Let the shunning begin!!

I’m immune to shunning. I’ve been vaccinated against that decades ago and my antibodies are still coursing through my veins. This guy is an asshole.

Let’s forget the vaccine is still not yet approved by the FDA. It is only authorized. You can’t force an experimental vaccine on people.


It’s official COVID-19 mania will never end

You gotta love the experts. We’ll never reach paradise because rubes like me don’t want to “take the jab”. The ever elusive herd immunity will never arrive.

Now, more than half of adults in the United States have been inoculated with at least one dose of a vaccine. But daily vaccination rates are slipping, and there is widespread consensus among scientists and public health experts that the herd immunity threshold is not attainable — at least not in the foreseeable future, and perhaps not ever.

Instead, they are coming to the conclusion that rather than making a long-promised exit, the virus will most likely become a manageable threat that will continue to circulate in the United States for years to come, still causing hospitalizations and deaths but in much smaller numbers.

New York Times

I’m sorry but I’m still not convinced.

What’s the infection rate of SARS-CoV-2? This is the best thing I’ve found from October 2020. According to this limited study only 12% get infected.

We demonstrated a seroprevalence of 12% (51 participants of 431). Of 48 seropositive individuals with full symptom data, nine (19%) were fully asymptomatic, and 16 (27%) were asymptomatic for core COVID-19 symptoms: fever, cough or anosmia. Specificity of anosmia for seropositivity was 95%, compared to 88% for fever cough and anosmia combined. 34 individuals in the cohort were predicted to be Covid-19 positive using the App algorithm, and of those, 18 (52%) were seropositive.

The Unites States has about 330 million people. About 78% of the population is over the age of 18. 78% of 330 million is 257,400,000. Half of U.S. adults are vaccinated with at least one “jab”. 50% of 257,400,000 million is 128,700,000. Using the numbers from that study 12% of the unvaccinated adults can get infected. 12% of 128,700,000 is 15,444,000. Using other numbers from previous reports in the news over 99.5% of people that do get infected recover. 99.5% of 15,444,000 is 15,366,780. That means 77,220 additional people could possibly die from COVID-19.

Are we willing to continue this madness for what seems to be now nothing more than a flu season? If we believe everything coming out of the government and grant the notion the pandemic was as serious as the numbers they report shouldn’t we now just open up if we trust the numbers they report now?

The madness has to end some time. But I fear government is drunk on control.


Study: Post vaccination, COVID-19 propagation rates higher than when unvaccinated?

I follow a well known diet and nutrition reseacher out of the UK. Her name is Dr. Zoë Harcombe. Read more about her here. Since the pandemic began she has examined the data coming from all official sources and this latest find is a doozy. She looked at the data from a study in Scotland which looked at COVID-19 transmission post vaccination. Does the virus continue to propagate after someone was vaccinated.

The study examined healthcare workers and members of their households. It concluded that after the vaccine people were less likely to spread the virus.

The study reported that the positive test rate per 100 person years was 9.40 for household members during the period when the healthcare workers in the household were unvaccinated and 5.93 for household members during the period when the healthcare workers in the household were ≥ 14 days post vaccination. The conclusion was thus that “Vaccinating healthcare workers for SARS-CoV-2 reduces documented cases and hospitalisation in both those individuals vaccinated and members of their households.”

Zoe Harcombe

But that is not what their data showed. The data within their own report showed the exact opposite of their conclusions.

The cases claim came from a particular table, which reported cases in healthcare workers and household members in the unvaccinated and vaccinated periods. The table provided an alternative conclusion. For every 100 healthcare worker cases in the unvaccinated period there were 64 household cases and for every 100 healthcare worker cases in the vaccinated period there were 94 household cases. We could conclude, therefore, that transmission was higher from healthcare workers to household members post vaccination.

Zoe Harcombe

The numbers above are kind of fantastic. You get vaccinated and you spread the virus more than when unvaccinated. Now, vaccines don’t prevent you from getting infected or spreading a virus. What they do is prevent the person getting infected from having a severe case of the illness. Logic would dictate that if you have a less severe form of the virus then you are less likely to spread it because your symptoms are not as severe. You’re not coughing, sneezing, or spewing crap into the air more than a person with a severe case. But with COVID-19 it seems the opposite is true. Somehow vaccinated people are spreading it more.

Let’s put on our tin foil hats for a moment. I was listening to the No Agenda Show this morning. This is the show posted on May 2, 2021. Adam Curry had this little gem so I clipped it.

Self propagating vaccine

Could the mRNA vaccines be the self propagating vaccines Adam was talking about? Hmmmm? A quick search online comes up with news stories about “self disseminating vaccines”. Could this be true?

Image by Spencer Davis from Pixabay

New York Times reports prison COVID-19 survival rate at 99.486%. And they say that’s 3 times higher than the general population. Why are we scared?

The New York Times has a story about COVID-19 infections and deaths among the U.S. prison population. They say the infections and deaths are higher than the general population. Here are the numbers from their story.

The virus has killed prisoners at higher rates than the general population, the data shows, and at least 2,700 have died in custody, where access to quality health care is poor.

New York Times

These deaths, and many of the more than 525,000 infections so far among the incarcerated, could have been prevented, public health and criminal justice experts say.

New York Times

Since the 1980s, the nation’s prison population has increased by more than 500 percent, and about 1.4 million people

New York Times

2,700 deaths out of 525,000 infections in a prison population of about 1,400,000. That means the death from infections is only .514%. Just slightly more than half of one percent. That’s a 99.486% survival rate of those infected. But out of the entire prison population which by definition is a captive population you only have a .121% chance of getting infected and dying from COVID-19. Out of the entire prison population you have a 99.879% of living through this “deadly” pandemic.

What about the corrections officers working in the prisons? They’re at risk too.

In addition to inmates, more than 138,000 prison and jail correctional officers were sickened, and 261 died, according to the Times data.

New York Times

The New York Times reports 261 deaths out of 138,000 corrections officer infections. Deaths from infections in this group is even less of a risk than inmates. The risk of death is only .189%. A survival rate of 99.811%.

If it’s 3 times worse in prison than the general population and the infection survival rate is a whopping 99.486% what the fuck are we afraid of?

That's All I Got Podcast Thoughts

Maybe I wouldn’t be a skeptic if the U.S. didn’t release 170k untested and unvaccinated illegals into the country

I feel so honored that someone is trying to understand me. I feel wanted… validated. Okay, enough bullshit.

This New York Times story is trying to patronize vaccine skeptics like myself into getting vaccinated. Who would have believed I’d be skeptical of this story. They let us know that we’re not stupid.

“The instinct from the medical community was, ‘If only we could educate them,’” said Dr. Saad Omer, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, who studies vaccine skepticism. “It was patronizing and, as it turns out, not true.”

New York Times

Then they throw us a bone by calling us sensitive and liberty oriented.

Dr. Omer and a team of scientists found that skeptics were much more likely than nonskeptics to have a highly developed sensitivity for liberty — the rights of individuals — and to have less deference to those in positions of power.

New York Times

While the above is true it is not the reason why we’re skeptical. I’ll get to that in a moment. They go on to say that we’re really concerned about what goes into our bodies.

Skeptics were also twice as likely to care a lot about the “purity” of their bodies and their minds. They disapprove of things they consider disgusting, and the mind-set defies neat categorization: It could be religious — halal or kosher — or entirely secular, like people who care deeply about toxins in foods or in the environment.

New York Times

This may also be true for some. But again, it is not the reason why we’re skeptical. So first they were nice to us. Then they hit us with the stubborn hammer.

“At the root are these moral intuitions — these gut feelings — and they are very strong,” said Jeff Huntsinger, a social psychologist at Loyola University Chicago who studies emotion and decision-making and collaborated with Dr. Omer’s team. “It’s very hard to override them with facts and information. You can’t reason with them in that way.”

New York Times

We’re so stubborn even with facts and information we can’t be reasoned with. The NYT has a difficult time pinning us down. In the same breath they say skeptics are mostly conservative… but are also liberal or apolitical (everyone in other words).

These qualities tend to predominate among conservatives but they are present among liberals too. They are also present among people with no politics at all.

New York Times

We’re religious rubes (I’m agnostic by the way).

Mr. Delesbore, 26, has seen information online that a vaccine might harm his body. He is not sure what to make of it. But his faith in God gives him confidence: Whatever happens is God’s will.

New York Times

We want to feel in control because we’re so out of control elsewhere.

The vaccines have also raised a fundamental question of power. There are many things in Mr. Delesbore’s life that he does not control. Not the schedule at the warehouse where he works. Or the way he is treated by the customers at his other job, a Burger King.

New York Times

We’re conspiracy theorists.

Conspiratorial thinking is another predictor of vaccine hesitancy, according to the 2018 study. Conspiracy theories can be comforting, a way to get one’s bearings during rapid change in the culture or the economy, by providing narratives that bring order.

New York Times

Distrust in government and political polarization.

The moral preference for liberty and individual rights that the social psychologists found to be common among skeptics has been strengthened by the country’s deepening political polarization.

New York Times

We don’t trust big pharma.

Brittany Richey, a tutor in Las Vegas, does not want to get one of the vaccines because she does not trust the drug companies that produced them. She pointed to studies that she said described pharmaceutical companies paying doctors to suppress unfavorable trial results. She keeps a folder on her computer of them.

New York Times

Enough of this nonsense. Some or all of the above may be true. But they are still not the real reason a real skeptic is holding off on vaccines. Here’s a prime example of “facts and information” directly from the New York Times that shines a light on why I don’t trust the vaccine, I don’t trust the information coming out of the government, and I don’t trust the lockdowns, masks, and distancing protocols.

More than 170,000 migrants crossed the border in March — many coming from countries still grappling with high infection rates — but the Border Patrol is conducting no testing for the coronavirus during the several days that the newly arrived migrants are in U.S. custody except in cases where migrants show obvious symptoms.

The government says it has insufficient time and space to test migrants upon their arrival. So while migrants get a basic health screening, testing is being postponed until their release to local community groups, cities and counties, usually after the new arrivals have spent days confined in tight spaces with scores of strangers, often sleeping shoulder to shoulder on mats on the floor.

Unaccompanied children are being tested, but only after they have spent around three days in custody, just before being loaded onto buses or planes for transport to government-run shelters.

U.S. officials say the challenges to testing all the new arrivals when they are first apprehended are insurmountable.

New York Times

SARS-CoV-2, and all its variants, are so dangerous and deadly that the U.S. government will release 170,000 people into the country without testing or vaccinating them. We have Dr. Fauci on TV daily promoting vaccines, testing, masking, and social distancing for everyone. We are supposedly worried about a new wave of infections from variants and states that are reopening. We’re so worried about all of this but yet the government can release almost 200,000 illegal aliens into the country without testing or mandatory vaccinations.

That’s one small part of the “facts and information” I use to be skeptical. I combine that with the “facts and information” that over 99% of those infected survive, the people most affected are very old, obese, diabetic, or are immunocompromised. Studies showing masks aren’t effective. Studies showing distancing does nothing. Studies showing Ivermectin is an effective prevention and treatment. No studies showing mRNA is safe (the vaccinated are the study) over time.

That’s why I’m a skeptic and will remain so until things make logical sense.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

CDC ratchets down PCR cycle threshold to make vaccines look effective

Back in November of 2020 I blogged a New York Times story about the PCR testing cycle thresholds and how we were testing at such a high rate that the test was capable of finding virus that has no chance of infecting anyone. In this blog post there was also video from Dr. Fauci where he says a PCR test run above 35 cycles is useless. Now, from the CDC, comes a document that says they’re recommending labs to use a PCR cycle threshold, for vaccinated people, of less than 28. My guess is they’re doing this to find fewer cases so the vaccines look more effective.

COVID-19 Vaccines are Effective

Vaccine breakthrough cases occur in only a small percentage of vaccinated persons. To date, no unexpected patterns have been identified in the case demographics or vaccine characteristics among people with reported vaccine breakthrough infections.

COVID-19 vaccines are effective. CDC recommends that all eligible people get a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as one is available to them.

CDC recommends that fully vaccinated people continue take steps to protect themselves and others in many situations, like wearing a mask, maintaining an appropriate social distance from others, avoiding crowds and poorly ventilated spaces, and washing their hands often.

In case you didn’t know… COVID-19 vaccines are effective. They said it twice in the same blurb just to make sure you know it. Three times would have been magic but maybe they didn’t want to be so obvious.


PCR tests created past fake epidemics

The story linked here is from 2007. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center thought they had a Whooping Cough epidemic on their hands. What they actually had were PCR tests run amok.

With pertussis, she said, “there are probably 100 different P.C.R. protocols and methods being used throughout the country,” and it is unclear how often any of them are accurate. “We have had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of P.C.R.-positive results, the disease was not pertussis,” Dr. Kretsinger added.

At Dartmouth, when the first suspect pertussis cases emerged and the P.C.R. test showed pertussis, doctors believed it. The results seem completely consistent with the patients’ symptoms.

“That’s how the whole thing got started,” Dr. Kirkland said. Then the doctors decided to test people who did not have severe coughing.

“That’s how we ended up with 134 suspect cases,” Dr. Kirkland said. And that, she added, was why 1,445 health care workers ended up taking antibiotics and 4,524 health care workers at the hospital, or 72 percent of all the health care workers there, were immunized against whooping cough in a matter of days.

New York Times

They thought they had an outbreak they needed to control and took reasonable steps to stop it. But what they were seeing with the PCR tests wasn’t what was actually happening.

The Dartmouth doctors sent samples from 27 patients they thought had pertussis to the state health departments and the Centers for Disease Control. There, scientists tried to grow the bacteria, a process that can take weeks. Finally, they had their answer: There was no pertussis in any of the samples.

New York Times

They were mislead by a test that wasn’t designed to work as they were using it.

“The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,” Dr. Petti said. “No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on P.C.R.”

New York Times

Could we be experiencing the same thing now with COVID-19? Are we witnessing a casedemic rather than a pandemic? The numbers coming out of the government don’t give the entire picture of what might be happening. Try to find definitive survival rates. Try to find the cycle threshold used on the PCR tests. It appears to me that we’re being fed the statistics we need to see in order to push us in the direction the government wants to go. The media doesn’t ask critical questions. All they do is repeat what they’re told.

We need answers on these PCR tests.

Image by Christian Dorn from Pixabay

MIT study shows social distancing is a farce

MIT did a study that shows there is no difference between being 6 feet apart or 60 feet apart when dealing with COVID-19 transmission. And that’s with or without a mask.

The risk of being exposed to Covid-19 indoors is as great at 60 feet as it is at 6 feet — even when wearing a mask, according to a new study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers who challenge social distancing guidelines adopted across the world.

MIT professors Martin Z. Bazant, who teaches chemical engineering and applied mathematics, and John W.M. Bush, who teaches applied mathematics, developed a method of calculating exposure risk to Covid-19 in an indoor setting that factors in a variety of issues that could affect transmission, including the amount of time spent inside, air filtration and circulation, immunization, variant strains, mask use, and even respiratory activity such as breathing, eating, speaking or singing.


If you’re gonna get it you’re gonna get it. Take as many precautions as you can but the virus will do what viruses do and that’s jump from person to person to person. This won’t end until it moves through the population. End the lockdowns now.


“The Gestapo came again attacking the Church!”

The bravest man in all of North America stands up to the Canadian Gestapo… Again. More power to him!


UK authorities are neo-fascists

They were almost destroyed by the Nazis. Now they’ve become what they fought so hard against. The excuse of following orders doesn’t absolve this tyranny.