one step further and sell its authoritarianism as ‘objective constraint’: if everything becomes a question of personal morals, and if, just by existing, you are likely to ‘kill granny’, the state can easily put itself in a position to tell us where not to go, whom not to meet, what not to do. The Corona regime’s authoritarianism would not have been possible without the warm-up phase of the authoritarianism of identity politics. It is as consequential as it is uncanny.

‘I don’t want to live another 50 years if I’m not allowed to hug anybody’, Timandra Harkness tells us. Neither do I. Of course, we might as well put ourselves into tin barrels and put the lid on. This will certainly save the NHS. And it will make neoliberal restructuring easier. On the other hand, however, we are humans – not things. The fact that this is mocked or forgotten shows just how much most of us have complied with the great narrative of ‘objective constraint.’

[stickdog99]

https://covidreason.substack.com/p/the- ... estions-we

The COVID Cover-Up: 19 Questions We MUST Answer

So here's the deal - remember when "experts" kept telling us what to do during COVID? Turns out they got pretty much everything wrong. Like, spectacularly wrong. We're talking 19 major things they completely screwed up, from how the virus spreads to whether masks actually work (spoiler alert: those cloth masks were basically fashion accessories).

Dr. Fauci is the patron saint of TERRIBLE COVID policies. He was wrong on SO MANY POINTS. It's time to set the record straight.

Did he get anything right?

Origin of the disease—wrong

Transmission—wrong

Asymptomatic spread—wrong

PCR testing—wrong

Fatality rate—wrong

Lockdowns—wrong

Community triggers—wrong

Business closures—wrong

School closures—wrong

Quarantining the healthy—wrong

Impact on youth—wrong

Hospital overload—wrong

Plexiglass barriers—wrong

Social distancing—wrong

Outdoor spread—wrong

Masks—wrong

Variant impact—wrong

Natural immunity—wrong

Vaccine efficacy—wrong

Vaccine injury—wrong

Last year the Norfolk Group just dropped a bomb of a document laying out all these failures. And it's not just Monday morning quarterbacking - they've got the receipts. Real studies showing how natural immunity was actually legit (while Fauci pretended it didn't exist), data proving schools could've stayed open (looking at you, Sweden), and evidence that maybe, just maybe, locking healthy people in their homes wasn't the brilliant strategy they claimed.

Listen, I'm not here to say "I told you so" (okay, maybe a little), but we need to talk about this. Because if we don't learn from how badly our "experts" messed up, we're just asking for a repeat performance next time around. And honestly? I don't think any of us can handle another round of plexiglass theater and double masking.

Let's break down exactly how they got it wrong, and more importantly, why they kept doubling down even when the evidence said otherwise. Buckle up - this is gonna be a wild ride through the greatest public health face-plant in modern history.

These are the questions WE want answered!

TRANSMISSION

Why did officials insist on surface transmission protocols when evidence showed primarily respiratory spread?

Why weren't hospitals evaluating transmission patterns early to inform policy?

Why did the CDC not conduct studies on actual transmission patterns in schools and workplaces?

Why was outdoor transmission overemphasized despite minimal evidence?

Why weren't transmission studies prioritized to guide evidence-based policies?

ASYMPTOMATIC SPREAD

What evidence supported the claim that asymptomatic spread was a major driver?

Why did health officials emphasize asymptomatic spread without solid data?

Why were resources wasted testing asymptomatic people when they could have focused on symptomatic cases?

How did the emphasis on asymptomatic spread affect public trust when evidence didn't support it?

What data actually existed on true asymptomatic (vs presymptomatic) transmission rates?

PCR TESTING

Why did the CDC insist on developing its own test rather than using WHO's?

Why weren't cycle threshold values standardized or reported?

Why did labs use cycle thresholds up to 40 when this led to false positives?

Why wasn't PCR testing prioritized for high-risk populations early on?

How did high cycle thresholds affect case counts and policy decisions?

FATALITY RATE

Why were infection fatality rates not properly stratified by age from the beginning?

Why were deaths "with COVID" vs "from COVID" not distinguished?

How did inflated fatality rates affect public perception and policy?

Why weren't accurate age-stratified fatality rates clearly communicated?

How did misrepresenting fatality rates affect public trust?

LOCKDOWNS

Why were lockdowns implemented without cost-benefit analysis?

Why were lockdown harms (mental health, delayed medical care, etc.) ignored?

What evidence supported the effectiveness of lockdowns?

Why weren't less restrictive focused protection measures tried first?

How many excess deaths were caused by lockdown policies?

Why weren't regional/seasonal factors considered in lockdown decisions?

COMMUNITY TRIGGERS

Why were arbitrary case numbers used to trigger restrictions?

Why weren't hospital capacity metrics prioritized over case counts?

How were community trigger thresholds determined?

Why weren't triggers adjusted based on actual risk levels?

Why weren't clear exit criteria established for restrictions?

BUSINESS CLOSURES

What evidence supported closing small businesses while keeping large retailers open?

Why weren't occupancy limits tried before full closures?

How many businesses were unnecessarily destroyed?

Why weren't economic impacts weighed against minimal health benefits?

What data supported effectiveness of business closures?

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Why were schools closed despite early evidence of low risk to children?

Why did the US ignore data from European schools that stayed open?

Why weren't the developmental/educational harms to children considered?

How did school closures affect mental health and suicide rates in youth?

Why weren't teachers unions' influence on closure decisions examined?

What evidence supported claims that schools were major transmission vectors?

QUARANTINING THE HEALTHY

Why was mass quarantine implemented without precedent or evidence?

Why weren't focused protection measures tried instead?

What was the cost-benefit analysis of quarantining low-risk groups?

How did mass quarantine affect mental health?

Why weren't vulnerable populations prioritized instead?

IMPACT ON YOUTH

Why weren't developmental impacts on children considered?

How did isolation affect mental health and suicide rates?

What were the educational losses from remote learning?

Why weren't sports/activities preserved for youth wellbeing?

How did masks/distancing affect social development?

What were the impacts on college students' mental health and development?

HOSPITAL OVERLOAD

Why weren't early treatment protocols developed to prevent hospitalizations?

Why were field hospitals built but never used?

How did "flattening the curve" messaging affect hospital preparations?

Why weren't at-risk populations protected to prevent hospitalizations?

What was the actual vs projected hospital capacity usage?

PLEXIGLASS BARRIERS

What evidence supported effectiveness of barriers?

Why weren't airflow patterns considered?

How did barriers affect ventilation?

What was the cost-benefit of barrier installation?

Why weren't barrier recommendations updated when shown ineffective?

SOCIAL DISTANCING

What evidence supported 6-foot distancing?

Why wasn't distancing adjusted based on ventilation/masks/context?

How did arbitrary distance rules affect businesses/schools?

Why wasn't 3-foot distancing considered adequate earlier?

What research supported outdoor distancing requirements?

OUTDOOR SPREAD

Why were outdoor gatherings restricted despite minimal transmission risk?

Why were beaches/parks closed?

Why weren't outdoor activities encouraged as safer alternatives?

How did outdoor restrictions affect mental/physical health?

What evidence supported masks outdoors?

MASKS

Why were mask mandates implemented without RCT evidence?

Why weren't potential harms of masking children considered?

Why were cloth masks promoted despite ineffectiveness?

How did masks affect learning/development in children?

Why weren't mask policies updated when studies showed limited benefit?

Why was natural immunity discounted in mask policies?

VARIANT IMPACT

Why were variants used to justify continued restrictions?

How did variant fears affect vaccine confidence?

Why weren't policies adjusted for milder variants?

How did variant messaging affect public trust?

Why weren't seasonal patterns considered in variant projections?

NATURAL IMMUNITY

Why was natural immunity ignored in policy decisions?

Why were recovered people required to vaccinate?

Why wasn't natural immunity studied more thoroughly?

How did dismissing natural immunity affect public trust?

Why were natural immunity studies from other countries ignored?

VACCINE EFFICACY

Why were initial efficacy claims not properly qualified?

Why wasn't waning efficacy communicated earlier?

How did overselling efficacy affect public trust?

Why weren't breakthrough cases tracked properly?

Why were boosters promoted without clear evidence of benefit?

VACCINE INJURY

Why weren't adverse events properly tracked/investigated?

Why were vaccine injuries downplayed or dismissed?

How did VAERS data interpretation affect public trust?

Why weren't age-stratified risk-benefit analyses conducted?

Why weren't early warning signals investigated more thoroughly?

How did dismissing injuries affect vaccine confidence?

We have a LOT of work to do and THANKFULLY we may have people in charge who are willing to ask these questions!

[Grizzly]

just as I called it. mere weeks before it happened. Just dumb luck I guess. Wayback machine got hacked and had 2 years of content erased. Guess which 2 years are gone?

[stickdog99]

just as I called it. mere weeks before it happened. Just dumb luck I guess. Wayback machine got hacked and had 2 years of content erased. Guess which 2 years are gone?

The Wayback Machine didn't hack itself!

[DrEvil]

just as I called it. mere weeks before it happened. Just dumb luck I guess. Wayback machine got hacked and had 2 years of content erased. Guess which 2 years are gone?

Any source for this? All I can find is that their user database was stolen, and then some assholes DDOSed them, but nothing about content being erased.

[stickdog99]

just as I called it. mere weeks before it happened. Just dumb luck I guess. Wayback machine got hacked and had 2 years of content erased. Guess which 2 years are gone?

Any source for this? All I can find is that their user database was stolen, and then some assholes DDOSed them, but nothing about content being erased.

I can't confirm this information either.

[stickdog99]

Professor Phillip Buckhaults: "Proof Plasmid DNA in mRNA vaccine modifies human genome"

Buckhaults has horrifyingly proven in his lab- that plasmid DNA from the mRNA shots can integrate into the genome of normal cells.

Twitter post

the plasmid DNA that is contained within mRNA vaccines can integrate into the genome of normal cells.

i knew this could happen, but some were unconvinced, so we took the time to prove this in the lab.

we grow normal human epithelial stem cells in my lab. its part of our normal job (cancer research). they are called organoids. these are not cancer cells, they are just the normal stem cells that make up the human colon.

we "vaccinated" some of these normal cells and grew them for a month and saw pieces of the plasmid DNA persisting in the genomic DNA of the "vaccinated" cells. we detected the plasmid DNA with our qPCR protocol that was posted to X several months ago.

this experiments was done mainly for the people who were paid to publicly ridicule this idea (and slander my reputation). most of these people are mutually blocked now, so pass around to anyone who needs to see it. maybe
@DrPaulOffit
or that rude gorsky dude would like to see it. IDK.

this does not mean that the integration is happening in real vaccinated humans (those experiments are ongoing) but it does prove that the DNA can get into normal cells just fine, as i told everyone a year ago.

its a small point and maybe looks like i am being petty, but the disparaging remarks made about me here and in the press really annoyed me so i thought it best to answer with a pipette. this experiment costs several thousands of dollars, whereas the reputation slander cost the saboteurs nothing. its asymmetric reputation warfare of sorts.

anyway, here it is.

peace.

[Grizzly]

https://archive.md/dzIsI


I had it, but it's gone from where I first saw it. I'll keep looking to try to find it again. I originally posted it, but RI kept booting me out of the site, so I gave up.

[Grizzly]

regarding the above The original place I found it is gone. I thought I took screen shots of it, but can't find that either, further, I've tried to hunt copies of it down to no avail. Apologies. It's as if it was zapped nearly immediately. It's as though, they've made the internet erasable. Which may have been the intent all along. Speculation of course.

Here's some of it...



This was one of the pictures with the article. I just can't find the article, and I'm sure I took a screen shot of it! Frustrating...

-------


Sasha Latypova- PREP ACT IS A LICENSE TO KILL

Sasha Latypova is a retired pharma and medical device R&D executive. She discusses being banned on YouTube, Operation Warp Speed, Trump’s new cabinet picks, expectations for the new administration, Prep Act, fruit loops, her substack, and much more.

https://rumble.com/v5tmi6z-coffee-and-a-mike-sasha-latypova-prep-act-is-a-license-to-kill.html

https://coffeeandamike.locals.com/post/6405530/sasha-latypova-prep-act-is-a-license-to-kill-sasha

The Prep Act is to be renewed December 31st.* I didn't even know what the prep act was until recently. Did you?

The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act is a federal law enacted in 2005 that plays a crucial role in public health emergencies. Its primary purpose is to encourage the development, manufacture, and distribution of medical countermeasures during such crises[3].

## Key Provisions and Protections

**Declaration of Public Health Emergency**

The PREP Act is activated when the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issues a declaration stating that a disease, condition, or threat to health constitutes a significant public health threat[3][4].

**Liability Protection**

The PREP Act provides broad liability protection for covered persons, shielding them from claims of loss caused by, arising out of, or relating to the administration or use of covered countermeasures[3]. This immunity extends to nearly any action undertaken by a healthcare provider while treating the declared public health emergency, regardless of negligence or recklessness[2].

**Covered Countermeasures**

Covered countermeasures may include:
- Vaccines
- Antidotes
- Medications
- Medical devices
- Other FDA-regulated assets used to respond to pandemics, epidemics, or biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear threats[4]

**Scope of Coverage**

The PREP Act declaration specifies:
- The effective time period
- Covered population
- Geographic area of administration
- Any limitations on the coverage[4]

## COVID-19 and the PREP Act

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the PREP Act played a significant role:

1. On March 17, 2021, then-HHS Secretary Alex Azar declared a public emergency, providing legal protection for manufacturers of COVID-19 drugs and vaccines[2].

2. The HHS Declaration was expanded to cover not only COVID-19 but also other diseases potentially caused by SARS-CoV-2 or its mutations, including those resulting from decreased childhood immunizations[1].

3. The Act authorized state-licensed pharmacists to administer ACIP-recommended vaccines to children aged 3 to 18, overriding contrary state laws[1].

## Limitations and Compensation

While the PREP Act provides extensive protection, there are some limitations:

1. The sole exception to PREP Act immunity is for death or serious physical injury caused by "willful misconduct"[1].

2. In 2021, Congress established the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) to address potential claims nullified by the PREP Act's immunity[2].

3. As of June 1, 2024, the CICP had received 13,773 claims, with decisions made on less than a quarter of them. Only 43 claims had resulted in compensation, totaling just over $6 million[2].

The PREP Act's broad immunity provisions have sparked debate and legal challenges. Some individuals who claim to have been harmed by COVID-19 vaccinations are seeking to sue vaccine manufacturers, arguing that the Act's immunity is unconstitutional[2].

Citations:
[1] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... B/LSB10730
[2] https://www.news-journalonline.com/stor ... 212166007/
[3] https://djholtlaw.com/what-is-the-publi ... -prep-act/
[4] https://www.health.state.mn.us/communit ... epact.html

[Belligerent Savant]

Pause for a moment and reflect on the fact that the following was official White House commentary.

Otherizing, bullying, gaslighting, blatant propaganda and lies.

@ZubyMusic

Never ever ever forget what they did.



December 2, 2024

https://x.com/ZubyMusic/status/1863616920894747117

The above quote is from a White House release dated December 17, 2021:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo ... icials-74/

[Belligerent Savant]

Nicole Shanahan: "We could save some lives right now. As you said, those that have taken it (COVID vaccine), there is gonna be some dysregularity in the immune response and it evolves over time. And so it is time sensitive. If we could admit that this is what's actually happening to people who receive the injections."

"I received three of them. I encouraged people to get them. I was dead wrong. And I am amongst those individuals who's trying to figure out what are the interventions I can take right now to help my body get rid of some of the spike protein, to help my body find homeostasis in an environment that has been significantly interrupted by all kinds of immune responses that are very irregular, that can cause cascading effects."

"But there are interventions. There are many people out there, doctors, scientists that are trying to deliver this information to the public. But it can't get there if we're hung up on this narrative that the mRNA vaccine was both safe and effective."

"It was not safe and it was not effective. And so how many millions of lives do you think we could save right now if we had more members of the government? just being bold enough to come out and say I was wrong."

[Video clip at link]

Dec 3, 2024

https://x.com/newstart_2024/status/1863887520196358501

The usual disclaimers apply: me posting this here doesn't necessarily mean I fully subscribe to all the info conveyed. I remain skeptical of the longer-terms aims in calling for govt involvement with respect to these products (and whatever potential 'Trojan Horse'/sleight of hand tricks may be attempted to be pushed through surreptitiously while most eyes are distracted... none of this is to implicate Nicole, necessarily. She may-- or may not -- be unwitting in any larger objectives). All that aside, at least with respect to surface level messaging I will applaud ANY efforts towards accountability & recognition of the affronts perpetrated.

And while I firmly maintain the premise that these mRNA products ARE indeed harmful and NOT 'effective', the actual mechanisms of action and/or long-term harms to a given human body remain subject to a wide range of theories/claims that -- as a relative layman -- can likely never be fully fleshed out without inside access/resources.

[Grizzly]

Pfizer whistleblower releases internal documents showing they had received over 158,000 adverse reaction reports within 2 months of it's release.
https://x.com/catsscareme2021/status/18 ... 7683790224

[stickdog99]

[Harvey]

spraying Round-Up ... into all your flour, I shit you not - they use it to kill the wheatgerm thereby increasing yield...

Ten years ago I when my partner was suffering from irritable bowl like symptoms, couldn't eat bread without bloating, stomach pains, constipation etc. She was told it was gluten intolerance. Mmm. I noticed she could eat as much bread or pasta as she liked when we were on holiday in Europe and elsewhere. I mentioned about glyphosate sprayed onto wheat germ and suggested we do an experiment. For weeks she had nothing with flour based ingredients then for two or three days ate bread. Symptoms returned. Then, another period without flour followed by home made organic bread. No symptoms. I couldn't prove it was glyphosate, but I felt sure it was. My annoying intuition. Anyway, looks like the world caught up...