I presume the "booster" is only for those who received the original injections?
Given what we now know of the potential harm of these injections, anyone playing any part in injecting enfants - who have no say in the matter - can only be an idiot, a criminal or both. Sorry, but those are the only options I can see.
My 71 yo sister was severely compromised for YEARS and on toxic chemo. She died soon after the first Pfizer. Quickly with raging CHF. Getting around fine laughing and joking on a zMonday. Unconscious Tuesday. Dead Saturday.
Friend of mine, her dad had cancer years ago and was over it. Full remission. He took the injections in 2021. 3 of them. In May this year his old cancer suddenly appeared and was metastic almost instantly. All measures - previously succesful - failed. He died in September.
I still don't understand any rationale for immunocompromised people of any age to get these shots. The argument is that with reduced immune function then one is less easily able to fight an infection. Yet given that the supposed appropriate response to the injection relies on a functioning immune system it is set to fail. Yet that is the justification for administering it, with the added impetus of giving more shots to those people because they don't mount a good response?? It's totally backwards. Added in the acknowledged factor of the injection suspending the immune system, even if temprarily as claimed, makes it a triple whammy for those poeple. I mean, seriously?
And I just read Bernard Massie's response which put is to much more succinctly than my verbosity. Quite!
I'd be very interested to hear any opinions on the term 'vaccine effectiveness'. How exactly is this measured? Is this an ELISA assay for antibodies? If so, what antibodies? What data shows correlation to antibody level and clinical presentation? Antibodies have always been surrogate measurements. Is there clinical effectiveness such as infection? Viral load? Clinical progression? Where is it if so? Also, is there any data anywhere showing actual infectivity vs viral particle and viral load throughout clinical progression? Or, is only PCR data available which is also a surrogate? If only PCR, exactly which proves are used and why and how is this quantitative? qPCR? ddPCR? Does anyone truly know long term (>6mo bio distribution?). Seems like all the basic elements are still missing.... embarrassing.
Thanks for this article and the one before about the true IFR. I think the overall data was that it was .14% fatality rate on average from the Ioannadis study which is what I had been quoting. Before that even the CDC conceded it was only .3%, but the breakdown by demographic works better.
We can see the irrationality of these decisions because we, for whatever reason, have lost confidence in the institutions around us a long time ago. And there is no rational recourse. They will doggedly dig their heels in and drive this sunk cost logical fallacy train into the ravine. But we need to keep speaking out, and people will open their eyes and observe.
The sad thing is, I don't think there are many malevolent people at the top that know it's all theater, smoke and mirrors. A lot of these officials feed on the self perpetuating fear machine of the media, educational system, Hollywood etc. to reinforce and support their narrative. We have to be that playing card in the spokes of that wheel that makes noise, and the noise gets louder the faster they try to pedal.
That's my .02 cents of thought on this Thursday morning.
I don't know what to think of parents who would even think to vaccinate their children for a disease with a .0003% fatality rate. I should start up a narrative that I have an over-the-counter cooties cure. They could send away for it in the mail, and I'll send them a "Cooties Catcher."
Jimmy – that is a great comment. Two of your statements ring the bell for me by describing the nature of the psychosis that has taken hold of the minds of the health bureaucrats who are supposed to be safeguarding public health. Those statements are:
1. “They will doggedly dig their heels in and drive this sunk cost logical fallacy train into the ravine”, and;
2. “A lot of these officials feed on the self-perpetuating fear machine of the media, educational system, Hollywood etc. to reinforce and support their narrative.”
I think those statements accurately describe what is happening in the country in which I live (Australia). When two of the senior health bureaucrats in Australia were interrogated recently about the vaccine injuries before an Australian Senate enquiry, they seemed unable to answer basic questions for which I would have expected such people to have the facts at their fingertips – at least in a general way. But they seemed befuddled, and just prevaricated. The interrogating Senator was unable to get a straight answer from them.
It reminded me of a statement made many years ago by the former CEO of a major U.S. auto manufacturer. He had started his career on the factory floor decades before and said that back then he assumed that the people at the top of the management hierarchy must have been ‘experts’ who always knew what they were doing. But many years later after he himself had risen to the top, he found that there actually were no ‘experts’ – just fallible people with opinions who often made very poor decisions.
I think that part of the problem is that career bureaucrats rise to the top by being good at playing the game of organisational politics and simply by serving their time. But this sort of career formation does not prepare them psychologically to suddenly be thrust into the role of an operational commander during a full blown crisis. Thus, they quickly sink out of their depth because managing a major crisis demands a very different type of personality than what a government bureaucracy can routinely deliver.
In the lead up to World War II, the Australian government of that era found that the defence bureaucracy was unable to get its act together to rapidly accelerate arms production in preparation for the looming threat. They were bogged down in interminable interdepartmental committees, unable to resolve anything. The situation was resolved by the Prime Minister appointing an outsider - a leading businessman from the manufacturing sector as the defence production supremo, who quickly sorted things out.
In the same vein, I think that we have all been failed by the fact that the health bureaucracies are run by people who are not up to the job and had neither the intellectual nous nor the backbone to do what was required of them when the crisis hit. I am not discounting a measure of corruption either, but I don’t think it was the only thing.
Your illustration of the two senior health bureaucrats reminds me of the gleeful admission of the Pfizer executive (I say gleeful because she laughed) about the vaccine not being tested to see if it stopped infection/transmission and then made the famous "speed of science" crack. Either she didn't have any idea of what she was saying, or worse, she did and didn't care.
Apparently, here in the states, Fauci had a similar response of prevarication. He sounded like Ollie North during the Iran Contra hearings, a lot of "I do not recall" and "I forget." Yet ironically he had a ton of things to say about masking outdoors and under what conditions to meet socially just a few short years ago. He was "all up in our grill" about Holiday get togethers, attending concerts, and even shaking hands.
You make an interesting point about executives. Elon Musk appears to be the same way. He is trying new things with his technological toy, Twitter, and although I think his heart is in the right place in terms of free speech, I don't know he is the right person to run Twitter...but I think he knows that. I think part of what he is doing now with Twitter is a bit of theater. He is tweaking the nose of those who were in control of it before, and at the same time he is trying new things like mitigating cross platform promotion.
But to say he is an expert is probably a misnomer, but rather, someone who had a good mindset, who tackled tough problems, and wasn't afraid to make mistakes.
In an ideal world, I say ideal because realistically I doubt this would happen, the onus should be on us to decide how we face a crisis unless the loss of life is dire. Regarding "dire" there would be no vague platitudes of what that meant, it would be something quantifiable that we all understood, if not agreed upon. But if such a crisis were imminent, I imagine no protocols would be needed as we would all lock down without even being told to do so.
The only people I know who got their 2 sons in Kindergarten and 2nd grade are wealthy, white Democrats (they had a Biden Harris motorcycle rally in the summer of 2020 which is how I know) who happen to live next door to me even though they know I almost died from mine they got those poor boys boosters 2/3 weeks ago. Breaks my heart.
Has ANY reporter (or anyone else) bothered to ask people at the FDA about when they plan to release their data on the Covid vaccines? The data that they said ‘wasn’t ready for prime time’?
Last year, I did a blog post on my Wordpress blog asking what was the rush to vaccinate children. Young children should not have been vaccinated. There was absolutely no benefit to them at all. The flu and RSV are more dangerous viruses to young children. The flu is a more dangerous virus to the average person than the coronavirus is. Here's the link to the blog:
I presume the "booster" is only for those who received the original injections?
Given what we now know of the potential harm of these injections, anyone playing any part in injecting enfants - who have no say in the matter - can only be an idiot, a criminal or both. Sorry, but those are the only options I can see.
If someone is severely immunocompromised, how can the "vaccination" be effective id the immune system is not working properly?
Excellent question.
My 71 yo sister was severely compromised for YEARS and on toxic chemo. She died soon after the first Pfizer. Quickly with raging CHF. Getting around fine laughing and joking on a zMonday. Unconscious Tuesday. Dead Saturday.
Friend of mine, her dad had cancer years ago and was over it. Full remission. He took the injections in 2021. 3 of them. In May this year his old cancer suddenly appeared and was metastic almost instantly. All measures - previously succesful - failed. He died in September.
I still don't understand any rationale for immunocompromised people of any age to get these shots. The argument is that with reduced immune function then one is less easily able to fight an infection. Yet given that the supposed appropriate response to the injection relies on a functioning immune system it is set to fail. Yet that is the justification for administering it, with the added impetus of giving more shots to those people because they don't mount a good response?? It's totally backwards. Added in the acknowledged factor of the injection suspending the immune system, even if temprarily as claimed, makes it a triple whammy for those poeple. I mean, seriously?
And I just read Bernard Massie's response which put is to much more succinctly than my verbosity. Quite!
I'd be very interested to hear any opinions on the term 'vaccine effectiveness'. How exactly is this measured? Is this an ELISA assay for antibodies? If so, what antibodies? What data shows correlation to antibody level and clinical presentation? Antibodies have always been surrogate measurements. Is there clinical effectiveness such as infection? Viral load? Clinical progression? Where is it if so? Also, is there any data anywhere showing actual infectivity vs viral particle and viral load throughout clinical progression? Or, is only PCR data available which is also a surrogate? If only PCR, exactly which proves are used and why and how is this quantitative? qPCR? ddPCR? Does anyone truly know long term (>6mo bio distribution?). Seems like all the basic elements are still missing.... embarrassing.
Thanks for this article and the one before about the true IFR. I think the overall data was that it was .14% fatality rate on average from the Ioannadis study which is what I had been quoting. Before that even the CDC conceded it was only .3%, but the breakdown by demographic works better.
We can see the irrationality of these decisions because we, for whatever reason, have lost confidence in the institutions around us a long time ago. And there is no rational recourse. They will doggedly dig their heels in and drive this sunk cost logical fallacy train into the ravine. But we need to keep speaking out, and people will open their eyes and observe.
The sad thing is, I don't think there are many malevolent people at the top that know it's all theater, smoke and mirrors. A lot of these officials feed on the self perpetuating fear machine of the media, educational system, Hollywood etc. to reinforce and support their narrative. We have to be that playing card in the spokes of that wheel that makes noise, and the noise gets louder the faster they try to pedal.
That's my .02 cents of thought on this Thursday morning.
I don't know what to think of parents who would even think to vaccinate their children for a disease with a .0003% fatality rate. I should start up a narrative that I have an over-the-counter cooties cure. They could send away for it in the mail, and I'll send them a "Cooties Catcher."
Jimmy – that is a great comment. Two of your statements ring the bell for me by describing the nature of the psychosis that has taken hold of the minds of the health bureaucrats who are supposed to be safeguarding public health. Those statements are:
1. “They will doggedly dig their heels in and drive this sunk cost logical fallacy train into the ravine”, and;
2. “A lot of these officials feed on the self-perpetuating fear machine of the media, educational system, Hollywood etc. to reinforce and support their narrative.”
I think those statements accurately describe what is happening in the country in which I live (Australia). When two of the senior health bureaucrats in Australia were interrogated recently about the vaccine injuries before an Australian Senate enquiry, they seemed unable to answer basic questions for which I would have expected such people to have the facts at their fingertips – at least in a general way. But they seemed befuddled, and just prevaricated. The interrogating Senator was unable to get a straight answer from them.
It reminded me of a statement made many years ago by the former CEO of a major U.S. auto manufacturer. He had started his career on the factory floor decades before and said that back then he assumed that the people at the top of the management hierarchy must have been ‘experts’ who always knew what they were doing. But many years later after he himself had risen to the top, he found that there actually were no ‘experts’ – just fallible people with opinions who often made very poor decisions.
I think that part of the problem is that career bureaucrats rise to the top by being good at playing the game of organisational politics and simply by serving their time. But this sort of career formation does not prepare them psychologically to suddenly be thrust into the role of an operational commander during a full blown crisis. Thus, they quickly sink out of their depth because managing a major crisis demands a very different type of personality than what a government bureaucracy can routinely deliver.
In the lead up to World War II, the Australian government of that era found that the defence bureaucracy was unable to get its act together to rapidly accelerate arms production in preparation for the looming threat. They were bogged down in interminable interdepartmental committees, unable to resolve anything. The situation was resolved by the Prime Minister appointing an outsider - a leading businessman from the manufacturing sector as the defence production supremo, who quickly sorted things out.
In the same vein, I think that we have all been failed by the fact that the health bureaucracies are run by people who are not up to the job and had neither the intellectual nous nor the backbone to do what was required of them when the crisis hit. I am not discounting a measure of corruption either, but I don’t think it was the only thing.
Thank you for your response!
Your illustration of the two senior health bureaucrats reminds me of the gleeful admission of the Pfizer executive (I say gleeful because she laughed) about the vaccine not being tested to see if it stopped infection/transmission and then made the famous "speed of science" crack. Either she didn't have any idea of what she was saying, or worse, she did and didn't care.
Apparently, here in the states, Fauci had a similar response of prevarication. He sounded like Ollie North during the Iran Contra hearings, a lot of "I do not recall" and "I forget." Yet ironically he had a ton of things to say about masking outdoors and under what conditions to meet socially just a few short years ago. He was "all up in our grill" about Holiday get togethers, attending concerts, and even shaking hands.
You make an interesting point about executives. Elon Musk appears to be the same way. He is trying new things with his technological toy, Twitter, and although I think his heart is in the right place in terms of free speech, I don't know he is the right person to run Twitter...but I think he knows that. I think part of what he is doing now with Twitter is a bit of theater. He is tweaking the nose of those who were in control of it before, and at the same time he is trying new things like mitigating cross platform promotion.
But to say he is an expert is probably a misnomer, but rather, someone who had a good mindset, who tackled tough problems, and wasn't afraid to make mistakes.
In an ideal world, I say ideal because realistically I doubt this would happen, the onus should be on us to decide how we face a crisis unless the loss of life is dire. Regarding "dire" there would be no vague platitudes of what that meant, it would be something quantifiable that we all understood, if not agreed upon. But if such a crisis were imminent, I imagine no protocols would be needed as we would all lock down without even being told to do so.
The only people I know who got their 2 sons in Kindergarten and 2nd grade are wealthy, white Democrats (they had a Biden Harris motorcycle rally in the summer of 2020 which is how I know) who happen to live next door to me even though they know I almost died from mine they got those poor boys boosters 2/3 weeks ago. Breaks my heart.
Has ANY reporter (or anyone else) bothered to ask people at the FDA about when they plan to release their data on the Covid vaccines? The data that they said ‘wasn’t ready for prime time’?
Has ANYONE ever mentioned the subject again?
I questioned similar here:
https://leemuller.substack.com/p/is-it-time-for-the-fda-or-cdc-to
And came to these conclusions:
https://leemuller.substack.com/p/if-i-were-a-research-scientist-without
https://leemuller.substack.com/p/a-culmination-of-observations-and
Last year, I did a blog post on my Wordpress blog asking what was the rush to vaccinate children. Young children should not have been vaccinated. There was absolutely no benefit to them at all. The flu and RSV are more dangerous viruses to young children. The flu is a more dangerous virus to the average person than the coronavirus is. Here's the link to the blog:
https://angelinacountybearkat.wordpress.com/2022/02/07/the-rush-to-vaccinate-children/