Thoughts on economics and liberty

Category: Science

Continue Reading
Continue Reading

Two strongly negative views about the covid “vaccines” (one of them claims these are not vaccines at all)


Why we shouldn’t halt the vaccine rollout – AFR 13 January 2021 [screenshot]

What the data show about allergic reactions to COVID-19 – National Geographic, 6 January [DOC]


current trials will not detect rare side-effects, those that occur in the longer-term, or those associated with specific population groups, because they do not involve enough participants. Such data will only become available after several months. [Source]



These two views are from medical practitioners who know what they’re talking about. I’m making note here and request anyone with knowledge to refute them – it will be practically impossible given my limitations of time to investigate these claims.

a) Open Letter to the Swedish Prime Minister and Swedish Public Health Director by Dr. Sanna Ehdin, 23 December 2020

b) Claims by Dr David Martin made in this video at 1 hour 42 minutes.

The claim – as sent to me by email (these are the words of David Martin)

“Let’s make sure we are clear… This is not a vaccine. They are using the term “vaccine” to sneak this thing under public health exemptions. This is not a vaccine.

This is mRNA packaged in a fat envelope that is delivered to a cell. It is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator. It is not a vaccine. Vaccines actually are a legally defined term under public health law; they are a legally defined term under CDC and FDA standards.[1] And the vaccine specifically has to stimulate both the immunity within the person receiving it and it also has to disrupt transmission.

And that is not what this is. They (Moderna and Pfizer) have been abundantly clear in saying that the mRNA strand that is going into the cell is not to stop the transmission, it is a treatment. But if it was discussed as a treatment, it would not get the sympathetic ear of public health authorities because then people would say, “What other treatments are there?

The use of the term vaccine is unconscionable for both the legal definition and also it is actually the sucker punch to open and free discourse… Moderna was started as a chemotherapy company for cancer, not a vaccine manufacturer for SARSCOV2. If we said we are going to give people prophylactic chemotherapy for the cancer they don’t yet have, we’d be laughed out of the room because it’s a stupid idea. That’s exactly what this is. This is a mechanical device in the form of a very small package of technology that is being inserted into the human system to activate the cell to become a pathogen manufacturing site.

And I refuse to stipulate in any conversations that this is in fact a vaccine issue. The only reason why the term is being used is to abuse the 1905 Jacobson case that has been misrepresented since it was written. And if we were honest with this, we would actually call it what it is: it is a chemical pathogen device that is actually meant to unleash a chemical pathogen production action within a cell. It is a medical device, not a drug because it meets the CDRH definition of a device. It is not a living system, it is not a biologic system, it is a physical technology – it happens to just come in the size of a molecular package.

So, we need to be really clear on making sure we don’t fall for their game. Because their game is if we talk about it as a vaccine then we are going to get into a vaccine conversation but this is not, by their own admission, a vaccine. As a result it must be clear to everyone listening that we will not fall for this failed definition just like we will not fall for their industrial chemical definition of health. Both of them are functionally flawed and are an implicit violation of the legal construct that is being exploited. I get frustrated when I hear activists and lawyers say, “we are going to fight the vaccine”. If you stipulate it’s a vaccine you’ve already lost the battle. It’s not a vaccine. It is made to make you sick.

80% of the people exposed to SARSCOV2 are asymptomatic carriers. 80% of people who get this injected into them experience a clinical adverse event. You are getting injected with a chemical substance to induce illness, not to induce an immuno-transmissive response. In other words, nothing about this is going to stop you from transmitting anything. This is about getting you sick and having your own cells be the thing that get you sick.

When the paymaster for the distribution of information happens to be the industry that’s doing the distributing, we lose. Because the only narrative is the one that will be compensated by the people writing the check. That goes for our politicians… and our media – it has been paid for – if you follow the money you realize there is no non-conflicted voice on any network.”

– Dr. David Martin, Jan 5th 2021.



Continue Reading

When is quarantine effective?

The impact of such interventions depends crucially on pathogen life cycles and host contact patterns. [Source]

the use of quarantine will be most beneficial when there is significant asymptomatic transmission and if the asymptomatic period is neither very long nor very short. [Source]

the benefit of quarantine over symptom monitoring is maximized for fast-course diseases (short duration of infectiousness and a short latent period compared with the incubation period), and in settings where isolation is highly effective, a large fraction of contacts is traced, or there is a long delay between symptom onset and isolation. [Source]

quarantine was inefficient for a respiratory disease like SARS [Source]

quarantine per se contributed little to SARS control. [Source]

infected people were not particularly infectious until acutely ill was subsequently substantiated by the isolation of the SARS coronavirus and assessment of viral loads and shedding as functions of time from symptom onset. [Source]

Quarantine for non-symptomatic people is not advised even for Ebola [Source]

Three tweets:

Continue Reading