I so enjoy MAA. The badass article was quite extraordinary. As far as children and vaccines go, I cannot accept the risk/reward given the uncertainty about the mRNA technology long term. I'm not convinced enough data is at hand to assess safety. Pfizer's own materials suggest we are in unknown territory.
Regarding Russian winning. I have had an obvious piece of propaganda in response to something I had commented on. Starts off as "Bit correct sir , the Donbas is now cleared , it’s full of Russ Slavs as the nationalists refer to . Hence the Russians went steady , all sorted bar the dregs and they have been abandoned by west now , so no rush . " and goes on. Then "The last of these azov nazi guys are now in the steel factory and the Russians are not in a hurry as they don’t want to destroy the steel factory ." Of course, I have no idea if the steel factory has been preserved but you may. From other reporting Mariupol remains contested which is flat remarkable. If granny is using that AK-47 she picked up and is going to starve anyway, I do expect she will try to take many with her. Cornered animals generally fight pretty hard. In the end the bullets do run out and death arrives. Inhumanity itself.
Apr 8, 2022·edited Apr 8, 2022Liked by Graham Seibert
would someone explain to me what the vaccinators mean by their claims of, for instance: "81% effective against Omicron' (to quote from the above) ?
For if they mean that if 100 people take the vaccine and are exposed to the virus then 81% will neither die nor have a severe episode then that's even less 'protection' than the immune system gives without the vaccine isn't it?
But if they mean effective in protecting those who would have NOT been protected by the un artificially provoked immune system that doesn't seem to fit at all with the story as I've understood it so far. And it was a pretty simple story.
For the story was our immune systems protected us against covid to something like 99.4 %.
Pfizer put up a vaccine and published trial results and made claims and the absolute risk benefit was + 0.1% so that if everyone had taken it they then were protected to the tune of something like 99.6%
But here they're claiming not 0.1% but 81%. If we are to look at it that way.
So without the vaccines there were 0.6% who were NOT protected naturally.
And with it the claim was a margin of 0.4% not protected.
But this 81% claim is that 81% of that 0.6% are now protected?
Knocking the number down by roughly four fifths - down to 0.2%.
Jessica Rose, Matthew Crawford, Steve Kirsch and Alex Berenson have analyzed what Pfizer's original claims of 95% or whatever meant. I can't repeat the argument, but it was something like one Covid hospital admission avoided per thousand shots. The deck was stacked.
Apr 8, 2022·edited Apr 8, 2022Liked by Graham Seibert
Yes. Dr Chris Martensen did an excellent analysis of the Pfizer report on Youtube when it was released. I just looked for it for you but couldn't find it in a quick search. Could be Youtube took it down.
But the point is that '81% effective', '90% effective' and so on are not legitimate claims, not legitimate use of the language.
They should not talk like that and we should not imitate them, not condone it either explicitly nor tacitly.
A vaccine can only claim efficacy, I would maintain, in its sphere of action, of influence and that sphere is in enhancing the operation of the immune system.
It either enhances or it doesn't. That is what it is all about.
So all claims of efficacy should relate to that
So the original Pfizer should have claimed, as Martensen pointed out: 0.1% efficacy.
For that's the enhancement it claimed to bring about.
Letting them claim 90% efficacy and so on has helped them delude the public into thinking - without really thinking at all, more simply a subliminal acceptance of the idea - that without the vaccine you are at zero.
No protection. Unprotected. Prey. Vulnerable. Naked.
And with the vaccine you (and those you care for) are suddenly 90% protected !
No wonder they accept the vaccine so readily.
In fact a vaccine gives no protection at all. None. Zero. Nil Nada.
Of course.
It merely prompts the Immune System into action in a way and at a time that is supposed to lead to better outcomes when the Immune System is challenged by the virus in question.
The Immune System steps up to the plate and does the batting.
The vaccine is supposed merely to have 'warned' the batter about what's coming.
I am sure the public simply does not know that.
And by not taking to task this sloppy use of the language and allowing these claims of '90%' etc. we collude in deceiving them.
It needs widely disseminating what the actual (added) protection is that vaccines can claim to give.
Which it gives, if it does give, at a cost.
It needs saying. Loudly. Frequently. Everywhere.
I don't know what the current claims are nor what the last two years of evidence has shown but those figures need extracting and publishing. Together with editing of every claim made by vaccine manufacturers to ensure they do not claim Immune System natural protection as any of their doing.
That's all fairly elementary.
But on this side of the fence we clever ones with the truth and facts at our fingertips seem incapable of getting even the most elementary facts out to the public.
As for Unz, they've turned into disgusting Russian shills, most of their writers who touch upon the war in Ukraine are also writers for Strategic Culture, the Duginist outfit out of Moscow. If Russia had "won" the war, they'd have replaced Zelenskyy by now with a Russian puppet regime. As is, they threw in 150,000 troops and ended up with a stalemate, leaving their armored columns wrecked across the countryside, turning highways into junkyards. Let's hope for a similar result in Donbass, I'm sure the Unz people will find out a way to explain that one away, too.
And as for "Rebel Wisdom", it's neither "rebel" nor "wise"...
Nop, no puppet regime for Ukraine was in plans as the plan was for no more Ukraine, or Ukrainians, or their language or culture - the ultimate solution 2022. Putin's long-cherished dream.
Never thought of myself as a badass but I got this one. Glad you are smarter than some of your followers on Covid. It pays, a lot, to look deeper than the surface on that subject.
Oh and I'm still not getting your emails when you post.
That's what I've been doing. But I used to get each post in an email, which was very convenient. I still get several other substack emails. I read substack changed something where a poster must check a specific box somewhere for emails to be sent. ?
I am also a Badass which is probably why I have no friends and half my family hates me lol
I so enjoy MAA. The badass article was quite extraordinary. As far as children and vaccines go, I cannot accept the risk/reward given the uncertainty about the mRNA technology long term. I'm not convinced enough data is at hand to assess safety. Pfizer's own materials suggest we are in unknown territory.
Regarding Russian winning. I have had an obvious piece of propaganda in response to something I had commented on. Starts off as "Bit correct sir , the Donbas is now cleared , it’s full of Russ Slavs as the nationalists refer to . Hence the Russians went steady , all sorted bar the dregs and they have been abandoned by west now , so no rush . " and goes on. Then "The last of these azov nazi guys are now in the steel factory and the Russians are not in a hurry as they don’t want to destroy the steel factory ." Of course, I have no idea if the steel factory has been preserved but you may. From other reporting Mariupol remains contested which is flat remarkable. If granny is using that AK-47 she picked up and is going to starve anyway, I do expect she will try to take many with her. Cornered animals generally fight pretty hard. In the end the bullets do run out and death arrives. Inhumanity itself.
Mariupol today - mopping up my ass:
https://t.me/LastBP/7783?single
https://t.me/LastBP/7782?single
would someone explain to me what the vaccinators mean by their claims of, for instance: "81% effective against Omicron' (to quote from the above) ?
For if they mean that if 100 people take the vaccine and are exposed to the virus then 81% will neither die nor have a severe episode then that's even less 'protection' than the immune system gives without the vaccine isn't it?
But if they mean effective in protecting those who would have NOT been protected by the un artificially provoked immune system that doesn't seem to fit at all with the story as I've understood it so far. And it was a pretty simple story.
For the story was our immune systems protected us against covid to something like 99.4 %.
Pfizer put up a vaccine and published trial results and made claims and the absolute risk benefit was + 0.1% so that if everyone had taken it they then were protected to the tune of something like 99.6%
But here they're claiming not 0.1% but 81%. If we are to look at it that way.
So without the vaccines there were 0.6% who were NOT protected naturally.
And with it the claim was a margin of 0.4% not protected.
But this 81% claim is that 81% of that 0.6% are now protected?
Knocking the number down by roughly four fifths - down to 0.2%.
Is that what they're claiming?
Jessica Rose, Matthew Crawford, Steve Kirsch and Alex Berenson have analyzed what Pfizer's original claims of 95% or whatever meant. I can't repeat the argument, but it was something like one Covid hospital admission avoided per thousand shots. The deck was stacked.
Yes. Dr Chris Martensen did an excellent analysis of the Pfizer report on Youtube when it was released. I just looked for it for you but couldn't find it in a quick search. Could be Youtube took it down.
But the point is that '81% effective', '90% effective' and so on are not legitimate claims, not legitimate use of the language.
They should not talk like that and we should not imitate them, not condone it either explicitly nor tacitly.
A vaccine can only claim efficacy, I would maintain, in its sphere of action, of influence and that sphere is in enhancing the operation of the immune system.
It either enhances or it doesn't. That is what it is all about.
So all claims of efficacy should relate to that
So the original Pfizer should have claimed, as Martensen pointed out: 0.1% efficacy.
For that's the enhancement it claimed to bring about.
Letting them claim 90% efficacy and so on has helped them delude the public into thinking - without really thinking at all, more simply a subliminal acceptance of the idea - that without the vaccine you are at zero.
No protection. Unprotected. Prey. Vulnerable. Naked.
And with the vaccine you (and those you care for) are suddenly 90% protected !
No wonder they accept the vaccine so readily.
In fact a vaccine gives no protection at all. None. Zero. Nil Nada.
Of course.
It merely prompts the Immune System into action in a way and at a time that is supposed to lead to better outcomes when the Immune System is challenged by the virus in question.
The Immune System steps up to the plate and does the batting.
The vaccine is supposed merely to have 'warned' the batter about what's coming.
I am sure the public simply does not know that.
And by not taking to task this sloppy use of the language and allowing these claims of '90%' etc. we collude in deceiving them.
It needs widely disseminating what the actual (added) protection is that vaccines can claim to give.
Which it gives, if it does give, at a cost.
It needs saying. Loudly. Frequently. Everywhere.
I don't know what the current claims are nor what the last two years of evidence has shown but those figures need extracting and publishing. Together with editing of every claim made by vaccine manufacturers to ensure they do not claim Immune System natural protection as any of their doing.
That's all fairly elementary.
But on this side of the fence we clever ones with the truth and facts at our fingertips seem incapable of getting even the most elementary facts out to the public.
That independent blogger comes across as a pharma salesperson, with pharma talking points, the same kind of misrepresentation as this: https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/propaganda-by-foot-soldier
As for Unz, they've turned into disgusting Russian shills, most of their writers who touch upon the war in Ukraine are also writers for Strategic Culture, the Duginist outfit out of Moscow. If Russia had "won" the war, they'd have replaced Zelenskyy by now with a Russian puppet regime. As is, they threw in 150,000 troops and ended up with a stalemate, leaving their armored columns wrecked across the countryside, turning highways into junkyards. Let's hope for a similar result in Donbass, I'm sure the Unz people will find out a way to explain that one away, too.
And as for "Rebel Wisdom", it's neither "rebel" nor "wise"...
Nop, no puppet regime for Ukraine was in plans as the plan was for no more Ukraine, or Ukrainians, or their language or culture - the ultimate solution 2022. Putin's long-cherished dream.
Never thought of myself as a badass but I got this one. Glad you are smarter than some of your followers on Covid. It pays, a lot, to look deeper than the surface on that subject.
Oh and I'm still not getting your emails when you post.
All you need to do is keep the previous day's post up, and click on it next day. You'll go to home page and the latest will be at the top.
That's what I've been doing. But I used to get each post in an email, which was very convenient. I still get several other substack emails. I read substack changed something where a poster must check a specific box somewhere for emails to be sent. ?