Andy Paquette, Mask Science, Big Lie? |523|

[Andrew Paquette]

great point. can you say more about "more dangerous"?

My guess is that the real danger is coming from the vaccines and that the vaccines are more harmful than preliminary research indicates. The CDC was willing to admit almost 9,000 reported fatalities on their VAERS site when I checked for this article. At the same time, others were reporting around 16,000 fatalities on the same VAERS site the CDC was talking about. In addition to that, there were another 250,000-500,000 "injuries" reported. The CDC does not admit that any of the vaccines have been linked to any of these adverse events. However, that's what the tobacco industry liked to say about the link between cigarettes and cancer, with about as much credibility as the CDC has now.

From other sources, we know that the VAERS system is underused, that health care workers are dissuaded from using it, and that reporting requirements don't allow a report unless it has been more than 14 days since receiving the "vaccine". On that last item, I'll point out that I downloaded the VAERS files (a 185 MB excel file). I sorted the entries by the number of days between receiving the shot and death. The first 794 deaths occurred with "zero" days between injection and the VAERS report. The next 960 deaths occurred after 1 day. Within 2 days, there are 441 entries. All put together, there are reports of 2195 deaths within 48 hours of receiving the injection. Within 14 days, the number goes up to 3,965, or almost half the number the CDC is willing to admit. Following the new guidelines, that is almost 4,000 deaths that would be counted as covid deaths instead of vaccine deaths.

From the information we have now, I think it is fair to say that: 1) People have died from the vaccine (suggesting otherwise when the person drops dead in less than 24 hours after the shot and has no underlying conditions, is ridiculous), 2) The number of people who have died is greater than the CD is willing to admit, 3) the number of VAERS reports is a tiny fraction of the real number (estimated to be only 1% by some doctors), 4) The CDC knows all this and is openly lying about it.

That said, from other reports I've seen, I think it is possible that the really bad news is not the large number of deaths that happen shortly after receiving the "vaccine", but the large number of people who initially survive the "vaccine". The reason is that, according to several doctors I've heard speak on this, these "vaccines" are extremely damaging even if they don't kill you immediately. The long term effects have the potential to cripple the world economy through lost productivity due to poor health (cardiac problems and reduced auto-immune response) and ultimately, early death on a massive scale.

I don't understand why anyone would want to do this to the world's population. It makes no sense to me at all. And yet, the evidence indicates that people were lied to about the dangers of covid so they would be willing to take a dangerous vaccine. The lies also supported extraordinary police powers used to coerce people into taking the "vaccine" in what appears to be a master plan to "vaccinate" every human on the planet. The people who decided to do this had to know we wouldn't agree to the plan if we knew in advance what it was, or they wouldn't have felt the need to lie about every aspect of what is going on. What that means to me is that this plan, whatever it is, was not designed to kill 9,000 people, or 16,000 people across America, and who knows how many elsewhere. It was designed to do something else. The immediate deaths were collateral damage.

That is what makes me think this is worse than we can imagine right now. We have all these deaths and yet the plan moves on. In other words, those deaths are insignificant relative to the overall goal. Also, they had to expect those deaths or they wouldn't have been so well-prepared with the narrative they are using to promote the "vaccines". In the words of more than one doctor I heard on podcasts, "I don't understand why anyone would do this. It looks like they are trying to kill people."

What happens when you inject hundreds of millions of people with a dangerous compound? Wait and see.

 

[Andrew Paquette]

Really interesting point. I totally agree with you it is different... but I definitely think some of these folks derive pleasure from the power trip... maybe the carnage along the way amps up the pleasure

My impression is that Dr. Fauci is literally a sadist. I think he derives carnal pleasure from watching people do unwise things on his command, particularly when it leads to injury, disability, and death.

 

[Andrew Paquette]

The masks are also a very measurable metric of level of societal compliance. Worse, non-masking is a reliable way to identify non-compliant citizens and put them on the list. You throw an intervention variable out there - mask wearing in this case - and then you observe how individuals react. You can log this info real time and very accurately by scooping social media (in fact, I'm pretty sure Facebook is directly working working the government n this. Other social media too, like twitter). Simple as that. Moreover, you can real time measure the public's reaction to various twists and turns you (big govt) introduce to the population

The masks are no different from the Nazi salute in this regard. Salute to show your support, don't salute and get identified as an enemy of the people.

 

[Trick]

Andy, can you please help me understand your interpretation of the numbers? I have very little understanding of statistical analysis. When you search this study everyone is touting the 9-11% reduction rate, including Stanford.

 

[Eric Newhill]

My guess is that the real danger is coming from the vaccines and that the vaccines are more harmful than preliminary research indicates. The CDC was willing to admit almost 9,000 reported fatalities on their VAERS site when I checked for this article. At the same time, others were reporting around 16,000 fatalities on the same VAERS site the CDC was talking about. In addition to that, there were another 250,000-500,000 "injuries" reported. The CDC does not admit that any of the vaccines have been linked to any of these adverse events. However, that's what the tobacco industry liked to say about the link between cigarettes and cancer, with about as much credibility as the CDC has now.

From other sources, we know that the VAERS system is underused, that health care workers are dissuaded from using it, and that reporting requirements don't allow a report unless it has been more than 14 days since receiving the "vaccine". On that last item, I'll point out that I downloaded the VAERS files (a 185 MB excel file). I sorted the entries by the number of days between receiving the shot and death. The first 794 deaths occurred with "zero" days between injection and the VAERS report. The next 960 deaths occurred after 1 day. Within 2 days, there are 441 entries. All put together, there are reports of 2195 deaths within 48 hours of receiving the injection. Within 14 days, the number goes up to 3,965, or almost half the number the CDC is willing to admit. Following the new guidelines, that is almost 4,000 deaths that would be counted as covid deaths instead of vaccine deaths.

From the information we have now, I think it is fair to say that: 1) People have died from the vaccine (suggesting otherwise when the person drops dead in less than 24 hours after the shot and has no underlying conditions, is ridiculous), 2) The number of people who have died is greater than the CD is willing to admit, 3) the number of VAERS reports is a tiny fraction of the real number (estimated to be only 1% by some doctors), 4) The CDC knows all this and is openly lying about it.

That said, from other reports I've seen, I think it is possible that the really bad news is not the large number of deaths that happen shortly after receiving the "vaccine", but the large number of people who initially survive the "vaccine". The reason is that, according to several doctors I've heard speak on this, these "vaccines" are extremely damaging even if they don't kill you immediately. The long term effects have the potential to cripple the world economy through lost productivity due to poor health (cardiac problems and reduced auto-immune response) and ultimately, early death on a massive scale.

I don't understand why anyone would want to do this to the world's population. It makes no sense to me at all. And yet, the evidence indicates that people were lied to about the dangers of covid so they would be willing to take a dangerous vaccine. The lies also supported extraordinary police powers used to coerce people into taking the "vaccine" in what appears to be a master plan to "vaccinate" every human on the planet. The people who decided to do this had to know we wouldn't agree to the plan if we knew in advance what it was, or they wouldn't have felt the need to lie about every aspect of what is going on. What that means to me is that this plan, whatever it is, was not designed to kill 9,000 people, or 16,000 people across America, and who knows how many elsewhere. It was designed to do something else. The immediate deaths were collateral damage.

That is what makes me think this is worse than we can imagine right now. We have all these deaths and yet the plan moves on. In other words, those deaths are insignificant relative to the overall goal. Also, they had to expect those deaths or they wouldn't have been so well-prepared with the narrative they are using to promote the "vaccines". In the words of more than one doctor I heard on podcasts, "I don't understand why anyone would do this. It looks like they are trying to kill people."

What happens when you inject hundreds of millions of people with a dangerous compound? Wait and see.

I think we may be able to identify a meaningful decline in birth rate and an increase in birth defects over the next year as the data comes in. This will be related to "vaccine" side effects.

A number of the key Covidians are believers in eliminating what they see as over-population and a need to save the planet via reduced population.This ties in with the "green" movement and global warming scaredycats. Also, this plays into one-worlders desire to depopulate the US of Anglo-Saxons and repopulating with ignorant third world slaves for the benefit of elites. It's a ghoulish collection of masterminds leading this thing.

 

[Andrew Paquette]

Andy, can you please help me understand your interpretation of the numbers? I have very little understanding of statistical analysis. When you search this study everyone is touting the 9-11% reduction rate, including Stanford.

They're calling it a "relative reduction". The word "relative" is the problem. For instance, if you have 100 blue balls and 100 red balls, but lose 2 blue balls and 3 red balls, what do you have? You've lost 2% of the blue balls and 3% of the red balls. The difference between the two loss rates is one ball, or 1%. However, if you look at the "relative" difference, you don't pay attention to the original ball population. Instead, you only look at the lost balls. Looked at that way, the red balls lost 50% more than the blue balls, for a 50% increase in their loss rate. However, that is a dishonest way to look at these numbers if you then apply the relative value of a 50% increase in loss rate to the general population of red balls, because that would create the false expectation of losing 50 balls, not 3. That is what the authors of the mask study did by talking about a "relative" improvement. It effectively exaggerated the negligible actual value to something that looked significant.

 

[titania]

Incidentally, they appear to use this same approach when talking about vaccine efficacy. It's 90% effective they say (forget that whatever benefit it may offer declines over time, hence boosters). Does 90% effective mean that 90% of the vaccinated people exposed to the virus do not get covid? Or does it mean that if we have a thousand people who are vaccinated and a thousand who are not, ten of the unvaccinated will get covid and 9 of vaccinated will get it? I think it is the latter. At least that is how it is playing out in real life. Same concept re; "relative" though.

Watch the reported efficacy drop...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1449791385876451329

 

[Robbedigital]

My impression is that Dr. Fauci is literally a sadist. I think he derives carnal pleasure from watching people do unwise things on his command, particularly when it leads to injury, disability, and death.

This morning I was pondering that along the lines of the Cheese analogy (that the bad actors fill bad acting positions in the same way a mouse finds the cheese).
It ends up with a real shitty chicken or egg situation:
How can we do anything but blame ourselves for accepting the madness?
What's the frog in the boiling pot's excuse for not jumping out?

..and here's the shitty climax:
Is anyone really ultimately in charge of placing the cheese, or do we just assume it must be coming from someone with the job title "Chief Officer of Cheese Placement"?
How shitty would it be to find out it's actually a self-actualizing effect that results from frogs collectively refusing to jump out of boiling pots?
Long Story Short... Who ultimately needs to hang for implementing the deception?

 

[Andrew Paquette]

This morning I was pondering that along the lines of the Cheese analogy (that the bad actors fill bad acting positions in the same way a mouse finds the cheese).
It ends up with a real shitty chicken or egg situation:
How can we do anything but blame ourselves for accepting the madness?
What's the frog in the boiling pot's excuse for not jumping out?

..and here's the shitty climax:
Is anyone really ultimately in charge of placing the cheese, or do we just assume it must be coming from someone with the job title "Chief Officer of Cheese Placement"?
How shitty would it be to find out it's actually a self-actualizing effect that results from frogs collectively refusing to jump out of boiling pots?
Long Story Short... Who ultimately needs to hang for implementing the deception?

I suspect it is a long list. The Nuremberg trials had a tiny number of defendants in comparison to the number that likely had a hand in this. Like the Nazis, some people are more culpable than others. On the bottom tier, are the millions who went along with the mandates without ostracizing their friends and neighbors. One level up are the millions who did ostracize their friends and neighbors. That group deserves, at the least, some form of public ostracization. Above them are business owners who reluctantly enforced the mask mandates. That group was coerced, so I think of them more as victims than perpetrators. We also have businesses that went over the top in their enforcement of mask mandates because they completely supported them. Many of these were fooled by the lie, so they are victims as well. However, it seems to me that some form of social rebuke is in order for them.

Next, we have businesses that helped enforce the vaccine mandates. Many of these are self-punished by the immediate loss of customers. Some though, went overboard by advocating for the vaccine mandates. They coerced employees to get vaccinated with bribes and vague threats of termination. For them, a mild punishment wouldn't be out of line. Something to let them know they did the wrong thing, hurt people, helped spread hysteria, and damaged the economy. However, they should be held partially liable for every person they coerced into getting vaccinated. If any of them were injured or died, a high civil penalty or a light criminal penalty, like manslaughter or assault with intent to harm, might be appropriate.

The next level up are employers who coerced employees to get vaccinated by threatening their jobs and then who fired them. By actually firing employees, they increased the threat level to all remaining employees. These employers should be held fully liable, up to and including penalties that force bankruptcy and jail time for those responsible. If any employees subsequently died or were injured from the vaccine they were coerced to take, it should be treated no differently from criminal intent to commit grievous bodily harm leading to death. Unfortunately for these business owners and managers, many of them were coerced into enforcing these mandates. However, they could have refused. At a minimum, they should become social pariahs.

Next, we have the media. Unfortunately for journalists, they were in a position to know the truth about what was going on. That is mens rea, and it makes them culpable. This is true even if many were so inundated with propaganda that a normal person of average intelligence would have a hard time discerning the truth. The reason is that their job requires of them a diligent effort to learn the truth. Their journalistic code requires ethical reporting. This group of people is collectively responsible for what may be the greatest disaster to ever befall America. There are so many journalists who willingly participated in this fraud that it would be difficult to prosecute them all. However, they should all be punished as a class. It would be difficult or impossible to assign personal responsibility to a specific reporter for a specific death, but the organizations they work for (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, FOX, and others who promulgated the lies) can be bankrupted and dissolved.

Above the rank and file reporters are the celebrity reporters and management. This group may number in the hundreds nationwide. Those who participated in this fraud, possibly the majority of these figures, should be imprisoned. My recommendation is long sentences combined with impoverishing fines.

Next we have business leaders and politicians who actively orchestrated this disaster. Sorry to say it, but these deserve no less than total forfeiture of all assets and the death penalty.

And then we get to the fake election. For that, there is a similar pyramid of responsibility.

The issue I see is that the number of people involved is so large that it would be difficult to find and then deal with them all. Also, if the businesses were closed down, and I think many should be, it would create another problem: millions of lost jobs. Despite that, I think certain companies, like CNN and Facebook, are too dangerous to be allowed to survive.

Ultimately, our country has to restore its lost productivity. To the extent this is possible, I think the first step has to be ridding our economy of parasite businesses that do more harm than good on a per employee basis. If that means Facebook and all the jobs they create disappear forever, so be it. They may have been jobs, but if those jobs actively sabotaged America, then they need to be eliminated.

Thanks for the question. I think I may write about this for my column today.

 

[Eric Newhill]

Watch the reported efficacy drop...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1449791385876451329

Ha. Love it. I deleted the post that you quoted because I realized that I had no idea what the claimed vaccine efficacy is at this point (just like your video suggests). But the concept remains true. Of course it's all BS. It doesn't matter how they calculate. 0% of 0 stuff.

 

[Eric Newhill]

I suspect it is a long list. The Nuremberg trials had a tiny number of defendants in comparison to the number that likely had a hand in this. Like the Nazis, some people are more culpable than others. On the bottom tier, are the millions who went along with the mandates without ostracizing their friends and neighbors. One level up are the millions who did ostracize their friends and neighbors. That group deserves, at the least, some form of public ostracization. Above them are business owners who reluctantly enforced the mask mandates. That group was coerced, so I think of them more as victims than perpetrators. We also have businesses that went over the top in their enforcement of mask mandates because they completely supported them. Many of these were fooled by the lie, so they are victims as well. However, it seems to me that some form of social rebuke is in order for them.

Next, we have businesses that helped enforce the vaccine mandates. Many of these are self-punished by the immediate loss of customers. Some though, went overboard by advocating for the vaccine mandates. They coerced employees to get vaccinated with bribes and vague threats of termination. For them, a mild punishment wouldn't be out of line. Something to let them know they did the wrong thing, hurt people, helped spread hysteria, and damaged the economy. However, they should be held partially liable for every person they coerced into getting vaccinated. If any of them were injured or died, a high civil penalty or a light criminal penalty, like manslaughter or assault with intent to harm, might be appropriate.

The next level up are employers who coerced employees to get vaccinated by threatening their jobs and then who fired them. By actually firing employees, they increased the threat level to all remaining employees. These employers should be held fully liable, up to and including penalties that force bankruptcy and jail time for those responsible. If any employees subsequently died or were injured from the vaccine they were coerced to take, it should be treated no differently from criminal intent to commit grievous bodily harm leading to death. Unfortunately for these business owners and managers, many of them were coerced into enforcing these mandates. However, they could have refused. At a minimum, they should become social pariahs.

Next, we have the media. Unfortunately for journalists, they were in a position to know the truth about what was going on. That is mens rea, and it makes them culpable. This is true even if many were so inundated with propaganda that a normal person of average intelligence would have a hard time discerning the truth. The reason is that their job requires of them a diligent effort to learn the truth. Their journalistic code requires ethical reporting. This group of people is collectively responsible for what may be the greatest disaster to ever befall America. There are so many journalists who willingly participated in this fraud that it would be difficult to prosecute them all. However, they should all be punished as a class. It would be difficult or impossible to assign personal responsibility to a specific reporter for a specific death, but the organizations they work for (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, FOX, and others who promulgated the lies) can be bankrupted and dissolved.

Above the rank and file reporters are the celebrity reporters and management. This group may number in the hundreds nationwide. Those who participated in this fraud, possibly the majority of these figures, should be imprisoned. My recommendation is long sentences combined with impoverishing fines.

Next we have business leaders and politicians who actively orchestrated this disaster. Sorry to say it, but these deserve no less than total forfeiture of all assets and the death penalty.

And then we get to the fake election. For that, there is a similar pyramid of responsibility.

The issue I see is that the number of people involved is so large that it would be difficult to find and then deal with them all. Also, if the businesses were closed down, and I think many should be, it would create another problem: millions of lost jobs. Despite that, I think certain companies, like CNN and Facebook, are too dangerous to be allowed to survive.

Ultimately, our country has to restore its lost productivity. To the extent this is possible, I think the first step has to be ridding our economy of parasite businesses that do more than good on a per employee basis. If that means Facebook and all the jobs they create disappear forever, so be it. They may have been jobs, but if those jobs actively sabotaged America, then they need to be eliminated.

Thanks for the question. I think I may write about this for my column today.

Don't forget the damn lawyers. If I have a business and don't require masks and a patron gets covid, the patron can sue me, claiming he got covid in my establishment. Same with say an insurance company that calls BS on covid vaccines or other aspects of the covid panic (irresponsible company gave bad info that led to a covid death, etc). Risk management forces a lot of decisions.

 

[Silence]

Thanks Eric.

Another question popped into mind: How do we interpret those in power who have indicated they've gotten jabbed? Misinformation/lying? Not part of the inner circle?

 

[Eric Newhill]

Thanks Eric.

Another question popped into mind: How do we interpret those in power who have indicated they've gotten jabbed? Misinformation/lying? Not part of the inner circle?

Liars.

But I'll throw that line of questioning right back at you.....

.....Look at Obama's birthday bash. Hundreds of people dancing around and drinking with no masks; most all of them mask pushers in public forums. That's just one example. Fauci photo at a baseball game during the height of masks mandates with no mask on and people in close proximity to him. The TX democrats chartering an airplane to avoid a state level procedure and taking selfies on the plane, drinking and sitting in close proximity with no masks. CA Gov Newsome photographed out to dinner sitting closely at a table with friends and family, no masks on, while he had the state on lockdown and mask mandates galore. Pelosi getting her hair done at a salon, no mask, during the peak of mask mandates when no one else in CA could go out to a salon - and that old crow is in a high risk demographic. Same with the democrat Mayor of Chicago. I could go on and on with examples. How do you interpret that in light of covid panic? The fomenters of the panic don't seem very worried in their private lives.

Are they really vaxxed? Who the hell knows? I'm guessing some are and most are not.

 

[malf]

Well this was the last place I expected to see a critique of reading too much into small effect sizes. Keep it up.

Radin and Bem have careers based on less.

C’mon guys, let’s get back to the hard science of collecting and curating NDE stories.

 

[Alex]

I wonder how things are outside of my community in the Midwest.

I haven't worn a mask in months other than when I've gone to a doctor's appointment. Same goes for my wife and kids. I've even made the "mistake" of going into a place of business with mask requirements without one (not because I was purposefully being "non-compliant" but rather because I didn't think to bring one). Nothing happened, no one said anything. Notably, this is a very rare situation as most places of commerce, etc do not require masks where I live.

Further, I've not heard anything from anyone in my social circle regarding masks in months. This includes folks who are (and have been) very ANTI mask.

Is this different for folks in other parts of the U.S.?

Maybe more to the point, can anyone postulate how they see this problem of coerced compliance manifesting into something more sinister? I mean with some actual detail, re: what's next, what's the endgame, etc?

That's good to know... encouraging.

Here's another encouraging story. my wife and flew from san diego to denver last weekend. I had my scarf down the entire time... both in SD and in Denver... scarf down walking through the airport... scarf down going through TSA... scarf down on the plane ( except when I walked past flight attendants because I didn't want to rub it in their face).

The only pushback I got was from one TSA agent who gave me a quick "mak up pls" to which I replied "sure."

Moreover, I didn't get any of the negative vibe about non-masking.

 

[Alex]

The solution to this bullshit (besides happy talk and noncompliance) is
Stage 1: notice of liability and insurance claims against bonds, anyone can do it that has been harmed or restricted personally.
Stage 2: Private Attorney General federal lawsuits, anyone can do it even if you have not been personally effected.
Stage 3: Defensive 2nd amendment, if we fear death/poverty more than slavery, we are slaves.

Consider the Zen Parable of even the unarmed monk who dared challenge the strongman. "He took out his sword and said, 'Don’t you know that I’m the sort of person who could run you through without batting an eye?' The Zen master responded, 'And I, sir, am the sort of man who could be run through without batting an eye.'"

interesting. I just completed an interview with:

PAMELA A.POPPER, President Wellness Forum Health

any thoughts?

 

[Alex]

My guess is that the real danger is coming from the vaccines and that the vaccines are more harmful than preliminary research indicates. The CDC was willing to admit almost 9,000 reported fatalities on their VAERS site when I checked for this article. At the same time, others were reporting around 16,000 fatalities on the same VAERS site the CDC was talking about. In addition to that, there were another 250,000-500,000 "injuries" reported. The CDC does not admit that any of the vaccines have been linked to any of these adverse events. However, that's what the tobacco industry liked to say about the link between cigarettes and cancer, with about as much credibility as the CDC has now.

From other sources, we know that the VAERS system is underused, that health care workers are dissuaded from using it, and that reporting requirements don't allow a report unless it has been more than 14 days since receiving the "vaccine". On that last item, I'll point out that I downloaded the VAERS files (a 185 MB excel file). I sorted the entries by the number of days between receiving the shot and death. The first 794 deaths occurred with "zero" days between injection and the VAERS report. The next 960 deaths occurred after 1 day. Within 2 days, there are 441 entries. All put together, there are reports of 2195 deaths within 48 hours of receiving the injection. Within 14 days, the number goes up to 3,965, or almost half the number the CDC is willing to admit. Following the new guidelines, that is almost 4,000 deaths that would be counted as covid deaths instead of vaccine deaths.

From the information we have now, I think it is fair to say that: 1) People have died from the vaccine (suggesting otherwise when the person drops dead in less than 24 hours after the shot and has no underlying conditions, is ridiculous), 2) The number of people who have died is greater than the CD is willing to admit, 3) the number of VAERS reports is a tiny fraction of the real number (estimated to be only 1% by some doctors), 4) The CDC knows all this and is openly lying about it.

That said, from other reports I've seen, I think it is possible that the really bad news is not the large number of deaths that happen shortly after receiving the "vaccine", but the large number of people who initially survive the "vaccine". The reason is that, according to several doctors I've heard speak on this, these "vaccines" are extremely damaging even if they don't kill you immediately. The long term effects have the potential to cripple the world economy through lost productivity due to poor health (cardiac problems and reduced auto-immune response) and ultimately, early death on a massive scale.

I don't understand why anyone would want to do this to the world's population. It makes no sense to me at all. And yet, the evidence indicates that people were lied to about the dangers of covid so they would be willing to take a dangerous vaccine. The lies also supported extraordinary police powers used to coerce people into taking the "vaccine" in what appears to be a master plan to "vaccinate" every human on the planet. The people who decided to do this had to know we wouldn't agree to the plan if we knew in advance what it was, or they wouldn't have felt the need to lie about every aspect of what is going on. What that means to me is that this plan, whatever it is, was not designed to kill 9,000 people, or 16,000 people across America, and who knows how many elsewhere. It was designed to do something else. The immediate deaths were collateral damage.

That is what makes me think this is worse than we can imagine right now. We have all these deaths and yet the plan moves on. In other words, those deaths are insignificant relative to the overall goal. Also, they had to expect those deaths or they wouldn't have been so well-prepared with the narrative they are using to promote the "vaccines". In the words of more than one doctor I heard on podcasts, "I don't understand why anyone would do this. It looks like they are trying to kill people."

What happens when you inject hundreds of millions of people with a dangerous compound? Wait and see.

thx for these #s.

I got to believe that the real play is compliance as that can lead to herd reduction on a mass scale.

 

[Alex]

They're calling it a "relative reduction". The word "relative" is the problem. For instance, if you have 100 blue balls and 100 red balls, but lose 2 blue balls and 3 red balls, what do you have? You've lost 2% of the blue balls and 3% of the red balls. The difference between the two loss rates is one ball, or 1%. However, if you look at the "relative" difference, you don't pay attention to the original ball population. Instead, you only look at the lost balls. Looked at that way, the red balls lost 50% more than the blue balls, for a 50% increase in their loss rate. However, that is a dishonest way to look at these numbers if you then apply the relative value of a 50% increase in loss rate to the general population of red balls, because that would create the false expectation of losing 50 balls, not 3. That is what the authors of the mask study did by talking about a "relative" improvement. It effectively exaggerated the negligible actual value to something that looked significant.

great analogy :)

 

[Robbedigital]

I suspect it is a long list. The Nuremberg trials had a tiny number of defendants in comparison to the number that likely had a hand in this. Like the Nazis, some people are more culpable than others. On the bottom tier, are the millions who went along with the mandates without ostracizing their friends and neighbors. One level up are the millions who did ostracize their friends and neighbors. That group deserves, at the least, some form of public ostracization. Above them are business owners who reluctantly enforced the mask mandates. That group was coerced, so I think of them more as victims than perpetrators. We also have businesses that went over the top in their enforcement of mask mandates because they completely supported them. Many of these were fooled by the lie, so they are victims as well. However, it seems to me that some form of social rebuke is in order for them.

Next, we have businesses that helped enforce the vaccine mandates. Many of these are self-punished by the immediate loss of customers. Some though, went overboard by advocating for the vaccine mandates. They coerced employees to get vaccinated with bribes and vague threats of termination. For them, a mild punishment wouldn't be out of line. Something to let them know they did the wrong thing, hurt people, helped spread hysteria, and damaged the economy. However, they should be held partially liable for every person they coerced into getting vaccinated. If any of them were injured or died, a high civil penalty or a light criminal penalty, like manslaughter or assault with intent to harm, might be appropriate.

The next level up are employers who coerced employees to get vaccinated by threatening their jobs and then who fired them. By actually firing employees, they increased the threat level to all remaining employees. These employers should be held fully liable, up to and including penalties that force bankruptcy and jail time for those responsible. If any employees subsequently died or were injured from the vaccine they were coerced to take, it should be treated no differently from criminal intent to commit grievous bodily harm leading to death. Unfortunately for these business owners and managers, many of them were coerced into enforcing these mandates. However, they could have refused. At a minimum, they should become social pariahs.

Next, we have the media. Unfortunately for journalists, they were in a position to know the truth about what was going on. That is mens rea, and it makes them culpable. This is true even if many were so inundated with propaganda that a normal person of average intelligence would have a hard time discerning the truth. The reason is that their job requires of them a diligent effort to learn the truth. Their journalistic code requires ethical reporting. This group of people is collectively responsible for what may be the greatest disaster to ever befall America. There are so many journalists who willingly participated in this fraud that it would be difficult to prosecute them all. However, they should all be punished as a class. It would be difficult or impossible to assign personal responsibility to a specific reporter for a specific death, but the organizations they work for (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, FOX, and others who promulgated the lies) can be bankrupted and dissolved.

Above the rank and file reporters are the celebrity reporters and management. This group may number in the hundreds nationwide. Those who participated in this fraud, possibly the majority of these figures, should be imprisoned. My recommendation is long sentences combined with impoverishing fines.

Next we have business leaders and politicians who actively orchestrated this disaster. Sorry to say it, but these deserve no less than total forfeiture of all assets and the death penalty.

And then we get to the fake election. For that, there is a similar pyramid of responsibility.

The issue I see is that the number of people involved is so large that it would be difficult to find and then deal with them all. Also, if the businesses were closed down, and I think many should be, it would create another problem: millions of lost jobs. Despite that, I think certain companies, like CNN and Facebook, are too dangerous to be allowed to survive.

Ultimately, our country has to restore its lost productivity. To the extent this is possible, I think the first step has to be ridding our economy of parasite businesses that do more harm than good on a per employee basis. If that means Facebook and all the jobs they create disappear forever, so be it. They may have been jobs, but if those jobs actively sabotaged America, then they need to be eliminated.

Thanks for the question. I think I may write about this for my column today.

I would suppose that It must boil down to:
At what exact point were each of the individuals/groups knowingly making the decisions that would knowingly lead to lost lives, rather than allowing those who lost their lives to be afforded fully informed consent.
It must be determined at which point the freedoms were stolen at the level of life or death.

A long list is needed of people who/when/where swapped out good cheese with poison cheese. And while I think you would agree that the good cheese doesn't swap Itself out for the bad, I think it will be a lot harder than it sounds to get a record of when and where each swap has occurred.

 

[EllisR]

Well this was the last place I expected to see a critique of reading too much into small effect sizes. Keep it up.

Radin and Bem have careers based on less.

C’mon guys, let’s get back to the hard science of collecting and curating NDE stories.

It is funny to watch Andy and Alex criticize this study for being released prior to publication. And then bring up Bem, whose study was released months and months and months before it was published, as a shining example of rigor.

I already called it in the previous thread. If this had been a parapsychology study, Alex would have held it up as one of the best studies out there. And he would have ignored the feeble attempt of a graphic artist to debunk the study.