//|||\\
It’s always been “a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” for (say some) there never was and never will be a real vaccine against these coronaviruses.
The fact (now established) that the pharmaceutical companies did not study their products’ capacity to reduce transmission, and the fact (now established) that the “vaccines” do not effectively reduce transmission to a significant degree (in most areas, it is the vaccinated who are getting and transmitting the virus), that means these pharmaceutical products fail at the one thing people really want in a vaccine: stopping an epidemic.
Now, the vaccines have accomplished one thing: a redefinition of what a vaccine is. We rubes always thought the goal was to stop infections, to bring down rates of transmissability to make the disease in question a rare and not a common event. But we were wrong. We were focusing on the major successes of vaccines, not the nature of all vaccines. One does not take a rabies vaccine to prevent getting rabies: such infections are rare events. One takes a rabies injection so that one survives infection.
You will occasionally encounter a knowledgeable person who will you instruct you on this (in haughty tones; typical for modern argumentation). And one’s proper response should be, at first, “oh, yeah: you’re right.” But then one should interrogate old epidemiological protocols which warn against pushing vaccines during epidemics. The time to push preventative vaccination is during lull periods. Ask your haughty friends about that. Better yet, ask an expert.
What happened this time around was that government-certified and -subsidized experts pushed an ameliorative* vaccine in a time of a pandemic, and did so within the context of a psychological operation (that is, an ad campaign) touting its expected ability not to ameliorate symptoms and disastrous consequences (cytocine storm; death) but to stop the spread of infections.
Other things were also done to stop the spread: mandates for mask-wearing, lockdowns and general “social distancing.”
The upshot of these latter has been shown to be ineffective.
It is more controversial to say the vaccines have been ineffective. And it is still ultra-controversial to question the “side-effects” of the two primary vaccine types, both of which focused on the infamous “spiked protein,” and which some of us have been warning about from the beginning: that this specific protein may be dangerous in and of itself, and using it to elicit some “immune” response is a very dangerous thing.
It is also, somehow, still controversial to bring up many other related topics, like noting that immune responses are themselves dangerous (since that is what a cytokine storm is) or that natural immunity is an effective and important element in fighting off even new diseases or that some cures can be worse than the disease they aim to cure.
//\\
As in a real swamp, The Swamp’s predators don’t all work together; unlike in a real swamp, it’s filled with packs that do work together: no One Over-arching Conspiracy, but a myriad conspiracies that often fit together. They are united, in the main, to keep The Swamp undrained.
//\\
The essence of the State is the transfer of wealth from some to others, under the banner of serving all, but with the insiders always taking the house cut. It is easy to understand in theory. But in practice?
A month ago I met a Russian-Ukrainian American at the beach, and we chatted. He’d been told about FTX, the cryptocurrency. He was under the impression that it was legit. The next big thing, it was touted to him, designed to provide a backbone to a new world financial system.
It now proves to have been a way for its creators to ponzi up a huge fortune, and for Democrats to launder money from subsidized Ukraine to pay for the 2022 mid-terms. It is quite the scandal. It’s in the news.
And Democrats will use its implosion to “regulate crypto,” which will get for them even more power.
The sheer corrupt evil that is the Democratic Party apparently knows no bounds.
As for future monetary innovation, I am only interested in cash. I would prefer it to be based upon — or better yet consisting of — gold and silver. That is what Outside Money should be. I just don’t see blockchain performing a decent function as store of value, much for less mechanism of trade. I think the U.S. should establish a standard, and then allow businesses to mint coins with one side being an advertisement, the obverse being the guarantor agency (U.S. Mint, to begin with).
Forget crypto. It was a nifty idea, but it is has several huge defects.
And the Democratic Party Machine must die.
//\\
I’ve never really been a conservative, and my heresies and apostasy are not in doubt. But I’ve never not “believed” in The Gods of the Copybook Headings.
//\\
//\\
* I use “ameliorative” not because that’s the common medical term of art, the common adjective for this function, but because it’s such a good word . . . that I’d not used in decades.
\\|||//
Wirkman Comment 