Time to lock them all up.
Trump, Fauci, Vanderbilt's **********-in-chief, ****o, Witless, the lot of them.
Add to the list every "private sector" CEO, board member and HR person who is now attempting to force jabs through coercive measures.
They were all wrong and the so-called "expert of experts" has admitted not only that it is the case but that any continuation of said policy is felony assault with intent to commit homicide.
Let's be clear: Fauci has now admitted, on live camera, that a person with a breakthrough infection is just as dangerous as someone who was never vaccinated and gets infected.
This was expected by anyone who has ever studied anything about viral disease and the use of non-sterilizing immunizations when infections are active in a community. We have known this all the way back to Polio and is why we insisted on a sterilizing vaccine (OPV) following the inactivated injected vaccine (IPV) in the United States until 20 years after we were declared polio-free.
In addition it is exactly what is expected if a non-sterilizing vaccine produces both binding and neutralizing antibodies and we know, scientifically, that all the existing jabs do exactly that. When levels wane you still have binding antibodies and when the neutralizing level falls below the threshold to protect you now have an enhancement of the disease rather than protection. A person who was never infected and not vaccinated does not have the binding antibodies and thus, while at risk, doesn't get the enhancement. Now we have real-world evidence that in fact the jabs produce risk as immunity wanes and that said risk may exceed, on a personal level, what someone has who never been infected or vaccinated is exposed to.
As I pointed out the case rate had peaked and was headed down -- hard -- before the first jab went into the first arm. That which you do after something happens can't be due to whatever it is you did. Not one group saw that collapse come after vaccination and no sub-group, even the very old, reached even 20% coverage before the case rate was in the ditch Obviously vaccines did not stop Covid in the winter and thus there's no reason to believe they will materially impact whatever variation may come around -- now or in the future.
Got JabbersRemorse yet folks? It appears you may need to continually take boosters to avoid this and accept the risk of blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, PAH and other adverse effects not just once or twice but every six months to a year if not more-often! Oh, and if you choose not to the duration of your increased risk is not known -- it may last for years or even decades and may not be limited to Covid-19 either; any virus that can cross-react with the binding antibodies would be enhanced.
What I said was the correct path forward in early 2020 and have maintained since is:
- Protect the most-vulnerable who cannot protect themselves. This means locking in all care-givers in institutional settings for the elderly and medically infirm. Yep, you work there, you do not interact with the public until and unless you can prove seroconversion. Period. If we have to pay more to get people to agree to this so be it. It is what it is.
- Urge immediate intervention with suspected or believed effective drugs that are rationally safe at the first sign of infection. If you can buy or use something of statistically similar risk over the counter then you must be able to buy these over the counter on your demand to a pharmacist, with he or she checking for interactions with other drugs you may be taking and warning as appropriate, but with the choice being yours and nobody else's. Period. The list of said drugs includes hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, budesonide, famotidine and a few others. Why? Because we had no reason to believe originally that natural infection was not sufficient to prevent, in nearly every case, re-infection with a serious or severe instance as that has always been true for every other respiratory pandemic virus and time has proved this up for Covid-19 as well. In short natural infection has now proved superior to vaccination (note that nobody is seriously claiming Delta and other "variants" evade natural immunity) and therefore in those who are at reasonably-low risk infection is preferred as the immunity it produces is at least equal and likely superior, with said infection mitigated as to severity as one chooses. MY ASS, MY CHOICE.
- For those at extremely high risk offer but not mandate whatever prophylactic(s) we can come up with. This includes the current jabs but certainly isn't limited to them. For example there is some evidence that Ivermectin is effective as a prophylaxis. Vitamin D may be; there is a very strong association between Vitamin D deficiency and severe or fatal Covid infections but association is not proof of cause nor that correcting it would change outcomes. Nonetheless there is nearly zero risk to that path forward and, for Ivermectin, the data is that the serious adverse event risk is 1 in 600,000 people. That's tiny and less than the risk from Tylenol, to name just one OTC drug in question. Again, the goal here is for infections to happen as they will but not result in serious outcomes as that is the path out of every pandemic through history and there is no evidence this one will be different.
- Those who are at statistically-zero risk of serious harm or death (e.g. healthy children) should be encouraged to live normally and expect to get the virus. Their natural immunity provides a "free of cost" firewall for everyone else. We are criminally insane to do anything that limits or otherwise attempts to prevent that.
- If you are going to close the border to "non-essential" travel, that is to other than essential trade activities, then mean it or shut the **** up and drop the constraints. If you actually believe that there is a crazy transmission risk from ordinary people doing ordinary things then you have an obligation to place the military on our border with orders to shoot anyone who crosses illegally. No exceptions. We now know Biden's administration is in fact releasing known-Covid infected migrants into the population. If this is a "dangerous disease" then such an action is manslaughter. If it is not manslaughter then no constraint on a Covid-positive person is legal.
In short enough of the bull**** folks. I've been on this since the first impeachment trial of Trump and due to the fact that the media and social/advertising folks "don't like" any sort of debate, discussion or reporting that is anything other than their preferred narrative have been basically forced to choose between no advertising of any sort, ever, or moving everything related to Covid, no matter how indirectly related, to its own area where no advertising is present.
Even that's often declared "not enough"; for example, this page on my main blog is declared by Google's AdSense to contain "misinformation." On a non-signed on account (if you're logged in you can change the articles-per-page, thus might see something different) a person (or their robot) will see (1) an article about Yang's failed Presidential bid, (2) my satirical declaration of running for President, (3) an article criticizing Greta and her "green" advocacy, (4) an article pointing out the MMT BS often run and finally (5) a response to one of the many screamers about Democrats prior to the 2020 elections. The latest article on that page is from September of 2019, more than three months prior to Covid being admitted to exist. I asked for a review after moving any potentially controversial and related material, which was only tangentially-so, into the non-advertised area and they confirmed their decision after the redactions -- but refuse to tell me what they objected to -- either in the first place or now. They claim "Derogatory or dangerous content." If someone won't tell you what they object to how do you avoid offending their alleged "sensibilities"? If the argument is that I have been "mean" to a public figure, all of whom that are identified are, by their own hand, then what sort of actual debate can one have when they call you a murderous bastard by implication if you decide to drive a combustion-engine powered vehicle?
In short what could reasonably be considered "misinformation or unreliable medical claims", or "derogatory or dangerous content" on that page?
Nothing. None of it has anything to do with Covid whatsoever because all of it was written before Covid was known in the media to exist.
Are you still going to swallow the BS coming out of Washington DC and the States or are you going to force local, state and federal officials to stop doing things that keep be proved as dangerous, critically so, while intentionally refusing to protect the public?