53 Comments

Q. How come? Weren’t the “vaccines” designed to prevent that?

A. “The central problem is that the coronavirus has become more adept at reinfecting people. Variants that are adept at dodging the body’s defenses, and waves of infections two, maybe three times a year — this may be the future of Covid-19, some scientists now fear.”

"some scientists now fear"

GEERT. 14-mos. ago.

Expand full comment

Michael Yeadon like two years ago now

Expand full comment

designed to prevent what? survival, maybe.

patience is running thin in the guppy pool while waiting for the rest of the estuary to wake up to the fact that all this had nothing to do with public health and is a mass extermination campaign.

as an aside - i remember the day i got more clicks than the ny times music section and was all fired up until i found out that they got 300 and it was my 301 that pushed me over the top'

so maybe i'm being overly optimistic but how much damage can this times piece really do

aren't they just preaching to the walking dead and nobody else?

Expand full comment

I know that Cable News is tanking, but NYT and WaPo are still pretty healthy if I'm not mistaken.

Regardless, there is still a segment of the populace that still buys what they are cooking even if they don't click and read each article.

They will be exposed to the headline on Twitter or some shit, and defer to...Oh..I need more jabs and how could we have known?

And that gets piled on over and over, and a premise is formed.

Same as safe and effective and rare and mild. And it just....sticks.

Expand full comment

i'm always suspicious of official nyt data but when they start telling us that only one percent of those eligible for a booster are taking them, two months in a row, we know it's pretty much over. other than the psychos who are going out the window with their kids screaming as they fall to the concrete

might be that we need to pivot real fast to the next thing.

phony bird flu? vanguard and blackrock telling the railroad to stop delivering fertilizer? the texas tick which supposedly makes you allergic to jacklinks? who pivots fastest wins?

Expand full comment

Yeah...they are not going to pivot for long from the bioweapons and the "vaccines". Says here.

This is the big Great Reset linchpin. A Biomedical Security State with Passports. Self spreading vaccines. Digital Currency and social credit score.

This is the WHO treaty to set the table. A new bioweapon will be released. Best guess.

The economy and Peak Oil is over. This is end game stuff.

Expand full comment

agreed on all fronts. do you have enough dried beef to get to, say, end of may 2023? just sayin

Expand full comment

Ha ha! No.

Expand full comment

I wasn't going to write anymore replies but you mentioned the meat allergy. Here's what I found yesterday:

Bioethicist Suggests Gene Therapy To Make People Allergic To Red Meat In Order To Reduce Meat Consumption, Shocking 2016 Clip Surfaces

by Conrad ScottJune 23, 2021June 23, 2021

A bioethicist has suggested genetically engineering humans to make them allergic to red meat, in order to get around people’s hesitancy to reduce their consumption. Oh yes, and shrinking them to reduce their ‘lifetime greenhouse gas emissions’. Science fiction or science fact? Let’s hope these suggestions remain the former. File this one under C for ‘cuckoo’, ‘certifiable’, ‘crazy’ – it doesn’t matter which!

See the source image

This man wants to make you allergic to meat, a privilege usually reserved for those suffering from excruciating and debilitating tick-borne diseases. Thanks!

Over the past few days a shocking and bizarre clip has been doing the rounds on Twitter, showing a ‘bioethicist’ discussing ways to reduce meat consumption and save the planet from global warming. While such discussion is now par for the course, as talk of a global ‘climate crisis’ exacerbated by cow farts intensifies, the academic’s suggested remedies are likely to shock even those who think they’ve heard it all before.

-more-

https://herculeanstrength.com/bioethicist-allergic-to-red-meat/

Expand full comment
author

If it can be done, it will be done, just the matter of time. Unless ... <replace the ellipsis with you solution>

Expand full comment

"Long-term soy consumption makes monkeys aggressive loners," that explains a lot

Expand full comment
author

What about the Japanese? https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/traditional-diets/inside-japan-surprising-facts-about-japanese-foodways/: "Dietary surveys indicate that the Japanese consume an average of about 1/4 cup of soy products per day, including the ubiquitous soy sauce. 5 Other soy foods include tofu, a precipitated product, and fermented soy foods such as miso, tempeh and natto. Until recently, these foods were produced at home or by artisans"

Expand full comment
author

Just got this news from the author of Bailiwick News:

Someone sent me a link to this video today:

https://rumble.com/v153ybt-dr.-david-e-martin-gives-explosive-jaw-dropping-information-in-canadian-zoo.html

Martin says he has three law enforcement agencies engaged in the process, with him to prosecute one of the criminal conspiracy architects, and will be announcing further developments on May 22.

Expand full comment

I read enough of your article to under stand....

Was it the new York slimes ?

Butchering language again, imagine that

I read enough to understand they have taken over language, and words can't be taken as truth except if you have a truthfully speaking speaker.

Thanks for speaking the truth, although I wasn't about to exit the control group as it were.

New transcripts in my stack...

Thanks for reading that garbage report you wrote about so I don't have to...

Expand full comment

"The odds ratio comparing boosted and booster eligible people with prior infection was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.56-1.23)". Not statistically significant then.

"The effectiveness of booster vaccination was 45.8% (95% CI, 20.0-63.2%)...in people with...prior infection". The lower bound of the 95% CI is only 20%!

And of course, the paper doesn't even bother to ask about the side-effects/adverse events. Well, if you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question.

Expand full comment
author

Yep, this is the state of "science" in 2022. Formulating questions judiciously, then doing a tap dance around the inconvenient results and making contradicting conclusions to please the sponsors.

Expand full comment

Honestly this is very confusing. I keep going back to the less than 1% absolute risk reduction reported in the Pfizer trials. Do any of these subsequent studies look at an increase or decrease in the all cause mortality of the injected? More people died in the injected group during the Pfizer trials. Was that a possible indicator?

Expand full comment
author

And why on Earth the 0-14 days post jab not counted as jabbed but as unvaccinated? A clue #1.

Expand full comment

Seen the latest blood thinner made for children? And didn't you know it was *totally* normal for kids to have a stroke after a long day on the playground? As if the heart inflammation wasn't enough. But jabs are totally safe...

If the devil is the Father of All Lies, then he's certainly enlisted a lot of trainees in the last couple of years.

Expand full comment

Or single jabbed.

Expand full comment

OR for that matter official guidance to NOT TRACK breakthrough cases a year ago…

Expand full comment

President Trump's biggest mistake was Operation Warpspeed and approving ONLY mRNA vaccines. huge mistake, we all will pay for it.

Expand full comment
author

It wasn't his decision, no matter how much you distaste oranges. This was decades in the making.

Expand full comment

true, but he played along.

what gets me is that people fell for this actor.

here is one of the key players on planning ... will be thrown under the bus sometimes in winter is my guess, after they inject a few more jabs and put the blame in fraudci.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqaaeLnEww

Expand full comment

President Trump more often than not, was a victim of the Deep State. Nevertheless his administration doesn't come close to the incoherent disaster that exists now and which has the full support of the Deep State.

Expand full comment

I'll throw in a good reply (not mine) about what should be considered about Trump's actions. No one is all bad or all good. I think it was a step up from the utter madness happening right now on many fronts.

Catherine Austin Fitts says:

MAY 17, 2022 AT 6:11 PM

During Trump, an effort was made to burn thousands of people out of their homes in California in an operation either permitted or governed by the US military. Trump said and did nothing.

During Trump, Trump started a program to fund 10Billion worth of injections to poison and cull the US population run by an expert in brain machine interface. He continues to promote these injections which are killing, maiming and bankrupting millions of families.

During Trump, 1MM small business were shut down by government while publically traded companies consolidated all their market share using cheap money from the Federal Reserve – all done without a peep from Trump.

During Trump, the executive branch instituted FASAB 56 taking the government completely dark.

If you listen to the Solari Report during the period that Trump was President, Farrell and I did a report card every quarter and regularly gave Trump credit for all the good things he did.

If you continue to support Trump despite this, I strongly recommend you digest the James Giordano lectures on neurological weaponry. Very similar technology was used to make money in the casino business and to promote political campaigns.

Expand full comment

Here's the problem: US elections boil down to a choice between just two people. If you support a 3rd party candidate a very large percentage of the population doesn't have a clue who they are, and once you tell them, the first thing out of their mouth is, "He or she can't win." Trump served just one term under great duress. Are you telling me Hilliary would have been better? Look at what we have now, and if you would like a genuine audit of a clearly flawed election you are called "anti-democracy." Trump was flawed but life was better under him than it is under the illegitimate idiot we have now. At least Trump was honestly elected for his first term. You can't with good conscience make that claim for Biden. Where's your report card on Biden? I know of no decision or mandate that he has made that actually benefits the country or the world for that matter. He's gotten us into WW-III in just a little over a year.

Expand full comment

You're not wrong. Trump was a far better choice IMO (and yes, he won the 2nd time). Hillary would've immediately gotten us into the war we are now. Biden is a disaster. He was a career dishonest asshole, whose racist and stupid remarks went down the memory hole. But neither he nor Trump were truly running anything. Trump had more initiative to go off script or to just blurt out some truth. Biden (or Kamala) can barely make it thru their cue cards with no flak. But looking for a messiah just won't do any good (I'm not saying you are, but I've seen way too many people this zeal toward declaring "out guy" will solve everything, yada yada yada). I just wanted to put it out there that it was not all wine and roses. A lot of people have gotten hurt (physically and financially) in the last 6 years, with more to come, given Andreas's reporting. Be prepared, help others, pray for peace.

Expand full comment

It is becoming very clear that Anthony Fauci and some of his cohorts are America's modern day Josef Mengeles. Fauci however has put at risk a much larger population than just 6,000,000.

Expand full comment

They (Fauci, et al) lied to Trump just like they've been lying to us. At first blush mRNA sounded pretty good. And since the vaxes were basically already made, I'm sure it seemed like the most perfect and quickest solution.

Expand full comment

All who are jabbed, anyway.

Expand full comment

It's the same nonsensical arguments they've been using for the flu shots.

Expand full comment

I'm not accepting any more "vaccines". There is just too much uncertainty. If I'm not sick, I'm not interested in any medical intervention that puts unknown substances into my blood stream. The FDA can no longer be trusted.

Expand full comment

Same here. That was something I never understood about the flu shots. By the admission of their own science it couldn't offer prevention against the flu because the strain it supposedly protected against was always a season or two old. Why on earth people make themselves sick to "protect" against something they might not get anyways always baffled me.

Expand full comment

We are very close to total economic collapse - details here (see the comments in particular)

https://ourfiniteworld.com/2022/05/17/is-the-debt-bubble-supporting-the-world-economy-in-danger-of-collapsing

Expand full comment
author

The usury system will go up in flames. Start the barbecue, open the coolers?

Expand full comment

Herb Stein - what cannot continue.. will stop.

Expand full comment

For those that don't know, 40 billion is actually 40,000 million. The situation in Ukraine is an exact repeat of Vietnam. There is nothing to win, and everything to lose.

Expand full comment

Sometimes I don't know what to say anymore.... The vaccines failed so go ahead and take more of them. 🙄

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 19, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
author

Great proof-reading! Thanks!

Expand full comment

Since we are discussing grammar, please don't make the very common mistake of calling Democrats, "the democratic party". Nothing could be farther from the truth, Democrat and democratic are polar opposites. "Vaccines" should not be used to indicate mRNA injections that have an absolute risk reduction of less than 1% while increasing the risk of all cause mortality. Jab or jabbed seems like slang usage, but is probably accurate in meaning as the injections would have to characterized as having no real value.

Expand full comment

And then, of course, my grammarian family member would nitpick your use of "farther from the truth" and correct it to "further". We could probably go on for days like this ... LOL.

Expand full comment

It's interesting that you brought that up, because I put thought into the choice of farther and further. I agree with you that further may generally be the more common usage, but I deliberately chose "farther," which in fact refers only to distance. You would say, "We need to discuss the issue of the truth further." Not, "We need to discuss the issue farther." But certainly people who believe in a flat earth are farther from the truth than those who know with certainty that earth is actually spherical, but at the exact center of the universe.

Expand full comment

"Further from the truth" is a known figure of speech referring to a figurative distance. You claim you put thought into using "farther from the truth" in relation to Democrats and democratic. You've got an actual physical distance in mind between Democrats and democratic? What would that be? You might be the next Nobel laureate in physics if you can come up with a formula that determines the physical distance between any two entities or concepts that are identified figuratively as being "polar opposites".

Expand full comment

I really like your post. It's great "food for thought." I guess I had the advantage of not knowing that "further from the truth" is established phraseology.. My usage is similar to "big bang" theory.

Expand full comment

Fowler´s Modern English Usage (2nd edition) presents a longish entry on farther/further, in a rather convoluted way; over the decades, and from time to time, I have felt obliged to re-read it - just like now. While one can play with differentiation and substatiate it, "further" will remain the winner overall. In this instance, it would seem "When in doubt, do not think" is the grammarian´s advice.

Expand full comment