Who's Afraid of the CCP Vaccine?

It wasn’t George Orwell’s animals or calendar, or Ray Bradbury’s firemen or Anthony Burgess’ clockwork that ought to have worried us. No; it was Mary Shelley’s doctor.

Some animals always have been – and always will be – more equal than others. Though today’s “equity” totalitarianism denies this, studies of global population IQ are definitive. If the Left really thought we all were equal, they’d not be replacing Equal Opportunity with Equity, itself an acknowledgement of inequality.

A danger exists within “equity.” As Louis Marano notes in his review of Charles Murray’s new book, Facing Reality, a look at disparities between humans:

The disaster materializes if the white majority gets fed up, has had enough, and pushes back. Or, in Murray’s words, “when working-class and middle-class Whites adopt identity politics.”

One might recall what Admiral Yamamoto is supposed to have said after Pearl Harbor – another attack on the American society… "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." He ought to know, since he planned the attack himself.

Welcome to the brave new world.

Today’s Left may be intrigued by the Brave New World idea of growing fetuses in a bottle and injecting different proteins to create a worker, a drone, a consultant or an elite – but they seem more interested in killing fetuses and babies. They aren’t worried about the constant telescreen – they carry one in their pocket.

Amazon already has perfected burning disliked books: Move the reader to Kindle and then alter or remove the content however and whenever desired without reader awareness. Or stop selling it, having run nearly all local retailers out of business.

We’ve been watching the clockworkian dystopia burn our cities, murder our cops and attack innocents for over a year – no one seems to mind; at least not enough to do anything about it other than increase the dosage in our soma by defunding cops, releasing perps with no bail, no charge, no trial to do it all again.

But Ms. Shelley’s doctor created a technology with which her society was unable to deal. The result was murderous. Our doctors today? Easy: Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Tony Fauci. The results are worse.

Eeek.

We aren’t talking about a single monster of technology turned loose to terrorize. No, we’re looking at real Frankenstein monsters, monsters of technology we are so far unwilling to control, attacking liberty and freedom and prosperity and the future - globally. We have, to our detriment, fallen in love with our monsters. Try to get a friend off Zuckerberg’s monster, or Dorsey’s. How many of us refuse Bezos’ wares to support local businesses?

Before our wonderful vaccine technology advanced so far that we don’t even need normal trial durations before turning it loose, we dealt differently with diseases.

I was born in the 1950s. I’m not anti-vax. My generation still has the scar on our left shoulder from smallpox vaccine. We ate a sugar cube laced with polio vaccine. But those were (and this is a term of art) “perfect” vaccines. We didn’t have vaccines for mumps (which, if a boy didn’t get it before puberty, might make him sterile) or German measles (which, if a woman got it during pregnancy, her baby stood a good chance of birth defects) or chicken pox (a mild form of herpes as a kid, a serious problem as an adult). What did we do?

Easy – when a kid got the mumps, all the parents sent their sons over to play and spend the night. When a kid got the measles… when a kid got chicken pox. It was, seriously, a party. Hang out with your buds, have some pizza, get sick, get over it, be immune the rest of your life.

But the BigPharma/BigGov response to the good Dr. Fauci’s function-gained bat flu technology has changed all that. Not only did we not have a party, we locked-up those with no chance of a serious illness or death so that we could not gain permanent immunity. And now we have a vaccine that is (another term of art) “leaky.”

The other good doctors of social media then refused any discussion not supportive of their – uneducated – narrative, including all discussion of decades-old medicines that showed positive results by the millions: Ivermectin and HCQ.

The doctor is our friend.

What is a “leaky vaccine?” This is a good piece describing “leaky” and “perfect” vaccines in layperson terminology. (emphasis mine)

The deadliest strains of viruses often take care of themselves — they flare up and then die out. This is because they are so good at destroying cells and causing illness that they ultimately kill their host before they have time to spread.

But a chicken virus that represents one of the deadliest germs in history breaks from this conventional wisdom, thanks to an inadvertent effect from a vaccine. Chickens vaccinated against Marek’s disease rarely get sick. But the vaccine does not prevent them from spreading Marek’s to unvaccinated birds.

“With the hottest strains, every unvaccinated bird dies within 10 days. There is no human virus that is that hot. Ebola, for example, doesn’t kill everything in 10 days.”

And how is the CCP Virus vaccine described? Stop me if you’ve heard this, but, per PBS,

Vaccines don’t always prevent infection,

and, per the CDC,

… people fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) are less likely to have asymptomatic infection or to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others.

"Less likely." Sounds "leaky," right? These not-quite-a-vaccination “leaky” jabs allow the host (you) to continue spreading the virus, allowing it to get “hotter” (more lethal).

Ms. Shelley’s monster now is among us, let-loose by our new Dr. Frankensteins, with millennia-old, successful, practices of virus immunization rejected by the same “experts” who created it and who quash all discussion of alternatives.

Does Anthony Fauci Even Exist?

Dr. Anthony Fauci is likely the most celebrated, or most notorious, public figure currently claiming the lion’s share of national attention. He rose to the heights of prominence as President Trump’s ubiquitous medical advisor, preening for the camera during Trump’s press briefings detailing the progress of the COVID pandemic and the means to combat it. Fauci’s dictates and pronouncements were regarded as gospel and came to be a major determinant of the nation’s COVID preventive policies. He seemed infallible—until now.

Recently a tranche of Fauci’s emails as well as articles and letters were released via the FOIA and through open records requests calling his bona fides into question. We learn there, among other things, that masks are ineffective, that people should wear multiple masks, that the virus has a natural origin, that the virus may have come from a lab leak, that the NIH did not fund gain-of-function research, that the NIH funded through EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak a team of Chinese scientists who may have worked on gain-of-function experiments, and so on. (Chinese virologist Dr. Li Meng-Yan has added further weight to the lab-leak revelations.) 

The bordereau of planned evasions and collusive misdirections—as witness a “spectrum of correspondence” with such influential figures as Scripps Research professor Dr. Kristian Andersen (January 1, 2020), NIH Deputy Director Dr. Hugh Auchincloss (February 1, 2020), and others—is striking. The controversy is assuming epic proportions as Fauci’s presence and calendar of activities and decisions have polarized the country. 

Do I contradict myself?

In my opinion, all the fuss and bother about Anthony Fauci is nothing but a tempest in a beam-splitter. For Anthony Fauci does not exist. Rather, he is a gaseous exhalation of the Swamp, in effect a computer-generated hologram projected onto the public stage to advance the insidious project of the political left and the class of billionaire scavengers seeking to profit from the national malaise while advancing an agenda of oligarchic social control. 

Why this elaborate charade or pneumatic figment should have been created is another question and invites some speculation. Tom Woods asks: “Can it be that for some in the Establishment Fauci has finally worn out his welcome? Some 64 percent of independents say it's time to resume normal life. That's a big, big chunk of people for the Democrats to alienate. So are they pushing back on Fauci?”

Was the Fauci construct, then, a defensive artifice? If things went sideways and Fauci was exposed as a false prophet speaking from both sides of his mouth, he could be made to disappear, alleging fatigue, family responsibilities, or even COVID itself. Perhaps the virus will have taken its toll or the vaccine misfired, thus provoking a trickle of memorial sympathy among his detractors? Perhaps, weary of the fray and having done his duty, the apparition will have retired to the Pitcairn Islands—0 new cases, 0 confirmed cases, 0 deaths—never to be heard of again?

I think his credibility is entirely shot," Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya told Fox News. “And I think it's really unfortunate that we have this person who just didn't really have the expertise to lead the response, and yet we somehow venerated him.” Bhattacharya cited Fauci for a rookie mistake, conflating “the case mortality rate with the infection mortality rate.” Fauci’s 2 percent fatality number should have been 0.2 percent, an order of magnitude lower. “It wasn't the science changing,” Bhattacharya said; rather, “Something else happened where he just changed.” 

I am large, I contain multitudes.

What might that “something else” have been? For all we know, it may be that the real Fauci, if he existed, was surreptitiously replaced by a chimerical substitute, a creature of light and air. Or, more likely, that the “program” was changed in medias res, once the hologram had inspired public confidence, and so could begin to implement the larger scheme of tactical disinformation. Holograms are easily manipulated and impervious to attack, at least for an interim period.

Commenting on the doctor’s woefully mediocre and indeed pernicious track record, which has resisted scrutiny up to the present, Stephen Kruiser at PJM believes that Fauci has “proven himself to be a petty, small, pathetic man,” but Kruiser seems not to understand that Fauci is not a “man,” as we commonly understand the term, but a kind of wraith, an illusion, a three-dimensional photonic transmission serving to distract attention from the ulterior purposes of the real plotters. Which is why it is irrelevant to fulminate against him. There’s nothing there. 

It is interesting to note that the compromising email dump came at the instigation of collaborating hard-left news organizations, BuzzFeed and The Washington Post. Tom Woods may have had a point. Once “Fauci” begins feeling the heat, he can made to simply vanish, as we have seen, on any of various excuses, including personal resentment at suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous slander. The possibility must be entertained. He was never a material Fauci but the Schwabian emanation of a shadowy cabal of political manipulators conspiring to impose a Great Reset upon an unsuspecting people. 

Very well then, I contradict myself.

As Steve Deace and Todd Erzen write in their definitive Faucian Bargain, Fauci’s “name may be on the marquee, but the truth is he’s not really the main villain. Fauci is not some sinister figure who cynically manipulated… events in order to rise to power… he contradicts himself way too much, and is too easily exposed… Fauci is not the disease but the symptom [of the] federal leviathan,” a mere figurehead. And we have fallen for this meretricious fiction. “Fauci has only sold much of America what it wanted to buy. Our fear has gifted such authority to Fauci.” And not only fear, but our passion for entertainment and the marvels of medical technology.

The cabal knows this. And it knows that should the operation grow counterproductive, it could then insist it had been misled by Fauci’s ostensible credentials and suave persona, proceed to diffuse public indignation, and devise other means to carry out its intentions. Meanwhile, an “exit strategy” would be put in place, the hologram would evaporate and Fauci would just fade away, exempt from interrogation and exposure. No one would really know what happened to him or where he is. Eventually he would be forgotten. After all, the virtue of non-existence is immunity. 

Caveat profluvium.

With Help from the Media, the Bioweapon Worked Perfectly

There’s a remarkable line in the documentary, “Collective,” about Romanian journalists who discover private corruption and government incompetence following the infamous 2015 Bucharest fire at the music club, Collectiv. The lead journalist says, “We have blindly trusted the authorities… When the press bows down to the authorities, the authorities will mistreat the citizens. This happens worldwide and it has happened to us.”

There’s plenty of reason to suspect China intended to use Covid-19 as a bioweapon. Even if it wasn’t the intent, that was its effect.  Yet as bioweapons go, it delivered unimpressive results.  Without minimizing those who have suffered from Covid, the data from across the world shows Covid-19 was exceptionally effective at killing older people who were already very ill. For everyone else, not so much.

The virus was most successful in destroying the American economy, while also creating social chaos and suppressing liberty. The Chinese government must be delighted that their middling bioengineered weapon turned out to be a foreign social re-engineering bonanza.

I’ve summarized the data from the CDC, sources which culled data from it, and applied some math.  Here are the highlights on Covid-19’s US data:

This has all been apparent since the first few weeks of the “pandemic.” Then again, it wasn’t the virus that did the job. It was our own media and “authorities.” Too many Americans trusted them both. Together, they formulated protocols that were utterly ineffective, pointless, and did more harm than good.

Who was that masked man?

Masks don’t work. Not only does this study show no difference in transmission rates for high and low transmission areas, but the infection rate across every state is virtually identical. Nor would masks be expected to work. The vaunted “honest” media never bothered to mention that Covid-19 has a diameter of 12.5 microns.

The only mask that might stop transmission is the N95, which can protect down to 10 microns. Yet that’s not a guarantee, and it would only be effective if used once and fitted properly. Most Americans didn’t have access to N95 masks, and instead wore surgical masks (which permit Covid-sized particles through), or cloth or sponge masks which let just about everything through. So not only do masks not work, but mandating their use on children was utterly foolish, given that children were the least likely to get infected and generally don’t pass it on to others.

The CDC itself says keeping kids home from school was unnecessary, particularly in areas of low to moderate transmission. This again highlights the hyper-localized differences in communities that still resulted in many children being needlessly penalized.

Based on the data available, in-person learning in schools has not been associated with substantial community transmission…Some studies have found that it is possible for communities to reduce incidence of COVID-19 while keeping schools open for in-person instruction.10,20 A study comparing county-level COVID-19 hospitalizations between counties with in-person learning and those without in-person learning found no effect of in-person school reopening on COVID-19 hospitalization rates when baseline hospitalization rates were low or moderate.

When kids are forced to stay home, adults then must find child care or stay home from work themselves, further harming the economy.

This policy will prove to have been catastrophic. Children and teens were kept out of school for over a year, which will negatively impact their educational development. As it is, we have a lousy education system and keeping kids engaged is a challenge. The worst effects will be seen on the youngest, where socialization and schoolroom protocol is critical. There is no substitute for in-person group socialization, or for the confidence that elementary teachers instill in children. Learning facial cues and expressions of others will be stunted. Thanks to the media and governmental authorities, our younger generation’s ability to succeed and develop has been set back.

China must be delighted.

Since the beginning, common sense and science indicated that transmission while outdoors is negligible.  Yet municipalities like the city of Los Angeles shut down outdoor dining, prevented TVs from being turned on lest people gather to watch them, and even instituted a 10 p.m. curfew, presumably because the virus only hunted people at 10:01 p.m.

All of this nonsense destroyed some 200,000 businesses, and put tens of millions of people out of work.  The very people the Left proclaims they protect – minorities – bore the brunt of these policies. Minorities experienced the highest levels of unemployment after reaching historic lows mere weeks before. Minorities experienced the highest levels of food insecurity as well as the highest levels of missed rent. They will soon experience the highest level of evictions when federal and local moratoriums expire.

Crime of the century.

Worst of all, China’s social re-engineering bioweapon leveraged Trump Derangement Syndrome and pried open the political divide in the country to its widest gulf yet. Americans were at each other’s throats over wearing masks. Communities, marriages, and friendships have been torn apart.

The frustration over housing, income, and food insecurity unquestionably contributed to the summer 2020 riots. The violent tyrants known as ANTIFA and the anti-Semitic race-hustling BLM destroyed even more businesses. America descended into chaos.

And the Chinese government was laughing all the way to the CCP banquets. I have to wonder if China knows just how incompetent government is from experience, and knew American government at every level would be catastrophically unprepared for a manufactured contagion.

There’s a horrible parallel to 9/11 here. Those terrorists took advantage of the flaws at every level in our system, from lax private airport security to accessible cockpits and most important, of Americans' natural inclination to trust and obey authority. The Muslim terrorists told passengers to stay seated or they would detonate (fake) bombs. Americans did what they were told. Tragedy ensued.

The one glimmer of hope is that United 93’s passengers took matters into their own hands. Let’s hope that in the next “pandemic,” American conservatives don’t just give in like they did this time.

Regarding the Vaccines: Exercise Extreme Prudence

In a measured presentation on the subject of vaccines delivered this February, Dr. Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist at Guelph University in Canada, expressed skepticism about these presumed vehicles of salvation. “I would probably prefer to have natural immunity,” he said. Confirming Bridle’s skepticism, a recent study from the Washington University School of Medicine finds there to be lifelong immunity after Covid, owing to natural antibody-producing cells rather than synthetic infusions.

 As Global Research explains, a major issue involved in rejecting the vaccines is that they are forms of gene therapy deputizing for vaccines and are potentially hazardous, “exotic creatures… that actively hijack your genes and reprogram them.” In other words, the vaccines are not really vaccines as commonly understood but genomic substances responding to what is likely a digital virus

Moreover, a new study by British professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian scientist Dr. Birger Sørensen, soon to be published in the Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics, claims that it is “now beyond a reasonable doubt…that unique fingerprints in SARS-CoV-2 [are] indicative of purposive manipulation," concluding that “SARS-Coronavirus-2 has no credible natural ancestor.” Indeed, after initial denials across the media for over a year, opinion now seems to be shifting toward a laboratory origin for the virus. A synthetic antidote to a manufactured virus would seem to belong in Frankenstein’s lab, not in the natural world.

No, really, I feel fine. Why do you ask?

Dr. Peter McCullough, a prominent cardiologist, believes that with increasing reports of adverse effects, it's too risky for people who have a more than 99 percent survival rate to receive one of the experimental vaccines. “Based on the safety data now, I can no longer recommend it," he said in an interview with journalist and author John Leake, which was predictably scrubbed on YouTube. Too many people die “on days one, two and three after the vaccine.” 

McCullough has been attacked as a right-wing crank by the usual swarm of dubious “factcheckers” populating the Net. McCullough has 600 peer-reviewed publications to his name, many of which have appeared in top-tier journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet. He is also the president of the Cardiorenal Society of America, co-editor of Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine and associate editor of the American Journal of Cardiology and Cardiorenal Medicine. His credentials are impeccable and he should be taken seriously. Left-wing cranks should not.

Furthermore, the recent controversy surrounding prominent French virologist and Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier needs to be put in context. He did not say that all who had been vaccinated would die within two years, as was widely reported. What he did say was that the vaccines and viral variants go hand in hand, owing to a condition called antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), a phenomenon in which virus-specific antibodies enhance the entry of the virus and may also cause viral replication. Variants will continue to proliferate as a direct result of the vaccines themselves: in each country, he says, “the curve of vaccination is followed by the curve of deaths.” Because of the vaccines, “the virus is forced to find another solution, or die,” thus creating vaccine-resistant variants. 

Naturally, Montagnier has been mocked, slandered, “factchecked,” refuted and misreported in a veritable Netblitz. Nonetheless, that one lockdown insensibly succeeds another, that new viral variants continue to appear irrespective of counter-measures, and that top-off injections will likely be administered at regular intervals add weight to his argument. (The French video interview between Montagnier and journalist Pierre Barnérias has been rendered exceedingly difficult to find, but the effort is worth it.)

What could possibly go wrong?

Corroborating Montagnier’s analysis, an international team of virologists and microbiologists writing for the quality journal Vaccine has released a study exposing the vaccine fiasco foisted upon a fearful and credulous public. They describe more than 20 possible long-term healing complications, including severe pneumonia from cross reactivity; this means that the vaccine could potentially cause a “covid spike.” Vaccines, they fear, could “exacerbate[e] rather than attenuat[e] viral infections.” The efficacy of the vaccines, they claim, has been vastly overstated...intentionally. The skeptics appear to have been right all along. 

The debate has raged far and wide among those who swear by the necessity of the vaccines and those who remain doubtful or condemnatory. Official sites such as the British MHRA (Medicines & Healthcare Regulatory products Agency) require a considerable amount of data dredging in order to arrive at reliable conclusions. Reconnoitering the terrain of what is nothing less than a species of fractal embedding is an arduous process; one feels a bit like Joshua’s spies sent out to probe the defenses of Jericho. But the results are startling. The number of adverse reactions is enough to cause a pandemic of vaccine hesitancy. 

By May 19 in the U.K. alone, there have been at least 245,276 adverse reports and counting. The alarming incidence of adverse effects such as blindness, impaired vision and other eye disorders, nervous system disorders, brain damage, facial paralysis, strokes, capillary leak syndrome, cardiac issues, blood disorders and gastrointestinal disorders cannot be taken lightly.

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

The total number of deaths as of May 19 is 1,192 in the U.K. alone. These are government-authorized figures. Of course, statistical taxonomies appear to reduce the significance of adverse results; tell that to the growing number of vaccine recipients who have suffered the consequences. And we must remember that the reporting scheme, which is passive and voluntary, is significantly underused. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) found that less than one percent of side-effects following vaccination are in fact reported. 

It is consoling to remark that, as of April 16, six American states have banned the use of vaccine passports. According to NewsNation, for April 27, the count is even higher: at least 40 states “are advancing legislation to ban COVID-19 vaccine requirements for businesses and schools.” Becker’s Health IT for May 6 reports that several other states are considering legislation to the same effect. Hospital workers in Houston are suing to block mandatory vaccinations. It’s a running total.

It is also comforting to note that now-beleaguered medical guru Anthony Fauci, whom Jon Sanders writing in the American Institute for Economic Research called “that ubiquitous font of fatuous guidance,” admitted that asymptomatic spread of the virus, despite the dire media and official narrative as well as his own whiffling, was extremely rare. In a February 2020 email, Fauci wrote, “Error in my statement to you. I meant to say that “……most transmissions occur from someone who is symptomatic — not asymptomatic.”

"Error in my statement."

Our national governments and affiliated medical institutions will be fighting these developments tooth and nail. The Biden administration, we learn, may be considering the introduction of vaccine passports for international travel, as well as incentivizing employers to require vaccinations. The alliance of government funding and medical ideology is a powerful force for compliance. And for the most part, all we hear from the corporate media are crickets when we should be hearing kettle drums. 

Former Pfizer Vice President and chief scientific researcher Michael Yeadon believes that these vaccines, as they “go from the computer screens… into the arms of millions of people,” may contain “characteristics which could be harmful and could even be lethal.” The scale of the menace we are facing, he says, not from COVID but from the oligarchs, politicians, media types and technocrats who have exploited it and the billionaire companies that manufacture the vaccines, may be unprecedented. Like practically all vaccine skeptics, he will be “factchecked” to death by the usual suspects who have skin in the game.

But the menace is real. The aforementioned Professor Bridle has admitted that “We made a big mistake. We didn’t realize it until now… we never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin and was a pathogenic protein. So by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.” Bridle reprises a Japanese study showing how the synthetic mRNA spike protein circulates in the bloodstream and accumulates in tissues such as the liver, the adrenal glands, the spleen and the ovaries, likely causing extreme pathogenic reactions.

Similarly, pediatric rheumatologist J. Patrick Whelan has warned that the spike protein may cause microvascular damage to the liver, heart, and brain in “ways that were not assessed in the safety trials.” Whelan worries that hundreds of millions of people might “suffer long-lasting or even permanent damage to their brain or heart microvasculature as a result of failing to appreciate in the short-term an unintended effect of full-length spike protein-based vaccines on other organs.”

The news from Israel is as distressing as it is revelatory. The country launched one of the strictest vaccine programs in the world, creating two classes of citizens: the vaccinated who retained their social privileges, the unvaccinated who were stripped of them. A report just released by two Israeli researchers, Drs. Haim Yativ and Hervé Seligman, relying on tables provided by the Israel Ministry of Health, reveals that most COVID deaths during a five-week-long vaccination period “are for vaccinated people.”

The numbers show that “the vaccines, for the elderly… killed about 40 times more people than the disease itself would have killed, and about 260 times more people than the disease among the younger age class.” Additionally, confirming Luc Montagnier’s predictions, the researchers state that “in a few months we expect to face mid-and long-term adverse effects of the vaccination as ADE (Antibody-dependent Enhancement) and the vaccination-resistant mutants selected by the vaccines.” The Internet archive has, and no doubt will continue to suppress these numbers. There is far too much money, power and reputation involved to admit error.

People need to understand that such warnings are not conspiracy theories. They reflect the knowledge and apprehensions of reputable professionals who are not beholden to government funding and the big pharmaceutical companies. The accelerated quasi-vaccines may well have been the greatest mistake that our political, medical and media orthodoxies have ever committed. It makes good sense to act and think independently, to attend to and examine the official instruments with due diligence, and to exercise prudence when considering taking the jab. As counterintuitive as it may seem in the midst of an orchestrated panic, this is nothing less than a responsibility one owes oneself and one’s family.

Science: the New Opiate of the Elites

This past year should have dispelled all doubts that scientism has replaced Protestantism as the dominant religion of America's elite. Those Americans who, in days of yore, would have flocked to Marble Collegiate Church, in their Harvard ties and Sunday Go to Meeting hats, to hear Norman Vincent Peale preach about the power of positive thinking, now just stay at home and listen to the increasingly dismal (and often contradictory) predictions of Dr. Anthony Fauci.

But what's particularly striking is how they speak about science in the most unscientific way. They say things like "TRUST THE SCIENCE!" as if science were a single, static, even sentient thing. It's not.

This point was rather humorously made recently after Neil deGrasse Tyson, the obnoxious archbishop of this new religion, tweeted that "The good thing about Science is that it’s true, whether or not you believe in it." Several respondents pointed out that this is a sentiment which might more properly be applied to God. He even capitalized the 'S' in science.

But the best response came from (of all places) the Twitter account of frozen meat company Steak-umm, which, after mocking Tyson a bit, explained: 

Spot on, and extra points for the "steak" pun.

To extend that point, one of the definitive marks of true science is that its falsifiable. As Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry once wrote:

Science is not the pursuit of capital-T Truth. It's a form of engineering — of trial by error. Scientific knowledge is not "true" knowledge, since it is knowledge about only specific empirical propositions — which is always, at least in theory, subject to further disproof by further experiment.

But contemporary scientism is completely unfalsifiable. No matter how many times the high priests are wrong (or have lied), the faithful are not shaken. We see this constantly in the realm of climate science, as when it turned out that polar bears were not actually nearing extinction, when Cold War-era climate scientists predicted that "entire nations" would be wiped out by rising sea levels by the year 2000, and more recently, when Canada's Ministry of Environment released a report showing that "Arctic sea ice grew 27 percent" in 2020, contrary to all expert predictions.

Have any of these revelations caused them to repent? Not at all! They remain certain that every outcome -- hot weather, cold weather, extreme weather, mild weather -- is the result of climate change, and the only solutions are so-called renewable energy, carbon taxes, and -- my favorite -- "carbon offsets," whereby the wealthy can pony up some cash and then live a more carbon intensive lifestyle than the peasantry.

This last one is a pretty good analogue to the abuse of indulgences which provoked the Reformation. Will something similar happen to the new established church? Perhaps. 'Fauci fatigue' has begun to spread to the general populace. But for our elite, don't hold your breath. Scientism is just too convenient.

It’s Time to Stop Wearing Masks

I refuse to wear a mask. I believe, as many people do—but not enough to make a wrinkle in the vast bubble of mass delusion—that masks are largely ineffective. But the consequences of holding to this belief and appearing in public without a mask can be quite unpleasant.

My experience in the streets and shops of my city will be familiar to those who feel as I do. The masked give me a wide berth. Others stare balefully from the only exposed part of their faces. On occasion I find myself in confrontation with those who believe I am a “spreader” to be mocked, shamed, condemned and threatened.

COVID Rage is all the rage. And I am always astounded by the level of ignorance wedded to self-righteousness among the unvisaged, the tendency to follow the diktats of their political leaders and government appointed medical officers without question, and to accept implicitly the reports of a suborned media apparatus. The lack of common sense and the unwillingness to conduct independent research are truly staggering, if entirely predictable. Instead of herd immunity, we have herd mentality.

Masks are not only unsightly, even grotesque, but they obscure proper articulation—I rarely understand what these people are trying to say—and eliminate all signs of personality. One feels one is trapped inside a particularly lurid Zombie movie.

Become the lie.

More importantly, masks are generally useless. The weave and filter are not resistant to the miniscule COVID virion. Wearing masks has been compared to setting up a chain-link fence to keep out flies. Former naval surgeon Dr. Lee Merritt has done the research.

Viruses are passed by tiny micron particles, she explains, “that sneak out through the mask and around the mask.” As Merritt points out, the popular meme of “viral load,” which masks are said to reduce, is misleading; it takes only one COVID micron and a compromised immune system to trigger the infection. So much for director of the HIV Clinic at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital Monica Ghandi’s argument that masks significantly reduce ingestion of viral particles, and that masking can make you “less sick.” A mask is not a silver bullet, it is a blank cartridge.

We might note that the more sophisticated N-95 masks, which are used by medical personnel, provide insecure protection. Medical Life Sciences tells us that the diameter of a COVID particle ranges from 60 to 140 nanometers (nm) and that N-95 masks are non-functional under 100 nm, rendering them only 50 percent effective at best. As the founder of American Frontline Doctors .Simone Gold, states “The facts are not in dispute:  (cloth) masks are completely irrelevant in blocking the SARS-CoV-2 virus.” N-95s bring their own problems, as noted below. (Naturally, she has been roundly attacked by “medical cancel culture”). 

Droplets are apparently another matter, being larger than aerosols and thus impeded by masks, whether on the receiving or emitting end. A little common sense tells us that droplets evaporate and the particles hitching a ride on them remain to be breathed in or out. Moreover, a CambridgeCore study concludes that “any mask, no matter how efficient at filtration or how good the seal, will have minimal effect if it is not used in conjunction with other preventative measures, [including] regular hand hygiene.” Since wearers are frequently adjusting their masks, regular hand hygiene is by no means practical or possible. Aerosols or droplets, same difference.

But there is another side to the problem. ScienceDaily, citing a study conducted at the University of New South Wales, indicates that “cloth masks can be dangerous to your health.” This is also true for the much-hyped N-95. Prolonged wearing is likely to cause hypoxia (diminished oxygen supply). The masker breathes in his own CO2, leading in some cases to grogginess and even somnolence—the reason birds in winter conserve energy and warmth and sleep at night by tucking their heads under their wings.

People who drive masked are asking for trouble. People who wear masks for extended periods are at risk. Hypoxia can also lead to a condition of immune cell dysfunction. The immunologic consequences can be critical, causing neurological damage and rendering the individual susceptible to whatever pathogens are lurking in his own system or in the air around him. This alone is a reason not to wear masks—and certainly not for excessive periods. Even the more reliable surgical masks must be changed frequently. (Plastic face shields are no solution since the larger surface area acts a storehouse for the viral molecule.)

Obviously, the pro-and-con controversy over the efficacy of masks is particularly contentious. Political and professional reputations are at stake, especially in journals and institutions with a distinctive leftist bias. Politics will mostly trump science, and the common observer must be scrupulously careful in evaluating evidence.

Thus, it comes as no surprise that trusted data sources like the W.H.O., The New England Journal of Medicine, and The Lancet are profoundly compromised and have been compelled to revise or retract some of their studies and surveys. But it is interesting to note that The Center for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM) finds that “despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks… assuming 20% asymptomatics and a risk reduction of 40% for wearing masks, 200,000 people would need to wear one to prevent one new infection per week.” 

Timothy Taylor at Conversable Economist points to many random controlled trial studies that “do not find a reason to wear a mask.” Wired magazine is also ambivalent regarding data, stating: “the research literature on mask usage doesn’t provide definitive answers. There are no large-scale clinical trials proving that personal use of masks can prevent pandemic spread; and the ones that look at masks and influenza have produced equivocal results.” 

Such a “large scale clinical trial” has, in fact, just been conducted. A major Danish controlled study involving 6000 participants, the only study of its kind, has been predictably rejected by three medical journals. One of the researchers, Thomas Lars Benfield, states that publication will have to wait until “a journal is brave enough to accept the paper.” The Lancet, among others, won’t touch it, as is to be expected.

Reviewing the travesty, Conservative Review editor Daniel Horowitz wonders “how many other scientific and academic studies covering an array of very consequential policy questions rooted in scientific debate are being censored because they don’t fit the narrative of the political elites?” And indeed, why is NIAID Director Anthony Fauci disinclined to pursue a controlled study on the effectiveness of masks? Of course, like CNN journalist Chris Cuomo and Canada’s Minister of Health Patty Hajdu, Fauci was spotted not wearing a mask in public. Do as I say, not as I do.

Masks work. Just ask Dr. Fauci.

By the same token, Bioengineer Yinon Weiss at The Federalist shows via data comparison and representative graphs of seven European countries and three American states that renewed mask compliance has led to an exponential spike in infection rates, in some case by as much as 1500 percent. Weiss cites major international studies, as well as the U.S. surgeon general and the Centers for Disease Control, revealing the ineffectiveness of commercial masks. Masks, lockdowns and quarantine protocols merely delay the development of herd immunity and are practically guaranteed to prolong the epidemic. Nevertheless, fear not only of the disease but also of punitive measures and of being conspicuous dissenters exposed to social opprobrium are operative factors.

Mask hysteria seems primed to continue. Psychiatrist Dr. Mark McDonald calls the standard response to the virus “a pandemic of hysteria… a delusional psychosis…It is killing us physically, mentally, socially, psychologically.” Masks dehumanize us and make us timid and afraid, vulnerable to the designs of our political masters seeking, as Weiss writes, “to twist the pandemic for political and electoral purposes.”

The situation has grown even more perverse. We seem to have reached a point where government propaganda and coercion are no longer necessary. People have become the servants and enablers of the state, having by and large internalized the official compulsion and are now their own stringent monitors and self-appointed mask police—the final ingredient in the time-tested recipe for totalitarian control. Swallow the lie. Become the lie. Enforce the lie.

Enforce the lie.

At best, mask wearing should be discretionary. If you wish to wear a mask no one can legally prevent you from doing so. But some things are clear. Masks should not be mandated by political authority since (1) the requirement to do so is an infringement of the Charter rights of free citizens living in a democratic state; (2) masks are largely, and perhaps in most cases wholly, ineffective; and (3) they can be demonstrably harmful to one’s health and the health of other people.

Ironically, mask wearing is the real risk, not only delaying or preventing the development of immunity while inducing a false sense of comfort, but also acting as a disease incubator, and a conceivable threat to non-maskers. A highly qualified friend who has diligently studied the virus for the last six months writes: “Mask wearers are becoming an additional potential source of environmental contamination, increasing not only their own but the risk to others.”

I do my best to avoid maskers, although it is difficult considering the numbers.

Fear The Walking D(r)ead

Richard Feynman wrote “science is the belief in the ignorance of experts,” and nothing could demonstrate that point more readily than the public’s growing disaffection with the experts of the public health apparatus --  the WHO, the CDC, and Dr. Anthony Fauci. Their proscriptions (often conflicting) respecting the handling of Covid-19 were simply not “scientific.” They were, in fact, nothing more than guesses which did not work out. Not that that stopped them from silencing those whose experience, both medical and non-medical, contradicted their guesswork.

Ignoring cost-benefit analysis and utterly discounting the contradictory experience of thousands of medical doctors who were actually treating patients with the dreaded Covid, they’ve wreaked havoc and hardship throughout the world and doubtless contributed to many more deaths than necessary. Unfortunately, much of the media still insist that their actions were based on pure science, and many of our fellow citizens -- driven to neurosis by it all -- have been propagandized to thinking this is akin to the Black Death.

It’s hard to know where to even begin answering this.

What have I done?

Let’s start with masks -- virtue signalers and tyrants alike love them, since they broadcast submission and compliance to the world. Of course, the masked Karens of the world also enjoy hounding the noncompliant. In the beginning of the Covid spread here Dr. Fauci said masks weren’t needed. Later he said they were, and that his earlier statement was based on a fear there would be too few available to medical personnel. In fact, they are useless as presently designed and worn by the general public, as Dan Formosa explains:

A coronavirus virion (particle) is spherical, averaging around 125 nanometers in diameter. Compare that to bacteria’s 1,000-nm size. It’s a grape compared to a grapefruit. A surgical mask whose purpose is to block bacteria will do little to prevent passage of the smaller coronavirus particle. That’s why N95 masks, which block 95% of all airborne particles, are the gold standard in hospitals treating Covid-19 patients. They have a much more selective filter.

But even N95 masks are flawed. Before coronavirus, my team and I investigated whether N95 masks could be a viable alternative to standard surgical masks. Interviews with doctors and nurses at several hospitals at the time revealed that N95 masks were rarely used or supplied. The overwhelming majority of healthcare workers I spoke with had never worn one. They are more expensive than surgical masks, they’re harder to breathe in, and medical workers deemed them unnecessary for most procedures. (Keep in mind that masks protect in both directions. They protect the wearer from airborne particles or splash, and protect the patient from contamination by the surgical staff—the latter is especially important in procedures that require deep incisions.)

I have some, purchased when it was feared after 9/11 we would be hit with an anthrax attack and we were encouraged to get them. Everyone else I see wears masks virtually useless for the purpose of preventing viral infections. Recently released evidence from CDC bears this out. 

A Centers for Disease Control report released in September shows that masks and face coverings are not effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19, even for those people who consistently wear them. A study conducted in the United States in July found that when they compared 154 “case-patients,” who tested positive for COVID-19, to a control group of 160 participants from the same health care facility who were symptomatic but tested negative, over 70 percent of the case-patients were contaminated with the virus and fell ill despite “always” wearing a mask.

“In the 14 days before illness onset, 71% of case-patients and 74% of control participants reported always using cloth face coverings or other mask types when in public,” the report stated. In addition, over 14 percent of the case-patients said they “often” wore a face covering and were still infected with the virus. The study also demonstrates that under 4 percent of the case-patients became sick with the virus even though they “never” wore a mask or face covering.

With the mask requirements and much else Covid related, another Richard Feynman admonition comes to mind, "If you thought that science was certain -- well, that is just an error on your part."

We're sorry, too.

On to Lockdowns.

The most absurd move was to lock down states and countries in the belief that would stop the spread of Covid-19. 

President Trump never urged more than a temporary lockdown in order to manage scarce resources, such as ventilators, and protect health workers from an illness the experts warned would otherwise overwhelm existing health services. State governors and other countries, however, made these restrictions long term and only recently did the WHO advise against this -- long after irreparable economic was wreaked harm around the world.

WHO envoy Dr. David Nabarro said such restrictive measures should only be treated as a last resort, the British magazine the Spectator reported in a video interview. “We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” Nabarro said. “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.” Nabarro said tight restrictions cause significant harm, particularly on the global economy. “Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never, ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer,” he said.

Social Distancing.

Public health services are demanding we close non-essential businesses and keep six feet apart at all times. On what basis? None that I can see. Michael Thau cites some scientific studies that refute any basis for these commands, and maintain that there is no “solid basis for ANY social distancing measures.”

We have cases where the viruses traveled across oceans, infecting people in Antarctica while they were in their 17th week of isolation; and those aboard an Argentinian naval ship “after 35 days at sea which had been preceded by 14 days of isolation for everyone on board.” This make-believe perimeter was set at the same time most U.S. jurisdictions kept only megastores open which to my (and Thau's) mind only increased the possibility of viral transmission. In smaller neighborhood shops it would seem there would be fewer opportunities to come in contact with the virus.

And then to seal our belief that the CDC social distancing dictates were partisan-inspired bunk, they simply abandoned them for mass social protests. No social distancing there!

Not the Black Death.

Why are so little of these conflicting reports making it to public attention? Thau reminds us that Harvey Risch, a professor epidemiology at Yale University with a distinguished career in the field, has accused Dr. Fauci of lying about the effectiveness of hydroxychlorquine and influencing the suppression of its use because he, and others in the public health bureaucracy, are “in bed with other forces that are causing them to make decisions that are not based on the science and are killing Americans.”

I know you remember President Trump early on suggesting that this drug , long used safely to treat other ailments like Lupus, might be effective in combating Covid. Maybe you even remember the claim by Dr. Fauci that it was proven ineffective. Actually, it wasn't established to be so at all. Physicians (hundreds in the U.S. and thousands worldwide) were using it successfully when administered along with zinc and azithromycin. The public was led astray by Dr. Fauci who appeared to rely on trials where the HCL was not administered within the 5-7 days after symptoms first appeared (the effective window) or where it was administered alone without the rest of the drugs necessary for the cocktail.

Interesting that the media ignores not only the work of Dr. Risch and the hundreds of doctors with extensive hands-on experience, but also Nobel Prize-winning biophysicist Michael Levitt. These people describe Fauci’s lockdown advice as a “mass casualty incident.”  There is now a large-scale pushback on Fauci’s policies known as The Great Barrington Declaration. It was authored and signed earlier this month by Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard; Dr. Sunetra Gupta, Oxford epidemiologist and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford Medical school. More than 13,000 medical professionals have also signed it, along with more than 176,000 members of the public by mid-September -- and the number keeps growing. They call for an end of the lockdowns; removing quarantines from all but the sick; isolation only of the vulnerable and allowing the young and healthy to proceed with caution.

Does the quackery at the top and the suppression of empirical evidence remind you of the global warming/climate change saga? It does me.

It all makes sense now.

Meanwhile, publications like the Washington Post have started to take a sick pleasure in highlighting the Covid neuroses which they themselves have inspired with their coverage.

Because the demographics of those terrorized by the virus and fearful of re-opening the country and returning to normal would appear at first glance to be the very same people who watch CNN, MSNBC and read the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the New York Times.

There are, however, signs that this Fauci-engendered nightmare may soon be over. New York Times science reporter, Donald G. McNeil Jr., reports that treatments are improving every day, and vaccine development is moving along much faster than was previously expected, both helped along by the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed. Moreover, economists are predicting a rapid recovery.

The press will have to find something else to keep the populace in a state of full-blown hysteria when that happens. In the meantime it is probably a good idea for healthy people to do some common sense stuff, such as avoiding crowds, washing your hands more frequently, and taking dietary supplements (especially zinc and Vitamins C and D). But don't pay attention to Dr. Fauci. Listen to the president instead, specifically the phrase which drove so many leftists insane: "Don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life."

And for heaven's sake, calm down.

Covid Hysteria: Worse Than a Crime, a Blunder

With parts of America and Europe still in lockdown, was the massive overreaction to the Wuhan Flu, aka Nursing Home Disease a crime or a blunder? As a French official during the time of Napoleon said of the execution of Louis Antoine du Bourbon, "C'est pire qu'un crime, c'est une faute." Which is to say, were the loss of civil liberties and the massive economic destruction of the unconstitutional lockdowns simply malicious and punitive, or is the damage irrecoverable, with all the attendant political consequences whose effects will be felt at the ballot box this November?

Some folks at the Foundation for Economic Education are beginning to smell a rat:

The 'experts' may have subjected us to a blunder greater than any since the Iraq War.

The Iraq War WMD debacle is arguably the greatest expert “fail” in generations. The holy triumvirate—lawmakers, bureaucrats, and media—all failed to sniff out the truth. If any of them had, a war that cost trillions of dollars and claimed the lives of 100,000-200,000 people likely could have been avoided.

It would be difficult to surpass the Iraq blunder, but emerging evidence on COVID-19 suggests the experts—again: lawmakers, bureaucrats, and media—may have subjected us to a blunder of equally disastrous proportions.

The evidence? How's this for a dispatch from the Dept. of Now They Tell Us?

Antibody Tests Point To Lower Death Rate For The Coronavirus Than First Thought

Mounting evidence suggests the coronavirus is more common and less deadly than it first appeared. The evidence comes from tests that detect antibodies to the coronavirus in a person's blood rather than the virus itself. The tests are finding large numbers of people in the U.S. who were infected but never became seriously ill. And when these mild infections are included in coronavirus statistics, the virus appears less dangerous.

"The current best estimates for the infection fatality risk are between 0.5% and 1%," says Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. That's in contrast with death rates of 5% or more based on calculations that included only people who got sick enough to be diagnosed with tests that detect the presence of virus in a person's body.

And the revised estimates support an early prediction by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a leading member of the White House coronavirus task force. In an editorial published in late March in The New England Journal of Medicine, Fauci and colleagues wrote that the case fatality rate for COVID-19 "may be considerably less than 1%."

Mon Dieu!

Wait -- what?

The new evidence is coming from places such as Indiana, which completed the first phase of a massive testing effort early in May. Indiana's program began soon after coronavirus cases began appearing in the state. The governor's office contacted Nir Menachemi, who chairs the health policy and management department at Indiana University's Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health.

The governor wanted basic information, such as how many people had been infected, and how many would die. At the time, "it was really difficult to know for sure," Menachemi says. "And frankly, not just in our state, but in any state." That was because health officials only knew about people who had been sick enough to get tested for the virus. And that number can be misleading, Menachemi says.

In other words, based on the faulty premise that infection=death -- aided and abetted as usual by a hysterical media that always runs with the worst-case scenario first -- the major economies of the West put a loaded gun to their heads and pulled the trigger.

For Menachemi and his team, it was like finally getting a glimpse of the entire coronavirus iceberg, instead of just the part above the water. And the data allowed them to calculate something called the infection fatality rate — the odds that an infected person will die. Previously, scientists had relied on what's known as the case fatality rate, which calculates the odds that someone who develops symptoms will die.

Indiana's infection fatality rate turned out to be about 0.58%, or roughly one death for every 172 people who got infected. And the results in Indiana are similar to those suggested by antibody studies in several other areas. In New York, for example, an antibody study indicated the state has an infection fatality rate around 0.5%.

Studies suggest a healthy young person's chance of dying from an infection is less than 1 in 1,000. But for someone in poor health in their 90s, it can be greater than 1 in 10.

To translate that into plain English: the very elderly are more likely to die of something than healthy young people. But will this stop people like Fauci from continuing to insist that the destruction of civilization the price we pay for allowing him and other doctors to continue to exercise an undue influence over the public policies of the U.S., Britain, and elsewhere? Of course not:

Anthony Fauci, the top infectious disease expert in the U.S., said Sunday that the ban on British travelers entering the U.S. is likely to last months. Fauci, a member of the White House coronavirus task force, told The Telegraph that the U.K. travel ban is expected to be lifted in “more likely months than weeks.” The infectious disease expert said the travel restrictions could last until a vaccine is ready, adding that it’s possible they are lifted sooner.

The other travel bans from the European Union, China and Brazil are also expected to last for “months” based on “what’s going with the infection rate,” Fauci said. The expert predicts the virus could “go on for a couple of cycles, coming back and forth... I would hope to get to some degree of real normality within a year or so, but I don’t think it’s this winter or fall.”

“This will end,” Fauci said, according to the newspaper. “As stressful and devastating as it is, it will end.”

Good to know. Now please go away, take Scarf Lady with you, and let the rest of us enjoy life.