Feb 19, 2022·edited Feb 19, 2022Liked by Guttermouth
I think "Pro" cannot get past this: Nature never guarantees a germ-free environment to any of earth's creatures. No successful species ever enforced or likely even tried to enforce a sterile environment before 2020. Attempting to do so is not only unrealistic, and clearly tyrannical to all contacts, but also promotes an eventual dysbiosis that would likely be ultimately fatal to all involved, because in a healthy environment, microbes keep each other in check. We see overly germophobic interventions creating new problems in patients who have had too many antibiotics for too long, leading to C diff or bacterial resistance.
>> but also promotes an eventual dysbiosis that would likely be ultimately fatal to all involved, because in a healthy environment, microbes keep each other in check. We see overly germophobic interventions creating new problems in patients who have had too many antibiotics for too long, leading to C diff or bacterial resistance.
This, to me, is the ultimate blow to any argument for sanitizing public life. We CANNOT control epidemiological events that will emerge from "the wild" and enter into "civilized" spaces- there will always be "novel" viruses, bacterial infections, and human-impacting microbes. We are not designed to survive fully dependent on artificial bolstering or supplanting of our immune systems, internal microbiomes, or general physical resilience.
First, I want to thank Colleen for teaching me a new word, dysbiosis. Although I knew of the concept just not it's official name.
Second, and to your point Guttermouth, I remember years ago reading a blurb in a paper somewhere about scientists begging the public to stop with the antibacterial EVERYTHING in handsoaps, etc.
I explicitly do not buy soaps with triclosan or other antibacterial additives. I keep sanitizer gel in my first aid kit and use it only when I am preparing to treat wounds.
Funny story: I applied to several medical schools two decades ago. The first interview was a group interview. A microbiology professor asked the dozen or so candidates: 'What is the problem with anti-bacterial soaps?' I was the only one to raise my hand. I said, Ingredients such as triclosan stimulate bacterial resistance, so that you end up with stronger bacteria.' He liked that. I was admitted.
In your opinion, has that perspective changed? Have we completely forgotten the hazards of training bacterial resistance? Would your answer still go over today?
I think microbiologists have not forgotten the risks for bacterial resistance. But so much of the general public, the hyper-religious Covidians particularly, slather hand sanitizer and wonder why they can never shake malaise. Of course, that's one of a dozen likely things they're using to trash their health and their homes and workplaces.
This reason, Raptor, is the reason why I stopped wearing masks when insisted upon after initially trying to be polite; if I ever wore my shitty cloth mask for more than about an hour or so, I INVARIABLY got a sinus infection the following day lasting several days.
The maskophile (Pro), based on my experience, would deny this research (which I read back when it came out) as significant, just as the real maskophiles I debated it with at the time did.
Yes, it continually astonishes me how in 2020 people instantly forgot the hygiene hypothesis; the wave of recent research on the microbiome/gut health; and the hazards associated with antibacterial products and antibiotics.
I have been trying to watch Dr. Andrew Kaufman’s movie on Terrain Theory, which is an alternative theory of disease causation, this weekend, it is free through this weekend through his website, but I am having trouble getting it to play. The first attempt to put it out had problems too. I don’t know if there are shadowbanning censorship gremlins involved or what. But you may want to give it a try also.
Thanks, brian :-) I have been highly unimpressed with Andrew Kaufman and have a backlog of a few million videos/articles/books already in my queue so will pass, but I certainly don’t approve of anyone being shadowbanned if that is indeed what’s occurring.
What did you find unimpressive about Kaufman’s position? He seems to be pointing out something technical about isolation of “the virus”, that it has not been done. And since it has not been done, then they cannot introduce it into a healthy person, watch them get sick with certain symptoms, then take the virus out of the sick person, and watch them get well again. This is apparently the testing procedure, called the satisfaction of Koch’s Postulates, that is taken as a proof that something is creating a disease. There was a man up in Canada who challenged mandates on the basis of pointing this out, that the State could not produce the evidence of an isolated virus. That is kind of a big deal. Kaufman is a psychiatrist but his undergrad was biochemistry so I watched one presentation in which he disputed the methods and conclusions of the lab work, saying that a lot of the claimed observations were being done indirectly “in silico” as computer modeling rather than “direct” observation. So, he seems to have a point that he is not afraid to affirm. I’d like to see someone like Dr.. Malone address it.
It reminds me of the Ted Talk by Rupert Sheldrake who made the theory of Morphic Resonance. He got up and started talking about reading up on the research about the speed of light, and pointed out that according to reports in different physics labs around the world, the speed of light increased between certain years, then slowed down for a few years, then speeded up again. So according to the official body in physics that makes the “final” pronouncements about such matters, the speed of light is unvarying at “X,” and those observed deviations were due to flaws in the instrumentations of the experiments in the various labs around the world. Sheldrake made fun of the way these observations were dismissed as erroneous because of the “faith” everybody has that “the speed of light is a constant.” So, interestingly, Ted banned Sheldrake’s talk! So, when you open a can of worms, you can expect all the worms to be dead, because the can was heated in the sealing process. But if one of the worms is wiggling, do you have a problem, or an opportunity?
Sorry, brian, this fell through the cracks while I was wrapping up my last article.
I listened to a three-hour presentation by Kaufman with no preconceived notions about him or his beliefs. He very quickly started triggering my quackery meter as he was talking about bizarre treatments like drinking turpentine. Then he bullshitted his way through the Q&A, giving flimsy answers to any questions that challenged his theories. He seemed like a charlatan who was handwaving away any concerns that didn’t fit into his theory.
There’s also the question of how gain-of-function research is being conducted on something that doesn’t exist, and the evidence is mounting for this FrankenFaucian manipulation as more classified documents get leaked. David Martin has been on the case for years and outlines the patent trail in the Fauci Dossier (https://www.corona-ausschuss.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FauciDossierWordFileText.pdf).
Then there’s the denial of the existence of contagion, which Omicron itself has blown out of the water given how quickly this particular set of symptoms has spread through the population in comparison to previous strains, not to mention millennias’ worth of scientific and empirical evidence of infectious diseases.
I’m listening to the “Dissolving Illusions” audiobook right now, and if you want to get your mind blown, read that. It destroys the myth of vaccine efficacy/safety going all the way back to the smallpox vaccine. This article (https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/the-smallpox-pandemic-response-was) gives you a taste of the jaw-dropping parallels with what we’re experiencing today, even down to the mandates and the subsequent anti-vaccinators movement that succeeded in striking them down in Leicester, England. Anyway, the reason I bring that up is how many concrete examples of contagion are cited from the historical records, with articles talking about how when one kid on the block got [xyz—I can’t remember which disease specifically], *every* kid came down with it within a day or so.
To be clear, I have no problems with people denying the existence of viruses, germs, contagion, the immune system, autoimmune disorders, etc. I have a few thousand questions that cannot be answered within that paradigm and have thus rejected it after review, but people are welcome to believe whatever they like.
The only time I have a problem with it is when they rabidly evangelize, attack anyone who disagrees with them; ankle-bite people doing significant work toward restoring our liberties and saving lives; and call everyone who doesn’t share their beliefs a heretic/traitor/enemy, etc.—basically exhibiting the same monomaniacal, intolerant, cultlike behavior as Covidians. I have wasted far too much time engaging with them and have learned not to do so again since they are impenetrable. These are the ones who are dividing the Resistance and sucking time and energy from those of us doing everything in our power to defeat tyranny and end democide.
Regarding the Canadian, I believe you’re referring to Denis Rancourt. I don’t know much about him personally, but we have two mutual friends. I respect their opinions and they both think highly of him, so I have no beef with him and appreciate his work.
That TED talk sounds fascinating! Too bad it was yanked.
Margaret, thanks for your long and generous reply. I wrote a pretty long reply, got ready to send it and it wouldn’t go. Turned out they pulled a telephone pole down the street ( with no notice—how’bout that?) so internet was out for the day. My computer skills are not up to recovering it all so I’ll summarize. I pretty much concur with the “lots of serious evidence by lot of serious people” POV. Curious about terrain theory though. We were taught that Pasteur was a giant like Edison was a giant. Never heard until fairly recently that there was conflict between Tesla and Edison or that Pasteur was not necessarily all he was cracked up to be. So, it’s hard to find out what is actually going on in this 3Card Monty disinformation stage set.
You can probably still find Sheldrake’s talk online—but I last saw it several years ago so I guess the forces of Mordor have made a lot of progress since then so maybe it has been blotted out for gross disrespect for the Globohomo Scientic Materialist FAKENUZ Worldview TM.
Regarding turpentine as medicine, about 30 years ago I used to get steel from a very old guy, I’d say he was in his eighties, who had a steel warehouse in SF. One cold rainy day we were chatting about colds and he told me that whenever he felt something coming on he took a shot of turpentine. I was shocked that the human body could survive such a thing. I thought maybe he was descended from some kind of iron ore mining trolls whose affinity for the gross mineral dimension made such a thing possible for them to withstand.
Mom fully recovered in 3 days when she had covid. She's 72. She takes D, C, zinc, Quercetin daily. She took Ivermectin while sick with covid. She takes zero pharma drugs. She's not overweight. She didn't take the vaccine because she has autoimmune thrombocytopenia (that was induced by the pneumonia vaccine years ago).
The masks have impeded communication for 23 months. Covid took her out for 72 hours.
Anti: I'm not afraid of measles either. Would attend a measles party with my vax-free children.
Attended a bunch of chicken pox parties and the kids never got it. Some of our friends exposed their kids ten times before they got it.
My mom took me to a chicken pox party on a military base in the 1980s. A high-ranking officer's wife held the party. I did get the pox.
Craziest fact of all: the small pox vaccine G. Washington pushed was basically a small pox party where one purposely put the pox in their skin to develop natural immunity on their own timeline.
Pro: Measles exposure is higher risk than a measles vaccine, and some people will die from measles exposure that could have been avoided were they not deliberately placed in harm's way.
Anti: Dr Paul Offit, a vaccine darling, admitted we saved exactly 500 people from measles deaths per year with the measles vaccine. We injure more than 500 children per year with that vaccine. Parties are safe IF parents choose when to attend them and IF the parents understand their is risk, and IF they have health care providers who know how to treat it at first sign and throughout the illness (high dose A and high dose C).
Herpes is not eliminated, and it can harm a baby's hearing. We haven't eliminated all risk of birth defects.
"The Belgian study found that four in five of these children developed sensorineural hearing loss because their mothers were infected by Cytomegalovirus in the first three months of pregnancy. In a foetus, the ears develop mainly between the third and tenth weeks of pregnancy. This is likely to make the ears particularly sensitive to viral infections at this stage.
When the viral infection occurs later in pregnancy, the risk to the hearing of the child is smaller. Just one child in 12 born to mothers infected during the second trimester of pregnancy was found to suffer from hearing loss. No hearing loss was found in children whose mothers were infected in the third trimester of pregnancy."
There is a small increased risk for febrile seizures after MMR and MMRV vaccines.
Studies have shown a small increased risk for febrile seizures during the 5 to 12 days after a child has received their first vaccination with the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine.
Most kids go to ER for febrile seizures via ambulance. It's terrifying to watch. My 4 year old had one that went on and on and on. He spent 4 days in patient (probably b/c they overdosed him on anti-seizure meds).
If they wanted a higher uptake, they do single vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella. They wouldn't use aborted fetal cells in development. The Japanese only give Measles and Rubella, no Mumps in their shot because it's junk. My BIL has had 3 MMRs (2 in childhood, 1 in military) and he has no immunity to mumps. The Danish don't give any live virus vaccines at the same time as aluminum-adjuvant vaccines like we do in US.
Is there a vaccine that prevents death? Are there some people who don't die? Are there tragic deaths every single day? Do we live in a risk-free world? Should we have bodily autonomy? Is bodily autonomy a right?
At the end of the day, April, this entire argument ends up being reduced to "your facts are false, my facts are true." If the numbers could be made incontrovertible, vaccine mandates (to say nothing of the NPIs we were brutalized with under COVID) are indefensible for all the reasons you stated.
“..you don’t have the freedom to infect me with a deadly virus.”
You don't have the right to inject me with a deadly substance.
Nobody is threatening, coercing or outright forcing you to get infected with any strain of COVID. There are no COVID mandates; nobody is saying "You can't enter, shop or work here without having COVID".
The virus is not natural, but the very concept that somehow I'm responsible for stopping you from catching a cold virus is, frankly, insane. And if you still, despite the mountains of evidence disproving this, think that the faux-flu-vaccines stop transmission, then take the damn thing and STFU then?
Yes... seems my ability to argue the other side just isn't there, because they literally don't have an actual argument. It's ALL fake and/or disproven BS.
There's a deadly disease alright, but it's not a virus; it's some kind of mind disease.
How many of life’s activities pose a modicum of risk to others? Who decides which activities to proscribe? What source of data shall be used to inform the decisions? It’s all a very slippery slope into paranoia and yeat another excuse for tyranny to take hold. A society that values selfishism and materialism over liberty and compassion for one’s fellow man loses an important perspective. A decline in faith in a higher power, whatever that may be, leads to the inchecked rise of ego. Just some thoughts to throw out there. Thanks for the back and forth. If I played chess with myself, both of me would lose.
Your questions are important, but I tried as much as possible to keep the nature of the debate within the realm of legalism and the way we largely understand our natural/Constitutional rights. The philosophical elements (is it selfish, is society profligate or faithless, etc.) will always be subjective and while valuable to those of us that care, cannot be the basis of law (or the breaking thereof).
We calculate it unconsciously every day. Getting into the car and driving, Walking with the face in the phone, talking with a full mouth, running down the stairs with a leashed dog, turning your back to a mad bull. OK some of those are bozo moves, but we all do at least one of them. Maybe that is another argument. Pick your poison. If you fear my unmasked face, walk in the other direction. Do you walk close to a person in the grocery store aisle who is coughing to the point of convulsing? Decision time. What you don't do if you are truly afraid of them is walk up to them mid cough and demand they retreat to their home cuz... germs!
Thanks, Dave. I hope to do more of these as I've frequently employed this exercise over the past two years to strengthen my understanding of my positions.
It had the effect of, among other things, greatly increasing my empathy and changing my mind where the "anti-vaxxers" I admittedly mocked pre-COVID were concerned. It felt good to feel that my eyes had been opened.
This was awesome. Theoretically, this is one of the main skills they teach in law school. In reality, most lawyers still remain with their bias and can't really see the other side too well.
Not to throw a wrench into things, but it is somewhat relevant to your topic.
I would be interested in your take on the abortion issue. As they say, politics makes strange bedfellows. I find myself in bed with folks that I normally wouldn't be as much in the past, although many terms used to describe someone's position on an issue and lines in the sand have certainly blurred and been recast over the past years, at an accelerating rate it seems like.
Based on comments I see from readers that without question I would agree with on many things, there seems to be a not insignificant portion of folks who argue my body my choice on the jab, but your body my choice on abortion. I can agree that at some point it should not be a choice. The point in time has been argued over the years in courts (conception?, 1st trimester?, 2nd?, etc.). I find it interesting that in Freakonomics, they statistically correlated the drop in crime during the Clinton administration not to anything the administration did, but to the result of abortion court decisions 2 decades earlier, but I digress.
I view large portions of the debate as possibly THE wedge issue that is used to divide many among us.
Setting aside debate about the specific topic, my question is, are the folks who are against abortion willing to set their views aside to stand with others (who they disagree with about abortion) on THIS hill (the vax hill). For me personally, I will stand on this hill (the vax hill) regardless of feelings on other subjects (there are limits though even for me, as I mentioned in another substack thread, I'm not interested in avoiding Hunger Games to get Handmaids Tale instead), but (some) others won't. And for each wedge issue that each of us refuses to budge on, there are that many that we lose in the efforts of this fight in front of us right now. I hope I made sense. Cheers.
I loved digging into the abortion findings in Freakonomics re: the sudden disappearance of the early 90s crime wave. Weirdly, I have read numerous articles in the past 5 years or so that specifically address and attempt to debunk those findings.
As to where I stand on abortion, as much as I dislike the source, my position is "safe, rare, and legal." I think there are reasonable, scientifically and medically-grounded points in development where one can argue very securely that a human with ostensible rights is being murdered. At the same time, as you point out in bringing up the Levitts' findings, reproduction (and its uncontrolled and/or unconsidered propagation thereof) has a major impact on the trajectory of a society; we need people who understand that reproducing at that moment in time is a bad choice to be able to correct it in a reasonable way.
My personal cutoff based on my background in developmental psych would be the end of the first trimester.
And I agree about avoiding Hunger Games and ending up with Handmaids Tale being a devil's bargain.
I have terrible COVID dreams, especially after reading too much news. They are largely about police or military doing awful things to my family: dragging one or the other of us out of our homes, killing our dogs for barking at them, or killing us all when I resist with firearms.
Interestingly, none of my nightmares about COVID involve actually being ill.
It seems my mind is a lot simpler. The only argument I entertain in the brain is whether lemon poundcake is more delicious to eat than the having the ability to breath while sitting in jeans. Poundcake is more delicious IMO in case you were gripping the edge of your seat wondering. At least tonight. The debate rages.
About the Covidians that demand I play make believe with their cloth cloaking device. No. I tell them I stopped entertaining fools and the insane at 26. I am a slow learner. Propping up their fantasies is not healthy for them and your inner mental mask nazi should be told that. Unless you love them and they are helplessly flapping over the cuckoo's nest, they get the truth in love until they piss me off. I have a short fuse.
Reality check is the reality that masks are theater for the insane. This is not a position it is a truth. How the dialogue goes with the insane is hard to predict. My inclination would be if you are afraid stay in the house. Life is dangerous dimbulb.
Now a case for and against God, that is fun to entertain. Assisted suicide. Boy have I debated that one in my head. I don't always win.
Those hard life things, subjects of faith where there is wiggle room merit your time. I suspect you have lots of well thought out things to share. Even if it is just with yourself. Don't be selfish.
Also, I am not always literal and lack an edit button. Remember it please when reading my consciousness faucet. : P .... that is me saying "Arghhh" in a pirate voice.
The thing about assisted suicide is the same states that allow it won't allow people to CHOOSE to use Ivermectin to try to save their lives at home OR in the hospital on their death beds.
This is a broader concept I hope to start a discussion over in a future post. The "conspiracy theory" of human depopulation, if true, is an entirely separate layer from the mass formation layer.
Why circumvent the very thing they want to happen? They want an easy path to death for the burdensome. So logically, people who most need ivermectin (the burdensome) should have no access to it.
I do the same. Friends and family don't like my telling them to listen to everything , other team , overseas , old young , to see WHY people think like they do.
I think "Pro" cannot get past this: Nature never guarantees a germ-free environment to any of earth's creatures. No successful species ever enforced or likely even tried to enforce a sterile environment before 2020. Attempting to do so is not only unrealistic, and clearly tyrannical to all contacts, but also promotes an eventual dysbiosis that would likely be ultimately fatal to all involved, because in a healthy environment, microbes keep each other in check. We see overly germophobic interventions creating new problems in patients who have had too many antibiotics for too long, leading to C diff or bacterial resistance.
>> but also promotes an eventual dysbiosis that would likely be ultimately fatal to all involved, because in a healthy environment, microbes keep each other in check. We see overly germophobic interventions creating new problems in patients who have had too many antibiotics for too long, leading to C diff or bacterial resistance.
This, to me, is the ultimate blow to any argument for sanitizing public life. We CANNOT control epidemiological events that will emerge from "the wild" and enter into "civilized" spaces- there will always be "novel" viruses, bacterial infections, and human-impacting microbes. We are not designed to survive fully dependent on artificial bolstering or supplanting of our immune systems, internal microbiomes, or general physical resilience.
Sterility is (literally) death.
First, I want to thank Colleen for teaching me a new word, dysbiosis. Although I knew of the concept just not it's official name.
Second, and to your point Guttermouth, I remember years ago reading a blurb in a paper somewhere about scientists begging the public to stop with the antibacterial EVERYTHING in handsoaps, etc.
I explicitly do not buy soaps with triclosan or other antibacterial additives. I keep sanitizer gel in my first aid kit and use it only when I am preparing to treat wounds.
Funny story: I applied to several medical schools two decades ago. The first interview was a group interview. A microbiology professor asked the dozen or so candidates: 'What is the problem with anti-bacterial soaps?' I was the only one to raise my hand. I said, Ingredients such as triclosan stimulate bacterial resistance, so that you end up with stronger bacteria.' He liked that. I was admitted.
In your opinion, has that perspective changed? Have we completely forgotten the hazards of training bacterial resistance? Would your answer still go over today?
I think microbiologists have not forgotten the risks for bacterial resistance. But so much of the general public, the hyper-religious Covidians particularly, slather hand sanitizer and wonder why they can never shake malaise. Of course, that's one of a dozen likely things they're using to trash their health and their homes and workplaces.
Their own mask is their main concern if gut and lung disease are their concern. Which is a stellar argument IMO. Tell fake foe: Look up mucormycosis (not while eating) or read this: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/scottmorefield/2021/06/15/a-group-of-parents-sent-their-kids-face-masks-to-a-lab-for-analysis-heres-what-they-found-n2591047 my made up verbal sparing partner.
Of course that will lead to the mental breakdown of the promask character so tread lightly.
What would be the retort of the maskophile in that situation?
This reason, Raptor, is the reason why I stopped wearing masks when insisted upon after initially trying to be polite; if I ever wore my shitty cloth mask for more than about an hour or so, I INVARIABLY got a sinus infection the following day lasting several days.
The maskophile (Pro), based on my experience, would deny this research (which I read back when it came out) as significant, just as the real maskophiles I debated it with at the time did.
Their response would be incomprehensible reeee-ing and frothing at the mouth.
Yes, it continually astonishes me how in 2020 people instantly forgot the hygiene hypothesis; the wave of recent research on the microbiome/gut health; and the hazards associated with antibacterial products and antibiotics.
I have been trying to watch Dr. Andrew Kaufman’s movie on Terrain Theory, which is an alternative theory of disease causation, this weekend, it is free through this weekend through his website, but I am having trouble getting it to play. The first attempt to put it out had problems too. I don’t know if there are shadowbanning censorship gremlins involved or what. But you may want to give it a try also.
Thanks, brian :-) I have been highly unimpressed with Andrew Kaufman and have a backlog of a few million videos/articles/books already in my queue so will pass, but I certainly don’t approve of anyone being shadowbanned if that is indeed what’s occurring.
What did you find unimpressive about Kaufman’s position? He seems to be pointing out something technical about isolation of “the virus”, that it has not been done. And since it has not been done, then they cannot introduce it into a healthy person, watch them get sick with certain symptoms, then take the virus out of the sick person, and watch them get well again. This is apparently the testing procedure, called the satisfaction of Koch’s Postulates, that is taken as a proof that something is creating a disease. There was a man up in Canada who challenged mandates on the basis of pointing this out, that the State could not produce the evidence of an isolated virus. That is kind of a big deal. Kaufman is a psychiatrist but his undergrad was biochemistry so I watched one presentation in which he disputed the methods and conclusions of the lab work, saying that a lot of the claimed observations were being done indirectly “in silico” as computer modeling rather than “direct” observation. So, he seems to have a point that he is not afraid to affirm. I’d like to see someone like Dr.. Malone address it.
It reminds me of the Ted Talk by Rupert Sheldrake who made the theory of Morphic Resonance. He got up and started talking about reading up on the research about the speed of light, and pointed out that according to reports in different physics labs around the world, the speed of light increased between certain years, then slowed down for a few years, then speeded up again. So according to the official body in physics that makes the “final” pronouncements about such matters, the speed of light is unvarying at “X,” and those observed deviations were due to flaws in the instrumentations of the experiments in the various labs around the world. Sheldrake made fun of the way these observations were dismissed as erroneous because of the “faith” everybody has that “the speed of light is a constant.” So, interestingly, Ted banned Sheldrake’s talk! So, when you open a can of worms, you can expect all the worms to be dead, because the can was heated in the sealing process. But if one of the worms is wiggling, do you have a problem, or an opportunity?
Sorry, brian, this fell through the cracks while I was wrapping up my last article.
I listened to a three-hour presentation by Kaufman with no preconceived notions about him or his beliefs. He very quickly started triggering my quackery meter as he was talking about bizarre treatments like drinking turpentine. Then he bullshitted his way through the Q&A, giving flimsy answers to any questions that challenged his theories. He seemed like a charlatan who was handwaving away any concerns that didn’t fit into his theory.
I know there is a lot of focus on the virus isolation, but there are people who claim it has been isolated (e.g., https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/has-the-virus-been-isolated-yes and https://www.theburningplatform.com/2022/01/20/yes-sars-cov-2-is-a-real-virus/). It can be purchased and used for research by qualified scientists.
There’s also the question of how gain-of-function research is being conducted on something that doesn’t exist, and the evidence is mounting for this FrankenFaucian manipulation as more classified documents get leaked. David Martin has been on the case for years and outlines the patent trail in the Fauci Dossier (https://www.corona-ausschuss.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FauciDossierWordFileText.pdf).
And then there’s the matter of the unique set of symptoms associated with SARS-CoV2 and how undeniably effective early treatment protocols are, particularly ivermectin (https://ivmmeta.com/ and https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching and https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-a-scientifically-minded). People who deny the existence of either COVID or viruses entirely usually deny that early treatments work because they do not believe in what’s being treated. They obviously have never known anyone personally who has come down with COVID and been cured at lightning speed thanks to FLCCC protocols as hundreds of thousand or perhaps millions have (including ones I know personally).
Then there’s the denial of the existence of contagion, which Omicron itself has blown out of the water given how quickly this particular set of symptoms has spread through the population in comparison to previous strains, not to mention millennias’ worth of scientific and empirical evidence of infectious diseases.
I’m listening to the “Dissolving Illusions” audiobook right now, and if you want to get your mind blown, read that. It destroys the myth of vaccine efficacy/safety going all the way back to the smallpox vaccine. This article (https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/the-smallpox-pandemic-response-was) gives you a taste of the jaw-dropping parallels with what we’re experiencing today, even down to the mandates and the subsequent anti-vaccinators movement that succeeded in striking them down in Leicester, England. Anyway, the reason I bring that up is how many concrete examples of contagion are cited from the historical records, with articles talking about how when one kid on the block got [xyz—I can’t remember which disease specifically], *every* kid came down with it within a day or so.
To be clear, I have no problems with people denying the existence of viruses, germs, contagion, the immune system, autoimmune disorders, etc. I have a few thousand questions that cannot be answered within that paradigm and have thus rejected it after review, but people are welcome to believe whatever they like.
The only time I have a problem with it is when they rabidly evangelize, attack anyone who disagrees with them; ankle-bite people doing significant work toward restoring our liberties and saving lives; and call everyone who doesn’t share their beliefs a heretic/traitor/enemy, etc.—basically exhibiting the same monomaniacal, intolerant, cultlike behavior as Covidians. I have wasted far too much time engaging with them and have learned not to do so again since they are impenetrable. These are the ones who are dividing the Resistance and sucking time and energy from those of us doing everything in our power to defeat tyranny and end democide.
Regarding the Canadian, I believe you’re referring to Denis Rancourt. I don’t know much about him personally, but we have two mutual friends. I respect their opinions and they both think highly of him, so I have no beef with him and appreciate his work.
That TED talk sounds fascinating! Too bad it was yanked.
Margaret, thanks for your long and generous reply. I wrote a pretty long reply, got ready to send it and it wouldn’t go. Turned out they pulled a telephone pole down the street ( with no notice—how’bout that?) so internet was out for the day. My computer skills are not up to recovering it all so I’ll summarize. I pretty much concur with the “lots of serious evidence by lot of serious people” POV. Curious about terrain theory though. We were taught that Pasteur was a giant like Edison was a giant. Never heard until fairly recently that there was conflict between Tesla and Edison or that Pasteur was not necessarily all he was cracked up to be. So, it’s hard to find out what is actually going on in this 3Card Monty disinformation stage set.
You can probably still find Sheldrake’s talk online—but I last saw it several years ago so I guess the forces of Mordor have made a lot of progress since then so maybe it has been blotted out for gross disrespect for the Globohomo Scientic Materialist FAKENUZ Worldview TM.
Regarding turpentine as medicine, about 30 years ago I used to get steel from a very old guy, I’d say he was in his eighties, who had a steel warehouse in SF. One cold rainy day we were chatting about colds and he told me that whenever he felt something coming on he took a shot of turpentine. I was shocked that the human body could survive such a thing. I thought maybe he was descended from some kind of iron ore mining trolls whose affinity for the gross mineral dimension made such a thing possible for them to withstand.
One of the things that I saw quite early on was "my freedom doesn't end where your fear begins"
Anti: my mom is hearing impaired and reads lips. She can't read your beepin' lips when you're wearing a mask. Masks do hurt people.
Please ask the speech language pathologists if masks hurt 2 year olds who are learning to speak.
Pro: These are temporary harms compared to death.
Mom fully recovered in 3 days when she had covid. She's 72. She takes D, C, zinc, Quercetin daily. She took Ivermectin while sick with covid. She takes zero pharma drugs. She's not overweight. She didn't take the vaccine because she has autoimmune thrombocytopenia (that was induced by the pneumonia vaccine years ago).
The masks have impeded communication for 23 months. Covid took her out for 72 hours.
Your mom's regimen is good. Iver was awesome for my covid.
Anti: I'm not afraid of measles either. Would attend a measles party with my vax-free children.
Attended a bunch of chicken pox parties and the kids never got it. Some of our friends exposed their kids ten times before they got it.
My mom took me to a chicken pox party on a military base in the 1980s. A high-ranking officer's wife held the party. I did get the pox.
Craziest fact of all: the small pox vaccine G. Washington pushed was basically a small pox party where one purposely put the pox in their skin to develop natural immunity on their own timeline.
Pro: Measles exposure is higher risk than a measles vaccine, and some people will die from measles exposure that could have been avoided were they not deliberately placed in harm's way.
Anti: Dr Paul Offit, a vaccine darling, admitted we saved exactly 500 people from measles deaths per year with the measles vaccine. We injure more than 500 children per year with that vaccine. Parties are safe IF parents choose when to attend them and IF the parents understand their is risk, and IF they have health care providers who know how to treat it at first sign and throughout the illness (high dose A and high dose C).
Herpes is not eliminated, and it can harm a baby's hearing. We haven't eliminated all risk of birth defects.
"The Belgian study found that four in five of these children developed sensorineural hearing loss because their mothers were infected by Cytomegalovirus in the first three months of pregnancy. In a foetus, the ears develop mainly between the third and tenth weeks of pregnancy. This is likely to make the ears particularly sensitive to viral infections at this stage.
When the viral infection occurs later in pregnancy, the risk to the hearing of the child is smaller. Just one child in 12 born to mothers infected during the second trimester of pregnancy was found to suffer from hearing loss. No hearing loss was found in children whose mothers were infected in the third trimester of pregnancy."
https://www.hear-it.org/h-erpes-virus-can-damage-hearing-in-unborn-children
There is a small increased risk for febrile seizures after MMR and MMRV vaccines.
Studies have shown a small increased risk for febrile seizures during the 5 to 12 days after a child has received their first vaccination with the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine.
Most kids go to ER for febrile seizures via ambulance. It's terrifying to watch. My 4 year old had one that went on and on and on. He spent 4 days in patient (probably b/c they overdosed him on anti-seizure meds).
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/febrile-seizures.html
If they wanted a higher uptake, they do single vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella. They wouldn't use aborted fetal cells in development. The Japanese only give Measles and Rubella, no Mumps in their shot because it's junk. My BIL has had 3 MMRs (2 in childhood, 1 in military) and he has no immunity to mumps. The Danish don't give any live virus vaccines at the same time as aluminum-adjuvant vaccines like we do in US.
Is there a vaccine that prevents death? Are there some people who don't die? Are there tragic deaths every single day? Do we live in a risk-free world? Should we have bodily autonomy? Is bodily autonomy a right?
At the end of the day, April, this entire argument ends up being reduced to "your facts are false, my facts are true." If the numbers could be made incontrovertible, vaccine mandates (to say nothing of the NPIs we were brutalized with under COVID) are indefensible for all the reasons you stated.
Another stellar article. Congratulations. 👍
Thank you. :)
“..you don’t have the freedom to infect me with a deadly virus.”
You don't have the right to inject me with a deadly substance.
Nobody is threatening, coercing or outright forcing you to get infected with any strain of COVID. There are no COVID mandates; nobody is saying "You can't enter, shop or work here without having COVID".
The virus is not natural, but the very concept that somehow I'm responsible for stopping you from catching a cold virus is, frankly, insane. And if you still, despite the mountains of evidence disproving this, think that the faux-flu-vaccines stop transmission, then take the damn thing and STFU then?
Yes... seems my ability to argue the other side just isn't there, because they literally don't have an actual argument. It's ALL fake and/or disproven BS.
There's a deadly disease alright, but it's not a virus; it's some kind of mind disease.
Our world is very, very sick.
How many of life’s activities pose a modicum of risk to others? Who decides which activities to proscribe? What source of data shall be used to inform the decisions? It’s all a very slippery slope into paranoia and yeat another excuse for tyranny to take hold. A society that values selfishism and materialism over liberty and compassion for one’s fellow man loses an important perspective. A decline in faith in a higher power, whatever that may be, leads to the inchecked rise of ego. Just some thoughts to throw out there. Thanks for the back and forth. If I played chess with myself, both of me would lose.
I'm glad you enjoyed it, and welcome, squire. :)
Your questions are important, but I tried as much as possible to keep the nature of the debate within the realm of legalism and the way we largely understand our natural/Constitutional rights. The philosophical elements (is it selfish, is society profligate or faithless, etc.) will always be subjective and while valuable to those of us that care, cannot be the basis of law (or the breaking thereof).
We calculate it unconsciously every day. Getting into the car and driving, Walking with the face in the phone, talking with a full mouth, running down the stairs with a leashed dog, turning your back to a mad bull. OK some of those are bozo moves, but we all do at least one of them. Maybe that is another argument. Pick your poison. If you fear my unmasked face, walk in the other direction. Do you walk close to a person in the grocery store aisle who is coughing to the point of convulsing? Decision time. What you don't do if you are truly afraid of them is walk up to them mid cough and demand they retreat to their home cuz... germs!
Very good exercise in objectivity. I like it. You more fully understand all sides of the argument.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
-Aristotle
Thanks, Dave. I hope to do more of these as I've frequently employed this exercise over the past two years to strengthen my understanding of my positions.
It had the effect of, among other things, greatly increasing my empathy and changing my mind where the "anti-vaxxers" I admittedly mocked pre-COVID were concerned. It felt good to feel that my eyes had been opened.
This was awesome. Theoretically, this is one of the main skills they teach in law school. In reality, most lawyers still remain with their bias and can't really see the other side too well.
Not to throw a wrench into things, but it is somewhat relevant to your topic.
I would be interested in your take on the abortion issue. As they say, politics makes strange bedfellows. I find myself in bed with folks that I normally wouldn't be as much in the past, although many terms used to describe someone's position on an issue and lines in the sand have certainly blurred and been recast over the past years, at an accelerating rate it seems like.
Based on comments I see from readers that without question I would agree with on many things, there seems to be a not insignificant portion of folks who argue my body my choice on the jab, but your body my choice on abortion. I can agree that at some point it should not be a choice. The point in time has been argued over the years in courts (conception?, 1st trimester?, 2nd?, etc.). I find it interesting that in Freakonomics, they statistically correlated the drop in crime during the Clinton administration not to anything the administration did, but to the result of abortion court decisions 2 decades earlier, but I digress.
I view large portions of the debate as possibly THE wedge issue that is used to divide many among us.
Setting aside debate about the specific topic, my question is, are the folks who are against abortion willing to set their views aside to stand with others (who they disagree with about abortion) on THIS hill (the vax hill). For me personally, I will stand on this hill (the vax hill) regardless of feelings on other subjects (there are limits though even for me, as I mentioned in another substack thread, I'm not interested in avoiding Hunger Games to get Handmaids Tale instead), but (some) others won't. And for each wedge issue that each of us refuses to budge on, there are that many that we lose in the efforts of this fight in front of us right now. I hope I made sense. Cheers.
I loved digging into the abortion findings in Freakonomics re: the sudden disappearance of the early 90s crime wave. Weirdly, I have read numerous articles in the past 5 years or so that specifically address and attempt to debunk those findings.
As to where I stand on abortion, as much as I dislike the source, my position is "safe, rare, and legal." I think there are reasonable, scientifically and medically-grounded points in development where one can argue very securely that a human with ostensible rights is being murdered. At the same time, as you point out in bringing up the Levitts' findings, reproduction (and its uncontrolled and/or unconsidered propagation thereof) has a major impact on the trajectory of a society; we need people who understand that reproducing at that moment in time is a bad choice to be able to correct it in a reasonable way.
My personal cutoff based on my background in developmental psych would be the end of the first trimester.
And I agree about avoiding Hunger Games and ending up with Handmaids Tale being a devil's bargain.
Write many more of these. Fucking brilliant, Guttermouth. Dong. Lol.
I was between that and "boobs" but "dong" just seems to sound objectively funnier to me.
But thanks. I do hope to write many more.
John Stuart Mill would be proud 😆
Fun fact: John Stuart Mill spent a night in jail in Chicago after getting into a bar fight about a "your momma" joke.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
🤣😂😆
I dreamt that I told my neighbors that I heard that by the 5 th shhot all chronic conditions will leave their bodies.
I have terrible COVID dreams, especially after reading too much news. They are largely about police or military doing awful things to my family: dragging one or the other of us out of our homes, killing our dogs for barking at them, or killing us all when I resist with firearms.
Interestingly, none of my nightmares about COVID involve actually being ill.
Yep, gunna share this with a few who will undoubtedly throw their metaphoric girlie-child hands. Bwaahaha.
...and shit themselves in terror? ;)
It seems my mind is a lot simpler. The only argument I entertain in the brain is whether lemon poundcake is more delicious to eat than the having the ability to breath while sitting in jeans. Poundcake is more delicious IMO in case you were gripping the edge of your seat wondering. At least tonight. The debate rages.
About the Covidians that demand I play make believe with their cloth cloaking device. No. I tell them I stopped entertaining fools and the insane at 26. I am a slow learner. Propping up their fantasies is not healthy for them and your inner mental mask nazi should be told that. Unless you love them and they are helplessly flapping over the cuckoo's nest, they get the truth in love until they piss me off. I have a short fuse.
This isn't so much about showing empathy or willingness to dialogue with THEM as it is about me reality-checking my positions within myself.
Reality check is the reality that masks are theater for the insane. This is not a position it is a truth. How the dialogue goes with the insane is hard to predict. My inclination would be if you are afraid stay in the house. Life is dangerous dimbulb.
Now a case for and against God, that is fun to entertain. Assisted suicide. Boy have I debated that one in my head. I don't always win.
Those hard life things, subjects of faith where there is wiggle room merit your time. I suspect you have lots of well thought out things to share. Even if it is just with yourself. Don't be selfish.
Also, I am not always literal and lack an edit button. Remember it please when reading my consciousness faucet. : P .... that is me saying "Arghhh" in a pirate voice.
It's all good in the hood.
The thing about assisted suicide is the same states that allow it won't allow people to CHOOSE to use Ivermectin to try to save their lives at home OR in the hospital on their death beds.
IMO " my body my choice" , no exceptions.
Goes with your business ends where YOUR nose does , lol.
Raptor , love the
" consciousness faucet "
Because they want you dead, one way or another.
This is a broader concept I hope to start a discussion over in a future post. The "conspiracy theory" of human depopulation, if true, is an entirely separate layer from the mass formation layer.
Why circumvent the very thing they want to happen? They want an easy path to death for the burdensome. So logically, people who most need ivermectin (the burdensome) should have no access to it.
I do the same. Friends and family don't like my telling them to listen to everything , other team , overseas , old young , to see WHY people think like they do.
Pound cake >>>>>sitting in jeans.
"Put on your mask"
"I can't. I'm allergic"
"To cloth?"
"No. To performative bullshit. Now fuck off"
Laughs all around at Casa Raptor, Thank you.
Damn but you're long-winded. All both of you.
Nobody has any more freedom than they can defend. All the rest is just other people's good graces.
lol