"staying apart keeps us together" is not public health. it's public suppression
"staying apart keeps us together" is not public health. it's public suppression
when government agencies do nothing but lie, i defund and disband them. what sir, do you do?
truly, this is a wonderful complication of absurdity, overreach, and elite preaching of “do as i say not as i do.”
worth watching. (you’re gonna want the volume up for this one)
i was not aware that victoria actually adopted “staying apart keeps us together” as their policy punchline.
talk about one for the “make orwell fiction again” archives…
that quite literally parses to “allow us to divide you that you may be conquered.”
truly covid response has masked the people, masked the truth, and masked very idea of informed consent.
but it has unmasked some dire facts about both the susceptibility of the populace to orchestrated attempts to panic them and about the politicians and agencies who did so.
the people bifurcated into two basic camps.
and it was easy to spot who was who.
and it’s been just as clear and just as bifurcated and clear among the “leaders” and experts.
the higher quality data has long been showing that covid vaccines increase the likelihood of contracting covid for ages and the fact that new variants make this MUCH worse has been obvious as well.
even using the rigged definitions of only counting as vaxxed those already 2 weeks past second dose (or booster) this danish study was (in dec 2021) already showing massively negative VE vs omi. nothing post 30 days was statistically significant vs “no effect” but post 90 days, it was a stat sig result of -76.5% for pfizer and -39.3% for moderna (amusingly the vaxx more widely discontinued).
those are nightmare numbers. and we’ve known about this since near the beginning.
and the drop for “boosted” (only taken to 30 days) looked similar to the drop in “double dosed” at some timespan. any prediction of future efficacy was entirely assumptive.
the trajectories looked near identical as as can be seen from official UK figures that were “mysteriously discontinued” it rapidly got worse, not better with boosters.
note that the shift to reporting triple not double dosed coincides with the date of the danish paper and thus the negative VE looks to align quite well. -76% VE = 1.76 risk factor, very similar to the ~2.0 i found in the UK data.
and obviously, the booster vs evolving omi battle rapidly went quite poorly and what looks to have been around a -100% VE (keep in mind i included ALL vaxxed including the carve outs the danes used) plummeted to the area of -300% a tripling in the vaxx induced negative protection.
that happened in 8 weeks. it’s WAY too fast to be vaxx fade. that’s OAS optimization.
and yet the danes concluded:
Our study contributes to emerging evidence that BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 primary vaccine protection against Omicron decreases quickly over time with booster vaccination offering a significant increase in protection. In light of the exponential rise in Omicron cases, these findings highlight the need for massive rollout of vaccinations and booster vaccinations.
despite this being the obvious opposite of where their data led both at the time and in the light of future data. there was zero evidence to make such a claim. but they made it anyway.
and that, amigos and amigettes, is because the authors all work for state funded groups and there is a very simple equation at play:
it’s been on display everywhere and you’ll note that even as the facts become manifestly clear, no one changes their minds or their prescriptions.
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” economist paul samuelson famously queried.
and for these agents and agencies the answer is clear:
“why, follow the politics of course!”
they keep pushing a product with a 40% rebound rate for covid (mostly among the vaccinated) and the jabs themselves.
there is a word for those who see the same answer in every inkblot.
that word is not “scientist.”
can anyone believe this “calamity could have been avoided if only this heretofore incredibly low risk person had just vaxxed earlier” narrative?
blaming the victims when the victims are all around us and so many of us know so many of them is just not going to succeed.
this is the bridge of credulity too far.
DailyHemo @DailyHemo
Gymnastics legend Szilveszter Csollany was hesitant to get jabbed but decided to receive the vaccine in order to keep his coaching job, he later dies of Covid infection - https://t.co/qoUypIguK1 #health #covid #vaccinethis messaging is nothing like honest. there is no investigation. it’s all whitewash and buttocks covering.
they are not even trying to get at the truth.
the CDC is manipulating their outcomes data 20 different ways and have become untrustworthy as a source of anything more controversial than their lunch order (and i hear even uber eats is getting suspicious).
see equation above.
meanwhile, on twitter, this is not even an allowable topic to search. you get no results. just this.
(yeah, that’s not creepy at all)
and while folks like the california legislature have mooted muzzling doctors to prevent them from discussing vaccine risks,
as can be seen here, some others are starting to speak out loudly.
this one is going to get WAY to big to hide. it likely already has crossed that rubicon. and the truth is invading the lands of unchallenged narrative.
there is just too much data, too much personal experience, and too many lies unraveling like cheap sweaters.
perception is flipping rapidly and too many control groups are cropping up.
we are entering the age of the grand societal shibboleth.
and those on the side of self-serving pseudoscience are revealing themselves with prolific polemic. they simply cannot seem to help themselves.
suddenly we’re back to the vilification of dissent with the express approval and full weight of the flailing agencies that got us here and their bespoke science to buttress their crumbling narratives.
it’s weapons grade nonsense and woo-woo.
bought and paid for NIH “studies” of covid origin tell you covid came from a fish market.
but 2 days of actual peer review on social media tells a very different tale.
thomas sowell famously quipped:
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”
and this is a rare instance in which i must disagree with him.
it’s quite easy to imagine such a thing. just create a situation whereby those making decisions are actually incentivized by personal interest to get and validate the wrong answer and manipulate data, one where where your cost is their gain. not only do they pay no price, they get to go to the goodie room on the other side of the revolving door of pharma and the sinecure slush funds of grant giving.
so long as this role is a monopoly and the data and methods opaque, this cannot be fixed.
the CDC and the NIH and quite possibly the FDA should be eliminated and this role given back the people whom these agencies have crowded out.
they were never constitutional by any reasonable interpretation i can see but people turned a blind eye because these agencies were seen as functional.
but those days are gone.
the only way to reclaim science and public health from political science is to take government funding and regulation out of science and public health.
“there are no solutions, only tradeoffs” is another sowell gem.
sure, there might be some outcomes you don’t like from eliminating the CDC, but what do we get in return? how much science and free exchange might flourish when the dead claws of the regulatosaurus are removed from its organs?
the current state of public health is stopping it from becoming something far better.
in the digital age of instant information and big data, the CDC are two children with tin cans tied together with string shouting 1!0!1!1! to each other and pretending to be the information superhighway.
we might as well be trying to mine big data with an abacus while a couple dishonest actors keep moving the beads when they thing no one is looking.
perhaps it’s time to stop thinking in terms of “safety” and to start thinking in terms of lost progress. the real risk is not “might we miss X if we defund and disband the CDC and devolve its function to the private sector and open data” but “might we miss the next 50 years of evolution in data and science and public health and wind up fighting the next war with bone saws, ether, and ignorance instead of with technology, adaptability, and understanding.”
sometimes, there is no middle way.
choose wisely.
Comments
Post a Comment