We saw imposed dogma with climate studies. Later, COVID religion worship circles dominated the universities. Now the Arizona elections also reveal doctrinaire trends on campus.
Once the ‘will of the people’ didn’t generate the preferred outcome by the Democrats, they manipulate the results. Delaying election results creates an opportunity to cheat by enabling the cheaters to know how much ‘cheat’ is required.
A new audit shows that in 2020 20% of mail in ballots had invalid signatures on the envelope. It took so long to audit because Maricopa County refused to release the public data.
That could add up to more than 300,000 invalid mail in ballots in 2020. There's no reason to believe that 2022 would be any different.
To deprogram from a cult, you first have to remove the victim from the cult leader. In the covid case you have to first get them to stop listening to the media.
With so many victims, it will be more efficient to remove the leaders from the victims. It's unfortunate we didn't flip the senate. Ron Johnson was ready to start some serious deprogramming. Maybe the new House will have the wisdom to get things moving. For now we should focus on '24, and keep fighting,
Knowing what went wrong is only useful if we do something constructive with that information. We seem to have pretty clear evidence of what went wrong in '22, and in '20, but nobody seems interested in fixing those mistakes. It will most certainly get worse. Half the country likes the fraud, and the other half is afraid to complain.
It wouldn't have mattered if Hobbs debated Lake---look at the Pennsylvania Fetterman v Oz debate. Fetterman showed all how much he is compromised and still won the election. The fix is in. If your voted really counted--"they" would never allow anyone to vote.
Well deserved credit to Giordano Bruno. I don't agree wiht differential treatment of seniors if that includes toxic drug injection, will just result in more seniors dying. Treatment with antiviral protocols as developed by McCullough et al is better standard of care. Why, because at any age IMO the injections create a greater hazard. New Stew Peters documentary:
The comparison to Climate Science is incredibly apt, as Peer Pressure, Confirmation Bias, Government funding, and career harms if on the "wrong political side" all greatly affect peer review publications. The sceptics of CAGW are a very grassroots movement of mostly retired or tenured PHD,s and so far more free to give objective scientific analysis.
If I may ask a Covid question. It applies personally as my wife has covid, is extremely immune damaged already, (fibromyalgia, MAST cell syndrome, diabetic, which is managed by healthy keto, or very low carb, and intermittent fasting). We are doing all the recommended protocols, yet unsurprisingly she is not recovering quickly. The most concerning symptoms are extreme fatigue, arm numbness, and heavy legs. and at times rapid heart beat. So I am very concerned with heart damage. (She was not vaccinated, and we both thought her already highly immune compromised condition would make her a prime candidate for vaccine adverse events.) Her O2 levels are barely Ok, around 96 percent. I am thinking we need to get checked at the hospital, yet I don't know A, what their current protocols are or B, what they can do. I suppose they can confirm heart issues, and that is important to know, yet what treatment can they offer?
Am I correct that the vaccine tends to produce an equal or higher spike protein load, and a longer duration spike production.
"When Drs. Martin Kulldorff, Sunetra Gupta and Jay Bhattacharya wrote their reasonable and harmless proposals for pandemic mitigation, The Great Barrington Declaration, they were brutally criticized by academia and the elite media for two years. "
I used to think those three doctors were knowledgeable and well-intentioned for the good of the people.
I do not think that anymore. Those doctors did not investigate and get the whole facts about "the pandemic", "the novel zoonotic coronaviris", and the vaccines, all of them including the viral vector vaccines and especially the mRNA vaccines.
I bet Dr. Bhattacharya would want to protect this own parents by giving them the vaccine, and his favored mRNA type of vaccine at that, if he judged them "vulnerable".
Their Great Barrrington Declaration promoted harm to certain parts of the population.
We are now trying to adopt the GBD as has been done for pandemics forever. The question was and is how to actually protect those as greatest risk. With on-line access the vulnerable could have stayed home in some degree of isolation from outside and to a lesser extent family. Had that been done the less vulnerable could have become infected with nearly all having a case of bad flu at worst. The population would have had a greater degree of natural immunity that we now know is better than the vaccine immunity. As the population gained immunity herd immunity would have arrived allowing the vulnerable to reenter society at much lower risk.
Those claiming let it rip were denying the huge 1000X difference in risk between the old and the young. We were never at equal risk. Many may have never been at risk if the UK Challenge study is real (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01780-9) where nearly half never became ill at all despite direct exposure.
The GBD might have saving immeasurable seniors in congregate facilities by allowing staff an opportunity to become ill and return to work. Those already infected posed less risk to seniors in their care. Daily staff testing once the tests were available would have helped even more with no need to test those who had antibodies.
Our entire error was placing faith in rapid vaccine development and trying to use NPIs that had never worked in practice. We now see that a leaky vaccine can never arrive at herd immunity, thus we will be troubled by this virus forever.
Don't forget the universal systemic bias against the massive strange and charm quarks and even neutrons. Decolonize physics! Demand equal quark representation!
"“Climate science” chooses to see warming trends and data, but not cooling trends and data"
That's true, but more so, they also distort the data on the warming trends. They say that current years have had the highest temperatures, but there were six years in the 1930's with higher temperatures, the 1930s broke more temperature records than any other decade. And that was before CO2 started increasing in 1945.
Professor Emeritus Don Easterbrook has stated that NASA and NOAA have distorted the climate temperature data from the original measurements by decreasing past temperatures and increasing current temperatures, and that they increase their distortions (called adjustments) every time they periodically release their reports.
Still think there might be something to climate change? Or it is human-caused? Still believe that "97% of climate change scientist agree that..." Or that the ice caps are melting, or the polar bears are declining, or that CO2 is a bad thing?
All lyin' talking points from the totally false climate change narrative, more pernicious than covid, and more effective in transferring wealth upwards.
See here, and particularly note the cognitive dissonance expressed by the Senators hearing the data:
Once the ‘will of the people’ didn’t generate the preferred outcome by the Democrats, they manipulate the results. Delaying election results creates an opportunity to cheat by enabling the cheaters to know how much ‘cheat’ is required.
A new audit shows that in 2020 20% of mail in ballots had invalid signatures on the envelope. It took so long to audit because Maricopa County refused to release the public data.
That could add up to more than 300,000 invalid mail in ballots in 2020. There's no reason to believe that 2022 would be any different.
https://imgur.com/uUEb9Fn.jpg
We are facing a cult. Cults cannot be broken with rational debate, only with force. Stern interventions can save some of them. Some are lost forever.
To deprogram from a cult, you first have to remove the victim from the cult leader. In the covid case you have to first get them to stop listening to the media.
With so many victims, it will be more efficient to remove the leaders from the victims. It's unfortunate we didn't flip the senate. Ron Johnson was ready to start some serious deprogramming. Maybe the new House will have the wisdom to get things moving. For now we should focus on '24, and keep fighting,
Yes, but should analyze what went wrong with the Red Wave. Something important happened there.
Knowing what went wrong is only useful if we do something constructive with that information. We seem to have pretty clear evidence of what went wrong in '22, and in '20, but nobody seems interested in fixing those mistakes. It will most certainly get worse. Half the country likes the fraud, and the other half is afraid to complain.
It wouldn't have mattered if Hobbs debated Lake---look at the Pennsylvania Fetterman v Oz debate. Fetterman showed all how much he is compromised and still won the election. The fix is in. If your voted really counted--"they" would never allow anyone to vote.
Well deserved credit to Giordano Bruno. I don't agree wiht differential treatment of seniors if that includes toxic drug injection, will just result in more seniors dying. Treatment with antiviral protocols as developed by McCullough et al is better standard of care. Why, because at any age IMO the injections create a greater hazard. New Stew Peters documentary:
https://rumble.com/v1wac7i-world-premier-died-suddenly.html
Heat stroke?
The comparison to Climate Science is incredibly apt, as Peer Pressure, Confirmation Bias, Government funding, and career harms if on the "wrong political side" all greatly affect peer review publications. The sceptics of CAGW are a very grassroots movement of mostly retired or tenured PHD,s and so far more free to give objective scientific analysis.
If I may ask a Covid question. It applies personally as my wife has covid, is extremely immune damaged already, (fibromyalgia, MAST cell syndrome, diabetic, which is managed by healthy keto, or very low carb, and intermittent fasting). We are doing all the recommended protocols, yet unsurprisingly she is not recovering quickly. The most concerning symptoms are extreme fatigue, arm numbness, and heavy legs. and at times rapid heart beat. So I am very concerned with heart damage. (She was not vaccinated, and we both thought her already highly immune compromised condition would make her a prime candidate for vaccine adverse events.) Her O2 levels are barely Ok, around 96 percent. I am thinking we need to get checked at the hospital, yet I don't know A, what their current protocols are or B, what they can do. I suppose they can confirm heart issues, and that is important to know, yet what treatment can they offer?
Am I correct that the vaccine tends to produce an equal or higher spike protein load, and a longer duration spike production.
Any advice greatly appreciated.
"When Drs. Martin Kulldorff, Sunetra Gupta and Jay Bhattacharya wrote their reasonable and harmless proposals for pandemic mitigation, The Great Barrington Declaration, they were brutally criticized by academia and the elite media for two years. "
I used to think those three doctors were knowledgeable and well-intentioned for the good of the people.
I do not think that anymore. Those doctors did not investigate and get the whole facts about "the pandemic", "the novel zoonotic coronaviris", and the vaccines, all of them including the viral vector vaccines and especially the mRNA vaccines.
I bet Dr. Bhattacharya would want to protect this own parents by giving them the vaccine, and his favored mRNA type of vaccine at that, if he judged them "vulnerable".
Their Great Barrrington Declaration promoted harm to certain parts of the population.
We are now trying to adopt the GBD as has been done for pandemics forever. The question was and is how to actually protect those as greatest risk. With on-line access the vulnerable could have stayed home in some degree of isolation from outside and to a lesser extent family. Had that been done the less vulnerable could have become infected with nearly all having a case of bad flu at worst. The population would have had a greater degree of natural immunity that we now know is better than the vaccine immunity. As the population gained immunity herd immunity would have arrived allowing the vulnerable to reenter society at much lower risk.
Those claiming let it rip were denying the huge 1000X difference in risk between the old and the young. We were never at equal risk. Many may have never been at risk if the UK Challenge study is real (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01780-9) where nearly half never became ill at all despite direct exposure.
The GBD might have saving immeasurable seniors in congregate facilities by allowing staff an opportunity to become ill and return to work. Those already infected posed less risk to seniors in their care. Daily staff testing once the tests were available would have helped even more with no need to test those who had antibodies.
Our entire error was placing faith in rapid vaccine development and trying to use NPIs that had never worked in practice. We now see that a leaky vaccine can never arrive at herd immunity, thus we will be troubled by this virus forever.
Don't forget the universal systemic bias against the massive strange and charm quarks and even neutrons. Decolonize physics! Demand equal quark representation!
"“Climate science” chooses to see warming trends and data, but not cooling trends and data"
That's true, but more so, they also distort the data on the warming trends. They say that current years have had the highest temperatures, but there were six years in the 1930's with higher temperatures, the 1930s broke more temperature records than any other decade. And that was before CO2 started increasing in 1945.
Professor Emeritus Don Easterbrook has stated that NASA and NOAA have distorted the climate temperature data from the original measurements by decreasing past temperatures and increasing current temperatures, and that they increase their distortions (called adjustments) every time they periodically release their reports.
Still think there might be something to climate change? Or it is human-caused? Still believe that "97% of climate change scientist agree that..." Or that the ice caps are melting, or the polar bears are declining, or that CO2 is a bad thing?
All lyin' talking points from the totally false climate change narrative, more pernicious than covid, and more effective in transferring wealth upwards.
See here, and particularly note the cognitive dissonance expressed by the Senators hearing the data:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFfOOF-6Fs
Another one from three years ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU a gift to climate science showing how dates are manipulated for the crisis.
That is excellent, thank you!
Good data is in the PowerPoint link. http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php
Thanks