We’d Never Be Where We Are Except For Technology — Coronadoom Update CXII

Increased technology is responsible for the coronadoom bug, panic, and “solutions” tyranny. If our level of technology was less, there would have been no bug, there would have been no ability to panic globally, and the technocratic tyranny of lockdowns, vax passports, and vax-mark of the beasts would not have been possible.

Biochemistry and genetics research, and the hubris accompanying them, including the cockiness of believing Frankensteinian experimentation could be kept secure, accounted for the creation of the bug.

Experts used the euphemism gain-of-function, where the “function” was “to kill”, to label their investigations. Their ostensible justification was that creating bugs that could kill better, they would learn how to treat or cure the bugs they created. Did they?

The fallacy that Nature would not create the same extra-lethal bugs, so that the extra-lethal bugs did not need to be studied for how to cure them, was missed by these researchers.

They are still missing it. In spite of the widespread publicity of their hubris, their tinkering has not stopped. Nor will it.

Scientists are not required to read Frankenstein, and only a scarce few recall the subtitle of that book, The Modern Prometheus, and fewer still yet recall its meaning. The only ethics taught or required of scientists is Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

There could have been no lockdowns without the internet. Zoom and the like allowed the ruling class to sit comfortably at home and do what was required of them to collect their paychecks. There were even court trials conducted entirely by Zoom.

Those of us who had to venture out-of-doors were called “non-essential” by Experts and rulers and told our lives did not matter. The implication that only theirs did was not missed by us.

Apps were developed rapidly that allowed neighbors to rat out neighbors who went outside. Cameras allowed Health Police to identify mask-scofflaws. And then there are headlines like this (from Christmas Day, funnily enough): “Canada secretly tracked 33 million phones during COVID-19 lockdown: report“.

Computer tracking allowed constricting all travel, especially cross borders travel.

Oligarchs the world over got immensely richer because of technology—and because they supported the lockdowns that made them rich.

None of this, as was obvious to a few of us from the beginning and it glaringly plain to all of us now, did anything to stem the spread of the bug. It turns out respiratory bugs spread even though laws and rules are put in place to stop them. Amazing.

The sheer increase and facility communications using Twitter, Instagram, and so on, the world over, allowed the panic to gain momentum. Instantaneous communication allowed the spread of idiocies, lies, falsehoods, all under the guise of “the science” and “official news.” Rumors took wing. For instance, this:

It was not only government and Experts who used information-sharing sites. It was us. Rulers and Experts were just better at it, but if our betters only had, say, radio, TV, and newspapers, and not the internet, they could not have spread the panic anywhere near as effective—as we did for them with the internet.

We have just as much, or more, guilt than our rulers and Experts for the panic. Why? Because by now all of us should know just what rulers and Experts are.

It is the technology behind the instantaneous communication that allows the panic, even now, to sustain itself. This was added to by the advent of cheap and plentiful testing, which ignored all test limitations (such as false positives) and which let us all focus on “cases”, a fake and gay metric, given propagandists equated “case” with “near death” instead of, as for most, “minor illness”.

The hubris of technology enters the door again with the creation of the gene therapies we now call “vaccines.” There were never any real successes with these, and no successes with a coronavirus (causer of the common cold) vaccine, but they were pushed, as we all know, with a religious fervor.

They were believed in because they were new. And new equates, in our technology saturated culture, as better. Experts loved their creation, and rulers believed Experts, and, most importantly, rulers wanted a be-all-end-all quick “solution”.

Again, it was technology that allowed the so-called vaccines to be mass produced in short order, shipped everywhere, and it was hubris and bloody-mindedness that allowed it to become mandatory. It was technology that allowed the tracking of vaccine intake.

In many countries, residents are required to pay for their own radio-computer tracking devices, that must be carried everywhere and that must be used to gain entry to businesses. Of course, many voluntarily and even joyfully carry these “cellphones” everywhere they go at all times. That, and the creation of the ubiquitous efficient cellphone network, is why Canada’s efforts (above) were so fruitful.

We know of Canada, but smart money says these same programs were used by every government. And are still being used. (Right, NSA?) And governments share. It is, again, technology that is forcing both globalization and a further separation of the ruling and underclass upon us. It is advances in medical technology that cause us to be sicker—which is to say, to notice and exaggerate our fewer remaining illnesses. And the same condition is so for other technologies.

In short, it was technology that got us here and facilitated the madness of rulers, Experts, and ourselves.

It is no rebuttal, at all, to say “some technology is good”, because that proposition implies some is not good, which is to say, that some is bad. The real conclusion is that we haven’t learned to live with the technology we have—the fault is ours, not some machine’s—and therefore we should implement any new “advances” cautiously, or not at all, or at least never immediately.

We won’t, and can’t, though. We will continue to rush headlong. We practice scidolatry, which is why so many have said during this continuing panic, “Follow the science”. None can ever remember science is silent as the tomb on what is best, what is good, and what is bad.

In any case, either we learn to live more soberly with the toys we have created, or much, much worse is to come.


This is a slow week, so I’ll only show one number, the CDC’s weekly attributed coronadoom deaths.

There is a slight bump upwards, which (as I have been saying for two years now) we expect to peak sometime in January.

As with last week, though, the rise is less than Experts predicted. This is very good news.

However, the public still loves “cases”, a fake & gay statistic. And “cases” have jumped high.

Like I said, I think back in March 2020, imagine if we tracked the common cold and panicked over that, how silly that would be.

Alas, etc.

Buy my new book and own your enemies: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here

Categories: Culture, Statistics

27 replies »

  1. Technology=materialism, it’s as simple as that. Yes, I know stone age man had tools but that’s not what I mean. A line is crossed when the technology we use is no longer made by hand and the average person cannot understand how it is made. Then we find we have separated ourselves from the world of spirit and embedded ourselves in matter. That is why it is a mistake to say that technology is neutral, it’s how we use it that matters. The sort of technology we have and use inevitably bends our minds into its shape. The more sophisticated the technology, the more it separates us from God. The only way to protect against this is to be very aware of it.

    (I bought your book and look forward to reading it.)

  2. ” it was technology that got us here and facilitated the madness of rulers, Experts, and ourselves.”

    You are surely correct to say technology made it possible – and correct to say ‘facilitated’ – but this is not ‘madness’: it is purposive evil – evil intent among the rulers; and compliance to evil intent from the ‘experts’ and the receiving masses.

    But this would not have happened a century or more ago – not fundamentally because it could not happen; but because not enough people with power would have wanted it to happen; and because the masses would not have complied willingly (including self-policing, including within marriages and families).

    It takes a very advanced and pervasive form of evil to make the rulers *want* to destroy world civilization, and en route to make it into a machine for mass self-chosen damnation by official value-inversion.

    That is the root of it – the rest is what makes it possible.

  3. Well done and thank you. I would forward to my kids but while I understand your use of the word gay to mean a perversion, they would shut their minds to your thesis because of it. The instinct to refrain from judgment is a good one and should be encouraged, I think. You would know better than I what Jesus said about casting stones. I am fine with your anti-woke references as they suit my age and belief systems and your points speak enough truth to keep me reading. Unfortunately, many are not open to new ideas if certain taboos have been violated, however.

  4. I would hazard that much like leadership has been separated, in the on-going sense, from the priesthood, so too has leadership been marginalized from the practice of medicine…and concentrated in the hands of public health practitioners. Tedros anyone?

    So, yes, science is silent as the tomb.

  5. Here are a few names with something in common
    Phil Valentine
    Dick Farrell
    Marc Bernier
    Robert Enyart
    Jimmy De-young St
    Marcus Lamb
    Veronica Volski
    H Scott Apley
    Steven Shurden “poet”
    Daniel Trujillo
    Caleb Wallace
    Dr Steven Karanja
    Herman Cain

    We were not shown a photo of a row of coffins.
    We were shown footage of ITU staff and medical staff in hospital and at homes where people could not be accommodated and died in their bed. Preventable deaths due to overwhelming of the system. 

  6. Briggs: ”In any case, either we learn to live more soberly with the toys we have created, or much, much worse is to come.”

    Much, much worse is to come.

    Lemmings —-> Cliff

    Afterwards, amidst the smoking stinking ruins, we may learn to live more soberly.

  7. The age old mantra of poison, plague, and division is the cat-paw of wealth and power.
    Technology is but an accelerant of the atavistic urge to burn witches.

  8. Ludditism is no solution, William.

    Technology simply means “an extension of the hand”. Since, in human beings, the hand is so intimately connected neurologically with the brain/mind, it follows rationally that technology has come to mean “extension of the human mind”.

    “God made mankind in His own image.” We are meant to develop technologies, for by that, just as much as by the fine arts, we are co-creating along with the Creator of All who made us in His own image.

    Briggs is correct: it’s what we do with it that matters. Materialism implies that living in matter or desiring things made of matter is bad. But if the Creation is good, then how can that possibly be? It can’t.

    We are meant to have abundance and to develop technologies. But what we do with them is what matters (pun intended).

    Baseball bats can and have been used to commit murder. Is this a good reason to outlaw baseball?

  9. “Preventable deaths due to overwhelming of the system. ”

    Shaddap with this. We now know the hospitals were full of shit, as well we know that these places are inns designed to be full and unaccomadatable every winter by economical design.

    The hospitals would even have had room if they did what they were supposed to do. Treat people with medication, allowing them to then leave the hospital. But what did they actually do? They pretended all the medication stopped working! Because that is what they were ordered to do. Many went along with $$ signs in their eyes. Many more went along because they were intimidated and scared and gullible. And the few brave enough to try and blow the whistle were steamrolled by THE SCIENCE ™ and witless dopes trained to worship the State and propaganfa photoshopping broadcasters yelling, “CON*SPITTLE*RACY TBH*EORY!!! AAARRGGGHHH!!! WE’RE ALLL IN TIS TOGATHAAARRR!!!!”

    We need to hang all the murderers and the scientists and the modellers and the administrators and the TV people. Then publicly shame the public who bought into this hersteria with outstretched arms.

  10. Leslie, you have a very good point in that the younger generation shuts their ears if anything offends the current sensibility. It is a good reminder to older folks that some language is an automatic turn-off, no matter how fair or truthful it is. That said, once they see, they will “see.”

    Per the post: technology was supposed to assist the ruling class, the oligarchs, to control we the people. For instance, why did DARPA cancel its LifeLog project the on or about same day that Facebook was founded? Why scrounge for clues for a person’s life when they will voluntarily tell you what they did, what they like, what their political views are–for free??!! But, what was not predicted (due to hubris?) was that people would use the internet for resistance. We can all see the protests across Europe against the restrictions. We can see that in our own states and neighborhoods that people are standing up. We can see that we are not alone. God bless us all, every one.

  11. Johnno, in response to your request:
    Important New Paper: Johnno:
    1 The paper itself actually does mention cancer and dementia, the table mentioned is indeed from the paper itself.
    2 “Thread diameter”. Is another Strange error of reasoning in the article. It should be reference to diameter of holes in fabric, no?
    3 Droplets contain virus, virus is not free in the air, hence diameter of droplet containing particles, Is far larger that that of a single virus.
    (Molecules of Co2 and O2 are tinier than the covid viral cell so there is no issue with restriction of gasses.).
    4 In addition, what is also not mentioned often nor in this paper, is that airflow is slowed due to turbulence which affects velocity of Particles. They can remain in the air for about an hour.

    Everything I said still sands. Without question, this paper is introduced into the arena of discourse to project an impression that there is somehow controversy about the matter of masks themselves. Whereas, the discussions with regards to non pharmaceutical intervention have to do with mass use of masks outside of clinical settings and whether this, despite other modes of transmission, slows the spread at large in any measurable way.
    Instead of that we have the straw man argument about “stopping spread”. Or other absolute statements, with use of words like: block, cease, prevent, etc. Spread happens when masks are worn, too, via the hands and the eyes.
    The link to the article is here below: (It was posted days before your abusive diatribe claiming I was unable to support the comment about your defence of it.)
    The article, on further inspection has not just the obvious Mickey mouse flaw of being written by someone with no experience in a clinical field, at a guess, skip that…was the reason I didn’t bother to read the link itself to the paper! It shows that the author ‘thinks’ that coronavirus travels in the air without water vapour droplets. Also, it stipulates the size of the thread as opposed to the holes in the fabric! As the key diameter measurements. Another schoolboy error?
    So, as I said, it is a phoney article, probably a hoax which was defended.
    No wonder it was “rabbit holed”.

    The retraction is very generous, to say the least. That really is all there is to say about it.

  12. I’ve been challenged so I should clarify my position though, as this is probably not the place to do it, I apologize to our host in advance.

    I am talking about modern technology which I regard as an aberration which is not to say it shouldn’t have happened but it may be a phase to go through rather than get stuck in. Is it just a coincidence that it arose at the same time as atheism, materialism and the decline of Christian understanding and directly supported these things? The technology we develop and use does affect our relationship with the world and our approach to God so it really isn’t just what we do with it that matters. It does things with us, with us and to us, and a materialistic technology, which is obviously what we have, will materialize our minds. It dehumanizes us and desanctifies the world. It separates us from both God and Nature. That is what it has clearly done and is doing more than ever today.

    God certainly did make us in his image but we constantly distort that image. I believe that a spiritual technology can be developed but it will not be mechanistic as our current technology is. A materialistic technology produces materialistic people.

    The Creation is certainly good but we live in a fallen world. Matter is good but only when seen as the expression of spirit not when seen as its own reality.

  13. Stumbled across this:

    “Estimating the number of COVID vaccine deaths in America” and “An engineering estimate”

    “Abstract: Analysis of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database can be
    used to estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the COVID vaccines. A simple
    analysis shows that it is likely that over 150,000 Americans have been killed by the current
    COVID vaccines as of Aug 28, 2021.”

    I scrolled through it, much of it looked familiar, similar to graphs seen on this blog. Very long, but I think I’ll give it a go.

  14. Johnno, in response to your request:
    Important New Paper: Johnno:
    1 The paper itself actually does mention cancer and dementia, the table mentioned is indeed from the paper itself.

    Well, let’s see, here’s what the paper says:

    Under section ‘Psychological effects of wearing facemasks’

    “An umbrella review of 40 systematic reviews including 10 meta-analyses demonstrated that compromised social relationships were associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality, depression, anxiety suicide, cancer and overall physical illness [51].”

    So overall, stressful situations lead to bad health consequences. And mask-wearing or confrontation with mask-wearers can provoke stressful responses in people.

    This was found through meta-analysis collating several studies.

    Long-term practice of wearing facemasks has strong potential for devastating health consequences. Prolonged hypoxic-hypercapnic state compromises normal physiological and psychological balance, deteriorating health and promotes the developing and progression of existing chronic diseases [23], [38], [39], [43], [47], [48], [57], [11], [12], [13]. For instance, ischemic heart disease caused by hypoxic damage to the myocardium is the most common form of cardiovascular disease and is a number one cause of death worldwide (44% of all non-communicable diseases) with 17.9 million deaths occurred in 2016 [57]. Hypoxia also playing an important role in cancer burden [58]. Cellular hypoxia has strong mechanistic feature in promoting cancer initiation, progression, metastasis, predicting clinical outcomes and usually presents a poorer survival in patients with cancer. Most solid tumors present some degree of hypoxia, which is independent predictor of more aggressive disease, resistance to cancer therapies and poorer clinical outcomes [59], [60]. Worth note, cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, with an estimate of more than 18 million new diagnosed cases and 9.6 million cancer-related deaths occurred in 2018 [61].

    With respect to mental health, global estimates showing that COVID-19 will cause a catastrophe due to collateral psychological damage such as quarantine, lockdowns, unemployment, economic collapse, social isolation, violence and suicides [62], [63], [64]. Chronic stress along with hypoxic and hypercapnic conditions knocks the body out of balance, and can cause headaches, fatigue, stomach issues, muscle tension, mood disturbances, insomnia and accelerated aging [47], [48], [65], [66], [67]. This state suppressing the immune system to protect the body from viruses and bacteria, decreasing cognitive function, promoting the developing and exacerbating the major health issues including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer disease, rising anxiety and depression states, causes social isolation and loneliness and increasing the risk for prematurely mortality [47], [48], [51], [56], [66].

    And in conclusion:

    The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.

    So here’s what we’ve learned. Joy utterly misrepresented the paper’s main thrust. Which is:

    1. Stress and psychological issues can lead to a rise in predispositions towards diseases, cancer and other medical conditions amongst the general population. (Does Joy dispute this?)

    2. Mandatory masking alongside lockdowns and other government coercion leads to increase in stress and psychological issues amongst a general population. (Does Joy dispute this?)

    3. Ergo, the long term consequences of forced-Masking, creates increased stress and psychological trauma, that when forced upon a large amount of people will see an increase in symptoms that in turn lead to the development of cancer and other related diseases. (Does Joy have a problem with this extrapolation?)

    Well, sounds like a very reasonable conclusion to me! And is certainly NOT an argument that a cloth fabric over one’s face directly leads to the stimulation of cancer initiation, progression and metastasis. But rather that prolonged use statistically spread out over non-expert trained populations of millions can produce breathing issues, like hypoxia, and other stressful factors that in turn could lead to the development of cancer in vulnerable individuals spread out over millions of people.

    Everything I said still sands. Without question, this paper is introduced into the arena of discourse to project an impression that there is somehow controversy about the matter of masks themselves. Whereas, the discussions with regards to non pharmaceutical intervention have to do with mass use of masks outside of clinical settings and whether this, despite other modes of transmission, slows the spread at large in any measurable way.

    You misrepresented the paper. When I asked you for clarity, you continued to stubbornly refuse to clarify. Here is the paper’s abstract for those who care, which is really benign, and not Joy’s impression of it:

    Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical facemasks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ efficacy is lacking, adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established. Is has been hypothesized that facemasks have compromised safety and efficacy profile and should be avoided from use. The current article comprehensively summarizes scientific evidences with respect to wearing facemasks in the COVID-19 era, providing prosper information for public health and decisions making.

    The link to the article is here below: (It was posted days before your abusive diatribe claiming I was unable to support the comment about your defence of it.)

    1. This is the actual link, from Brigg’s post :

    2. You were asked numerous times to provide it, but ran around refusing to do so, what else am I to conclude?

    3. Where precisely is my “defence” of ‘masks causing cancer’ at the link? It certainly wasn’t in the comments. It certainly couldn’t have been later when I was asking you to provide it. There are approximately two comments of mine at the link there and neither have anything to do with cancer, and neither were you anywhere saying anything about cancer under the entire article! A search for the word ‘cancer’ pulls up one result, in Brigg’s article. All you could muster up in the comments then is that some symptoms sound the same to you and that therefore the article was somehow trying to pull a fast one by not grouping similar but distinctly different symptoms together because you were entertaining a conspiracy theory that the authors are trying to exacerbate the situation by using more “duplicate” words than was necessary.

    4. Even better! Your own comments under the article demonstrate that you pretty much align with the main thrust that oxygen deprivation can be harmful and produce all those effects, but you felt the great need to complain about the terminology used in the article! Joy – the Mickey Mouse Expert on all things Mickey-Mousing – is complaining that the authors use of the term “fight or flight response” is not a strict medical term! Thanks Joy! How lovely! Nobody cares!

    So since Joy’s Mickey-Mouse expertise didn’t work then, it now seems that Joy magically dug up an entirely new excuse, much much later-mind, that she never communicated to anyone before. Why? Please, explain to us this rationale of your sudden grasping at this new straw, Joy?

    But here we are now, and it looks like, yes, I will now begin to defend the paper, which is far more nuanced in what it is saying that what Joy claimed it did.

    The article, on further inspection has not just the obvious Mickey mouse flaw of being written by someone with no experience in a clinical field, at a guess, skip that…was the reason I didn’t bother to read the link itself to the paper!


    Get this everyone! – Joy – never bothered reading the article she was criticizing! And why not? She saw some words quoted from the article she didn’t read, she then concluded all on her own expertise that it possibly wasn’t written by anyone with any experience in a clinical field – without even checking to see that the author information linked at the top which clicked says “Cardiology Division, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System/Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States” All she saw was Roy Disney’s magic castle.

    The retraction is very generous, to say the least. That really is all there is to say about it.

    Indeed, the article was retracted, let’s take a look!

    The Editorial Committee concluded that the author’s hypothesis is misleading on the following basis:

    1. A broader review of existing scientific evidence clearly shows that approved masks with correct certification, and worn in compliance with guidelines, are an effective prevention of COVID-19 transmission.
    ^^^ Ho!Ho!Ho! Because in practice the general population outside is following all of the above with professional expert precision, right?^^^

    2. The manuscript misquotes and selectively cites published papers. References #16, 17, 25 and 26 are all misquoted.
    Here are those statements, see if it’s worth the misquotation scrutiny:

    Of note, hyperoxia or oxygen supplementation (breathing air with high partial O2 pressures that above the sea levels) has been well established as therapeutic and curative practice for variety acute and chronic conditions including respiratory complications [11], [15]. It fact, the current standard of care practice for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is breathing 100% oxygen [16], [17], [18].

    The physical properties of medical and non-medical facemasks suggest that facemasks are ineffective to block viral particles due to their difference in scales [16], [17], [25]. According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16], [17], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25]. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask [25]. In addition, the efficiency filtration rate of facemasks is poor, ranging from 0.7% in non-surgical, cotton-gauze woven mask to 26% in cotton sweeter material [2]. With respect to surgical and N95 medical facemasks, the efficiency filtration rate falls to 15% and 58%, respectively when even small gap between the mask and the face exists [25].

    Clinical scientific evidence challenges further the efficacy of facemasks to block human-to-human transmission or infectivity. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 246 participants [123 (50%) symptomatic)] who were allocated to either wearing or not wearing surgical facemask, assessing viruses transmission including coronavirus [26].

    Joy, like Fauci, is so very worried about the percentage that is blocked by “da droplets, da droplets” and like many misses the point that stopping “da droplets” still doesn’t save you from the rest of the virus that is still around in the air, therefore making this whole thing an exercise in futility, considering the statistical scale of the millions of microscopic particles we are dealing with… But forget all that, just worry about “da droplets’! Joy then tries to have her cake and eat it too by claiming that the virus in the air is not so much a concern as the virus in “da droplets”, oh? And why is that? Tell us Joy! Tell us all about THE SCIENCE ™!

    3. Table 1. Physiological and Psychological Effects of Wearing Facemask and Their Potential Health Consequences, generated by the author. All data in the table is unverified, and there are several speculative statements.
    Oh okay… if they say so! Imagine that?! Speculation! In a paper! Don’t trust that! Instead, trust in our entirely future-predicting speculative scientific models with data cherry-picked by experts designed to guarantee a government response! Those were generated by a computer!

    4. The author submitted that he is currently affiliated to Stanford University, and VA Palo Alto Health Care System. However, both institutions have confirmed that Dr Vainshelboim ended his connection with them in 2016.
    Ah, a resume technicality! Okay, let’s give them this one. So… now what?

  15. Briggs has also addressed the retraction (cancelled) paper here. Joy will never link to this!

    Defending The Canceled Mask Paper; Gain-Of-Lethality Confirmed?; Time We Quit These Updates? — Coronavirus Update LXXII

    There is one response by Joy down there… which is… (drum roll) to link back to the old post, wherein you may be expected to scroll down once again to read her same old useless Mickey-Mouse rebuttals, which are such scientifically technical terms!

    Go back and spend some more time in Essex, Joy… whatever it is you’re up to over there would certainly be more productful for everyone.

  16. Johnno,
    You’re digging yourself a huge hole and I do suggest if you actually do want to discuss this that you go to the relevant post on the paper itself, or the one which John b linked near the bottom of the post where Briggs defends it again.
    I haven’t read your essay, just the first few lines.
    Point by point I will discuss it with you but I’m afraid you won’t want that.

  17. So, working through emails, I got to this one where you say I won’t link o this:
    See the above comment where I mention John b’s link near the bottom, presumably it’s the same one as yours that you say I won’t link to, so wrong again.
    (now go to the paper itself and discuss to your heart’s content). If you stay polite there’s not reason not to continue with the discussion.

  18. Seems that Dr. Robert Malone, mRNA expert, was thrown off of Twitter for mentioning a link about the recently FOI released Pfizer 6 month trial results for FDA approval. Amazingly, it is from the Canadian Covid Care Alliance. They created a relatively easy to understand video showing how the trial was rigged and is clearly a fraud:

    And a PDF with the slides and hyperlinks to all references:

    While there is some racist statistical math needed to understand some of it, most people with two brain cells to rub together should be able to get the message, but then I’m thinking that about 50% or more don’t have the two necessary cells. Highly recommended for all the great insights and clear presentation.

  19. I haven’t read your essay, just the first few lines.

    Oh, okay. Allow me to return the favor and stop reading you – immediately here.

    By now everyone knows Joy is not only a liar, but she has obviously never read anything she criticizes because she herself knows she is full of it, that she is completely intellectually dishonest, she can’t withstand scrutiny, and she prefers the delusionary world she exists in and loves it there and wants to stay there. The door to Hell is locked from the inside.

    Exhibit A of the Covidian Cult. Like the Stalinist faithful, who continued to swear their loyalty to him even as they were being dragged out for execution, proclaiming they must havr deserved it, but please let them die as a committed member!

    Do not pity this sort. Heap scorn upon their memory.

  20. Also, no one has widely published the minimum infectious dose. Why does that matter? The more transmissible the infectious agent, the smaller the minimum dose required. That said, I have seen reports where the minimum infectious dose for the SARS-CoV2 strains is 100 to 300 virions per gram (a liter of air). Many other infectious agents have minimum infectious doses in the 10^6 to 10^9 range per gram. If this is true, *no* mask will do much to prevent infection as the cumulative exposure increases.

    That said, infection does not have to produce illness; and the most successful parasites get spread with little to no host morbidity or mortality. Flip side: most symptoms from infectious diseases are from the host’s response to it, not from the infection itself. So, conflation of specific diseases with disease syndromes can lead to horrid outcomes.

  21. Fauci Admits ‘Follow The Science’ Is Now ‘Follow The Political Science’ After CDC Rule Changes

    CDC Director Admits Latest COVID Restrictions Based On What Government “Thought People Would Be Able To Tolerate”

    Fully vexxed, fully masked, fully covidian compliant cruise ships are experiencing very serious outbreaks! Why? Why do the vexxines and passports and masks and testing and plexiglass and distancing not working??? Why???? *Sob-sob*!

    Fak-chackar backtracks…

    THE CASES!!! THE CASES!!! TH… oh…

    Six Shots for the Netherlands! *Clap*clap*Clap*!

    After Thousands Of Parents Refused To Comply, California School District Reverses Child Jab Mandate

    In Bombshell Admission, CDC Drops Post-Isolation PCR Test Because They Can ‘Remain Positive Up To 12 Weeks’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *