March 14th, 2021 • 3h 10m
Shownotes
Every new episode of No Agenda is accompanied by a comprehensive list of shownotes curated by Adam while preparing for the show. Clips played by the hosts during the show can also be found here.
Vaccines and such
Chad response to ferrets
Sitting around the firehouse there is at least one other person who mentioned that their blood glucose levels skyrocketed after the vaccine for about a week. Manageable but concerning.
And finally, an update regarding that antibody study I mentioned. Originally, this study was focused on first responders as likely candidates for infection and antibody response. What was found so far was that about 30% of those tested had at least one type of COVID antibody.
Yes. The ferrets didn't get sick with the disease, they developed an overzealous immune response which ultimately killed them. I think it was called "pathogenic priming". Inflammation, disseminated intravascular coagulation, pulmonary edema.
After I mentioned my symptoms another firefighter mentioned experiencing shingles-like pain following his vaccination.
My wife has started to have some shingles symptoms as well. No external lesions for her, but she has had a weeks worth of the electrical skin hypersensitivity shooting into her head on one side of her body. Same brand of Jab, same lot number...
So actually not in reverse. The same process just not with wild virus. mRNA vaccines make the spike proteins that the immune system recognizes. In my case my cells that got infected with the vaccine are the stunt doubles for the virus. To an immune system already primed by wild virus and then by a first dose; the whole point of the vaccine is to mimic the spike protein so closely as to be indistinguishable to the immune system, the second dose is the equivalent of infection with wild virus in terms of immune response.
And we know how that worked out for the ferrets.
Stupid me. Shoulda known better.
Fact check: Biden and company get slippery with vaccination facts - Chicago Tribune
Sun, 14 Mar 2021 13:47
By ZEKE MILLER and CALVIN WOODWARD
Associated Press |
Mar 13, 2021 at 10:52 AM
For an administration that prides itself on talking straight about the pandemic, the self-congratulation Wednesday went too far.
President Joe Biden wrongly claimed the U.S. vaccinated a record 2.9 million people on Saturday while his special adviser on the pandemic exaggerated the share of older Americans who've been fully immunized.
A look at how their statements compare with the facts:
BIDEN: ''On Saturday, we hit a record of 2.9 million vaccinations in one day in America.''
ANDY SLAVITT, special adviser to the White House virus task force: ''On Saturday, we set an all-time, single-day record: nearly 3 million Americans vaccinated -- a pace seen nowhere else in the world.'' '-- leading off a task force briefing.
THE FACTS: The claim is off base.
The government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 2.9 million doses were recorded Saturday but that total comes from multiple days of vaccinations. Only 1.56 million doses were administered Saturday, as currently reported by the CDC.
That's far from a one-day record. The most productive day for vaccinations was Feb. 26, when 2.8 million doses were administered.
Although vaccinations have greatly increased overall in recent weeks, Saturday's total is barely above the number of doses administered the day Biden took office.
FILE - In this March 11, 2021, file photo President Joe Biden takes off his mask to speak about the COVID-19 pandemic during a prime-time address from the East Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File) (Andrew Harnik)
SLAVITT: ''In terms of protecting the most vulnerable '-- our core duty as a nation '-- when we came into office, 8% of people over 65 were vaccinated. Today, 60% are vaccinated. And according to the CDC's new guidance, vaccinated parents can now visit and hug their grandchildren '-- and, in most circumstances, without wearing a mask.''
THE FACTS: This is wrong. He is counting people who have received only their first dose as immune and able to mingle. Public health officials stress that only fully vaccinated people can safely be around each other and low-risk people without the distancing and masking recommended for the population at large.
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines each require two doses, spread several weeks apart. The newer Johnson & Johnson vaccine requires only one dose. In all cases, it takes two weeks to build immunity after being fully vaccinated.
Recommended on Chicago Tribune
VICP vs CICP
Did you know that? You should read these paragraphs below on the next show.
The C-19 vaccines have been excluded from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Why? Because of the health emergency declared a year ago. They're now under a different and much less generous program, the CICP. And "reimbursement for attorneys’ fees is unavailable"
Covid-19 Vaccine Injuries — Preventing Inequities in Compensation
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2034438
quotes:
"Normally, once the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves a vaccine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends it for children or pregnant women, injury compensation is available for any recipient through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). The VICP covers the majority of vaccines administered in the United States. "
"The declaration of a public health emergency by the Department of Health and Human Services in March 2020, however, resulted in exclusion of Covid-19 vaccine injuries from the VICP. This declaration triggered the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, a federal law that requires that all people injured by vaccines given as countermeasures during a declared emergency bring claims under only the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).
The CICP is far less generous and less accessible than the VICP. It compensates people for only the most serious injuries, has a higher burden of proof than the VICP, has a 1-year statute of limitations after the date of vaccination, and limits awards for damages. For example, the CICP limits lost-income recovery to $50,000 for each year out of work and doesn’t include compensation for pain, suffering, or emotional distress.
As a result, people who are vaccinated during the declared public health emergency will be less likely to obtain compensation for injuries associated with Covid-19 vaccines than they would be for injuries from vaccines included in the VICP. Furthermore, the process for pursuing compensation will be lengthier, more difficult, and more expensive because reimbursement for attorneys’ fees is unavailable.
People vaccinated during a declared public health emergency can never pursue injury claims under the VICP, even if their symptoms manifest or are linked to the vaccine after the declaration is lifted. "
Geert Bossche: Halt All Covid-19 Mass Vaccination (Open Letter to WHO)
Sun, 14 Mar 2021 13:19
Geert Vanden Bossche, PhDGeert Vanden Bossche, PhD, DVM, is a vaccine research expert. He has a long list of companies and organizations he's worked with on vaccine discovery and preclinical research, including GSK, Novartis, Solvay Biologicals, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Dr Vanden Bossche also coordinated the Ebola vaccine program at GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization).
He is board-certified in Virology and Microbiology, the author of over 30 publications, and inventor of a patent application for universal vaccines. He currently works as an independent vaccine research consultant.
March 6, 2021
''One could only think of very few other strategies to achieve the same level of efficiency in turning a relatively harmless virus into a bioweapon of mass destruction.''
Geert Vanden Bossch
Vaccine Research Expert
We're Risking Creating a Global, ''Uncontrollable Monster''Dr Bossche believes that vaccinologists, clinicians, and scientists are only focusing on short-term results at the individual level and not the consequences at the global population level, which he believes will soon become evident. Evident in the form of having transformed ''a quite harmless virus into an uncontrollable monster''.
His concern rests on 'immune escape'. For those needing an quick introduction to the topic, read Jemma Moran's article Mutant variations and the danger of lockdowns.
Blog to EmailJoin 7689 other subscribers
For those needing a sweeping overview of our immunology, watch Ivor Cummins interview Creon Levit, Ep81 The Amazing Immunology of our Viral Issue '' Incredible Science at Work! Many physicians would also benefit from watching this (note: the average physician receives exceptionally little training in immunology and virology). Those wishing to dig deeper into immunology in general, read for example, Roitt's Essential Immunology, Thirteenth Edition.
Bossche states that the multiple emerging, ''much more infectious'' viral variants, are already examples of ''immune escape'' from our 'innate immunity', and were most-likely created by the government interventions themselves; the so-called Non-Pharmacological Interventions (NPIs) '' i.e. lockdowns and cloth facial coverings. Unofficially, but also more aptly known as the Non-Scientific Interventions.
He believes that:
Ongoing mass vaccination deployments are ''highly-likely to further enhance 'adaptive' immune escape as none of the current vaccines will prevent replication/transmission of viral variants''As such, ''The more we use these vaccines for immunizing people in the midst of a pandemic, the more infectious the virus will become''.And ''With increasing infectiousness comes an increased likelihood of viral resistance to the vaccines''.He claims his beliefs are basic principles taught in a student's first vaccinology class '' ''One shouldn't use a prophylactic vaccine in populations exposed to high infectious pressure (which is now certainly the case as multiple highly infectious variants are currently circulating'').
He states that to ''fully escape'', the highly mutable virus, ''only needs to add another few mutations in its receptor-binding domain''.
People Stand to Lose their Natural 'Innate' Immunity as a Consequence of the MeddlingHis real worry though, or as he puts it, ''beyond worried'', is that the humankind may severely damage it's own, natural 'innate' immunity, because of the mass deployment of vaccination programs at this critical juncture. Our 'innate' immunity would be lost (a rich, variant-nonspecific, form of natural immunity).
It would also mean that vaccine-mediated protection would be lost.
Screenshot of Bossche Keynote '' Vaccine Summit (Ohio), March 2nd
All whilst new, more dangerous variants would be getting actively breed by mankind. In effect, ''turning a relatively harmless virus into a bioweapon of mass destruction''.
Further Pre-NotesVanden Bossche '' Vaccine Summit Ohio, March 2nd), keynote slides PDF, 'Why should current Covid-19 vaccines not be used for mass vaccination during a pandemic?'Vanden Bossche '' 'We must halt all ongoing Covid-19 mass vaccination campaigns as a temporary health benefit to the most vulnerable groups does not justify a public health disaster of international concern', summary of the manuscript PDF, February 26th. Note ''In our na¯ve and simplistic attempt to prevent the pandemic from running its natural course, we are in fact providing the beast with an even much better opportunity to escape host immunity than natural infection does.''Below is his open letter to the WHO, issued March 6th, 2021. I've only added more paragraph breaks and blue highlights, to help others be able to process faster.
A PDF version is available.
Geert Vanden Bossche, DMV, PhD, independent virologist and vaccine expert, formerly employed at GAVI and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
To all authorities, scientists and experts around the world, to whom this concerns: the entre world population.
I am all but an antivaxxer. As a scientist I do not usually appeal to any platform of this kind to make a stand on vaccine-related topics. As a dedicated virologist and vaccine expert I only make an exception when health authorities allow vaccines to be administered in ways that threaten public health, most certainly when scientific evidence is being ignored.
The present extremely critical situation forces me to spread this emergency call. As the unprecedented extent of human intervention in the Covid-19pandemic is now at risk of resulting in a global catastrophe without equal, this call cannot sound loudly and strongly enough.
As stated, I am not against vaccination. On the contrary, I can assure you that each of the current vaccines have been designed, developed and manufactured by brilliant and competent scientists. However, this type of prophylactic vaccines are completely inappropriate, and even highly dangerous, when used in mass vaccination campaigns during a viral pandemic.
Vaccinologists, scientists and clinicians are blinded by the positive short-term effects in individual patents, but don't seem to bother about the disastrous consequences for global health. Unless I am scientifically proven wrong, it is difficult to understand how current human interventions will prevent circulating variants from turning into a wild monster.
Racing against the clock, I am completing my scientific manuscript, the publication of which is, unfortunately, likely to come too late given the ever increasing threat from rapidly spreading, highly infectious variants. This is why I decided to already post a summary of my findings as well as my keynote speech at the recent Vaccine Summit in Ohio on LinkedIn.
Last Monday, I provided international health organizations, including the WHO, with my analysis of the current pandemic as based on scientifically informed insights in the immune biology of Covid-19. Given the level of emergency, I urged them to consider my concerns and to initiate a debate on the detrimental consequences of further 'viral immune escape'.
For those who are no experts in this field, I am attaching below a more accessible and comprehensible version of the science behind this insidious phenomenon.
While there is no time to spare, I have not received any feedback thus far. Experts and politicians have remained silent while obviously still eager to talk about relaxing infection prevention rules and 'springtime freedom'. My statements are based on nothing else but science. They shall only be contradicted by science.
While one can barely make any incorrect scientific statements without being criticized by peers, it seems like the elite of scientists who are currently advising our world leaders prefer to stay silent. Sufficient scientific evidence has been brought to the table.
Unfortunately, it remains untouched by those who have the power to act. How long can one ignore the problem when there is at present massive evidence that viral immune escape is now threatening humanity? We can hardly say we didn't know '' or were not warned.
In this agonizing letter I put all of my reputation and credibility at stake. I expect from you, guardians of mankind, at least the same. It is of utmost urgency. Do open the debate. By all means: turn the tide!
Why mass vaccination amidst a pandemic creates an irrepressible monsterTHE key question is: why does nobody seem to bother about viral immune escape? Let me try to explain this by means of a more easily understood phenomenon: Antimicrobial resistance. One can easily extrapolate this scourge to resistance to our self-made 'antiviral antibiotics'. Indeed, antibodies (Abs) produced by our own immune system can be considered self-made antiviral antibiotics, regardless of whether they are part of our innate immune system (so-called 'natural' Abs') or elicited in response to specific pathogens (resulting in so-called 'acquired' Abs).
Natural Abs are not germ-specific whereas acquired Abs are specifically directed at the invading pathogen. At birth, our innate immune system is 'unexperienced' but well-established. It protects us from a multitude of pathogens, thereby preventing these pathogens from causing disease.
As the innate immune system cannot remember the pathogens it encountered (innate immunity has no so-called 'immunological memory'), we can only continue to rely on it provided we keep it 'trained' well enough.
Training is achieved by regular exposure to a myriad of environmental agents, including pathogens. However, as we age, we will increasingly face situations where our innate immunity (often called 'the first line of immune defense') is not strong enough to halt the pathogen at the portal of entry (mostly mucosal barriers like respiratory or intestinal epithelia).
When this happens, the immune system has to rely on more specialized effectors of our immune system (i.e., antigen-specific Abs and T cells) to fight the pathogen. So, as we grow up, we increasingly mount pathogen-specific immunity, including highly specific Abs. As those have stronger affinity for the pathogen (e.g., virus) and can reach high concentrations, they can quite easily outcompete our natural Abs for binding to the pathogen/virus.
It is precisely this type of highly specific, high affinity Abs that current Covid-19 vaccines are inducing. Of course, the noble purpose of these Abs is to protect us against Covid-19. So, why then should there be a major concern using these vaccines to fight Covid-19?
Well, similar to the rules applying to classical antimicrobial antibiotics, it is paramount that our self-made 'antiviral antibiotics' are made available in sufficient concentration and are tailored at the specific features of our enemy.
This is why in case of bacterial disease it is critical to not only chose the right type of antibiotic (based on the results from an antibiogram) but to also take the antibiotic for long enough (according to the prescription).
Failure to comply with these requirements is at risk of granting microbes a chance to survive and hence, may cause the disease to fare up. A very similar mechanism may also apply to viruses, especially to viruses that can easily and rapidly mutate (which is, for example, the case with Coronaviruses); when the pressure exerted by the army's (read: population's) immune defense starts to threaten viral replication and transmission, the virus will take on another coat so that it can no longer be easily recognized and, therefore, attacked by the host immune system. The virus is now able to escape immunity (so-called: 'immune escape').
However, the virus can only rely on this strategy provided it still has room enough to replicate. Viruses, in contrast to the majority of bacteria, must rely on living host cells to replicate. This is why the occurrence of 'escape mutants' isn't too worrisome as long as the likelihood for these variants to rapidly find another host is quite remote. However, that's not particularly the case during a viral pandemic!
During a pandemic, the virus is spreading all over the globe with many subjects shedding and transmitting the virus (even including asymptomatic 'carriers'). The higher the viral load, the higher the likelihood for the virus to bump into subjects who haven't been infected yet or who were infected but didn't develop symptoms. Unless they are sufficiently protected by their innate immune defense (through natural Abs), they will catch Covid-19 disease as they cannot rely on other, i.e., acquired Abs.
It has been extensively reported, indeed, that the increase in S (spike)-specific Abs in asymptomatically infected people is rather limited and only short-lived. Furthermore, these Abs have not achieved full maturity.
The combination of viral infection on a background of suboptimal Ab maturity and concentration enables the virus to select mutations allowing it to escape the immune pressure. The selection of those mutations preferably occurs in the S protein as this is the viral protein that is responsible for viral infectiousness.
As the selected mutations endow the virus with increased infectious capacity, it now becomes much easier for the virus to cause severe disease in infected subjects. The more people develop symptomatic disease, the better the virus can secure its propagation and perpetuation (people who get severe disease will shed more virus and for a longer period of time than asymptomatically infected subjects do).
Unfortunately, enough, the short-lived rise in S-specific Abs does, however, surface to bypass people's innate/natural Ab. Those are put out of business as their affinity for S is lower than the affinity of S-specific Abs. This is to say that with an increasing rate of infection in the population, the number of subjects who get infected while experiencing a momentary increase in S-specific Abs will steadily increase.
Consequently, the number of subjects who get infected while experiencing a momentary decrease in their innate immunity will increase. As a result, a steadily increasing number of subjects will become more susceptible to getting severe disease instead of showing only mild symptoms (i.e., limited to the upper respiratory tract) or no symptoms at all.
During a pandemic, especially youngsters will be affected by this evolution as their natural Abs are not yet largely suppressed by a panoply of 'acquired', antigen-specific Abs. Natural Abs, and natural immunity in general, play a critical role in protecting us from pathogens as they constitute our first line of immune defense. In contrast to acquired immunity, innate immune responses protect against a large spectrum of pathogens (so don't compromise or sacrifice your innate immune defense!).
Because natural Abs and innate immune cells recognize a diversified spectrum of foreign (i.e., non-self) agents (only some of which have pathogenic potential), it's important, indeed, to keep it sufficiently exposed to environmental challenges.
By keeping the innate immune system (which, unfortunately, has no memory!) TRAINED, we can much more easily resist germs which have real pathogenic potential. It has, for example, been reported and scientifically proven that exposure to other, quite harmless Coronaviruses causing a 'common cold ' can provide protection, although short-lived, against Covid-19 and its loyal henchmen (i.e., the more infectious variants).
Suppression of innate immunity, especially in the younger age groups, can, therefore, become very problematic. There can be no doubt that lack of exposure due to stringent containment measures implemented as of the beginning of the pandemic has not been beneficial to keeping people's innate immune system well trained.
As if this was not already heavily compromising innate immune defense in this population segment, there comes yet another force into play that will dramatically enhance morbidity and mortality rates in the younger age groups: MASS VACCINATION of the ELDERLY.
The more extensively the later age group will be vaccinated and hence, protected, the more the virus is forced to continue causing disease in younger age groups.
This is only going to be possible provided it escapes to the S-specific Abs that are momentarily raised in previously asymptomatically infected subjects. If the virus manages to do so, it can benefit from the (momentarily) suppressed innate immunity, thereby causing disease in an increasing number of these subjects and ensuring its own propagation.
Selecting targeted mutations in the S protein is, therefore, the way to go in order for the virus to enhance its infectiousness in candidates that are prone to getting the disease because of a transient weakness of their innate immune defense.
But in the meantime, we're also facing a huge problem in vaccinated people as they're now more and more confronted with infectious variants displaying a type of S protein that is increasingly different from the S edition comprised with the vaccine (the later edition originates from the original, much less infectious strain at the beginning of the pandemic).
The more variants become infectious (i.e., as a result of blocking access of the virus to the vaccinated segment of the population), the less vaccinal Abs will protect. Already now, lack of protection is leading to viral shedding and transmission in vaccine recipients who are exposed to these more infectious strains (which, by the way, increasingly dominate the field).
This is how we are currently turning vaccines into asymptomatic carriers shedding infectious variants.
At some point, in a likely very near future, it's going to become more profitable (in term of 'return on selection investment') for the virus to just add another few mutations (maybe just one or two) to the S protein of viral variants (already endowed with multiple mutations enhancing infectiousness) in an attempt to further strengthen its binding to the receptor (ACE-2) expressed on the surface of permissive epithelial cells.
This will now allow the new variant to outcompete vaccinal Abs for binding to the ACE receptor. This is to say that at this stage, it would only take very few additional targeted mutations within the viral receptor-binding domain to fully resist S-specific ant-Covid-19 Abs, regardless whether the later are elicited by the vaccine or by natural infection.
At that stage, the virus will, indeed, have managed to gain access to a huge reservoir of subjects who have now become highly susceptible to disease as their S-specific Abs have now become useless in terms of protection but still manage to provide for long-lived suppression of their innate immunity (i.e., natural infection, and especially vaccination, elicit relatively long-lived specific Ab titers). The susceptible reservoir comprises both, vaccinated people and those who're left with sufficient S-specific Abs due to previous Covid-19 disease). So, MISSION
ACCOMPLISHED for Covid-19 but a DISASTROUS SITUATION for all vaccinated subjects and Covid-19 seropositive people as they've now lost both, their acquired and innate immune defense against Covid-19 (while highly infectious strains are circulating!).
That's 'one small step for the virus, one giant catastrophe for mankind', which is to say that we'll have whipped up the virus in the younger population up to a level that it now takes little effort for Covid-19 to transform into a highly infectious virus that completely ignores both the innate arm of our immune system as well as the adaptive/acquired one (regardless of whether the acquired Abs resulted from vaccination or natural infection).
The effort for the virus is now becoming even more negligible given that many vaccine recipients are now exposed to highly infectious viral variants while having received only a single shot of the vaccine.
Hence, they are endowed with Abs that have not yet acquired optimal functionality. There is no need to explain that this is just going to further enhance immune escape. Basically, we'll very soon be confronted with a super-infectious virus that completely resists our most precious defense mechanism: The human immune system.
From all of the above, it's becoming increasingly difficult to imagine how the consequences of the extensive and erroneous human intervention in this pandemic are not going to wipe out large parts of our human population.
One could only think of very few other strategies to achieve the same level of efficiency in turning a relatively harmless virus into a bioweapon of mass destruction.
It's certainly also worth mentioning that mutations in the S protein (i.e., exactly the same protein that is subject to selection of escape mutations) are known to enable Coronaviruses to cross species barriers.
This is to say that the risk that vaccine-mediated immune escape could allow the virus to jump to other animal species, especially industrial livestock (e.g., pig and poultry farms), is not negligible. These species are already known to host several different Coronaviruses and are usually housed in farms with high stocking density.
Similar to the situation with influenza virus, these species could than serve as an additional reservoir for SARS-COVID-2 virus.
As pathogens have co-evolved with the host immune system, natural pandemics of acute self-limiting viral infections have been shaped such as to take a toll on human lives that is not higher than strictly required.
Due to human intervention, the course of this pandemic has been thoroughly disturbed as of the very beginning. Widespread and stringent infection prevention measures combined with mass vaccination campaigns using inadequate vaccines will undoubtedly lead to a situation where the pandemic is getting increasingly 'out of control'.
Paradoxically, the only intervention that could offer a perspective to end this pandemic (other than to let it run its disastrous course ) is '...VACCINATION. Of course, the type of vaccines to be used would be completely different of conventional vaccines in that they're not inducing the usual suspects, i.e., B and T cells, but NK cells.
There is, indeed, compelling scientific evidence that these cells play a key role in facilitating complete elimination of Covid-19 at an early stage of infection in asymptomatically infected subjects.
NK cells are part of the cellular arm of our innate immune system and, alike natural Abs, they are capable of recognizing and attacking a broad and diversified spectrum of pathogenic agents.
There is a sound scientific rationale to assume that it is possible to 'prime' NK cells in ways for them to recognize and kill Coronaviruses at large (include all their variants) at an early stage of infection. NK cells have increasingly been described to be endowed with the capacity to acquire immunological memory.
By educating these cells in ways that enable them to durably recognize and target Coronavirus-infected cells, our immune system could be perfectly armed for a targeted attack to the universe of Coronaviruses prior to exposure.
As NK cell-based immune defense provides sterilizing immunity and allows for broad-spectrum and fast protection, it is reasonable to assume that harnessing our innate immune cells is going to be the only type of human intervention left to halt the dangerous spread of highly infectious Covid-19 variants.
If we, human beings, are committed to perpetuating our species, we have no choice left but to eradicate these highly infectious viral variants. This will, indeed, require large vaccination campaigns. However, NK cell-based vaccines will primarily enable our natural immunity to be better prepared (memory!) and to induce herd immunity (which is exactly the opposite of what current Covid-19 vaccines do as those increasingly turn vaccine recipients into asymptomatic carriers who are shedding virus).
So, there is not one second left for gears to be switched and to replace the current killer vaccines by life-saving vaccines.
I am appealing to the WHO and all stakeholders involved, no matter their conviction, to immediately declare such action as THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY OF INTERNATIONAL CONCERN.
More Resources:
Apocalypse 2020: Draconian Censorship, Non-Scientific Lockdowns, Media Deception, Rise of Technocracy '-- Jay W. Richards''I would probably prefer to have natural immunity'' '-- Dr Byram Bridle (Viral Immunologist)Request for Expedited Federal Investigation Into Scientific Fraud in Public Health Policies '-- Open Letter
Let Us Out
PCR Trick
Just wanted to share a quick experience with you.
I was traveling with my girlfriend to Puerto Rico and needed to get a Covid PCR test to travel. I passed with flying colors however my girlfriend received a positive result (she has not been experiencing any symptoms).
It was suggested by a friend to swab and clean her nose with a antimicrobial / antiseptic skin cleaner (We used Hibiclens) right before the test. We did this as instructed and sure enough, the results came back negative (both tests were done in the same day).
Not sure if it was the antimicrobial or just the fact that the testing system is so wrought with errors but we had a great time in San Juan.
Thanks for the work.
Paul
nomasks.org expiring soo
Freedom Pass
China Presses W.H.O. To Run Their Global "Vaccine Passport" Program - The True Defender !
Sun, 14 Mar 2021 13:16
The Chinese nation restlessly works, from day to day, making their progress and leading innovations. But are they always for the good of the people?
Join The True Defender Telegram Chanel Here: https://t.me/TheTrueDefender
The latest possible threat to civil rights and basic human rights is once again developed by the Chinese Communist Party experts. They are trying to push and run a global database for vaccine passports for each person that has received the Chinese coronavirus vaccine.
''The Communist Party launched its domestic ''vaccine passport'' system Wednesday, despite W.H.O. officials urging countries not to implement such a system due to unequal access to vaccines and the variety in the quality of the available offerings around the world,'' a WHO report stated.
''The ''vaccine passport'' '-- A digital certification that confirms a person has received a coronavirus vaccination '-- joins China's larger ''social credit system,'' which judges every citizen and awards them numerical ''scores'' based on how much the Party approves of their behavior. The behavior judged can vary from littering and volunteering, which result in respectively lower or higher social credit scores, to the display of public opinions either in favor or against the Communist Party.''
The Chinese have done this in their own country '' preventing their citizens from purchasing airplanes, trains, or any other kind of public transportation tickets unless they get a vaccine passport. A
And they're trying to push this legislation in the entire world since they're the leading vaccine producers at the time.
This item sells for $39.95 on Amazon. Today's special promotion is offering a massive discount on this item. President Trump 2020 Coin (Gold & Silver Plated) - Claim 1 Free OR Claim a Discount + Free Shipping This coin is a symbol of President Trump's victory and success. Get Coin HERE Or Click on the image below.
''Chinese experts noted on Tuesday that China can help by sharing its experience with and provide technical support to the WHO to organize the issue,'' China's newspaper, Global Times reported, ''as China is the most experienced country in using a health code system in the world while the WHO is the most proper organizer for the matter to ensure independence, fairness and data security.''
''In terms of technology, I believe that Chinese companies can build an international platform in just one week,'' the leader of a Chinese organization identified as the ''Information Consumption Alliance,'' insisted. ''The WHO can draft the rules, procedures and data format. China is very willing to provide support in sharing experience and techniques in setting up such a platform as the country has rich experience in this.''
They further claim that they've been doing increased surveillance on their citizens the past few years, which didn't bring to leakage of information or other kinds of abuse of information. Thus, they ensure to bring ''guarantee public trust,'' if their program is supported globally.
However, the global push for ''vaccine passport'' programs met with rigid denial from the World Health Organization. This Monday in a public appearance, Dr. Michael Ryan, the director of the W.H.O. Health Emergencies Program warned about the ''real practical and ethical considerations'' urging the countries not to consider this, at least at the moment, while other considerations are being made.
''Vaccination is just not available enough around the world and is not available certainly on an equitable basis,'' Ryan contended, which would lead to ''inequity and unfairness '... further branded into the system.''
Human rights activists all around the world have warned and protested regarding this specific thing '' that China would try to use the social credit system to globally ''limit the rights of political dissidents, religious groups, and others considered a threat to communism, rather than just individuals with records of crime.''
TWISTED!
Build Back Better
Biden vaxx website Bad Idea
With union bailout signed, Joe can go
“An eligible plan will receive a one-time special financial
assistance payment from the PBGC within one year after its application
is approved equal to the amount necessary to ensure that the plan can
pay all benefits due (other than any adjustable benefits that were
eliminated before the application) through the last day of its plan
year ending in 2051.”
New COVID-19 Stimulus Bill Pension Reforms and Expands Scope of 162m Compensation Deduction Limit
Fri, 12 Mar 2021 19:51
Wednesday, March 10, 2021
Today, the House of Representatives passed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (the ''ARPA''). The ARPA has already been approved by the Senate and is expected to be quickly signed into law by President Biden. This client alert addresses Title IX, Subtitle H of the new legislation, which includes significant pension reforms for multiemployer and single-employer pension plans, and expands the number of covered employees for the limitation on the deductibility of executive compensation under Section 162(m) of the Tax Code.
Multiemployer Pension ReformsSpecial Financial Assistance for Severely Underfunded Multiemployer PlansBackgroundThe multiemployer pension system in the United States is currently in crisis, with over 100 multiemployer pension plans, covering more than one million participants in total, projected to become insolvent within the next 10 to 20 years. The largest and most significant of these plans, the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund (the ''CSPF''), is projected to become insolvent by 2025. Under existing law, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the ''PBGC'') provides financial assistance to a plan after it becomes insolvent that is sufficient to allow the plan to continue paying benefits up to the level guaranteed by the PBGC. However, the scope of the crisis, and the pending insolvency of the CSPF, is projected to cause the PBGC's own multiemployer insurance fund to become insolvent by 2026. This issue has created significant concern among individual participants, contributing employers, unions, and plans themselves. As a result, Congress has previously made several attempts to enact a legislative solution, including the establishment of the bicameral Joint Select Committee on Solvency of Multiemployer Pension Plans in 2018, but these attempts have largely failed to date.
The ARPA attempts to address these issues by creating and funding a special financial assistance program intended to extend the solvency of severely underfunded multiemployer plans, including the CSPF, by providing one-time payments intended to allow the plans to continue paying all benefits through 2051, which in turn should also allow the PBGC's existing multiemployer insurance fund to avoid insolvency. Importantly, and unlike many previous proposals, there is nothing in the ARPA that requires plans that receive the special financial assistance to repay the assistance.
EligibilityA multiemployer plan is eligible for financial assistance if it satisfies any of the following criteria:
The plan is in ''critical and declining'' status in any plan year beginning in 2020 through 2022;
The plan had a suspension of benefits in accordance with the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (''MPRA'') as of the date of enactment;
The plan is in ''critical'' status in any plan year beginning in 2020 through 2022, has a ''modified'' funded percentage of less than 40% (it appears that the modified funding percentage for this purpose is determined in the same manner as the percentage reported on Line 2C of Schedule MB for the Form 5500), and has a ratio of active to inactive participations that is less than 2:3; or
The plan became insolvent after December 16, 2014, remains insolvent, and has not been terminated as of the date of enactment.
Application ProceduresAn eligible plan must first apply to the PBGC for special financial assistance by December 31, 2025. The PBGC is required to issue regulations regarding the application requirements within 120 days of the date of enactment. Notwithstanding the application process, the ARPA only permits the PBGC to deny assistance to a plan if its application is incomplete, any proposed change or assumption as part of the application is unreasonable, or the plan is not eligible. Applications are deemed to be approved unless the PBGC notifies the plan otherwise within 120 days after an application is filed.
The ARPA also allows (but does not require) the PBGC to give priority consideration to certain plans by prohibiting a plan from submitting an application for up to two years from the date of enactment unless the plan satisfies any of the following criteria:
The plan is insolvent or likely to become insolvent within five years after the date of enactment;
The PBGC projects that the plan would receive more than $1 billion in financial assistance following its insolvency if the special financial assistance is not provided;
The plan has suspended benefits in accordance with the MPRA as of the date of enactment; or
The PBGC determines it appropriate based on other similar circumstances.
Terms of Special Financial AssistanceAn eligible plan will receive a one-time special financial assistance payment from the PBGC within one year after its application is approved equal to the amount necessary to ensure that the plan can pay all benefits due (other than any adjustable benefits that were eliminated before the application) through the last day of its plan year ending in 2051. Absent strong investment returns on an eligible plan's existing assets that are not subject to the investment restriction described further below, it appears that a plan receiving special financial assistance would become insolvent soon after 2051.
Subject to certain limitations, the amount of special financial assistance will generally be determined with the actuarial assumptions used by the plan for its most recently completed certification of plan status before January 1, 2021 unless they have become unreasonable. The limitations include that the interest rate used to calculate the special financial assistance is capped at the unadjusted IRS ''third segment rate'' (which is based on long-term corporate bond rates) for single-employer pension funding with respect to the month in which the application is filed or the three preceding months, plus 200 basis points in either case.
The special financial assistance received by an eligible plan is subject to certain restrictions, including that the assistance must be segregated from other plan assets and must be invested in investment-grade bonds or other investments approved by the PBGC. A plan that receives financial assistance under this legislation will be deemed to be in ''critical'' status until the end of its plan year ending in 2051. In addition, a plan that previously suspended benefits in accordance with the MPRA must reinstate its suspended payments and provide retroactive adjustments to affected participants and beneficiaries, which can be paid in a lump sum or in installments over a five-year period.
The PBGC may impose other reasonable conditions on the receipt of the special financial assistance, including with respect to benefit increases, asset allocation, reduction in contribution rates and withdrawal liability, but the conditions cannot relate to any prospective reductions in benefits, plan governance, or funding rules.
Impact on Employer Withdrawal LiabilityA prior version of the ARPA specified that any special financial assistance received by a plan would be disregarded in calculating withdrawal liability until the first plan year beginning after the 15th anniversary of the plan's receipt of the financial assistance, but this provision was removed from the final bill for what appears to be procedural reasons. It remains to be seen whether the PBGC will condition special financial assistance on a plan's agreement to implement a similar withdrawal liability rule.
Other Provisions Affecting Multiemployer PlansThe ARPA also includes other reforms that impact multiemployer plans, as further described below.
Multiemployer PBGC Premium IncreaseFor plan years beginning after December 31, 2030, the multiemployer PBGC premium will increase from $31 per participant to $52 per participant, and the premium will be subject to indexed increases for plan years beginning after December 31, 2031. While this increase is significant (even after taking into account that premiums were going to be indexed for inflation in any case), it is still far less of an increase than was included in a number of prior proposals. There is no change to single-employer PBGC premiums.
Temporary Delay for Designation of Funding Zone StatusA plan may elect to retain for its first plan year beginning during the period that starts on March 1, 2020 and ends on February 28, 2021, or the next succeeding plan year, the status of the plan for the year immediately prior to the year elected by the plan. A plan that was already in endangered or critical status during the applicable prior year is not required to update its funding improvement plan or rehabilitation plan, as applicable, for the year elected by the plan.
Temporary Extension of Funding Improvement and Rehabilitation PeriodsA plan in endangered or critical status for a plan year beginning in 2020 or 2021 may elect to extend its funding improvement or rehabilitation period, as applicable, by five years.
Adjustments to Funding Standard Account RulesA plan (assuming it meets a solvency test) may elect to amortize over 30 years, rather than the normal 15 years, certain experience losses incurred in the first two plans years ending after February 29, 2020. A plan that makes this election would not be permitted to increase benefits during the period and the two years thereafter (unless funded with additional contributions). While this is similar to a provision enacted after the 2008 global financial crisis, it differs in that it takes into account both investment losses and other losses related to COVID-19. Thus, for example, losses due to reduced contributions or deviations in employment or retirement rates that resulted from COVID-19 could be amortized over the longer period.
Also similar to the relief granted post-2008, a plan (again assuming it meets a solvency test) can smooth over 10 years (rather than five) actuarial investment losses for the first two plan years ending after February 29, 2020 (as long as the value of the plan's assets remains within an 80-130% range of their market value). A plan that elects this relief is also subject to limitations on benefit increases.
Relief for Single-Employer Pension Plans''Fresh Start'' and Extended Amortization Funding ShortfallsThe ARPA provides a ''fresh start'' on the amortization of a single-employer plan's underfunding. For the plan year beginning in 2022 (or, if elected by the plan sponsor, a plan year beginning in 2019, 2020, or 2021), all of the plan's shortfall amortization bases for plan years preceding the applicable plan year will be reduced to zero. Beginning in the applicable plan year, the plan's new shortfall amortization base (and any future shortfalls) will be amortized over fifteen years, instead of seven years. This relief will reduce the annual minimum required contributions for single-employer plans.
Extended and Enhanced Interest Rate StabilizationBeginning in 2012, Congress enacted certain interest rate stabilization provisions intended to smooth pension interest rates by setting a floor and a ceiling on the rates used to calculate pension liabilities. However, the floor and ceiling rates'--also known as the interest rate corridor'--would have begun to phase-out in 2021, increasing pension liabilities amidst historically low interest rates.
The ARPA will hold the interest rate corridor at 5% (thereby allowing plans to use higher rates, which in turn reduces the value of their liabilities) from 2020 through 2025. Beginning in 2026, the corridor will annually increase by 5% until it reaches, in 2030, 30%, which is where it would remain. However, the ARPA also sets an interest rate floor of 5% on the 25-year average on which the corridor is based.
The interest rate stabilization changes are effective for plan years beginning in 2020. However, a plan sponsor may elect to delay the application of the changes to any plan year beginning before January 1, 2022, in which case the plan sponsor may elect the delay to apply for all purposes or just for purposes of calculating the plan's adjusted funding target attainment percentage (''AFTAP''), which is used to determine whether the plan is subject to funding-based benefit restrictions.
Community Newspaper PlansThe Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act (the ''SECURE Act'') enacted by Congress in 2019 included special funding rules for single-employer plans sponsored by ''community newspapers,'' which are generally family-owned, non-publicly traded, independent newspapers. The ARPA expands the SECURE Act's special funding rules for these types of plans to include additional community newspapers.
Expansion of Covered Employees Subject to 162(m) Compensation Deduction LimitSection 162(m) of the Tax Code generally prohibits a public company from deducting more than $1 million in compensation paid to a current or former covered employee in a taxable year. Under current law, the covered employees are the chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and the three other highest compensated officers for the taxable year. An employee who meets this criteria in any taxable year is permanently treated as a covered employee of the company for all subsequent years, regardless of whether the employee continues to the meet the criteria.
The ARPA provides that effective for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2026, the covered employees for a taxable year will also include the company's five highest compensated employees in that year (in addition to the chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and three other highest compensated officers). However, unlike other covered employees, these additional five employees will not become permanently treated as covered employees and will be re-determined each year.
(C) 2020 Proskauer Rose LLP. National Law Review, Volume XI, Number 69
With Politicized Lending, Biden Aims to Revive 'Operation Choke Point' | RealClearMarkets
Sun, 14 Mar 2021 12:44
In one of the last executive actions of the Trump administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency published an important final ''Fair Access to Financial Services'' rule requiring that large banks and federal savings associations make lending decisions based upon ''individualized, quantitative risk-based analysis and management of customer risk.'' Translation: The lenders are not to make such decisions on the basis of the political unpopularity (among leftists) of certain businesses, obvious examples of which are producers of fossil fuels or firearms, operators of for-profit colleges or private prisons, and payday lenders, and perhaps others engaged in entirely legal business activities.
Under that finalized rule, such politicized lending criteria as ''reputational risk''---a wholly circular construct devoid of analytic content---were to be excluded as determinants of the allocation of capital. This constraint would enhance the productivity of financial capital by both lenders and borrowers, by making economic value the central driver of lending decisions and the use of borrowed funds. The strengthened role of economic value would help to preserve the soundness of the banking/financial system, and more generally would engender a number of aggregate economic benefits flowing from the strengthening of economic factors and the weakening of political factors in the capital market.
As discussed below, the rule---ostensibly aimed at the lending decisions of the financial institutions---in reality is designed to constrain the behavior of bureaucrats and politicians pursuing politicized agendas. That is why no one can be surprised that the Biden administration has announcedthat '' it has paused publication of its rule to ensure large banks provide all customers fair access to their services.'' (The rule was to have taken effect on April 1.) Here is the explanation for the pause:
Pausing publication of the rule in the Federal Register will allow the next confirmed
Comptroller of the Currency to review the final rule and the public comments the OCC
received, as part of an orderly transition.
That is an explanation that explains little even as it is highly revealing, as the ''orderly transition'' rationale could be applied to any rule promulgated during the Trump administration but not yet published in final form. It is not difficult to conclude that many high-level members of the Biden administration prefer politicized lending, as a short journey down memory lane illustrates. Remember Operation Choke Point? That was the blatant effort by the Obama administration to exclude several legal industries from the banking system. This clearly was illegal and unconstitutional, having been based upon no law or any other kind of legal authority; it simply reflected the political biases of the senior Obama decisionmakers.
There is no evidence that then-Vice President Biden opposed it, and such arbitrary exercises of power are constrained by no obvious limiting principle. Any industry can become a target, and it is obvious that the discriminatory practices inexorably will expand over time as new bureaucrats and politicians come to occupy the various desks and offices, imposing their own views of what is good. The efficient allocation of capital? Who in the Beltway has an incentive to care about that?
The central value of the Trump rule was straightforward: Far from constraining the lenders, it imposed a short leash on the bureaucrats and politicians, in that new efforts to politicize lending could be challenged in court by the prospective borrowers disfavored by government officials. With or without a rule, the reality is that the banks and savings associations as a practical matter cannot take the public officials to court, as doing so would expose them to a vast array of punitive retaliations from the regulators. The lenders have to deal with the regulators on a daily basis on a vast array of their operations. It is no trick at all for the regulators to cause a given lender no end of legal and operational problems. Can anyone seriously deny this reality?
Accordingly, litigating politicized lending standards is vastly more problematic without the new rule than with it because such lending constraints inevitably are predominantly an informal system based upon letters and phone calls and hints and winks and sighs and frowns. Without the rule, the borrowers against whom the discrimination is directed would not have standing to sue, and the lenders would not do so for the reasons just delineated.
That is why Choke Point and similar gameplaying in the capital market is ideal for the political left: No formal rule is being violated, the banks are in no position to resist, and the borrowers have no recourse. Equality under the law is thrown out the window because the left fundamentally believes in nothing as much as its own political power, while the bureaucracy---much ignored in the reality that it is an important interest group---is left to enhance its own powers at the expense of market forces.
The 2010 Dodd-Frank financial regulation legislation may have created vast perversities for the U.S. financial system, but Title III charges the OCC with assuring fair access to financial services and fair treatment of customers by the institutions subject to its jurisdiction. In short, we have had for a decade a law supposedly constraining the ability of public officials to politicize lending, and they were happy to ignore it. The Trump fair access rule was wholly justified as a regulatory matter; and by constraining in a way enforceable in court the ability of public officials to impose their ideological preferences upon the lenders, it would have yielded a more efficient allocation of capital over time. That the Biden administration is in the process of discarding it does not bode well for a policy-driven strengthening of U.S. economic performance, in the capital market and many others.
Birx joins air purifying company selling Covid tech
Sun, 14 Mar 2021 11:02
Then-White House coronavirus response coordinator Deborah Birx looks on during the daily coronavirus task force briefing at the White House on April 21, 2020. | Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Deborah Birx, the former Trump White House coronavirus response coordinator, is taking a new role as chief medical and scientific adviser for an air filtration company focused on reducing Covid-19 infections.
Birx this week also joined the George W. Bush Institute '-- where she'll work to address health disparities exacerbated by the pandemic '-- and the board of a Bay Area investment firm.
AdvertisementThe series of moves follows Birx's retirement from government after decades as a public health official, a run that culminated in her rocky tenure atop the White House task force charged with leading the pandemic response.
Birx's hiring at ActivePure Technology, a Texas-based filtration company, comes as it's seeking formal clearance from the Food and Drug Administration to market its air purifier for the purpose of removing coronavirus particles.
The company has aggressively marketed its products even as it awaits FDA's review for Covid-19 filtering, asserting on its website that its technology has a proven ''kill rate of over 99.9 percent of airborne SARS-COV-2 within 3 minutes.''
''We developed technology, called ActivePure, that destroys the COVID virus in the air and have deployed it for decades. It's unique, and it works,'' CEO Joe Urso wrote in a recent open letter to President Joe Biden, urging him to ''encourage '-- or, where you can, require '-- the use of the best technology now."
AdvertisementFDA has given air purifier-makers greater leeway during the pandemic for how their devices could be used, but it has urged them to make clear which functions FDA has endorsed and which ones it hasn't.
Urso in a statement to POLITICO said after the company filed for an emergency use authorization late last year, the FDA told the company to instead seek a different clearance that carries a higher standard for review and could take longer.
The FDA declined to comment.
Birx could not immediately be reached for comment. Reuters first reported her new job at ActivePure.
AdvertisementBirx spent years working in various parts of the federal public health bureaucracy, including as ambassador-at-large and global AIDS coordinator during the Obama administration.
But she gained national recognition under Trump, who appointed her to help coordinate the Covid response early in the pandemic. Birx played a central role in the first months of the effort, at times drawing criticism from Democrats for her upbeat portrayals of the shaky federal response and refusal to rebut former President Donald Trump's inaccurate claims.
Yet she eventually fell out of favor with Trump as he pushed for a quick reopening of the country while the virus continued raging. She spent her final months on the task force traveling the nation urging state officials to instead keep focused on limiting the virus' spread by maintaining public health restrictions.
For her new role at the George W. Bush Institute, in addition to her pandemic-related work, she will use her global health expertise to support its broader portfolio. The organization is housed within the former president's library and works on a range of economic and health issues.
As a government official, she had worked with the organization through a 2018 public-private partnership aimed at reducing cervical cancer cases among women living with HIV across 12 African countries.
Earlier this week, Birx also joined the board of Innoviva, which primarily collects royalties from certain lucrative GlaxoSmithKline medicines, according to a regulatory filing.
Biden officials during the transition had debated keeping on Birx to aid with the ongoing response, but she announced in December plans to retire from government, citing the toll the scrutiny of the past year had taken on her family.
In January, Birx said in an interview with CBS that she frequently contemplated quitting the Covid task force, and had to contend with ''outside advisers'' who often presented Trump with contradictory information on the pandemic.
Endemic
The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028:
A Futuristic Scenario to Facilitate Medical
Countermeasure Communication
The Purge
Chinese American Producer Boba Liberalism
Hey Adam,
I apologize in advance for the War and Peace below; I can't help it, being from gen-Z. Thank you for playing Kenny Xu on the last episode "White Adjacent"! I got so excited when you mentioned Inconvenient Minority because I had recently met him (through YAPAL - Young Asian Pacific American Leaders) and have yet to read his book and listen to his podcast (both of that name: An Inconvenient Minority). I appreciate you and John discussing the Asian American perspectives on the show and as a gen-Z female Chinese-American I only hope I can further add to that especially after hearing your call for Asian producers to step up.
I have one note on culture in the Asian-American diaspora that I would like to share. One very annoying phenomenon is the rise of boba liberalism. It is described by urban dictionary as below:
"A boba liberal is usually an upper middle class East or Southeast Asian living in the West, typically in the United State or Canada, who identifies as a liberal. However their association with liberal ideology and liberalism is simply a means to increase their proximity to whiteness or to pretend to be white themselves. Boba liberals use their Asianness to speak on behalf of the Asian population in the West, using talking points created by white liberals, which has a tendency to gaslight actual issues faced by the Asian diaspora. The Asian identity of boba liberals is very shallow since it goes directly against their goal of aspiring to whiteness, so they use surface level stereotypical Asian traits such as "liking boba tea" to boaster their Asian credentials."
I have many friends who seem to fall under this definition of boba liberalism. During the BLM social media insanity last summer, I frequently saw these friends amplifying posts on Asian American allyship with BLM, including directions and advice for how Asian Americans can "educate" their "racist" parents and make them understand that black lives and solidarity matter. Although I previously considered myself a liberal, this was my turning point toward conservatism because I was insulted on behalf of my parents and disgusted by these children acting as if they know better. And doesn't it just scream PROPAGANDA?
Here is a quote from this article on the topic of boba liberalism (https://www.eater.com/2019/11/5/20942192/bubble-tea-boba-asian-american-diaspora) that irritated me the more I learned the truth about APA conservatives: "Tolerating an abhorrent, morally bankrupt presidency as long as it guarantees lower tax rates, stable housing prices, likelier admission to Ivy Leagues, and the promise of the American dream our immigrant parents had aspired to so long ago: boba liberalism. In Redmond's words: 'All sugar, no substance.'" It's funny how this definition is the opposite of the urban dictionary definition and exactly fits the description of gaslighting issues faced by Asian-Americans, dismissing traditional (and conservative) Asian values, and driving the narrative that Asians wanting any of those things is proof of their white-adjacency and lack of compassion for oppressed BIPOC communities.
Thanks,
Wing-Mei
BTC
NFTs is money laundering
Tax havens for art in Harbors. Store the NFT off-shore
$ 9 Trillion Story: 22% of the Circulating USD Printed in 2020 - Somag News
Sun, 14 Mar 2021 13:34
Studies show that the Federal Reserve (Fed) has taken advantage of emergency repo operations, injecting more than $ 9 trillion into the market since September 2019. A recent research report reveals the daily money flow of the Federal Reserve while showing that the Fed will not publicly share information about buyers with whom it cooperates to pump money into the market. Estimates are that 22% of the circulating US dollar was printed in 2020.
The goal is to save Wall StreetThe reason the Fed was printing huge amounts of money in 2020 is to save Wall Street. ''Is Hyperinflation Coming?'' Posted on YouTube. After a video called Reddit, the US Federal Reserve started to discuss how it printed 22% of the US dollar in circulation this year alone.
''The US dollar has been around for over 200 years and was backed by gold for most of the time,'' says one Reddit user. The printing of a quarter of all US dollars in circulation in a single year is more mind-blowing. '' His reaction by saying did not go unnoticed.
On October 1, 2020, Pam Martens and Russ Martens from Wall Street on Parade (WSP) published a comprehensive report on how the US Federal Reserve has injected more than $ 9 trillion into the market with bailouts since September. The findings show that the Fed also seeks advice from Wall Street hedge funds such as Frontpoint. On the other hand, Frontpoint Partners, which is a hedge fund, draws attention in terms of being a company that has been the subject of controversy in the past. It turned out that the company was downwardly suppressing the subprime mortgage market during the 2007-2010 financial crisis.
The most recent WSP analysis shows that the Fed is in talks with hedge funds and financial institutions such as Frontpoint to ''gain input from the markets''. The Fed was leading an emergency authority from 2007 to 2010, and once again the central bank leads the three major emergency authorities. These are: Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility, Credit Facility for Market Makers and Commercial Paper Funding Facility.
The findings of the WSP show that the Fed, together with these authorities (as of September 17, 2019, months before the first Covid-19 case appeared in the US), started a massive emergency repo loan operation with the New York Fed, reaching a total of $ 6 trillion. is showing. Martens states the following on this subject:
The Fed provided data on the total amounts of daily loans, but did not name buyers. All he says is that the loans will go to the 24 main dealers, the trading units of the major banks on Wall Street. When we last computed their data in March, we see a cumulative flow of over $ 9 trillion to these trading houses.
There Is A US Dollar Losing Value As It Loses Value!According to some experts, the huge injection of money by the Fed will cause hyperinflation at the end of the day. The dollar has depreciated significantly since the establishment of the central bank in 1913. For example, the cumulative inflation rate since 1913 is around 2.525.4%. This means that a product purchased for $ 1 in 1913 would cost $ 26.25 in October 2020.
Bitcoin, Other Cryptocurrencies and Precious MetalsPrecious metals and cryptocurrency advocates believe that the Federal Reserve's massive injection of money will support assets like Bitcoin and gold.
Pantera Capital CEO Dan Morehead said in July that he believes cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (BTC) will help people in deep economic crises. In a letter to investors, Morehead emphasized that ''the United States has printed more money than the first two centuries after its establishment.'' he used the expressions. On the same day, 22-year congress veteran Ron Paul published his article ''Two Hundreds of Debt in One Month'' on Pantera Capital and said that the people of the US should be ''prepared''.
Paul has been busy exposing the US Federal Reserve's flawed policies for the past 20 years, and has been noted for writing extensively about central bank manipulations.
Steal the Vote
REVEALED: Emails Show Zuckerberg-Funded Group Overruling Election Officials, Accessing Mail-In Ballots BEFORE Election.
Thu, 11 Mar 2021 23:18
Emails and documents obtained by the Wisconsin Spotlight allege that individuals affiliated with Mark Zuckerberg's Center for Tech and Civic Life took control of election procedures, including giving left-wing advisers ''access to boxes of absentee ballots before the election.'' In new, bombshell revelations, investigations reveal the $1.6 million spent in the city of Green Bay led to the ''infiltration of the November presidential elections by liberal groups and Democratic activists,'' according to the group.
The Zuckerberg-funded Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) placed Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein as the city's point man for the organization's effort in the Wisconsin city, who has previously worked for Democratic candidates and interned for a ''fiercely liberal'' Democrat from the New York City Council.
He attempted to assist Green Bay election officials in ''curing'' absentee ballots that were returned to the city clerk due to errors in inaccuracies.
''Can we help with curing absentee ballots that are missing a signature or witness signature address?'' he wrote to Green Bay city clerk, Kris Teske in an Oct. 7 email.
While the city clerk declined Spitzer-Rubenstein's offer, the office of the city's Democratic mayor applied pressure.
''The grant mentors would like to meet with you to discuss, further, the ballot curing process. Please let them know when you're available,'' Mayor Eric Genrich's Chief of Staff demanded of the city clerk.
On the ground, emails reveal local officials ''growing frustration with the mayor, his chief of staff, the city's ad hoc elections committee, and the nonprofit interlopers who were making themselves at home in Green Bay election administration.''
''As you know I am very frustrated, along with the Clerk's Office. I don't know what to do anymore. I am trying to explain the process but it isn't heard. I don't feel I can talk to the Mayor after the last meeting you, me, Celestine, and the Mayor had even though the door is supposedly open,'' the city clerk wrote to Green Bay Finance Director Diana Ellenbecker in late August.
''I don't understand how people who don't have knowledge of the process can tell us how to manage the election,'' the city clerk added before revealing her staff members were wanting to quit and felt ''ignored or bullied'' by the Mayor's office.
''Eventually, Teske could take no more. On October 22, she wrote in an email she was taking a leave of absence. By the end of the year she had officially resigned to take a similar position with the nearby community of Ashwaubenon,'' Wisconsin Spotlight notes, adding that in her absence, CTCL's '' Spitzer-Rubenstein and his team ramped up their involvement in the upcoming election, leading just about every aspect of Green Bay's election administration.''
''The KI Convention Center at Green Bay's Hyatt Regency was where the election team decided to locate the city's Central Count and where the absentee ballots were stored, late in the game. Central Count originally was to be at city hall, but space limitations and COVID-19 concerns forced the move to the convention center. At one point, a city official, after talking with a representative from the National Vote at Home Institute, was ''brainstorming'' about how the city could livestream Central Count at city hall ''so that (election observers) do not enter the building,'' the Wisconsin Spotlight adds.
CTCL's Spitzer-Rubenstein was also given keys to the room where the absentee ballots were stored, and a Hyatt Regency checklist instructed staff, ''DO NOT UNLOCK GRAND BALLROOM UNTIL Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein IS WITH SECURITY WHEN UNLOCKING THE GRAND BALLROOM DOORS.''
A County Clerk added that Spitzer-Rubenstein would have four of the five keys to the KI Center's ballroom ''several days before the election'' before informing the Wisconsin Elections Commission that she believed the Central Count location was ''tainted by the influence of a person working for an outside organization affecting the election.''
Read the emails:
Go Podcasting!
What's Ahead for Podcasting in 2021 | by Omny Studio team | Mar, 2021 | Omny Studio blog
Fri, 12 Mar 2021 21:21
Our Managing Director, Sharon Taylor, shares some thoughts and predictions for the medium.At the end of last year, we put together a product retrospective, looking back at developments and other milestones achieved over the past 12 months at Omny Studio. Despite its turbulent nature, 2020 was a good year for podcasting overall and not just our product roadmap.
Just like our team, podcasting rose to meet the challenges thrown its way. As working from home and disruption to routine became our new normal, podcast producers and listeners made it clear that podcasting was here to stay '-- creating and enjoying, respectively, more content than ever before.
2020 in RetrospectIf you haven't read Dave Zohrob from Chartable's blog post outlining how podcasts ''powered through the pandemic'', I cannot recommend it highly enough. Of all the outlined positives the medium experienced in 2020 (increased ad revenue, new advertisers, and more downloads), it's this stat that stood out for me: '-- ''almost 2 podcasts were started every minute, throughout the entire year!''.
Handily charted, that looks a bit like this:
Source: https://chartable.com/blog/2020-year-in-reviewLook at that growth!
In the blog, Chartable rightly points out that not all those podcasts have made it through the dreaded ''podfade'' but the majority are still going in 2021.
Pictured: A voracious appetite for more voice and audio content, right now.Which is great, because there is certainly a voracious appetite for more voice and audio content right now.
What does stand out to me from these portraits of both increased demand and supply (can I get a ''market equilibrium, what what'' from all the economists in the room), is that all the things podcasting needed before 2020 are going to be so much more important in 2021.
DiscoveryThought finding a new podcast was tough when there were just a few hundred thousand of them floating around? How about over 1 million of them? Or 2 million?
Discovery of new shows is going to need new user interfaces and content surfacing algorithms (check out Podz for some inspiration), an increased focus on marketing tactics by creators, and maybe some hard conversations around whose cart to attach your (pod)horse to.
Simply getting featured by Apple Podcasts is not going to be the golden ticket to success anymore (not that anything has ever been a golden ticket to success in this industry). And with the platform wars soaring to inferno- level temperatures this year, we should perhaps expect to see some changes to editorial priorities as well.
MonetizationAnd how best to monetize all those new shows in the year ahead?
With podcast content creation at an all-time high, and if you adhere to the notion that the top 1% of podcasts receive 99% of downloads, what do all those shows not in the top 1% do? Sponsorships and live reads will always drive the highest CPMs and be of best quality '-- no arguments on that. But I do believe that we're going to start seeing some serious growth in programmatic over the next 12 months. More than we're already seeing'...
Even if only a fraction of the dollars predicted and percentage of total podcast ad spending become a reality, that's a serious change for the industry. The challenge, which FWIW I believe we are worthy of rising to, will be quality and relevance in the ads available in programmatic exchanges.
My hope is that programmatic becomes less of a dirty word for podcasting in 2020 and more of a means to give those longer tail publishers (or popular back catalogues) more of the money currently being left on the table. Not to mention getting advertisers not currently in the space, involved.
Of course, the natural antithesis to paid advertising (programmatic or otherwise) is to go create premium content for paid subscribers or supporters. Some have tried, sure. But more will try in the year ahead. The question now is whether to become part of a walled garden or be your own.
Listening LocationsWith the increase in podcast content available, will we see shifts in listening habits across devices this year? Downloads by device have largely been consistent year- over- year, with mobile (and iOS) remaining at the top. Below shows how downloads of podcasts hosted by Omny Studio split across devices in 2019 and 2020.
When I look at those numbers, I see an opportunity for a podcast creator to do something interesting in the smart speaker space '-- a new format of show or way to engage with listeners perhaps. If existing formats haven't put smart speaker listening into double digits yet, who will be first to find a format that will?
And then, the million-dollar question '-- what will the giants do? Consolidation seems to have been the theme of the last couple of years, with most of the titans buying something or other in the podcast space. 2021 will be the year in which they need to start executing on those acquisitions and start seeing meaningful results '-- whether that's with improvements to content programming, technology, monetization, or all the above. Spotify has already announced a slew of plans for 2021 '-- what will the counter moves be?
Looking at platform listening across Omny-downloaded podcasts in 2019 and 2020, we've seen big growth from Spotify.
So far, Apple has been able to hold onto the top spot '-- will we see that change this year as these competitors take further steps? And how many new logos of prominent media and technology companies could we see at the end of 2021?
The bucket I'm most keeping my eye on this year is ''Other'', which includes apps like iHeartRadio, Stitcher, Castbox, Podcast Addict and PocketCasts. Though cumulatively for Omny they may have dropped in market share since 2019, that grouping of apps still holds just under one whole quarter of podcast listening in the ecosystem '-- who will grow, who won't and who will consolidate are all questions on my mind in 2020.
Our Own Year AheadWhatever the year has in store for podcasting, our mission at both Triton Digital and Omny Studio remains the same '-- to provide the highest quality of enterprise tools an audio publisher needs to succeed in 2021.
With a roadmap packed full of new features and functionality for our clients, we're excited for the year ahead.
Thank you to all our users, both existing and those to come, for continuing to trust us as your partner in the space. Here's to you and podcasting in 2021. ð¥
Clips
VIDEO - Urgent call to WHO: time to switch gears | Geert Vanden Bossche
Sun, 14 Mar 2021 13:11
BitChute is a peer-to-peer content sharing platform. Creators are allowed to post content they produce to the platform, so long as they comply with our
policies. The content posted to the platform is not reflective or representative of the views of Bit Chute Limited, its staff or owners. (C) 2017-2021 Bit Chute Limited, Box 813, Andover House, George Yard, Andover, Hampshire, SP10 1PB. United Kingdom. Company number 10637289.
VIDEO-Lebanon on edge: As crisis deepens, where to from here? - The Debate
Sun, 14 Mar 2021 12:45
/ Shows / The Debate Issued on: 10/03/2021 - 20:11
THE DEBATE (C) FRANCE 24 Lebanon has seen the value of its currency plunge 85 percent in less than two years. Experts say the Lebanese financial meltdown could pose the biggest threat to stability since the 15-year civil war, which came to an end in 1990. More than half the population is now living below the poverty line. Wages have been slashed and prices are soaring. Adding to the despair, there seems to be no government plan in sight.
There have been growing signs of unrest in recent days: protesters have been setting up roadblocks and burning tyres. With the economic collapse, reported robberies are up 57 percent with people trying to steal food, baby formula or medicine. There's also been an uptick in carjackings and the murder rate has jumped 91 percent in the space of a year.
>> Protesters in Lebanon block roads over worsening poverty
Produced by Charles Wente, Juliette Laurain and Imen Mellaz.
Bilal TARABEY , FRANCE 24 journalist Nadim FREIHA , Political consultant Sara EL-YAFI , Public policy consultant and political activist Sally FARHAT , FRANCE 24 Beirut correspondent
VIDEO-The Implications of Mass Vaccination during a Pandemic w/ Geert Vanden Bossche - YouTube
VIDEO-Experts say COVID-19 will never end - YouTube
VIDEO-Vitamin D and COVID 19: The Evidence for Prevention and Treatment of Coronavirus (SARS CoV 2) - YouTube
VIDEO-Google and Microsoft are in a public feud - CNN
Sun, 14 Mar 2021 11:04
By Brian Fung, CNN Business
Updated 2:26 PM EST, Fri March 12, 2021
(CNN Business) Google and Microsoft openly sparred on Friday as the latter prepared to testify at a Congressional hearing focusing on Big Tech's impact on local news.
Microsoft ( MSFT ) targeted Google's dominance in advertising as it described in congressional testimony how the tech industry has contributed to the erosion of local journalism.
"The problems that beset journalism today are caused in part by a fundamental lack of competition in the search and ad tech markets that are controlled by Google," said Microsoft President Brad Smith in his written testimony to the House antitrust subcommittee.
"This is not to make a statement about whether Google has acted unlawfully," Smith continued. "But as we learned first-hand from Microsoft's own experience two decades ago, when a company's success creates side effects that adversely impact a market and our society, the problem should not be ignored. And this typically requires government action."
Ahead of the hearing, Google ( GOOGL ) lashed out with a blog post accusing Microsoft of lobbing "self-serving claims" and returning to an aggressive, anti-Google playbook.
"This latest attack marks a return to Microsoft's longtime practices," wrote Google SVP of Global Affairs Kent Walker in a blog post "And it's no coincidence that Microsoft's newfound interest in attacking us comes on the heels of the SolarWinds attack and at a moment when they've allowed tens of thousands of their customers ... to be actively hacked via major Microsoft vulnerabilities. So maybe it's not surprising to see them dusting off the old diversionary Scroogled playbook."
In recent weeks, Microsoft and Google have taken opposing positions on an Australian law requiring tech giants to negotiate revenue shares with news publishers. Where Google threatened to pull out of Australia, Microsoft cheerfully endorsed the legislation, saying its Bing search engine would fill the gap.
The concerns that gave rise to the Australian law are now being echoed around the world, including in the halls of Congress.
On Friday, Microsoft endorsed a bill led by Rep. David Cicilline that would give news publishers an antitrust waiver so that they may negotiate for revenue collectively against tech giants.
Microsoft itself would likely be subject to the law, Smith noted, but he said the tech industry has an obligation to do more to support quality journalism.
VIDEO-Austin eases restrictions, moves to Stage 3 of risk guidelines on 1-year anniversary of first case | KXAN Austin
Sun, 14 Mar 2021 11:00
AUSTIN (KXAN) '-- Austin Public Health moved the Austin-Travis County area down to Stage 3 on its risk-based guidelines Saturday morning. This comes on the one-year anniversary of the first case in the Austin area.
These risk-based guidelines do not change any state or local orders, but they do give people a better idea of ways to stay safe. Austin and Travis County had been in Stage 4 since Feb. 9 after being in Stage 5 from Dec. 23, 2020 through Feb. 8.
Stage 3 recommendations include the following:'¯
Continue wearing a mask, social distancing, and practicing good hygiene. Higher-risk individuals (those over the age of 65 and those who have chronic medical conditions) should avoid non-essential dining, shopping, and travel. Everyone should continue to avoid gatherings with social groups greater than 10. Businesses and restaurants voluntarily operate at a reduced capacity of 50-75%.A look back at the first Austin case that shut down Travis CountyFew could have anticipated one year ago, on March 13, 2020 what the next year would hold when Austin and Travis County got its first case of COVID-19.
''Austin and Travis County has joined a seemingly growing number of cities and counties that have positive cases in their area,'' interim Austin health authority Dr. Mark Escott said at the time.
By the end of the day, Austin had confirmed its first three cases. It triggered the shutdown of schools. Students wouldn't return to class for months. Some have never returned even one year later.
Empty shelves at H-E-B on March 13, 2020.
That same day, Gov. Greg Abbott declared a state disaster. At that time, Texas could only test 273 people a day for COVID-19. Texas shut down or restricted nursing homes, living centers, and day cares to visitors.
The governor said there was ''no need to stockpile supplies,'' but that didn't stop people from flocking to grocery stores, creating a run and shortages on toilet paper, paper towels, cleaning wipes, and hand sanitizer.
It took nearly a full year to reopen Texas, but even that has been controversial as Austin and Travis County refused to adhere to the governor's order lifting mask restrictions and capacity limits on businesses.
Fully vaccinated people in Travis County will likely pass 100,000 SaturdayAs of Saturday, March 13, 2021, Texas had administered the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine to more than 5 million Texans and nearly 2.7 million Texans are fully vaccinated.
In Travis County, 208,392 people have received at least one dose of the vaccine with 99,328 people fully vaccinated. Travis County will likely hit that benchmark of 100,000 people fully vaccinated later Saturday.
Texas has shipped out more than 9 million doses of the COVID-19, but KXAN's Jennifer Sanders reported Thursday that next week's shipment will be far fewer doses. That has caused many places '-- including Austin Public Health '-- to not move forward on Monday with vaccinating people age 50-64.
VIDEO-Wake Up From COVID on Twitter: "This guy never gives a straight answer. He starts by stating the very obvious, and ends up always doing the same infomercial shtick. "That's a very good question blah blah blah" ... "just sign this blank cheque, pleas
Fri, 12 Mar 2021 02:09
Wake Up From COVID : This guy never gives a straight answer. He starts by stating the very obvious, and ends up always doing the same in'... https://t.co/udTp87OnZr
Fri Mar 12 01:43:21 +0000 2021
Wake Up From COVID : In this part Fauci starts sweating profusely, frustrated perhaps that his symphony of yada-yadas don't seem to be w'... https://t.co/1VEUmiUChe
Fri Mar 12 01:43:32 +0000 2021
VIDEO - Covid relief bill gives $86 billion bailout to failing union pension plans
Fri, 12 Mar 2021 19:49
Win McNamee | Getty Images News | Getty Images
The $1.9 trillion Covid relief package passed by the Senate on Saturday offers $86 billion in funding to failing pension plans.
The American Rescue Plan, which now heads to the House, would let certain pensions apply for federal grant funding, which would be used to help pay retirement benefits to workers.
The provision applies to multi-employer pensions. These plans pay benefits to union workers in industries such as construction, manufacturing, mining, retail transportation and entertainment.
There are roughly 1,400 such plans in the U.S., covering 10 million people.
Dire finances
However, 124 multi-employer pensions are in "critical and declining" status, according to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. They're projected to have insufficient funds to pay full retirement benefits within the next 20 years.
About 1 million workers are in such plans, according to the American Academy of Actuaries.
More from Personal Finance:Student loan forgiveness may soon become tax-freeAmericans paid off a record $83 billion in credit card debt in 2020Americans say tax refund is important to financial well-being
Until now, the PBGC, a government-sponsored entity, has been able to step in to pay at least partial benefits in the event of a pension failure.
But the agency's multi-employer program is in bad shape. Its likelihood of insolvency is "very high" in 2026 and a "near certainty" by the end of 2027 due to additional pension failures, according to the PBGC's most recent projections.
At that time, it won't be able to guarantee retirement benefits to workers, absent legislative changes, the agency said.
American Rescue Plan
Grants offered by the American Rescue Plan would cover full pension benefits for workers in ailing plans over the next three decades. The relief measure would also reinstate any benefits that had been suspended for recipients.
Multi-employer plan sponsors can apply for the aid through 2025. The PBGC can't condition the aid on pension changes like benefit reductions or new funding requirements.
The funds must be invested in investment-grade bonds. They, along with any investment earnings, must be segregated from other plan assets.
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said the Covid pandemic had worsened the plans' financial situation.
"It goes back to the fact that these workers didn't do anything wrong," Brown told The New York Times on Thursday. "They have earned these pensions."
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, criticized the measure as a bailout with no strings attached.
"It's just a blank check, with no measures to hold mismanaged plans accountable," he said.
The Democrat-led House is expected to vote on the $1.9 trillion relief package Tuesday so President Joe Biden can sign it early in the week.
