Monday, August 2, 2021

Briefly Noted: What Side Of History Would This Be?

If you're like me, you probably get really ticked off every time you hear some knucklehead talking about being on the right/wrong side of history. However, interesting questions arise regarding how to tell which side of history a given example of human behavior actually is. For example, DC is making history even as we speak/read/write, but which side is it on?

Washington, DC, murders surpass coronavirus deaths in July by nearly 3-to-1 ratio

The number of homicides in Washington, D.C., surpassed coronavirus deaths in the city by a nearly 3-to-1 ratio in July as the nation’s capital continues to grapple with an uptick in murders. 


The statistic comes as Washington, D.C., recorded 100 homicides by July 10 – the earliest the city has hit that number since 2003.  

The D.C. Police Union claimed the average date over the past 10 years when the city usually hits 100 homicides is Oct. 25.  

In 2019 and 2018, the city hit 100 homicides in August, but the city reached the mark on July 12 in 2020, according to WTOP News. 

As of July 30, there were 113 homicides in Washington, D.C., this year to date, compared to 108 last year, data from the Metropolitan Police Department shows. 

Fox News has reached out to the MPD and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office for comment. 

So puzzling.

Meanwhile, I can't recommend enough a post by Karl Denninger that offers an excellent explanation of what Dr. Robert Malone refers to as the "leaky" nature of all Covid "vaccines." Technically, the distinction is between sterilizing and non-sterilizing vaccines, with Covid vaccines being non-sterilizing and, thus, "leaky." KD draws out the implications of this--the risk that use of non-sterilizing vaccines will worsen a pandemic in the long run. In doing so he illustrates how ignorance of history can and often does lead to self inflicted harm.

However, I want to offer a caveat. I'm not a scientist. I read this morning someone making the point that, since Covid is a coronavirus similar to the Common Cold, and since we know that immunity developed against the Common Cold only lasts for about two months (which is why we can get a cold in the Fall and then get another cold in the Spring), it's likely that Covid will become endemic in a similar way. In other words, we may only acquire relatively short-lived immunity, similar to the immunity we develop against the cold. This, by the way, is somewhat related to the fact that coronaviruses mutate far more readily and rapidly than do the flu viruses--a crucial difference, and an important reason why coronaviruses are so popular for research manipulation purposes.

Did I just mention that I'm not a scientist? Now, with regard to the previous paragraph, KD repeats what many of us have heard, including from very knowledgeable doctors--that natural immunity acquired from infection is long lasting. I'm tossing this alternative view out there--that natural immunity to coronaviruses may not last all that long--simply as counterpoint. I'm not knowledgeable enough to offer an informed opinion.

So, that's a bit of a long winded way of saying, Read everything with a critical eye. And with that said, I offer my opinion that you can get a real benefit from reading this post:

Well, Duh. This Is Why It Was Stupid

One additional comment. While driving to my eye exam this morning, and before I read this post, I mentioned to my wife that I have reservations about giving any of these Covid vaccines even to high risk individuals. My reasoning was basically identical to KD's reasoning here--that there is a real risk to others in doing so. There are pros and cons--I'm not offering a firm position, nor does KD. On the other hand, it's a good example of how complicated this stuff is.


  1. “ If you're like me, you probably get really ticked off every time you hear some knucklehead talking about being on the right/wrong side of history.“

    I read the headline and the first sentence and I had to reply.

    Yes! I utterly abhor that kind of statement. I wouldn’t doubt that Obama was not the first to say that, but he made it a signature statement for himself. He owns it, along with the entire Democrat party.

    It’s a logical fallacy argument.

  2. Did you intend "--the risk that use of non-sterilizing vaccines." to mean
    "--the risk that use of non-sterilizing vaccines *will worsen* the pandemic"?

    His list of commonly-used sterilizing vaccines, MMR (measles, mumps and rubella), Varicella (chicken pox), and OPV (oral polio) is helpful.

  3. History is written by the victor.

  4. Key segments from this KD post:

    < we're stuck with the... screaming harpies, who went out and got jabbed, despite being at very low risk of serious outcomes themselves, turning themselves into literal *gain-of-function labs* for the virus.
    If you took the jab, in short, unless you were at very high risk, and thus it was justified on a personal mitigation basis, you are, in fact, part of the body of individuals that are placing evolutionary pressure on the virus *to evolve*....

    If you get a "break though" infection, I hope you have your d-*Dimer levels* immediately checked, because if not, you may be a walking heart attack or stroke.... >

    1. Those are some excellent pulls from the piece, aNanyMouse. In that same area is this gem, talking about those who've been jabbed and later gotten sick:

      "But worse is that by taking the jab and then getting infected anyway you have now not just become a potential mutational factory, you are one of the people causing what will ultimately become viral escape and the screwing of yourself and others because by definition if you got sick after vaccination, [then] the virus got into your system [and] it has now proved that whatever occurred in you evaded the protection you had and then was emitted back out where others can catch it from you after that evasion took place.

      "You were either the mutational factory or an intermediate host that screws the next person you share the love with!"

      People like Dr. Malone and others who are qualified to speak on this really need to start hitting the message, harder than ever, that the vaccinated are who drive the mutations, not the unvaccinated. That, plus the fact that we need the numbers of not just how covid affects the vaxxed vs. the unvaxxed but also vs. how it affects those with the natural resistance of having been previously sick but never vaxxed. How vax protection compares to this natural protection is an absolutely critical piece of the puzzle (which of course is why we don't get to see it).

    2. @brad

      My understanding from video of Dr Michael Yeadon is that those of us who contracted and recovered from (whatever tyoe of coronavirus is actually going around) and did not get jabbed are more or less golden. Our immune system has a sort if memory of the virus and can readily recognize it even in mutations and stop it as long as we are reasonably healthy. We have to always remember that this flu is 99.9x survivable. There is no reason for us to be freaking out about this thing, no more than we ever did about flu or cold seasons. If we're going to start panicking about a 99.9x survivable virus then let's just give up now and cancel the world and civilization and live in caves as hermits. This is all such mass hysteria manufactured bs it's incredible. The only reason we're still talking ad nauseam about this is because the bad guys insist on weaponizing it for their authoritarian ends.

      The real discussion we need to have is how to organize the kind of mass protests, strikes, shut downs, and civil disobedience necessary to stop the mandatory jabs.


    3. Rul, America's Frontline Doctors are trying to be a clearing house for this, one thing they recommend for each of us is to respond to any diktat (jab, mask, shutdown) with the question "Based on what?". It's simple and may not seem like much but it can be a powerful jujitsu move, they need to demonstrate the justification for these measures and they can't. Fight the fear with confident assertion and curiosity. Based on What could be the mantra of the movement, shifts the terrain.

      Mark A

    4. Thanks, Rul, and I do indeed feel golden ever since my year-long prayer that I would get hit by the virus finally was answered a couple weeks ago. A bit of Ivermectin along with a few other cheap and safe goodies and I was right as the mail. (And not in a Doc Holliday way.

      And that is the key - what the nation needs to know isn't just that the virus is rarely deadly even when no treatment is given but that it's totally treatable ~every time when very simple, cheap and safe therapeutics -led by Ivermectin and maybe some HCQ thrown in if one wishes- are taken right away. This is a far more accurate, important and powerful argument than just saying in a vacuum “it’s 99.X% survivable.” Even though for the vast majority of the populace that is technically true, it’s also true that absent the early treatment mentioned above, for many there’s still a lot of suffering, permanent damage and even death, and even the non-crazies are not willing to just say “oh, well, that’s the way the cookie crumbles.”

      They insist that *something* be done, and that’s the reality of the environment we’re working in. This will not change. And since you can't beat something with nothing, if the people think the only "treatment" out there - the only way to "beat" the virus - is with the jabs, the jabs will win the argument every time.

      Put another way, If you just go out and protest against the jabs in an environment where the masses still believe there's no way to beat covid other than the jabs, it's advantage to the bad guys in a very big way. But if the people are aware of how easily, cheaply and reliably the virus is treated, it's advantage to the good guys in a very big way.

      Protests can be useful, and I'm absolutely not against them if they push first and foremost a winning argument, but "Covid is 99.X% survivable, so don't jab me!" is not at all such an argument. “Covid is totally treatable in ways far superior to the jab - and here's the proof,” on the other hand, very much is.

      Well, at any rate, that’s my very strongly held opinion.

      Cheers :)

  5. Covid-related data from Israel and Gibraltar:

  6. I wonder if the Novavax is a sterilizing vaccine? I've read it is more like a conventional vaccine. Authorization for its use in USA is apparently still pending.

    1. Old age is hell--a read something about Novavax and that Codagenix is preferable. I don't recall any specifics. OTOH, KD's general caveats would apply.

    2. Mark, I read the same thing and cannot recall where. Dr. Malone may have mentioned them at the end of his Italian interview. Whatever. Here is Codi-Vac, the vaccine made by the company Codagenix - from the company’s website. Unlike the gene therapy injections, it is administered intranasally. No jabs. That might take care of the possible problem of adverse reaction to the lipids that carry the injectables - another thing Dr. Malone mentioned in that interview.:

      COVI-VAC for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)

      The COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread in the U.S and new strains of the virus are emerging. COVI-VAC is a single-dose, intranasal, live-attenuated vaccine against COVID-19, generated using Codagenix’s proprietary deoptimization technology. COVI-VAC was safe and protective in the gold standard animal model after just one dose and is currently being evaluated in a Phase I clinical trial. Unlike many other COVID-19 vaccines, COVI-VAC is designed to produce immunity against all SARS-CoV-2 proteins, not just the spike surface protein, positioning it to protect against a range of SARS-CoV-2 strains. Live-attenuated vaccines like COVI-VAC elicit a robust immune response and are associated with long lasting cellular immunity.

      More here:

    3. Mark, from your blog:

      AnonymousJuly 30, 2021 at 4:52 PM

      From a discussion with Geert Vanden Bossche"

      "Thank you for this Geert. Question - is the problem with the vaccines that they are all just made to mimic the little tiny spike as opposed to the whole virus? If so, what about the Novavax one in development, which will be a full sized fake virus - would that be what you mean by a sanitizing virus or will that one likely have same problems?

      Replying to above
      John Ronning
      "The Novavax is a subunit vaccine that still works on the s spike protein, therefore it does not sterilise. The codagenix vaccine is a live attenuated giving protection against all variants. Just completed phase 1 trials"

    4. Thanks to Bebe and dissonant1 for looking this up.

  7. If you want to be blown away, have a look at this very detailed review from a Kenneth Lunstrom in Lutry, Switzerland (October 2020):

    The Current Status of COVID-19 Vaccines

    For reasons that will become obvious, I have nothing to add...

    1. I've been warned and will proceed at my own risk.

    2. Bebe, I'm afraid you're going to have to add what it is that was supposed to blow me away about this paper?

      Mark A

    3. @Mark A. I thought it pretty detailed for those who are not scientists. Have no idea what your CV says. But I’ll go back and look again.

    4. PS to Mark A: Do be sure to tell us what you think when you have read the whole thing.

  8. Bebe, your link did not blow me away. This link blew me away. It's a little too late in the game as far as I am concerned to play "No seriously this genetic tampering may actually turn out to be not so harmful to you." They're coming for you and me and everybody else. Please note the swiss doctor who was "visited" by 60 (6 oh) counter terrorism agents for spreading misinformation.

    Mark A