If you aren’t at least a little troubled by Steve Kirsch’s most recent inventory of COVID absurdities or Dr. Pierre Kory’s frontline report indicating an increase in cardiac “crash cart” inventory along with a very disturbing tweet about increased demand for child-sized caskets, then I’m guessing you, like most people, have trouble functioning if our institutions aren’t working. We can all abide the stench of a little grift here and there. We can be patient with a little customer service incompetence. We know that some politicians are purchased and we trust the system, someday, will catch up with the corrupt. All of us know the system isn’t perfect, but I’m beginning to wonder how big must the pool of shameless liars and half-wits be before we drown in it?
Most crime stories these days, from feature films to documentaries, include a protagonist facing grave mortal danger, on the verge of reporting the problem to law enforcement, only to hear a close friend say something like, “don’t go to the police! They are in on it.”
Granted, sometimes the anti-police comment comes from someone prone to lawbreaking, but often the story is about dirty institutions themselves—and the paralyzing fear that honest, decent people are tempted to dismiss, because it is just too awful to contemplate: What if the institutions I trusted are full of shameless, self-serving liars and cowards? What if the doctor assigned to my case at the hospital is just too afraid of his student debt to question a superior? What if he just isn’t free to opt for actual science over group-think Pharma solutions? What if my child’s teacher at a public school is smiling at me, winsomely, but has absolutely no intention of bucking this season’s alt-sex grooming workshops? What if the church I’ve attended for four decades is quietly signing on to a youth ministry dedicated to intersectional race shaming and “whiteness” bashing?
I recently contemplated, at American Greatness, the perils of assuming virtue where none exists. Hey, folks, the FBI is full of people with high integrity, right? I mean, we’re all Americans, aren’t we? Surely, they wouldn’t help one political party by spying on the other, right? Right?
Surely, they wouldn’t spin false collusion narratives to undermine a sitting American president. Right?
And, surely, once we found evidence that Clinton lawyers lied to the FBI, that Hillary Clinton herself approved bogus opposition research as the basis for an investigation, then—well, of course!—we might see some justice, or at the very least, an official apology?
No such luck. Read Julie Kelly’s coverage of the January 6 detainees, and their shameful treatment by judges and wardens and prosecutors. The dishonesty, the partisan grandstanding, and the outright cruelty are on full display, but there’s an oceanic divide between suspecting, very confidently, that an institution is corrupt—and doing anything about it. We would rather question our senses than declare the emperor naked. I suspect, lately, it’s because we can abide a few of us peasants being crushed by the system, but waking up every morning, and reading new evidence that the system is rotten at the center, well, it’s just too hard to take.
How do you plug away—making a living, voting for good men, engaging in open discourse—when you are tempted to conclude the system is full of old Joe Kennedys who sneer at the idea of honest elections? The smart money rigs the system, sonny. Get with it, you prude. You innocent. The world, really, is pretty much crime family Biden and tax-sucking Dr. Fauci. Where have you been?
For some “polite” conservatives, projecting virtue where it doesn’t exist is a daily survival mechanism. They have to believe someone is honestly counting the votes and someone was really trying to help the world with a COVID “vaccine.”
A Little “Vaccine” Mathematics by way of illustration..
I made it through a little matrix algebra and multivariate analysis in college, but I’m no expert, and here’s what troubles me about that: You don’t need to be an expert to be asking some very troubling questions. If you are keeping an open mind, these days, you should be a little worried if your doctor keeps his mind locked shut, to save his pension. You don’t really need differential equations for this, just long division.
Recently TrialSite News published a video with this caption, “Majority of COVID-19 Deaths Among Australia NSW Residents are Triple & Quadruple Vaccinated.” Trying to be as fair as I could, I thought: “well, that actually makes some sense, since they claim 95+ percent of the area is vaccinated, so with that large a majority, you would expect more deaths among the vaccinated.” (See how far our “fairness” has “evolved?” In the old Polio/Smallpox vaccine days, you would expect almost no deaths among the vaccinated, but we live in an age where “vaccines” are not really vaccines and all they really do is protect you, sorta, against hospitalization and death.) Take a look at the data.
The first thing that struck me: 128 cases of “unknown” vaccination status. How is that even possible in a country with such Stalinesque commitment to the public health collective? Aren’t Australians hauled off to concentration camps if they refuse the jab? Isn’t the prison colony thing part of their heritage? How is vaccination status possibly “unknown” when none of them died and there is enormous interest in the answer to the question?
Well, no matter, I’m just eliminating that row from the pool, since my question is: among people known to be either vaccinated or unvaccinated, how much does either group represent as a portion of the whole? Are vaccinated deaths over, or underrepresented, against the generally 95 percent vaccinated population? You would think, if the vaccine is very effective at reducing death and hospitalization, that this pool of 378 (506-128) hospitalized, ICU or fatal patients would drastically favor the vaccinated, right? If 95 percent of the population is vaccinated, and the vaccine is so effective, perhaps only half of this pool is vaccinated and the unvaccinated account for the other half—10 times their representation in the broader public.
I collapsed the data into two rows—people who received any level of vaccination and people who received none.
As you can see, the death rate pretty much matches the general population’s vaccination rate. The vaccine didn’t do much, at all, to prevent death, and it appears it was less effective against hospitalization and ICU admission than avoiding the vaccination altogether. I’m guessing that you have to be pretty sick, in Australia, to officially refuse the jab, so this might even look worse for “vaccine” fans, because it seems to argue, “even if you are really sick and old” the vaccine is more likely to put you in the hospital and won’t help you on the death front either.
I’m thankful for contrarian voices who know a lot more than I do and are better mathematicians, (“Eugyppius,” “Bad Cattitude,” “Dr. Robert Malone“). Some of them have been forced to Substack because the “scientists” are so sure of themselves, they can’t endure a debate.
But you don’t need to be on the royal court to recognize the emperor doesn’t have a loin cloth. A child could see this, and, yet, people have lost their jobs over this vaccination. Our governments have paid billions to corporations that appear to be running the regulatory agencies themselves. Teenagers are dying and casket companies are making far more of the “under 5 foot” version.
Can anyone tell me why?