Sunday, April 4, 2021
Monday, February 15, 2021
Coronaviruses are notorious for ADE reactions, where antibody presence potentiates the infection instead of protecting against it. Using that as a bioweapon is stupid because you will score "own goals" on your own people and there is no way to control that. As a result biological weapons generally are dumb; poison gas and such don't have this risk since it does not propagate but any disease does.
The poster child for ADE in coronaviruses was an attempted vaccine for a feline coronavirus that often made cats very sick. The vaccine killed every one of them in the test when they were later exposed, wildly potentiating the infection.
Read that again folks: NOT ONE VACCINATED CAT SURVIVED A CHALLENGE WITH THE ACTUAL VIRUS.
Ordinary vaccines we have lots of experience with, such as measles, the flu shot, mumps and similar do not carry a risk beyond that of natural infection and cannot be weaponized because they produce the exact same antibody response as a natural infection. If you have had either the measles or the shot you will have antibodies but an antibody test will not tell you which since they're not distinguishable.
I suspected from the start that due to the way these mRNA shots work -- they are not actually a vaccine at all in that they do not "mimic" natural infection but rather cause your cells to produce the spike protein that the virus has and that elicits an immune response -- that the antibodies produced by those jabs would be distinct and distinguishable from natural infection.
All of the so-called "experts" who worked to develop these and the firms involved knew damn well this was the case when they started developing them -- and did it anyway.
Now we have hard, scientific confirmation of that and it's very bad.
In fact it's potentially nation-ending bad.
An adversary that develops a virus (e.g. another modified/mutated bat virus, for example) that selectively targets ADE in people with the specific antibodies from vaccination, which are distinct from natural infection, could easily kill every single person who was vaccinated and not harm or only make mildly sick those who either had Covid-19 naturally or who were uninfected and unvaccinated.
The nightmare scenario that has always driven bioweapons research is the push to discover some genetically distinct means of targeting a bioweapon such that it only kills your adversary and leaves everyone else alone. It's even worse for your adversary if your side gets and transmits it but doesn't get sick. This has never been found despite diligent effort in the past; all attempts to find such a distinct vulnerability have failed, showing reactivity across the board and thus strongly suggesting that if that "thing" was completed and got out it would kill indiscriminately. That you cannot stop a virus from circulating (even isolated islands eventually got hit by the 1918 pandemic flu!) means that releasing a virus or bacteria that nobody on "your" side has been sensitized to yet doesn't help because when (not if) the sensitizing agent gets into your population all your people die too.
This has now, for the first time in human history, been changed by the idiotic actions of our governments and pharmaceutical companies in that we are now tagging people for death by the literal millions and they will die if an adversary is able to develop a virus that targets those specific antibodies.
Of course, said adversary will not deploy the tagging via said shots in their population and thus their people will not be attacked and killed. Since it takes an actual jab of a needle to be sensitized absent intentional action there is no risk to the adversary's population or troops.
I give the odds of an adversary (remember, we're talking nations here with nearly unlimited resources and plenty of smart people) figuring out how to selectively target Covid-19 vaccination antibodies at 50% or better within the next five years.
If they succeed every single person who took one of the vaccines that produces a distinguishable antibody titer dies.
You can bet your last nickel they're working on it right now.
What happens if they succeed and we forcibly vaccinated our children and anyone who wishes to have a "normal" life back? The entire procreation-capable stock of people in the United States will die and so will America.
That risk is wildly beyond the boundaries of sanity to have ever been accepted and it was deliberately concealed from the people -- not just here, but throughout the Western World.
It's clearly not enough for certain ghouls to have destroyed a full year of most school-age children's education; now they propose to risk literally extinguishing all of their lives and thus the future generations they would be able to create down the road.
I pray I'm wrong.
Unfortunately I know that I'm not -- there are plenty of people, both terrorists and evil nation-states that would love to unleash something like this on those they hate, they will work on this problem and if they discover a way to exploit it they will do so.
The use of any "vaccine" that does not produce an identical antibody to natural infection must be halted immediately and never done again. We cannot do anything for the people already stabbed but we can eliminate the incentive to develop such a weapon by not having any material percentage of the productive and young population able to be targeted.
The option to cancel the risk of self-destruction of our nation and many others will expire within weeks.
Sunday, January 31, 2021
Thursday, January 28, 2021
Saturday, January 16, 2021
Our Spiritual World: The Gates of Hell & ‘Luciferase’: “ Things won’t get back to normal until we have gotten a vaccine out to the entire world ” – Bill Gates Nothing here is speculation. I w...
Wednesday, December 9, 2020
The Daily Messenger: This is NO vaccine. It is a design changer: http://daily-messenger.com/this-is-no-vaccine-it-is-a-design-changer
Tuesday, December 8, 2020
The Daily Messenger: UK begins Covid vaccine shots…: Very few know this, but in December 2019, all Chicom citizens HAD to be vaccinated by the witches sabbath of Yule, 12-21-19. Weeks later...
Tuesday, November 10, 2020
The Daily Messenger: Orgone and save UWANTSUN sale: Anyone interested in some beautiful and arty orgone, I have and could seriously use the business right now. Thank you. 15% off this week...
Friday, October 30, 2020
Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Thursday, October 22, 2020
Friday, October 16, 2020
Thursday, October 15, 2020
Saturday, October 10, 2020
The diabetes drug Metformin hydrochloride has been recalled because it contains excess levels of a cancer-causing agent, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced this week.
The drug’s manufacturer, Marksans Pharma Limited, has expanded a recall initially announced in June to now include an additional 76 unexpired lots of the medication.
The recalled drugs are marketed as “extended-release tablets” under the brand name Time-Cap Labs, Inc.
The drug helps lower the blood glucose levels of those with type 2 diabetes.
But the recalled product contained an unacceptably high level of N-Nitrosodimethylamine, which is considered a probable human carcinogen.
“Marksans performed N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) testing of unexpired identified marketed lots and observed that NDMA content in some lots is exceeding the acceptable Daily Intake Limit (ADI) of 96ng/day,” the FDA outlined in its announcement.
“Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, an additional 76 lots are being recalled.”
The recall applies to metformin tablets between 500 mg and 750 mg.
The 500 mg tablets are debossed with “101” on one side; the 750 mg tablets are debossed with “102” on one side, the agency said.
The FDA advises users to continue taking the recalled tablets until a medical professional provides a replacement or alternative treatment option.
“It could be dangerous for patients with type 2 diabetes to stop taking their metformin without first talking to their health care professional,” the FDA said in a statement.
Consumers “should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking or using this drug product.”
Monday, October 5, 2020
Monday, October 5, 2020
With products like Comrade Cluck (a plant meat, not actual chicken), No Evil Foods has had success casting itself as a “revolutionary” food company that embodies progressive values.
But the company is learning marketing progressive ideas is easier than implementing socialist-style economics.
For months, company leaders have been resisting a unionization effort by workers at their Weaverville, North Carolina plant.
“I sincerely believe that right now a union would be a terrible thing for you and for No Evil Foods,” Mike Woliansky, the co-founder and CEO of No Evil Foods, told his employees earlier this year. “You could get the same thing you currently have. You could get less than you currently have. I don’t think you need a union voice here.”
Woliansky’s words apparently had an impact.
The unionization effort at No Evil Foods, a vegan foods brand whose foods can be found in more than 5,500 retail stores (including Whole Foods), lost. On Feb. 13 employees voted 43-15 against unionizing. But the battle wasn’t over.
Two of the union organizers were later fired, allegedly for violating social distancing and dress policies.
Earlier this month, VICE News reported that the National Labor Relations Board issued a federal complaint saying the claim that the employees were unlawfully terminated had merit, saying No Evil Foods fired the workers because they "assisted a union" and "circulat[ed] a petition seeking hazard pay...for the purposes of mutual aid and protection."
No Evil Foods denied the firings were retaliatory. Workers disagreed, saying the company was not truly progressive.
“They’re pretending they’re allies of leftist causes,” Jon Reynolds, an ex-employee of No Evil Foods who was one of the fired workers, told Jacobin.
When Economic Reality Collides With Ideals
It’s possible No Evil Foods employees are right and the revolutionary themes are simply a marketing ploy intended to attract progressive customers. On the other hand, another scenario is possible: Mike Woliansky and fellow No Evil Foods co-founder Sadrah Schadel are deeply progressive but also self-interested humans trying to make a business succeed.
It wouldn’t be the first time economic reality collided with progressive values. Last year Vox Media was forced to cut 200 bloggers at SB Nation after California passed Assembly Bill 5, legislation that forced numerous industries to change the status of workers from freelancers to actual employees.
Some astute observers pointed out that the firings came just a few months after Vox, a progressive media brand, had championed AB5 as a “victory for workers everywhere.”
I kinda hate this meme but this is too perfect— Eric Boehm (@EricBoehm87) December 17, 2019
Shot / Chaser pic.twitter.com/quAPTaG3w7
A similar scenario could be at play at No Evil Foods. Woliansky might be someone who is progressive but also realizes unionization could cause serious problems for both his company and workers.
While firing workers in retaliation for organizing is indeed against the law—the 1935 National Labor Relations Act makes it unlawful for employers to retaliate against workers attempting to form unions—there is nothing wrong with attempting to persuade workers that forming a union could harm both the company and their own interests.
One of the ways unions hurt labor is they actually decrease overall wages. Economists have long pointed out that wages are tied to productivity.
As Milton Friedman has observed, in a free market wage growth comes from increased productivity and greater capital investment. Artificially raised wages—either by labor unions or minimum wage—can only come at the expense of other workers who find their opportunities reduced.
“When unions get higher wages for their members by restricting entry into an occupation, those higher wages are at the expense of other workers who find their opportunities reduced,” Friedman explained.
But reduced employment is not the only cost. As economist George Reisman has observed, labor unions decrease wages because they decrease productivity.
“From the perspective of most of those lucky enough to keep their jobs, the most serious consequence of the unions is the holding down or outright reduction of the productivity of labor. With few exceptions, the labor unions openly combat the rise in the productivity of labor. They do so virtually as a matter of principle. They oppose the introduction of labor-saving machinery on the grounds that it causes unemployment. They oppose competition among workers. As Henry Hazlitt pointed out, they force employers to tolerate featherbedding practices, such as the classic requirement that firemen, whose function was to shovel coal on steam locomotives, be retained on diesel locomotives. They impose make-work schemes, such as requiring that pipe delivered to construction sites with screw thread already on it, have its ends cut off and new screw thread cut on the site. They impose narrow work classifications, and require that specialists be employed at a day’s pay to perform work that others could easily do — for example, requiring the employment of a plasterer to repair the incidental damage done to a wall by an electrician, which the electrician himself could easily repair.
To anyone who understands the role of the productivity of labor in raising real wages, it should be obvious that the unions’ policy of combating the rise in the productivity of labor renders them in fact a leading enemy of the rise in real wages. However radical this conclusion may seem, however much at odds it is with the prevailing view of the unions as the leading source of the rise in real wages over the last hundred and fifty years or more, the fact is that in combating the rise in the productivity of labor, the unions actively combat the rise in real wages!”
Are Woliansky and Schadel familiar with the economic theories of Friedman and Reisman? Perhaps not.
But as business owners they likely are keenly aware that raising wages without increasing productivity would result in a loss of workers, less production, and less capital investment.
The Marxist theory of labor rejects all of this, of course. In his seminal work Capital (1867), Marx explained his theory: a commodity’s value can be measured simply by breaking down the number of hours it takes to produce.
If it takes twice as long to produce an iPhone as an Apple Watch, then the iPhone is twice as valuable as the Apple Watch. Hence, the competitive price of an iPhone will be twice that of the Apple Watch, in the long run, regardless of the physical inputs required.
Marx’s labor theory of value was debunked more than a century ago, of course. Yet his ideas live on.
It’s unclear if the leaders of No Evil Foods or their workers would call themselves Marxists, but the showdown has all the marks of the endless struggle Marx saw between the bourgeois and the proletariat.
Unfortunately for the owners of No Evil Foods, they're learning the hard way that socialist principles are as problematic in practice as they are in theory.