I’ve been curating this piece for a month or so as my research on the pandemic deepened. The title reflects that I was initially addressing this to those whom I knew held a more mainstream opinion of what was going on. My divergence from the safety of the herd was painful. I found myself losing friends, and losing the odd client when they discovered my views. As a psychotherapist I have heard story after story of families splitting up as lines were drawn in the sand. What was and is happening hurt me personally and experiencing this same thing playing out in my client’s lives (on both sides of the issue) reminded me of the split in my own family. “Why Can’t We Be Friends?” conveys my hope that there was some way to continue to connect across the great divide. I’m not optimistic at this point. At least, I haven’t been able to bridge the divide with my family.
When the pandemic first began to unfold I was ready to do whatever I was told by the authorities to do my part. But quite quickly things didn’t make sense. First, the media across all networks and countries were delivering virtually the same memes. I mean, literally, Different news anchors were reading from the same script. Who was writing the script? Then I found out that there were different takes on what was going on by different scientists. But very quickly these voices were censored. Why? Wasn’t this how science worked, open debate and all that. Where there is scientific consensus, there is the end of science. And then, there was the mantra endlessly being trotted out, “it’s the science”, “trust the science”, science, science, science. It felt like medieval Europe when the edicts of the Pope carried unchallenged and unexamined authority. I’m grateful for science as an important epistemological tool. But this mantra that is still being used felt more like a hypnotic trance. The question for me was “which science” and which scientists? Can I listen to the censored ones as well, those who before they took an alternative view were highly respected epidemiologists and immunologists before their fall from grace? I wondered why nobody was talking about treatment of the infection. It became clear that there would only be one solution. We’d have to wait for a vaccine while people died. Then I did a little digging about the companies producing these vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry in general. It seemed a little fishy that we would trust the same companies who had already shown that for the sake of profit they would skew research results and then baldly lie to the public. The rabbit hole got deeper and darker as I researched mask-wearing. The evidence was overwhelming that they weren’t effective. What was their purpose if they didn’t protect me from you and you from me? I address all these areas in what follows.
I’ve decided to leave the title as is to reflect that pain I feel at being marginalized. But I do not write this hoping to change anybody’s mind. I now know it’s futile. I realized early on that what was at stake was trust in authority. If the scientists, public health officials, politicians carry unquestioned authority in one’s life, then no matter how what’s being rolled out defies common sense, or how many double-blinded, peer-reviewed studies are quoted, one will find a way to make it fit so that one’s world does not come crumbling down. It’s just too disruptive. And I confess, I found no pleasure or safety when the wheels came off the bus.
I offer this, therefore, as a record of my own journey through this pandemic.
The whole thing got up close and personal though when I was required to isolate myself for two weeks. This is a strange and unnerving experience. As one who has chosen not to be receive the injection I decided that I had better go visit my daughter and granddaughter in the U.S. before Canada shuts down air travel for the likes of me. Despite four negative Covid tests within a two-week period, I found myself restricted to my basement, and making judicious use of Door Dash. Thank god for Door Dash.
I’ve since learned more about these PCR tests. Before this experience of travelling to the U.S. I had never taken one. It turns out that without verification of the results by other means they are, ahem, not very trustworthy. It seems that their usefulness was to provide data that was skewed in favour of showing catastrophic levels of cases.
Here’s a letter written by three doctors in California that nicely summarizes the issues with the testing:
“PCR testing has proven to be seriously flawed when used to track disease prevalence, and the number of false positive tests has contributed to fear, panic and unnecessary quarantine of many. The peer review of the original Corman-Drosten PCR paper points out the serious flaws and conflicts of interest in the original article describing the PCR test (Peter Borger Et al., 11/27/2020). This paper is the basis for the PCR test used in the United States. On January 21, 2021 the World Health Organization published direction on the interpretation of a positive PCR test. They now caution about calling a test “positive” without symptoms, a confirmatory test, and physician oversight. They also cite the serious problems with high cycle thresholds leading to a high number of false positives.”
“With this information, your COVID positive case numbers are highly suspect and using this data to determine which tier the population falls into has been, and continues to be, completely unreliable and arbitrary. Our recommendation is to move forward quickly with rapid antigen testing. These tests are less expensive, and more appropriately sensitive to detect people with active, contagious disease.”
We were intentionally made to be very afraid of this virus based on the number of positive tests. The media referred to these as “cases”. But we now know that a “case” is not the same as infection. We now know that for asymptomatic individuals who test positive there is a 97% false positive rate.
A friend made a documentary about his brother-in-law who received a false positive test and was required by his work to quarantine, upstairs in his home, unable to be with his children and wife. On day 8 he left the house, got in his car, and disappeared, never to be seen again. The story of the family’s pain is the connecting thread for the doc which questions the dominant narrative of the pandemic. When I first saw it, I thought the point was being made that the isolation drove him to suicide. But that’s not what my friend was saying. I think his point was that it was entirely possible that the pain of isolation was simply too much for him. He had to escape. His car was found 60 kms north of their home in the wilderness, but his body was never recovered.
And now having been through the experience for myself, I have more empathy for this man and his family. I see why my friend made the connection in his documentary. Being isolated is depressing as hell. And anxiety-inducing. I had to call it in every day, the health authorities knocked on my door randomly to check that I was complying, and I was reminded frequently that the penalty for breaking quarantine is a 5000.00 fine, time in a quarantine facility, or five years in prison if they can prove that I infected somebody and they die.
Having one’s freedoms restricted by one’s country is a very serious matter.
The Effectiveness of Isolation In Inducing Conformity
B.F. Skinner was an early behavioural scientist. He discovered (in very ghoulish experiments) that even animals eventually collapse and die when their freedoms are removed. He called it the freedom instinct. I think it would be safe to say that this instinct is even more acute in the human animal. The CIA thought so too. They use isolation techniques very effectively as a method of getting reluctant sources to cough it up. Which is to say it is an effective form of torture. There was a much greater chance of me getting sick from isolation than from the virus, imho.
You and I may have different opinions for what constitutes a matter serious enough to remove a citizen’s freedom. But for me, that line was crossed at the airport when I showed the Canadian border officer my negative Covid test and he asked if I had a quarantine plan and handed me yet another test kit. I once again flashed the test I took 24 hours earlier, but to no avail. I found myself, with a swab stuffed a long way up both my nostrils. I can think of worse places I suppose. Now, I should have known that I would be automatically quarantined if I left the country, but I couldn’t believe that Canada, true north, strong, and free, would do this to a citizen.
Big deal, right? A few of my tennis buddies guffawed, upon hearing that a top player had been disqualified from a local tournament because he refused to be poked. “It’s not like this is Communist China for god’s sake”! They agreed he was being selfish, implying that we’re all doing it for the sake of others, which, as we’ll see below, isn’t true.
There is virtually no empathy for the likes of me, court-side or anywhere else on the planet for that matter. We, the dwindling remnant of unjabbed, have made our bed. Lie in it, asshole, is pretty much the message I keep getting from the media and my political representatives. The solution is simple. Get the jab, mate. I am one of those recalcitrant kooks creating problems where there is none.
Usually, the politicians and news anchors follow up with: “Flying on a plane is a privilege, not a right!” The same with eating in a restaurant, or going to a sports event. Some even are suggesting that health care and driving a car are privileges that are earned by following the directive. I’ve always wondered what an electric bike would be like. My dog would have to ride on the handlebars I guess.
It’s all a bit chilling. Contrary to my tennis buddies, I am concerned about state overreach. Our relatively recent historical experience in the Western World of enjoying a rare degree of freedom can generate laziness when it comes to keeping an eye on our government. Statements like those above about freedoms being a privilege not a right precisely reflects the language of a slide into a totalitarian social credit system. This is a system marked by citizens being forced to hold the same opinions, beliefs, and allegiances. No room for diversity, debate, protest. And in the case of this pandemic that includes scientific debate. Witness the large number of scientists who have been censored, shamed, and sidelined by a compliant media.
No, we’re not Communist China. There, the social credit system is already underway. It was designed in 2014 to “allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under the sun while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step”. As Jeff Booth describes in The Price of Tomorrow: “Every citizen receives a credit score available as public record. Points are deducted for things like traffic violations, bad debt, selling faulty products” (and rewarded for those activities that deemed “good” by the state). “In some regions, listening to music too loudly deducts points; in others jaywalking or playing video games. It would be hard to imagine any system that rewarded opposition in any form to the Communist Party…By the end of 2018 the system is functioning in 12 regions, it has blocked access for 5.4 million people from traveling on high speed trains and an additional 17 million people from taking airline flights.”
A year ago, it was inconceivable for me to imagine any form of social credit system happening in Canada. Now, it feels like we’re underway. If I get the injection, I can eat at my favourite restaurant, go to a Christmas market, take a vacation to Mexico, and visit my daughter without being quarantined. If I refuse, my privileges are removed, well, have been removed. For those who have experienced early childhood trauma of being made to feel like they don’t belong, and those who know what it likes to be shamed, shunned and punished for being unique by the same authorities who are supposed to be caring for you (and by extension as it relates to government, serving you) this is very painful. Painful enough for most of the population to respond to the threat of being sidelined with compliance to any and all government measures. It’s an ingenious strategy, grounded in awareness of basic human nature — we are affliliative, relational creatures. This is why authoritarian states and intelligence agencies use isolation to break their victims down.
Austria, of all places, is quarantining a full 1/3 of its citizens, and making it clear that police can approach a citizen on the street and ask for identification at any time. Starting January 1, 2022, injections will be forced into every citizen by the state. Across the border in Germany, they’re having the conversation about forced vaccinations as well. They’ve put up fences in Hamburg to separate the vaccinated from the unvaccinated at the Christmas markets. Holland has imposed a curfew on its citizens from 5 pm to 7 am. Getting chilly yet? This is Germany and Austria and a country that was occupied. Memories are apparently short.
So, let’s see, quarantine camps for those who refuse the injection, censorship of alternative views, a world of freedom for those who obey, and another world of isolation and shame for the disobedient, threatening people’s livelihoods if they don’t follow the plan, scapegoating a segment of the population. Forgive me if 1939 Germany comes to mind.
It’s been declared that my kind don’t have the right to determine what goes in our bodies. I can still make that choice, (for how long?), but not without paying the piper, which is to say, being sent into exile, living with restricted freedoms, and being surveilled by the state. And in my opinion this isn’t effective health policy, it is punishment.
Here’s the kicker: If it was clear that I was actually protecting anybody but myself by getting the poke, I’d reconsider. It’s actually questionable whether the small benefit I might get from the poke is worth the risk however, as we’ll see below. (More on Absolute Risk Reduction below).
I look at the track record of the pharmaceutical industry in the past decade and it doesn’t inspire confidence. They’ve been fined 10’s of billions over the last decade for fraud, research tampering, and false advertising. If you’re not familiar with the criminal history of the companies producing these injections this might help. Think opioid crisis and Purdue Pharmaceuticals. Or the Vioxx scandal in which Merck intentionally skewed the research results to make it appear as though the drug was safe. They ended up paying out close to 5 billion in lawsuits from family who had members who had died or been seriously injured by the vaccine. But mainstream media treats the CEO’s of these companies like saviours. Blindly trusting these companies, who are making obscene profits from this virus is hard for me to understand. (Pfizer just announced that it’s made 36 billion this year from their injection protocols).
So there’s that. But when we also consider that the initial trials to prove safety and effectiveness occurred over two months, that the trial was seriously flawed (see below), that it skipped over animal testing, and never made it to phase three trials (well, actually you are the phase three trial) before being granted Emergency Use Authorization, I confess to being offended that I am being coerced to take the jab. Typically, a vaccine take 3-5 years to gain FDA approval. If it works for you, god bless you. I mean it. But given that there was no testing of long term effects and that the Pfizer trial (for example) was seriously flawed, these coercive tactics are unconscionable.
When medical doctor and media darling, Sanjay Gupta, appears on Sesame Street to seduce children into wanting the jab, (targeted at the resistant Latin American population) he has crossed a line. That line is known as the Nuremburg Code, a set of 10 ethical principles to guard against abusive medical testing of humans. It was formulated after WW2, in response to the Nazi using humans (mostly Jews) as guinea pigs for experimental vaccines and other medicines. The first principle states that any intervention must take place “without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of
constraint or coercion”.
Granted, individual freedoms under extreme conditions are relative and need to be balanced by consideration for the good of the whole. I get it. For example, our province has suffered catastrophic flooding over the last few days. The Premier has issued Emergency Authorization Orders to take whatever actions are necessary to mitigate the damage. I’m all for it. This is a good use of emergency authorization by a government. If I have to go a couple weeks without gas for my vehicle so that emergency vehicles can be fueled, no biggy.
As to the question of whether anybody is doing their patriotic duty and expressing love for their neighbour by taking the jab. In light of the recent comment of Bill Gates I can’t understand the vitriol being directed at us refuseniks. Mr. Gates, who unilaterally declared 2010-2020 as the “decade of the vaccine”, and whose opinions on the subject holds alarming sway over nation states, (because of the massive amounts of money that he strategically uses to capture the entire health industry, including research grants) recently said on record: “We got vaccines that help you with your health, but they only slightly reduce transmission.”
Huh?
I find it astonishing that the media by and large has simply let this slide and instead continue to hammer out the message that this is a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”. How so? Not according to Mr. Gates. They. Only. Slightly. Reduce. Transmission. So that means that the asymptomatic jabbed can transmit the virus just like the unjabbed. If this is true, then why exactly am I in isolation while those with the PR codes can fly the friendly skies without being quarantined? [spacer height=”20px”]
If I was vaccinated I’d be pissed, because I’d have been told repeatedly that it stops transmission. Well, this recent study published in the Lancet clearly supports Gate’s statement. It concludes: ” It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission when deciding about public health control measures. Emphasis on “grossly”.
At the beginning of the pandemic Toni Fauci, head of NIAID (National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases) and the person most responsible for the global response, told us that asymptomatic transmission wasn’t an issue. From a speech to his own regulators, he explains the fruitlessness of masking asymptomatic people. “The one thing historically people need to realize, that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver is always a symptomatic person“.
Fauci has flip flopped on this position, who knows why? But it’s not science. Or has the science changed between his first declaration and his new position in just months?
Dr. Peter McCullough, whom I regard as a hero in creating an early treatment protocol, while hospitals and University Medical Centers have left people to die, has researched this in depth, and concluded that asymptomatic transmission is a non-issue. See also this study. And this one.
Then there is the question of whether the jabs are safe and effective. I know, we’re told ad nauseum that “they work”. But there are some real questions to be answered about effectiveness. Gibraltar is over 100% injected (some triple jabbed) and their Covid rates are escalating. Over 94% of the Irish have taken the treatment and yet have some of the highest infection rates, post-regime, in Western Europe. Same story in Israel and West Flanders. I could go on. We were told that we’d be protected from infection if we got the injection. But there’s a thing called “pathogenic priming” that all epidemiologists lose sleep over. This is when the vaccine sets a population up to be more susceptible if they do subsequently contract the natural virus, not less. And now, the answer seems to be more jabs. As one news anchor put it, “three is the new two”.
More importantly, the number trotted out in the media for the initial Pfizer trials to assure the public of its effectiveness was 95% efficacy. Shit man, sign me up. It makes it sound like I have a 95% chance of being protected, right? But that number is called the Relative Risk Reduction. The true measure of effectiveness is Absolute Reduction Risk. Now, it took me a little while to sort this out, but I think I get it now. In the study of 43,548 people divided into two groups, one got the real Mccoy and the other a saline solution. After seven days, they checked to see who got COVID. In the jabbed cohort, 8 out of 18,198 got the virus. In the non-jabbed group 162 people got it. When you do the math, you see that the risk for the unjabbed was extremely low, at .88%. The jab lowered that risk to 0.04%. The net benefit, in other words, the Absolute Risk Reduction is 0.84% (.88 minus .04). The 95% number comes from the “relative” difference between 0.88 and 0.04. Pfizer knew what it was doing, hell the press could have known with a little research. On the FDA’s (Federal Drug Administration) website, they are very clear that when reporting results use the Absolute Risk Reduction number. Pfizer’s choice not to follow proper protocol goes without reprimand because, strangely, 40% of FDA’s funding comes from the pharmaceutical companies it is charged with monitoring. But there it is, all this fear porn to generate conformance with an intervention that decreases your risk of getting the virus by .84%.
It gets worse though. As this very helpful video by the Canadian Covid Care Alliance makes clear there may be more harm than good with these inoculations. After two months, Pfizer offered to let the placebo group switch teams, and get the vaccine. Most chose to do so. The upshot is that long term study of adverse events was eliminated from results. You could understand this if the Absolute Risk Reduction was significant, which would mean that withholding the vaccine would be unethical. But for less than 1% risk reduction? More concerning is that there ended up being more deaths in the jabbed cohort than the placebo (14-10), two of those deaths occurring in two persons who crossed over and decided to get the jab, and significantly more serious adverse events (mostly heart related). Add to this that you want your test group to reflect the demographic that is most at risk of death–85% are over the age of 75). Yet, in the study only 4% were represented by this age demographic. When you’re designing a study like this, it is typically focused on those who could most benefit from the treatment. Again, the study was designed to test healthy people. But in real life, 95% of those who die with COVID have one co-morbidity (another disease), and the average is four co-morbidities. In the Pfizer trial only 21% of the participants had an existing co-morbidity. The injection was tested on the healthy and then given to the frailest members of our society.
The list of excluded conditions (those who were not eligible to participate in the study) include pregnant woman, breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, people with bleeding disorders, people who had been prescribed steroids. So there is virtually no data on the impact of the jab on these people, yet when it came time to mandate vaccines, they were told it was safe. If they wanted the “freedom passport”, visit family, etc. they would have to take the jab. But based on what data? Not this initial study that was used to get Emergency Use Authorization.
And that is why, effectiveness needs to be balanced by safety.
As for safety, the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) in the U.S., as respected as it is around the world, underestimates deaths and serious injury. But a modest estimate adjusted for underreporting by Dr. Peter McCullough puts the death toll (of those dying from the vaccine) at 45,000.00 and the permanently disabled at 30,000. These kinds of numbers for any previous vaccine would have been unacceptable. The vaccine would be pulled. The general rule of thumb is that when five deaths occur the product gets a black box warning of “may cause death”. After fifty deaths the product is pulled regardless of the number of vaccinated. Call me crazy, but the way I’m reading the data these jabs are not worth the risk, at least for me. [spacer height=”20px”]
There are those who do the calculations and conclude that this is an acceptable risk, but I find that chilling. How can 45,000 deaths be held as an acceptable safety risk? It doesn’t matter that this is a worldwide vaccine. At minimum, with this degree of risk, measured against the Absolute Risk Reduction, and my conclusion is that the coercive strategies being employed to effectively force populations to take the vaccines is unconscionable.
The Recent History of Pandemics
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s new book on Toni Fauci exposes the depth and breadth of corruption in what he calls the medical and pharmaceutical cartel. Fauci has a history of creating false pandemics.
Let’s start with the 1976 Swine Flu. It didn’t live up to its pandemic billing. “Pharma and NIAID (Fauci’s operation) told Congress, the White House and the Public that this virus was the same strain responsible for the 1918 Spanish flu, which, they warned, killed 50 millions people worldwide. When all was said and done one person died. They were lying; scientists, the CDC and HHS knew that H1N1 was an ordinary pig virus posing no risk for humans.” But the savior vaccine was rolled out anyway. Congressional investigators found the notes in which Maurice Hilleman (of Merck pharmaceutical) confesses that the vaccine “had nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics”. The rollout of the vaccine was supported by the media, government, local health centers with the CDC even setting up a war room to bolster public fear. Commercials breathlessly presented scenarios in which remorseful patients who didn’t get vaxxed suffered serious illness. The scientist who blew the whistle on the fraud, Dr. Morris, was fired. His obituary included this statement: “The producers of these vaccines know they are worthless, but they go on selling them anyway”.
Next up: the 2005 Bird Flu, H5N1. Neil Ferguson, the same epidemiologist and modeler who vastly overestimated the number of deaths from COVID and was embarrassed by colleagues who pointed out the gross errors in his calculations, got his start with the Bird Flu. He predicated that 150 million could be killed by bird flu. Worldwide 282 people died, between 2003 and 2009. Once again, this was the virus Fauci and the pharmaceuticals had been waiting for. The world was told by the same actors that this virus was deadly, highly contagious. The World Bank thought it would cost 2 trillion to control it. Fauci got the Bush administration to fork over 7.1 billion. Again, Fauci compared the Bird Flu to the Spanish Flu. You see a pattern beginning to emerge? (By the way, in 2008, Fauci co-authored a study for the Journal of Infectious Disease confessing that virtually all of the “influenza” casualties in 1918 (Spanish Flu) “did not actually die from flu but from bronchial meningitis, which are, today easily treated with antibiotics unavailable in 1918”. (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17330793).
This is when Bush passed the Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005, banning any and all lawsuits against even the most reckless, and reprehensible behavior by vaccine makers, “even for vaccines administered by force”.
And again: the 2009 Hong Kong Swine Flu. Fauci declared a pandemic even though the symptoms were mild and death rates very low – fewer than 145 worldwide 11 weeks after its first appearance. The WHO secretly changed the definition of a pandemic, deleting the words and requirements for “mass death around the globe”. Michael Fumento in Forbes magazine observed, “You can now have a pandemic with zero deaths”. This slight of hand was reversed due to the outcry, but the WHO admitted that it had done so at the behest of mysterious “government and industry scientists”. We still don’t know who these people were. But once again, the obedient media fawned over Fauci and NBC declared that “Swine flu could strike up to 40% of Americans over the next two years, and…several hundred thousand could die if a vaccine campaign and other measures aren’t successful.” (NBC, July 24, 2009, nbcnews.com/id/wbna32122776).
Interesting tidbit thanks to JFK’s research team. In 2009, Marc van Ranst, a Belgian virologist and pharmaceutical insider “financially and ideologically indentured to GSK (Glaxo Smith Klein) Sanofi-Pasteur, J and J, and Abbot” described his role during this 2009 debacle:
“You have one opportunity to do it right. You have to go for one voice, one message…You have to be omnipresent that first day or days, so you attract media attention…and they’re not going to search for alternative voices”…Talking about fatalities is important because people say wow, what do you mean, people die because of influenza? That was a necessary step to take. Then of course a couple of days later you had the first death and the scene was set”. He continued, “I misused the fact that the top football clubs in Belgium inappropriately and against all agreements gave (vaccine) priority. I could use that, because if the population really believes that this vaccine is so desirable that even these soccer players would be dishonest to get it, okay I can play with that. So I made a big fuss about it. It worked.”
This guy got promoted when the next pandemic came along, becoming the public face of Belgium’s COVID response agenda. You reward your faithful. The side effects from the vaccine were atrocious including (miscarriages, narcolepsy, febrile convulsions, severe neurological injuries, paralysis from Guil-lain-Barre syndrome, narcolepsy, and cataplexy (including in 500 children). Glaxo finally withdrew the vaccine. Epidemiologist Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, chairman of the Health Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), declared this 2009 “false pandemic one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century”.
As per usual there was no investigation of Dr. Fauci or the other medical officials who orchestrated the multi-billion dollar fraud.
Remember the Zika virus? In 2016, Fauci connected it to an outbreak of cases of microencephaly in infants (tiny heads). We know that Zika doesn’t cause this disease. It was endemic to Central America and much of South Asia with zero reported case of babies with small heads. Fauci’s critics claim that Fauci was distracting from a more likely cause, which was his experimental vaccine DPT administered to pregnant women in the slums of north-east Brazil. Once again, the servile media jumped in with both feet. It was a feeding frenzy. Moderna (yes the same one) was called upon to develop a mRNA vaccine. Upshot? WHO spokesman Christopher Dyer told NPR, while “we apparently saw a lot of cases of Zika virus in 2016 there was no microencephaly”. Peaking at a high of about 5200 cases in 2016, the US has recorded a total of about 550 cases since then, with roughly 80% occurring in 2017, and no babies with small heads. The disease never got beyond Florida and Texas. But ya’ never know claimed Fauci. It will “come again” and we have to be prepared for it.
(There is still no functional vaccine for Zika, and in 2019 there were 15 reported cases. Cost 2 billion.) Under questioning before Congress Fauci sheepishly confessed, “It was never brought to full fruition because Zika disappeared”.
No, I’m not saying that this virus isn’t real. It is. It kills, if left untreated as it has been, primarily the old, the obese, and those with multiple co-morbidities. But it doesn’t have to kill if Dr. Peter McCullough is right. If doctors would actually treat rather than leave patients to their own devices or hook them up to remdesivir, which is highly toxic and ineffective, and Fauci knows it. Yet, the pattern established with previous viruses and vaccines roll-outs has played itself out with this pandemic to a tee: hyped media rhetoric over-emphasizing the deadliness of the virus, focusing on outlier cases of younger people who became very ill and/or who died without the vaccine, no treatment offered except vaccines, an incurious press, and a windfall for the Pharmaceutical industry.
(Peter McCullough estimates, based on research, (which he testified to under oath before the Senate, that 85% of the 800,000 that have died with COVID in the U.S. could have been saved with his early treatment protocol. Not to mention the massive reduction in hospitalization which is trotted out as one of the primary reasons to be vaccinated. Well, there’s a simple fix. Treat patients.
Getting the needle doesn’t prevent transmission, says Gates, but may “protect our personal health”. We have every right to protect our health if that’s what we believe we are doing by getting these injections. But wasn’t this pitched from the beginning, and still is ,in fact, being pitched, as taking one for the team? Even our patriotic duty? That’s what my tennis buddies believe. Isn’t this, as we were told, what separates the rational, sensitive citizen from those wacky “anti-vaxxers”?[spacer height=”20px”]
Wakos like Aaron Rodgers, quarterback for the Green Bay Packers, who has chosen against the procedure. Based on the treatment he’s getting from the mainstream media you’d think he got caught molesting children. He’s gone from superstar status to scum in record time. His choice apparently gives the media and politicians the right, nay the duty, to hate him, to shame him, and to try and stop him from playing,
Masks
The CDC, the FDA, and WHO, well, pretty much every pundit, is now telling us all, jabbed or not, to wear masks. Along with the injections these will keep us safe we are told. But there’s overwhelming evidence that they don’t work. There’s plenty of research to back this up. But let’s just hear from Mr. Fauci himself on Feb.17th, 2020 in an interview with USA Today: ” If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn’t really do much to protect you. Now in the U.S. there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask”. He changed his mind subsequently as did my province’s provincial Health Minister, Dr. Bonnie Henry, who also flip flopped on the issue (and denied it, but the video leaves no wiggle room). Fauci’s about face happened only one month after the above announcement and nobody has explained why. You hear repeatedly, well policy has to change with new scientific information but did the science really change in one month?
This masking is theatre. I walk past restaurants (having been banned) and see all these people sitting cheek by jowl, unmasked. Then they get up for a bathroom break and dutifully put on the mask. We know that the virus spreads primarily as an aerosol, and not as droplets. They travel 30 feet and those little blue masks are pathetic props. The virus drifts in around the many openings, and even through the material as the virus is smaller than the mesh in the mask. It helps us to believe that we’re actually doing something, but we’re not. Except scaring the shit out of each other and reminding each other that we continue to be in grave danger.
The best resource, based in scientific research, on the subject of masks is chapter 18 of former New York times journalist, Alex Berenson’s book Pandemia. This guy has taken it hard on the chin from all his left-leaning former colleagues for revealing the science of masks. He points out that before this virus, the research wasn’t even controversial. On Feb.6, 2020 a meta-analysis (of all relevant research) studies going back to 1946 and which was published by the Centers for Disease control, concluded: “We did not find evidence that surgical -type face masks are effective in reducing transmission, either when worn by infected persons or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility”.
This also from Berenson’s book: In December, 2013, a nursing union filed a grievance against enforced masked wearing in hospitals. “A neutral arbitrator, James Hayes, heard testimony of six experts, and read more than 100 scientific papers. His finding? “The scientific evidence to support the mask mandate is insufficient”. (www.newswire.ca/news-releases/ona-wins-landmark-influenza-vaccine-or-mask-grievance-526265811.html.)
The hospitals challenged the ruling. On Sept. 6, 2018, William Kaplan agreed with Haye’s findings and went further: ” The preponderance of the masking evidence is compelling: surgical and procedural masks are extremely limited in terms of source control. They do not prevent the transmission of the influenza virus”. (https://ona.org/wp-content/uploads/).
Even the CDC agreed as late as summer 2021, before removing the science from their website: A poster stated that masks: “D0 NOT provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller airborne particles and are not considered respiratory protection” (Understanding the Difference”, Centers for Disease Control,(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/pdfs/understandingthedifferenceinfograph-508.pdf)
(These studies were for flu viruses, but they are essentially the same size as the corona virus and are spread the same way).
Danish researchers did a trial on masks, in 2021, well-designed including over 6000 people (very large) and found that masks did not work. They couldn’t find a single journal that would publish their findings. Interesting.
Just as the FDA did with the definition of pandemic, the CDC did with the definition of vaccines. They changed the definition of “vaccine”. Historically, by definition, vaccines prevent transmission. And stopped the vaccinated from getting the original virus itself (and the host of variants). That’s why we get ’em.[spacer height=”20px”]
Not anymore. Because it’s likely you’ve never heard this tidbit on mainstream media, it’s worth spending another paragraph on the matter.
“Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity”has been switched to “protection.” The term “vaccine” also got a makeover. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”
Out with immunity. The grand and noble bar set and realized for all other vaccines has been pathetically lowered. Immunity has morphed magically into “protection” and all they have to do now to attain the status of vaccine is to stimulate the body’s immune response and not actually produce immunity.
So, serious question. Is this, then, a vaccine, by any traditional measure of a vaccine, before history was rewritten?
Rather than being offended and alarmed by this Orwellian rewrite, it’s easier and more convenient to find a scapegoat, so that society doesn’t have to risk taking a critical look at the data that doesn’t support the dominant narrative. Or even ask questions about what Mr. Gate’s comment means about social and health policy. Just let it slide, then blame my kind.
In the sense that literary critic and anthropologist, Rene Girard, understands scapegoating, it could be said that those who are “taking one for the team” are the non-injected. We are the scapegoats. We are the problem. We could all get back to normal if it wasn’t for those pesky vermin—the disobedient crazies. And you know what you do with vermin, right? You give them what they deserve.[spacer height=”20px”]
Girard saw this historical pattern playing itself out throughout history. Choose an innocent victim, fatten him up and slaughter him as a sacrifice—the murder of an innocent victim to quell uncertainty and unrest. A holy hush falls over the mob when it witnesses the innocent victim eliminated. It’s a sacred moment, this restoration of order. The frightened, angry mob settles down for at least a while. But to maintain the order there must be new victims. And so the cycle continues.
Girard called it “sacrificial violence”. The mob concurs that it is ‘their” fault. It was the witches, the homosexuals, the gypsies, the Jews, the Republicans, the disobedient, the jabless, who are ruining it for everyone else. Make an example of them, things will settle down. Remove them and things will get back to normal. Lock them away in their own homes, fine them, lock them down, prevent them from traveling, keep them from visiting dying relatives in the hospital, and if that doesn’t work threaten them with being sent to a quarantine facility or prison. Find any method to scare the bejeezus out of them.
Love, says Girard, is the answer, not scapegoating. But there’s the rub. We’ll have different answers to the question of what is the loving thing to do in this situation. We’ll likely never solve that one because we have collectively fallen under what one author calls “the polarity spell”. Maybe the best we can do while we’re waiting for the spell to break is to stop hating. I hate being hated. I love being loved even more. But if I can’t have that, would you mind just not hating me? I’m not actually a threat to you. I promise if I get sick I will isolate myself, as I’ve always done. You do the same, okay? Can we stop pretending that I’m a biohazard but you’re safe because you’re vaccinated? Bill knows that ain’t true.
Can we be friends again?
P.S. Here’s an interview by Dr. Byram Bridle by a professor of immunology and a vaccinologist at the University of Guelph, a highly respected professor—until he became one of the designated scapegoats because he started to ask questions, as scientists should do. He came to different conclusions than the dominant narrative. He has issued invitations to a public debate. But nobody has accepted his invitation. None of his accusers. Nobody in his university administration. Nobody is stepping forward. Why not? Isn’t this the very heart of the scientific method? He goes into why the vaccine doesn’t actually prevent transmission. It’s likely to be removed soon, so you might want to check it out sooner rather than later.
