Coronavirus

[william.scherk]

Regarding usage of the CDC Wonder system of querying the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System database, a couple of additions and corrections.

On 11/10/2021 at 5:09 PM, william.scherk said:

If you use a database utility or spreadsheet program, you can easily import the result data in CSV (comma delimited values) format.  For Excel, Open Office, etc.

It's a bit more picky than my sketch. Saved files are usually exported as .txt files, but are "tab-delimited" rather than comma-delimited. I semi-successfully imported the text file into Calc, the Open Office spreadsheet app by Apache. Excel and Google Sheets are also picky -- but the best option for export might be to PDF.  

By saved files, I mean that the CDC/Wonder can record all your criteria and give you a unique web page URL.  Once that is accomplished, you can share the report with a link. Eg, VAERS Saved WSS Wonder CDC report URL for OL: https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/saved/D8/D249F113

(as embedded by OL software: )

Saved Request: The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), D249F113

WONDER.CDC.GOV

 

Before you head off there to verify mine or/and build your own report, one other picky thing you have to do first: you must go to the bottom of the page and click the AGREE button. 

 

 

Once you agree, you head back up to the top of this unique page set, where you can click the first tab "Request Form" to view (and modify) the criteria:

 

 

Screengrabs of the dataset criteria:

 

 

-- note you can give your own title to describe the dataset.  Here is a view of what the "Results" table looks like:

 

 

Because the cells of data in the table of results are not uniform, the resulting spreadsheet will sometime be unwieldy as a table -- this appears to be unavoidable.  Here's another example screenshot of the results:

 

 

This particular individual row of results is almost unreadable, but you can click on the unique ID and get the same information in a more legible format:

 

 

Remember to save your dataset criteria, or it all turns blank after a 30 minute session clock runs out!

 

On 11/10/2021 at 5:09 PM, william.scherk said:

Bear in mind that if you leave your query or results tab untouched and open for more than 30 minutes, you lose your session and have to start again

 

Ellen noted a Substack article by Steve Kirsch. In it he tells us of an analysis made from VAERS data:

 

Quote

[...] In a brand new VAERS data analysis performed by our friend Albert Benavides (aka WelcomeTheEagle88), we found hundreds of serious adverse events that were completely missed by the CDC that should have been mentioned in the informed consent document that are given to patients. And we found over 200 symptoms that occur at a higher relative rate than myocarditis (relative to all previous vaccines over the last 5 years). All together, there were over 4,000 VAERS adverse event codes that were elevated by these vaccines by a factor of 10 or more over baseline that the CDC should have warned people about.

As of November 1, 2021, there have been more adverse events reported for the COVID vaccines than for all 70+ vaccines combined since they started tracking adverse events 30 years ago. That’s a stunning statistic, nobody can deny it, but nobody in the mainstream medical community (or mainstream media) seems to care much. It’s not even worth noting in passing. Wow.

[...]

 

Follows a list of key observations, followed by a how-to-verify the work of the Kirsch team. It isn't clear if Albert Benavides used CDC's Wonder or one or more of the query sites noted here:

 

Quote

[...]

What we found in the VAERS analysis below can be verified by anyone because it is all publicly accessible. Albert spent only a few hours to produce the tables. So the CDC should have been able to do the same work Albert did.

You can easily verify any entry yourself via manual queries to any VAERS interface (my favorite is MedAlerts, but others such as openvaers and the HHS site give the same results).

Before we get to Albert’s analysis of the VAERS data, let’s do a little background.

 

 

Then there comes a section on "how to properly interpret" the observations:

 

Quote

The X factor analysis (November 7, 2021)

Before I give you the link to the spreadsheet of VAERS symptoms sorted by X factor, you need to know a few things to properly interpret the data.

 

Finally, Kirsch provides the link to the X Factor Analysis: 

 

Quote

The Excel file with the full results

I’m trying to increase the number of paying subscribers I have as this supports the substack community. All proceeds will go to paying the salaries of people working for the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation (vacsafety.org) as well as buying ads so we can get the message out.

You can find the full Excel file and Albert’s analysis in this article.

 

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-vaers-x-factor-analysis

 

 

The VAERS X-factor analysis - by Steve Kirsch - Steve Kirsch's newsletter

STEVEKIRSCH.SUBSTACK.COM

---

Albert Benavides did an analysis of the VAERS data to find which symptoms were the most strongly elevated vs. baseline. Here's what he found.

 

At the bottom of that page ... 

 

 

It's only five bucks for a month's subsription, so it might be worth it to pay ...

Which means without paying, we can't really figure out how the tables in Kirsh's article were derived, or at least not exactly.  What I am going to do is look up individual "symptom" entities from this table:

 

 

Looking at a single symptom at a time should probably return entries in VAERS -- each one with a unique ID and thus able to be examined more closely.

I am not at all sure I understand the Kirsch team's derivation of C19 count.

 

On 11/11/2021 at 8:58 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

What the data tells us

Here are a few quick observations from the complete data set (see next section for downloading):

1. Female reproductive issues top the list. These are strongly elevated by these vaccines. Many of the top symptoms are all related to the menstrual process.

 

I will start snooping VAERS for the reproductive issues first. 

If anyone is interested in reading a critique of Steve Kirsch, there is a massive amount of material out there -- since his appearance on the Dark Horse podcast back in June of this year (described in Kirsch's quoted Substack article):

 

Bret Weinstein | DarkHorse Podcast - How to save the world, in three easy steps.

PODCASTS.GOOGLE.COM

---

Dr. Robert Malone is the inventor of mRNA Vaccine technology. Mr. Steve Kirsch is a serial entrepreneur who has been researching adverse reactions to COVID vaccines. Dr. Bret Weinstein is an evolutionary...

 

This critique gets down to business: 

 

Are the mRNA vaccines really safe? Evaluating claims by Steven Kirsch on danger of spike proteins

WWW.COVID-DATASCIENCE.COM

---

There are a number of individuals on social media confidently claiming the mRNA vaccines are dangerous and killing people, and implying the vaccine distribution should be halted. Many are quasi-experts who are...

 

Edited November 15, 2021 by william.scherk
Added spacing | Formatting errors, spelling, grammar, catching error with text-to-speech

[Brant Gaede]

On 11/13/2021 at 11:33 AM, Peter said:

In the United States as of today November 13, 2021, there have been 46,949,943 confirmed cases of coronavirus and 761,354 deaths.

In medicine there are diseases and conditions. "Cases" refers to one or the other. The virus isn't a case. It's ancillary. It makes  some diseases and conditions worse. These data are bogus. They don't tell us how many of the deaths would or wouldn't have happened with or not with the presence of the virus. 

--Brant

[Peter]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

"Cases" refers to one or the other.

Thanks Brant, though I may not stop saying cases because I have used the term like that my whole life. I think everyone will know what I mean. 

We saw the last half hour of the Adele concert / interview. She would answer Oprah's questions and then cut away to her concert. There were very few people there and it may have just been her friends because I saw a lot of celebs she might know.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The following video is the kind of thing I look for re the coronavirus in all the hollering between experts and the people wielding mind-numbing telephone-book-sized studies and papers full of numbers and gobbledygook. Or the agendas. 

Dr. John Campbell, for me, is as credible as Dr. Robert Malone (and the people he champions), albeit Dr. Malone is the greater expert. Believe it or not, Dr. Campbell is better at communicating. He's the best I have seen so far. But I'm only going from this one video below.

 

Here's the context for the video. Jimmy Dore took the new vaccine and got damaged by it. Since then, he has been looking for ways to undo the damage. And he wants his explanations in plain language because he has felt the damage in his own body--damage that can happen when one blindly trusts the experts.

He came across a magnificent plain-language explainer with impeccable scientific credibility.

 

As I mentioned above, the name of this guy (who is a Brit) is Dr. John Campbell. He has a YouTube channel with literally millions of views (God knows for how long giving his non-biased and clear approach). I just subscribed and intend to watch many other of his videos. Here's the link to his channel.

Dr. John Campbell (YouTube)

Dr. Campbell, is not a medical doctor, but instead a retired Nurse Teacher and A and E Nurse. I had a hell of a time trying to find out what "A and E" meant, but I found it. "A and E Nurse" stands for Accident and Emergency Nurse. In other words, Dr. Campbell is not a theory person or intellectual. Instead, he's a practical person who has worked all his life in an environment where mistakes and gobbledygook and posturing literally cost lives.

(Think difference between scientist and engineer.)

I think he is called Dr. because he has a PhD in something or other. I didn't look that up yet.

 

The method he uses in the video Jimmy ran and commented on goes something like this.

1. He explains in plain language what the problem is and what different people are offering as a solution.

2. He pulls out a mountain of printed scientific peer-reviewed papers and looks at them one-by-one on camera.

3. Instead of sending out a barrage of statistics and jargon, he summarizes each paper in plain language and shows and tells what it is about. In other words, he draws pictures as he talks, explains big words when he needs to use them, and constantly uses phrases like "this kills that," and "this is too big, so it needs something to cut it in half," "this needs to get in there to inhibit the action" and so on. Hearing that along with the pictures he draws and seeing him point to parts of the picture makes it very easy for a lay-person to follow everything without going into a coma.

4. When he comes across a paper that provides a minor point, he says the paper basically shows xxx, but he won't deal with that in more depth because the point is minor and there is an excessive amount of jargon.

5. At the end, he compares what he has just shown you to the propaganda you get from the culture.

It's a beautiful way to cut through the bullshit.

Jimmy goes further and even explains inside references and things he himself did not know--all in plain language.

 

Here is a quote from the end of Jimmy's video to give you an example.

Quote

DORE: So he's saying the new Pfizer drug only inhibits the creation of the SARS COVID in one way.

It turns out ivermectin does it in many different ways, on many different levels, so the chance of the virus being able to get around ivermectin and mutate to get around is very low. 

But to get around the new Pfizer one, he's saying, it looks like it's probably pretty high that it could do that. 

Just like with the antiviral drugs they originally had for HIV--that got around it real fast. 

Well this ivermectin blocks it in six different ways. So the idea that it could get around it... it probably won't. 

Isn't this fascinating?

Why don't you know this? 

Because ivermectin's cheap. It's six cents a pill, like he said, and nobody can make money off it. And you live in a world that is nothing but 100% corporate propaganda. 

CAMPBELL: So I got a message here for world leaders, a brief message to world leaders, people that are making the decisions about this. 

Come on you all. You're not a horse. You're not a cow. In other words, world leaders. You're not a horse, you're not a cow. Come on you all. You've got a human intellect. Let's use it to follow the scientific evidence to save human pain, suffering and death. 

Thank you for watching. 

DORE: So what he's doing is mocking the FDA's tweet when they said, "Hey y'all. You're not a horse. You're not a cow. Don't use ivermectin." 

He's mocking that. He's telling you, "Hey world leaders. You're not a horse. You're not a cow. Use your intellect to follow the science and not the propaganda around ivermectin." 

Isn't this amazing?

Isn't this stunning?

It should be because you've been propagandized. You've been propagandized. There's a cheap and effective treatment out there according to these papers. And it stops the replication of the COVID virus--according to these papers. 

This country is the most propagandized country in the world. Our government is completely owned by corporations and so is our media. 

That one paper he talked about was from January 2020. So this isn't a secret. People know this. The people who are pushing all the propaganda around ivermectin know this. The people at Big Pharma, they know this. Sanjay Gupta, he knows this. 

Now you know why people get their news from YouTube. 

I get my news about ivermectin from this guy on YouTube. I'm certainly not going to go to CNN. I'm not going to go to MSNBC, or the Washington Post, or the New York Times--which is funded by Big Pharma. I'm not going to them. 

I'm going to go to this guy. He's a PhD and he knows what he's talking about. And he doesn't have an agenda. And, by the way, he shows his work. So if you've got a problem with him, then you got to go argue with those peer-reviewed studies. 

(with irony) Yeah. I know...

 

 

The gist of Dr. Campbell's explanation is that ivermectin, which won the Nobel Prize in 2015, was handed over to the public domain by it's inventors. So it cannot be patented. The new therapeutic drug by Pfizer acts in the same way as ivermectin, but has a different chemical make-up which is evident when showing it. And that means it is patentable.

But there is a difference. In the different functions that allow a virus to replicate, ivermectin inhibits several of them. The Pfizer drug only inhibits one of them. The result is that the virus will likely mutate to get around the Pfizer drug before too long if the Pfizer drug becomes a main treatment. The virus will have a hard time mutating around ivermectin.

(Apparently, viruses have a hard time concentrating on more than one thing at a time when mutating.  )

The video also mentioned Regeneron, which does not even provide the one function the new Pfizer drug does. Except Regeneron is thousands of dollars a pill while ivermectin, way more effective (according to the scientific studies), is six cents a pill.

 

If you can, watch the video. It is an eye-opener. And, best of all, it shows how to translate scientific papers into communication for public understanding without ladening on agendas and propaganda.

Michael

[tmj]

I've been aware of John Campbell for awhile , my favorite part of his videos is his most used phrased, "don't take my word for it , look at the evidence".

[Ellen Stuttle]

52 minutes ago, tmj said:

I've been aware of John Campbell for awhile , my favorite part of his videos is his most used phrased, "don't take my word for it , look at the evidence".

But looking at the evidence would require examining "mind-numbing telephone-book-sized studies and papers full of numbers and gobbledygook."

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

16 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Regarding usage of the CDC Wonder system of querying the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System database, a couple of additions and corrections.

William,

My eyes start losing the ability to focus trying to read your lengthy run-ons.  It would help if you would put some white-space gaps between segments.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Fauci weaseling, continued:

 

Dr. Fauci Admits Vaccines Did Not Work as Advertised and that Vaccinated Are in Great Danger Today (VIDEO)

WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM

---

It should be clear by now that the pandemic will not end until Dr. Fauci is removed and replaced. For over a year Dr. Fauci has blocked successful treatments and over-promised on ineffective vaccines.  But at least Big Pharma made record profits.

(I can’t get the large type to size down.)

Quote

On Friday Dr. Fauci told The New York Times podcast that the vaccines did not work as advertised and that Americans are in danger due to their waning immunity.

The following is from the podcast.

Quote

On Nov. 12, White House COVID adviser Anthony Fauci, MD, went on The New York Times’ podcast The Daily to discuss the current state of the coronavirus in the U.S. According to Fauci, officials are now starting to see some waning immunity against both infection and hospitalization several months after initial vaccination. The infectious disease expert pointed toward incoming data from Israel, which he noted tends to be about a month to a month and a half ahead of us in terms of the outbreak.

“They are seeing a waning of immunity not only against infection but against hospitalization and to some extent death, which is starting to now involve all age groups. It isn’t just the elderly,” Fauci said. “It’s waning to the point that you’re seeing more and more people getting breakthrough infections, and more and more of those people who are getting breakthrough infections are winding up in the hospital.”

Corrections to the weaseling:

The pseudo-vaccines didn’t provide immunity to begin with, and now they're enhancing susceptibility.

What Fauci recommend as the solution is, of course, more of the poison.

 

Quote

As a result of these findings, Fauci warned that vaccinated people should get their booster shot, as it might actually be more important than health officials first realized. “If one looks back at this, one can say, do you know, it isn’t as if a booster is a bonus, but a booster might actually be an essential part of the primary regimen that people should have,” he said on The Daily.

Fauci went on to say, “I think … that the boosting is gonna be an absolutely essential component of our response, not a bonus, not a luxury, but an absolute essential part of the program.”

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

TG, Just to let you know….

I edited the above post after you liked it.  I'd forgotten to include Fauci's saying that people should get the booster as "an essential part of the primary regimen."

Ellen

[ThatGuy]

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

TG, Just to let you know….

I edited the above post after you liked it.  I'd forgotten to include Fauci's saying that people should get the booster as "an essential part of the primary regimen."

Ellen

Well, that just...that just changes EVERYTHING!
(Sounds like an ad for a breakfast cereal: "Fauci-O's contains whole-grain boosters, and essential part of a balanced breakfast...)

But seriously, thanks for the head's up.

[Ellen Stuttle]

IMPORTANT article by Wayne Allyn Root re Trump and the "jabs"

 

 

WAYNE ROOT: My Interview with President Trump- The Good and Bad News

WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM

---

By Wayne Allyn Root There is both good news and bad news from my interview with President Trump last week. It was the second time in the past few months that President Trump sat down with me for a detailed...

 

=== Quote

 

You can watch the full interview here:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/d5kIvEz4MTPs/

Now to the bad news. There is only one issue where I’ve ever disagreed with Trump. And I know a majority of Trump voters are on my side.

The issue is the Covid vaccine.

Raw truth- Trump is dead wrong about the vaccine. And I believe it’s the only issue that could derail his excellent shot at winning another presidential election. I believe Trump needs to get ahead of this issue before it comes back to haunt him.

Yes, in my book, Trump gets all the credit in the world for showing the tremendous leadership skills of a 5-star general. He made that vaccine happen at a speed no expert thought possible. Bravo.

The problem is the vaccine is a failure. It was supposed to prevent Covid. It doesn’t. As a matter of fact, the countries and counties that have the highest vaccination rates have the highest number of Covid cases.

It was supposed to stop the spread of Covid. It doesn’t. The latest data shows that vaccinated individuals often have a higher viral load than unvaccinated.

It was supposed to prevent hospitalizations and deaths. The data from across the globe shows that a large majority of recent hospitalizations and deaths have been double vaccinated.

Worse, for some the vaccine itself is dangerous and deadly. Check out the VAERS adverse event reports. In only ten months, this vaccine has directly injured, disabled and killed far more Americans than all other vaccines in modern history combined. How bad will those numbers look in a year or two? Trump needs to get ahead of this unfolding disaster.

 

=== End Quote

I disagree with Root about the "Bravo" for the speed at pushing "the vaccine" through.  I agree with the rest.

Also, Root appears to be thinking exclusively of the mRNA pseudo-vaccine.  (He's made clear elsewhere that he knows the mRNA "jabs" aren’t properly vaccines.  I think it was him who made a comparison I enjoy, that the mRNA "jabs" are no more "vaccines" "than a crocodile is a dog.")

I'm not clear myself on what if any success the J&J viral vector vaccine (no scarequotes) has had.  I know that it carries clotting risks, but I'm not sure if it has any protective value.)

Ellen

 

[william.scherk]

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As I mentioned above, the name of this guy (who is a Brit) is Dr. John Campbell. He has a YouTube channel with literally millions of views (God knows for how long giving his non-biased and clear approach). I just subscribed and intend to watch many other of his videos. Here's the link to his channel.

Dr. John Campbell (YouTube)

I've been following Campbell's output for a while. His channel has an "Introduction" video for folks to get oriented to his stance and purpose.

 

[william.scherk]

5 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

William,

My eyes start losing the ability to focus trying to read your lengthy run-ons.  It would help if you would put some white-space gaps between segments.

I will add some in, thank you for the suggestion.

Edited November 15, 2021 by william.scherk
Suggestion, not 'reminder'

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

But looking at the evidence would require examining "mind-numbing telephone-book-sized studies and papers full of numbers and gobbledygook."

Ellen

Ellen,

I'm not sure what your intention here is. So I will answer this for the reader more than for you because it touches on something important. Here goes.

 

Well, it does requires somebody to do it.

But it does not require people to shut down their lives and use their unrepeatable time and energy to sift out the garbage from the good stuff.

Part of living in a modern society involves specialization. People who are building and working at one thing simply don't have the option to be omniscient and eternal so they can specialize in all the components of the society they live in.

That's why "explainers" or "intellectuals" exist. Rand even wrote an entire book talking about this: For the New Intellectual.

As we have seen, scientists are not more moral than others just because they are scientists. Some of them--nay, many of them--are scumbags with brains. Sellouts.

In trying to understand their fields, what I look for are people who can explain technical things in a language normal people can understand, but people I can trust to be operating with goodwill.

 

If you look at The Art of Nonfiction, you will see that Rand herself tried to teach people to write for a "middle" audience about philosophy. I think that was her term. And she was clear she was not talking about experts nor pop entertainment. She was talking about thinking people of good will and average intelligence (on up).

When I present Dr. Campbell or Dr. Malone, etc., I am using this standard.

(As an aside, I have friends who want me to to look deeper into Dr. Mercola and others. Just keeping to Dr. Mercola for this point, I don't talk about him much because I am not that familiar with him due to the sheer amount of stuff he has produced. I don't want to recommend him without looking at least at some of it. From a skim, I like what I see.)

If these experts-explainers look at the "mind-numbing telephone-book-sized studies and papers full of numbers and gobbledygook" (because they understand it enough to pick out the knowledge from the shit) and present it to me in a form I can easily understand, I will agree with them by default as a starting point. Why? Because I trust them.

That does not mean I turn off my brain. I will still look deeper if I need to--that is, according to my values, according to what I need for my life, not according to peer pressure or agendas.

And how do I know I can trust them? Easy. Thinking people of good will and average intelligence (on up)--of which I am one as are the people here on OL--tend to have good bullshit meters. They don't need to be instructed on who they can trust or who they must distrust. Their criteria is not even technical. It's behavioral.

They look for experts who don't lie (evidenced by getting busted all the time), who explain things to them in language they can understand rather than constantly try to intimidate them with jargon and snobbery, who do not run from facts that are contrary to their positions rather than hide information, who do not offer propaganda and peer pressure and coercion in the place of reason, who do not constantly collude with governments involving large amounts of shady moolah, etc. etc. etc.

 

And here's another point. Looking at evidence not only requires looking at the mountain of documents produced by academics and scientists, it also requires some people to actually produce all that stuff.

This means the people who produce it must be judged just as surely as their products are.

And let's not forget, there is no qualification other than being a citizen in order to vote. A lot of experts need to have their paychecks canceled because they only produce shit dressed up as knowledge. A voting population can do that where the government is the source of their paychecks.

And, once again, enter the "explainers" and "intellectuals"--the middle ones. That level is where most of the real battles for funding occur. And where what is considered truth in the mainstream occur.

Apropos, even though I hate to say it, Fauci is an "explainer" par excellence. He lies his ass off and is inconsistent as all hell, but, as he "explains" all the technical stuff, he gets people to trust him and he gets them to do what he wants them to.

People like Fauci show clearly that when there is a void of middle "explainers" and "intellectuals," people with bad intentions will step up to fill the void. And they will get results. 

So we actually need people like Dr. Campbell and Dr. Malone more than it appears. This area is a human need in a modern society, not just a convenience.

Michael

[Marc]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ellen,

I'm not sure what your intention here is. So I will answer this for the reader more than for you because it touches on something important. Here goes.

 

Well, it does requires somebody to do it.

But it does not require people to shut down their lives and use their unrepeatable time and energy to sift out the garbage from the good stuff.

Part of living in a modern society involves specialization. People who are building and working at one thing simply don't have the option to be omniscient and eternal so they can specialize in all the components of the society they live in.

That's why "explainers" or "intellectuals" exist. Rand even wrote an entire book talking about this: For the New Intellectual.

As we have seen, scientists are not more moral than others just because they are scientists. Some of them--nay, many of them--are scumbags with brains. Sellouts.

In trying to understand their fields, what I look for are people who can explain technical things in a language normal people can understand, but people I can trust to be operating with goodwill.

 

If you look at The Art of Nonfiction, you will see that Rand herself tried to teach people to write for a "middle" audience about philosophy. I think that was her term. And she was clear she was not talking about experts nor pop entertainment. She was talking about thinking people of good will and average intelligence (on up).

When I present Dr. Campbell or Dr. Malone, etc., I am using this standard.

(As an aside, I have friends who want me to to look deeper into Dr. Mercola and others. Just keeping to Dr. Mercola for this point, I don't talk about him much because I am not that familiar with him due to the sheer amount of stuff he has produced. I don't want to recommend him without looking at least at some of it. From a skim, I like what I see.)

If these experts-explainers look at the "mind-numbing telephone-book-sized studies and papers full of numbers and gobbledygook" (because they understand it enough to pick out the knowledge from the shit) and present it to me in a form I can easily understand, I will agree with them by default as a starting point. Why? Because I trust them.

That does not mean I turn off my brain. I will still look deeper if I need to--that is, according to my values, according to what I need for my life, not according to peer pressure or agendas.

And how do I know I can trust them? Easy. Thinking people of good will and average intelligence (on up)--of which I am one as are the people here on OL--tend to have good bullshit meters. They don't need to be instructed on who they can trust or who they must distrust. Their criteria is not even technical. It's behavioral.

They look for experts who don't lie (evidenced by getting busted all the time), who explain things to them in language they can understand rather than constantly try to intimidate them with jargon and snobbery, who do not run from facts that are contrary to their positions rather than hide information, who do not offer propaganda and peer pressure and coercion in the place of reason, who do not constantly collude with governments involving large amounts of shady moolah, etc. etc. etc.

 

And here's another point. Looking at evidence not only requires looking at the mountain of documents produced by academics and scientists, it also requires some people to actually produce all that stuff.

This means the people who produce it must be judged just as surely as their products are.

And let's not forget, there is no qualification other than being a citizen in order to vote. A lot of experts need to have their paychecks canceled because they only produce shit dressed up as knowledge. A voting population can do that where the government is the source of their paychecks.

And, once again, enter the "explainers" and "intellectuals"--the middle ones. That level is where most of the real battles for funding occur. And where what is considered truth in the mainstream occur.

Apropos, even though I hate to say it, Fauci is an "explainer" par excellence. He lies his ass off and is inconsistent as all hell, but, as he "explains" all the technical stuff, he gets people to trust him and he gets them to do what he wants them to.

People like Fauci show clearly that when there is a void of middle "explainers" and "intellectuals," people with bad intentions will step up to fill the void. And they will get results. 

So we actually need people like Dr. Campbell and Dr. Malone more than it appears. This area is a human need in a modern society, not just a convenience.

Michael

Sorry but too excited to find out where to post this but......

 

Steve Bannon talking for 20+ seconds after leaving court is incredibly motivational!!!!!!!

#wewin

#nodoubt

[Ellen Stuttle]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ellen,

I'm not sure what your intention here is. So I will answer this for the reader more than for you because it touches on something important. Here goes.

 

Well, it does requires somebody to do it.

That's right, it does require someone to do it.  The way you come across to me is denigrating people who are actually interested by the material you call "mind-numbing" and "gobbledygook."  You ascribe those properties as inherent characteristics of the material rather than as how the material affects you personally.  If the stuff was inherently mind-numbing, like some sort of chemical, Malone and Campbell and others should surely be brain-dead by now.  Similarly, material doesn’t classify as "gobbledygook" simply because you don’t understand it and aren’t interested in it.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

And next…

 

It Begins... Elites Discuss Redefining "Booster" Since They Are Not Sure How Many "Booster" Shots Will Be Demanded of the Population

WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM

---

Trust the Science. You just knew this was coming. The regime is now concerned about using the word “booster” to describe the number of vaccine shots they will force on the population. The CDC already...

=== Quote

Trust the Science.

You just knew this was coming.
The regime is now concerned about using the word “booster” to describe the number of vaccine shots they will force on the population.

The CDC already changed the meaning of the word vaccine earlier this year.

now the medical tyrants want to redefine or rethink the use of the word “booster” because they are still not sure how many booster shots will be needed before Dr. Fauci claims the pandemic has ended.
Via Bloomberg.

=== End Quote

Ellen

[anthony]

Another highly vaxxed country where the vaccinated continue transmitting infection - to the vaccinated. The Netherlands. Out of a Telegraph article:

"Amsterdammers are reeling at tough Dutch coronavirus measures announced on Friday, as the line in the graph of new cases rises almost vertically. Reported infections have spiked to more than 16,000 a day, way higher than at any point since the pandemic began, despite 82 per cent of people over 12 being fully vaccinated". [...]

[Marc]

36 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

And next…

 

It Begins... Elites Discuss Redefining "Booster" Since They Are Not Sure How Many "Booster" Shots Will Be Demanded of the Population

WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM

---

Trust the Science. You just knew this was coming. The regime is now concerned about using the word “booster” to describe the number of vaccine shots they will force on the population. The CDC already...

=== Quote

Trust the Science.

You just knew this was coming.
The regime is now concerned about using the word “booster” to describe the number of vaccine shots they will force on the population.

The CDC already changed the meaning of the word vaccine earlier this year.

now the medical tyrants want to redefine or rethink the use of the word “booster” because they are still not sure how many booster shots will be needed before Dr. Fauci claims the pandemic has ended.
Via Bloomberg.

=== End Quote

Ellen

1984

Who would have thought? 

[Marc]

18 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

In medicine there are diseases and conditions. "Cases" refers to one or the other. The virus isn't a case. It's ancillary. It makes  some diseases and conditions worse. These data are bogus. They don't tell us how many of the deaths would or wouldn't have happened with or not with the presence of the virus. 

--Brant

Exactly! 

Line up 2020 and 2021 with every other flu season and see where they rank.

Spoiler alert.....

Not near the top

[anthony]

"Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus.

A reduction was also observed in people vaccinated with the jab made by US company Pfizer and German firm BioNTech. The risk of spreading the Delta infection soon after vaccination with that jab was 42%, but increased to 58% with time".

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiNzpbyvJv0AhWKhP0HHfk3Cn4QFnoECAMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fd41586-021-02689-y&usg=AOvVaw12ZnDpzq1fqp0SP7Z0MYOR

"The latter figure is ON A PAR with... an unvaccinated person will spread the virus".

"...waned to almost negligible levels over time". Nature.com

After only 3 months the vaxxed and the unvaxxed will be on equal footing, as infectees and infectors, can this be argued by anyone?.

Well, let's give em all booster shots several times annually for however many years, I suspect will be their method.

What does all this say about mandating on people unneeded and unwanted and potentially harmful vaccines, the semi-effectiveness of which quickly decreases? Without extensive follow-ups? Once the transmission-reduction 'leg' was scientifically shown to be weak, the motive can only come down to punishing the selfish, offending recalcitrants. 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

That's right, it does require someone to do it.  The way you come across to me is denigrating people who are actually interested by the material you call "mind-numbing" and "gobbledygook."  You ascribe those properties as inherent characteristics of the material rather than as how the material affects you personally.  If the stuff was inherently mind-numbing, like some sort of chemical, Malone and Campbell and others should surely be brain-dead by now.  Similarly, material doesn’t classify as "gobbledygook" simply because you don’t understand it and aren’t interested in it.

Ellen

Ellen,

I am not persuaded by people who cannot explain themselves. 

What's worse, the public in general is not persuaded either.

Your impression of my thoughts is totally wrong, though. I don't denigrate those who are interested in the material under discussion. Nor do I denigrate the material when it is good. I do denigrate the shit. And I denigrate those who posture with this stuff. I also use words like gobbledygook to describe the impression these poseurs give when they go off posturing.

Obscurity and intimidation through jargon and stats do not persuade anyone.

(And I am not saying this is what you do. But for some damn reason, you seem to like defending those who do this.)

I don't know how you missed it, but I wrote that entire post of mine praising people of good character who are interested in this kind of scientific material. I stated clearly that I gave them my trust, that I sought them out. Why? Because they could explain the stuff to me. Didn't you see that? I was about as clear as I could be. I can repeat it if you like or try to put it in different words.

Do you really believe I seek these people out and praise them in order to denigrate them? Or denigrate the material?

I don't get it.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As an added thought, sometimes I do read scientific papers in their entirety.

But to put in the effort, I need a greater incentive than verbal dueling about climate change or coronavirus or whatever.

For instance, the paper needs to be relevant to my interests.

By way of example, here is the last scientific paper I read.

The evolution of stories: from mimesis to language, from fact to fiction
by Brian Boyd
PMCID: PMC5763351
PMID: 28544658

(I've also read Boyd's book, On the Origin of Stories.)

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Obscurity and intimidation through jargon and stats do not persuade anyone.

(And I am not saying this is what you do. But for some damn reason, you seem to like defending those who do this.)

You've completely lost me.  I have no idea what you're talking about.

Ellen

 

 

[Ellen Stuttle]

3 hours ago, Marc said:

1984

Who would have thought? 

I saw a T-shirt advertised which says:

COVID-1984

Ellen