Posted on Leave a comment

Irrational Covid Fears – The Norm for the Left

This will be hard for the left to let go of, they’re so sheeplike:

It’s true that experts believe vaccinated people should still sometimes wear a mask, partly because it’s a modest inconvenience that further reduces a tiny risk — and mostly because it contributes to a culture of mask wearing. It is the decent thing to do when most people still aren’t vaccinated. If you’re vaccinated, a mask is more of a symbol of solidarity than anything else.

Coming to grips with the comforting realities of post-vaccination life is going to take some time for most of us. It’s only natural that so many vaccinated people continue to harbor irrational fears. Yet slowly recognizing that irrationality will be a vital part of overcoming Covid.

— Read on

Posted on Leave a comment

Stanfor University Study: Masks. Don’t. Work.

Well, that’s a shocker. Masks don’t work. But, let’s not get in the stampede of leftist do-gooder moralistically preening about how good they are by making 2-year olds mask up.

Efficacy of facemasks

The physical properties of medical and non-medical facemasks suggest that facemasks are ineffective to block viral particles due to their difference in scales [16][17][25]. According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16][17], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25]. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask [25]. In addition, the efficiency filtration rate of facemasks is poor, ranging from 0.7% in non-surgical, cotton-gauze woven mask to 26% in cotton sweeter material [2]. With respect to surgical and N95 medical facemasks, the efficiency filtration rate falls to 15% and 58%, respectively when even small gap between the mask and the face exists [25].

Clinical scientific evidence challenges further the efficacy of facemasks to block human-to-human transmission or infectivity. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 246 participants [123 (50%) symptomatic)] who were allocated to either wearing or not wearing surgical facemask, assessing viruses transmission including coronavirus [26]. The results of this study showed that among symptomatic individuals (those with fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose ect…) there was no difference between wearing and not wearing facemask for coronavirus droplets transmission of particles of >5 µm. Among asymptomatic individuals, there was no droplets or aerosols coronavirus detected from any participant with or without the mask, suggesting that asymptomatic individuals do not transmit or infect other people [26]. This was further supported by a study on infectivity where 445 asymptomatic individuals were exposed to asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carrier (been positive for SARS-CoV-2) using close contact (shared quarantine space) for a median of 4 to 5 days. The study found that none of the 445 individuals was infected with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by real-time reverse transcription polymerase [27].

meta-analysis among health care workers found that compared to no masks, surgical mask and N95 respirators were not effective against transmission of viral infections or influenza-like illness based on six RCTs [28]. Using separate analysis of 23 observational studies, this meta-analysis found no protective effect of medical mask or N95 respirators against SARS virus [28]. A recent systematic review of 39 studies including 33,867 participants in community settings (self-report illness), found no difference between N95 respirators versus surgical masks and surgical mask versus no masks in the risk for developing influenza or influenza-like illness, suggesting their ineffectiveness of blocking viral transmissions in community settings [29].

Posted on Leave a comment

Pfizer Former Chief Scientist Speaks

And it’s worth a listen/read. I’m linking to Meaning in History blog who excerpted his talk. Here are the seven points he makes:

With that background, here are the seven points that Yeadon makes in the interview–as formulated by LifeSite. This should serve as a sort of table of contents:

There is “no possibility” current variants of COVID-19 will escape immunity. It is “just a lie.”

Yet, governments around the world are repeating this lie, indicating that we are witnessing not just “convergent opportunism,” but a “conspiracy.” Meanwhile media outlets and Big Tech platforms are committed to the same propaganda and the censorship of the truth.

Pharmaceutical companies have already begun to develop unneeded “top-up” (“booster”) vaccines for the “variants.” The companies are planning to manufacture billions of vials, in addition to the current experimental COVID-19 “vaccine” campaign. 

Regulatory agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, have announced that since these “top-up” vaccines will be so similar to the prior injections which were approved for emergency use authorization, drug companies will not be required to “perform any clinical safety studies.”

Thus, this virtually means that design and implementation of repeated and coerced mRNA vaccines “go from the computer screen of a pharmaceutical company into the arms of hundreds of millions of people, [injecting] some superfluous genetic sequence for which there is absolutely no need or justification.”

Why are they doing this? Since no benign reason is apparent, the use of vaccine passports along with a “banking reset” could issue in a totalitarianism unlike the world has ever seen. Recalling the evil of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, “mass depopulation” remains a logical outcome.

The fact that this at least could be true means everyone must “fight like crazy to make sure that system never forms.” 

Posted on Leave a comment

MIT & Harvard Study Suggests mRNA Vaccine Might Permanently Alter DNA After All

This is interesting:


Why did these researchers bother to investigate whether viral RNA could become hardwired into our genomic DNA? It turns out their motive had nothing to do with mRNA vaccines.
The researchers were puzzled by the fact that there is a respectable number of people who are testing positive for COVID-19 by PCR long after the infection was gone. It was also shown that these people were not reinfected.

The authors sought to answer how a PCR test is able to detect segments of viral RNA when the virus is presumably absent from a person’s body. They hypothesized that somehow segments of the viral RNA were being copied into DNA and then integrated permanently into the DNA of somatic cells. This would allow these cells to continuously churn out pieces of viral RNA that would be detected in a PCR test, even though no active infection existed.

Through their experiments, they did not find full-length viral RNA integrated into genomic DNA; rather, they found smaller segments of the viral DNA, mostly representing the nucleocapsid (N) protein of the virus, although other viral segments were found integrated into human DNA at a lower frequency.

In this paper, they demonstrate that:
1) Segments of SARS-CoV-2 Viral RNA can become integrated into human genomic DNA.
2) This newly acquired viral sequence is not silent, meaning that these genetically modified regions of genomic DNA are transcriptionally active (DNA is being converted back into RNA).
3) Segments of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA retro-integrated into human genomic DNA in cell culture. This retro-integration into genomic DNA of COVID-19 patients is also implied indirectly from the detection of chimeric RNA transcripts in cells derived from COVID-19 patients. Although their RNAseq data suggests that genomic alteration is taking place in COVID-19 patients, to prove this point conclusively, PCR, DNA sequencing, or Southern Blot should be carried out on purified genomic DNA of COVID-19 patients to prove this point conclusively. This is a gap that needs to be closed in the research. The in vitro data in human cell lines, however, is air tight.
4) This viral retro-integration of RNA into DNA can be induced by endogenous LINE-1 retrotransposons, which produce an active reverse transcriptase (RT) that converts RNA into DNA. (All humans have multiple copies of LINE-1 retrotransposons residing in their genome.). The frequency of retro-integration of viral RNA into DNA is positively correlated with LINE-1 expression levels in the cell.
5) These LINE-1 retrotransposons can be activated by viral infection with SARS-CoV-2, or cytokine exposure to cells, and this increases the probability of retro-integration.
Instead of going through all of their results in detail (you can do that if you like by reading their paper linked below), I will answer the big question on everyone’s mind – If the virus is able to accomplish this, then why should I care if the vaccine does the same thing?

Well, first let’s just address the big elephant in the room first. First, you should care because, “THEY TOLD YOU THAT THIS WAS IMPOSSIBLE AND TO JUST SHUT UP AND TAKE THE VACCINE.” These pathways that I hypothesized (and these researchers verified with their experiments) are not unknown to people who understand molecular biology at a deeper level. This is not hidden knowledge which is only available to the initiated. I can assure you that the people who are developing the vaccines are people who understand molecular biology at a very sophisticated level. So, why didn’t they discover this, or even ask this question, or even do some experiments to rule it out? Instead, they just used superficially simplistic biology 101 as a smoke screen to tell you that RNA doesn’t convert into DNA. This is utterly disingenuous, and this lack of candor is what motivated me to write my original article. They could have figured this out easily.

Second, there’s a big difference between the scenario where people randomly, and unwittingly, have their genetics monkeyed with because they were exposed to the coronavirus, and the scenario where we willfully vaccinate billions of people while telling them this isn’t happening. Wouldn’t you agree? What is the logic in saying, “Well, this bad thing may or may not happen to you, so we’re going to remove the mystery and ensure that it happens to everyone.”? In my best estimate, this is an ethical decision that you ought to make, not them.

Third, the RNA in the vaccine is a different animal than the RNA produced by the virus.The RNA in the vaccine is artificially engineered. First, it is engineered to stay around in your cells for a much longer time than usual (RNA is naturally unstable and degrades quickly in the cell). Second, it is engineered such that it is efficient at being translated into protein (they accomplish this by codon optimization). Increasing the stability of the RNA increases the probability that it will become integrated into your DNA; and, increasing the translation efficiency increases the amount of protein translated from the RNA if it does happen to become incorporated into your DNA in a transcriptionally active region of your genome. Theoretically, this means that whatever negative effects are associated with the natural process of viral RNA/DNA integration, these negative effects could be more frequent and more pronounced with the vaccine when compared to the natural virus.
— Read on

Posted on Leave a comment

Death and Lockdowns

The lockdown hysteria that was championed by the left and their followers has led to many tertiary deaths. But I guess they’ll just blame Trump.


The number of excess deaths not involving Covid-19 has been especially high in U.S. counties with more low-income households and minority residents, who were disproportionately affected by lockdowns. Nearly 40 percent of workers in low-income households lost their jobs during the spring, triple the rate in high-income households. Minority-owned small businesses suffered more, too. During the spring, when it was estimated that 22 percent of all small businesses closed, 32 percent of Hispanic owners and 41 percent of black owners shut down. Martin Kulldorff, a professor at Harvard Medical School, summarized the impact: “Lockdowns have protected the laptop class of young low-risk journalists, scientists, teachers, politicians and lawyers, while throwing children, the working class and high-risk older people under the bus.”
— Read on

Posted on Leave a comment

One Year Later, Vindication for Lockdown Skeptics

Lockdowns were doomed to fail: with a few exceptions, humans have been unable to conquer debilitating viruses—pathogens outsmart us every time; there is nowhere to hide. And the quarantine of healthy people, especially children, set the world’s most advanced civilization back to the Stone Ages.

But the “party of science” wisely seized the opportunity. The strong overpowered the weak in the biggest political power grab in modern U.S. history; the young sacrificed for the old. Our most vulnerable citizens, children and the elderly, were betrayed, in some cases killed, by the very same political interests purportedly devoted to protecting them.

Even I underestimated the wickedness of the Left, how far they would go to exploit the crisis. I also underestimated the cowardice of so-called conservative leaders who not only refused to confront catastrophic, liberty-crushing lockdowns but went along with those authoritarian government orders. Republican governors, for the most part, have acted as badly as their Democratic counterparts.

President Trump, who wanted to open up the economy and the schools in April, was hamstrung by his own team of advisors and experts; the man famous for firing incompetents allowed proven incompetents to run the COVID show and drive a thriving U.S. economy into the ground. Trump warned the cure could not be worse than the disease—but by every measure, it was.
— Read on