Author: VD

Winter Heart Attacks

Posted for the record, in anticipation of the media attempting to explain away the unprecedented number of heart attacks this winter as being “in the normal, because people are shoveling snow”.

As winter arrives, it’s worth noting that each year about 11,500 people in the United States are treated in emergency rooms for injuries related to snow shoveling. On average, 100 of those injuries are fatal, generally heart attacks. The data, compiled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and analyzed a few years ago by the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Ohio, indicates that soft tissue injuries are the most common (55 percent), followed by lacerations (16 percent), fractures (7 percent) and heart-related injuries (7 percent). In the 17-year span of the data, however, cardiovascular injuries accounted for half of the hospitalizations and 100 percent of the fatalities.

And obviously, the number of fatalities related to snow shoveling should be on the low side, due to all that global warming of which we hear so much.

The Vaccines are the Vector

This is why all of the lockdowns will inevitably fail. Although, to the extent the lockdowns protect anyone, they will protect the unvaccinated who are being locked down, because it is the vaccinated who are now the most susceptible to the virus.

This study is a bit dense — but has been peer-reviewed, and makes clear that indeed, what I hypothesized was true — and had to be, given the circumstances with Diamond Princess and elsewhere, in fact validates by scientific fact.

In summary, RTC regions like polymerase, expressed in the first stage of the viral life cycle, are highly conserved among HCoV and are preferentially targeted by T-cells in pre-pandemic and SN-HCW samples. A subset of T-cells from donors able to abort infection could cross-recognise SARS-CoV-2 and HCoV sequences at individual RTC epitopes, pointing to prior infection with HCoV as one source of pre-existing cross-reactive T-cells.

“SN-HCW” are health-care workers who were repeatedly exposed and while they did not get sick or seroconvert “(SeroNegative)” showed very rapid response to Covid-19 from cross-reaction as a result of other coronavirus exposures.

Remember that Diamond Princess only had about 20% of the population on board that got sick despite all of them being confined together over an extended period, and even more-telling, there were multiple instances where one member of a cabin pair (husband and wife, usually) got seriously ill while the other did not only not get ill they did not test positive either. This also occurred among a couple I know early in the pandemic; one (the husband) was killed by the virus, the other (the wife) never got sick.

What’s even more damning is that by May of this year about 20% of the population, according to a NEJM study that I wrote on, had seroconverted. This strongly implies that statistically everyone who could get Covid-19 and have a serious problem with already had done so.

So how is that we had a “surge” this summer and continue to see infections this fall?

It can’t happen if there are no susceptible people.

But it is.

So there are susceptible people.

How did they become susceptible when they weren’t before in any material size?

We jabbed them.

Natural herd immunity should have been reached by now. Instead, it is the vaccinated whose short-term protection has worn off that are now vulnerable to the virus. This is why it is so important to a) refuse the vaccines if you are unvaccinated, and b) refuse the boosters if you have been vaccinated.

At this point, only the people in the (b) category bear much risk from covid, but their natural immunity will gradually rebuild over time. Taking the booster will provide them with 2-4 months of short term protection, but at the cost of further reducing the strength of their immune systems plus destroying whatever remnants of natural immunity to covid they have built up.

DISCUSS ON SG

Hundreds of Troops

The script writers are getting lazy. Or, as is more likely the case, desperate. When hundreds of police on the Mexican border can’t stop poor and huddled masses of Africans and South Americans yearning to breathe free, are we really supposed to believe that hundreds of British soldiers are even going to slow down the Russian Army? They wouldn’t even qualify as a speed bump.

Hundreds of British special force troops are ready to deploy to the Ukranian border at a moment’s notice, amid rising tensions and fears of a possible Russian invasion in the region, according to reports.

The UK’s Special Air Service and Parachute Regiment are prepared to enter the region with medics, engineers, signalers, and hundred of paratroopers, The Mirror reported.

“The high readiness element of the brigade was told it may need to deploy at very short notice, a source told The Mirror.

“Between 400 and 600 troops are ready. Their equipment is packed and they are ready to fly to Ukraine and either land or parachute in. They have trained for both eventualities.”

The military move comes after the European Union accused Belarus, which borders both the Ukraine and Poland, of manufacturing a humanitarian crisis by urging migrants to illegally cross into the EU via Poland.

The age of carrier diplomacy is over. So is the short-lived era of the color revolution. If the neocons are successful in starting a war on or near the Russian border, it’s not going to be limited to the region. China and Iran will also take action, because they know that one of them will be next. And the new Axis of Nations is more powerful in every way than the Arsenal of Globohomo, with more population, more soldiers, more nukes, and more industrial capacity.

And isn’t it remarkable how Belarus is being accused of manufacturing the very humanitarian crisis that Angela Merkel caused six years ago? On the basis of this justification, the British should be sending troops to the US southern border and threatening Joe Biden for offering $450,000 in incentives for migrants to illegally cross into the USA.

But it proves once more that Martin van Creveld was right: immigration is war.

DISCUSS ON SG

Why I Insist on Written Debates

If you ever wondered why I no longer do video debates, this is precisely why.

Viewer 1: JD won the debate. I remember watching it. Vox had a formidable opponent and made sure his arguments were well delineated. JD breezed by all of it, and Vox knew it. So what?

Viewer 2: No, he never understood it. If he had, he would have addressed it. Instead, he assiduously avoided it.

Viewer 3: Having read the transcript, I do not see anything which would be described as a technical rebuttal to Vox’s technical points. Just blanket dismissal and repeated references to large numbers.

Viewer 1: Did you watch the debate, live, as I did? The transcript does not show the context between two human beings in debate.

No, what the transcript lacks is not the “context”, but rather, the irrelevant rhetorical posturing. And this isn’t the first time this sort of thing has happened. It’s not just morons interested in evolution who respond to rhetoric and posturing in lieu of facts and reason; we saw exactly the same reaction in morons who favor free trade in the Murphy-Day debate as well as by the alt-retards in the Anglin-Day debate.

In all three cases, neither Gariepy nor Murphy nor Anglin ever even BEGAN to address the primary issue of substance that had been raised. It wasn’t merely three cases of unsuccessful refutations as none of them even tried to refute the core argument that had been presented to them. It was quite clear to me that of the three, only Anglin actually understood what I was saying; he simply elected to punt rather than to engage on an issue he knew he was going to lose. That being said, by virtue of their rhetorical posturing, they managed to convince at least some of the viewers who understood even less of the issues at hand than they did that their erroneous positions were correct.

JFG, for example, never even grasped that he had accomplished nothing more than falling directly into the dilemma which I explicitly laid out for him at the start. He merely chose, on the basis of literally nothing but handwaving and an ontological argument, to disqualify the hammer, and completely failed to realize that in doing so, he had fallen victim to the anvil.

I pointed this out, of course, but JFG was “too tired” to follow my explanation, and there is reason to believe that he could not have managed it even if he’d tried. After all, it took me three attempts to explain the concept of a “mathematical average” to him before he was able to grasp it.

This is why I now insist on written debates, because the written format eliminates the ability of the charlatan to posture his way through a debate in which he is over his head, and permits the audience to review and re-review the material until they fully understand what both sides are saying. And this is probably why I engage in considerably fewer debates these days, because the charlatans are terrified of risking the methodical exposure of their ignorance.

DISCUSS ON SG

Not At This Rate

A logical citation of the massive statistical evidence demonstrating the extreme danger presented by the Covid vaccines:

You’ll see people say that “these events happen all the time.” True, they do. For example, this death of Piermario Morosini that happened in 2012.

But they don’t happen at this rate. No way. That’s the thing nobody can explain. The vaccine advocates find this super-irritating. They have no rational excuse on this. They can’t use ad hominem attacks. They can’t use goofball hand waving arguments. Nothing.

All of these cases have been properly reported and are documented. No mentions (except one case) of vaccinations since the press doesn’t want to create vaccine hesitancy. But the numbers speak for themselves.

It shows that there have been more “events” over a recent 4-month period than in over 20 years, which is more than a 60-fold increase in event rate.

All of these are in full public view so there is no “reporting bias” involved. And the numbers are big enough that nobody can say “oh, that’s just statistical noise.” Not a chance.

We have a very clear mechanism of action and we have overwhelming confirmation from the VAERS data that these vaccines are super dangerous and cause cardiovascular and neurological severe adverse events at a very high rate. Nothing else can compare to the vaccines when we talk about heart damage. So if you believe these events really did happen (they are in plain sight after all), then you must ascribe them to the vaccine since there is nothing else all these people have in common that could causes such an extreme elevation of events.

Midwits love to say “correlation is not causation” because they think it makes them sound smart. But correlation is the first indication of causation. And a 6,428 percent increase in something after a specific input is a very, very, very strong indicator of a causal connection, especially in the absence of any other rational explanation for the increase. It isn’t conclusive proof, but it is very highly reliable evidence that the conclusive proof will be there when the matter is scrutinized.

It is also evidence that the truth is in the process of breaking through the media barrier to the public. This is why the parties responsible are desperate to start a war, any war, with pretty much anyone willing to fight the militaries under their influence, in order to change the subject.

DISCUSS ON SG

We’re Not Locked Out By You

You’re locked out by us:

A majority of vaccinated Americans do not want unvaccinated relatives attending their holiday parties, and almost half have cut off family members over their vaccination status, according to a new poll. According to a survey of 2,000 Americans conducted by OnePoll this month, 63% of those vaccinated against Covid-19 “don’t feel comfortable” allowing their unvaccinated relatives to attend their holiday parties, while 58% have completely broken contact with family members who refuse the jab.

Around two-thirds of Americans said they felt unwelcome at family parties unless they got vaccinated first, however only 22% of unvaxxed reported being excluded from an event so far.

Almost a half of unvaccinated respondents had cut off communication with their vaccinated relatives for not respecting their decision not to get jabbed. Despite the risks of perpetual family alienation, 14% of those polled said they would never get a Covid-19 vaccine.

First, let me point out that this is ridiculous. I have no problem with any guest in my home being either vaccinated or unvaccinated, although I’d prefer to not be in too close contact with the vaccinated in the first week after their vaccination due to the known issue of shedding. While I haven’t personally experienced that particular problem, I do know one individual who has; it is a genuine problem and one that is best avoided if possible.

That being said, if a vaccinated family member cuts you off or disinvites you because you refused to sacrifice your health to the vaccine regime, don’t permit them to reestablish contact once their absurdity of their position finally becomes apparent to them. They have demonstrated what their priorities are and the true nature of their character… and you are much better off without people like that in your life.

I have never had any cause to regret cutting contact with former friends and family members after they revealed themselves to possess unacceptably flawed characters. To the contrary, life is considerably more enjoyable when one no longer feels obliged to endure the constant stream of nonsense that inevitably flows from the deceitful, the depthless, and the deranged.

DISCUSS ON SG

Redefinitions

“Democracy” now means “Globo-satanry“, just as “America” now means “an identity with which anyone can identify”:

Tucker kept asking him why Americans should go fight and die for democracy in the Ukraine, and he just kept saying that it’s our duty to defend democracy. He also said that Joe Biden isn’t doing global democracy hard enough, and that the failure to establish democracy in Afghanistan is proof that we need to go to war with Russia.

He further said that he is not actually talking about going to war with Russia, he just wants to send troops to the Ukraine to stop a war with Russia.

It’s all just such bullshit. As any long-time reader of this site is aware, the democratically-elected president of the Ukraine was overthrown in a coup organized by the US State Department and the EU in 2014. These people were literally paying Ukrainian thugs and neo-Nazis 50 euros a day to riot and attack the cops. Then there was a conspiracy involving the shooting of ZOG-backed rioters by a secret assassin who was never arrested. The people organizing the protests said that the government had ordered the assassinations, and the rioters rushed the government buildings and overthrew the elected government. Then a new entirely Jewish government was established by the West.

Everyone knows this happened. Everyone knows that the current government of the Ukraine was not put in power by elections. But they just lie about it.

This word-witchery is how the globo-satanists can declare, with a straight face, that the US military must defend the borders of a) Taiwan, b) Ukraine, and c) Poland while simultaneously being prevented from defending the borders of the United States.

The Barbarossa Question

I tend to agree with the historical revisionists concerning the planned Soviet invasion of Germany, but I disagree that the burden of proof is on them any more than it is on the traditionalists. The fact that one is the first to reach a conclusion does not indicate that the conclusion is the most accurate one.

In the years 1939-1941, Stalin ruled the Soviet Union with the idea that war would be inevitable. Stalin had been preparing for that inevitability both before and during those years: This is evidenced from many developments, from the economy, to propaganda, to Red Army deployments at the border. With his poker game conception, the only question that remained is who would become Stalin’s main adversary? After the fall of France – which happened so swiftly that it baffled and enraged Stalin – it became more and more obvious that the main adversary would be Hitler. Rather than picking up the scraps of two foes who had battled each-other to exhaustion, he would now have to face Hitler alone on the European continent

There were good reasons for Stalin to fear encirclement, but even the Soviet defensive strategy contained fundamentally offensive operations which included defeating and conquering the enemy on his own territory. The neglect of defensive lines, the offensive posture of Soviet divisions, Stalin lambasting the Maginot defense strategy of the French, the brutal imposition of the Stalinist system on the conquered territories in the years 1939-1940 all point to Stalin not being afraid of the Germans. Instead it points that he was confident enough to fend them off and counter-strike in case of an attack.

There have been many Soviet war plans, many of which can be regarded to be contingency plans in case of an attack. Germans had these too even before Operation Barbarossa was decided upon. The May war plan was the plan that contained proposals for the Soviets to strike first. To date, the revisionists, especially Ewan Mawdsley, have mostly compared the May war plan with other Soviet war plans, while I attempted to compare the May war plan with the mobilization plan of 1941 and saw many similarities. MP-41 predates German deployments to the Soviet border. The completion of MP-41 would have enabled the Soviets to carry out the May war plan. The biggest issue as I have already highlighted was the date at which the Soviets would launch their preemptive strike.

Stalin’s rhetoric and behavior in the months February-May cannot possibly be construed as him waging a campaign of appeasement against the Germans. Soviet deployments, along with aggressive propaganda campaigns that intended to fuel hatred against Germans, interrogation reports of captured soviet soldiers saying that they were expected to attack soon and the stepping-up of military production all point to Stalin intending to strike against Hitler. Stalin may have become concerned in June when Germans completed their deployments, probably a lot faster than he expected. But at that point, it was too late to shift all his armies from an offensive to a defensive posture. Alternatively, Stalin may have remained confident for his armies abilities to hold off the Germans at the border in order to launch a counter-attack. Zhukov’s and Timoshenko’s directives on 25 June to counter-strike and capture Poland and East-Prussia certainly points in that direction.

So did Stalin intend to invade Germany? Yes I think that he did. But it needs to be stated that both traditionalists as well as revisionists operate on circumstantial evidence alone, granted the burden of proof is on the revisionists. I hope to have convinced the reader that the evidence points into the direction of Stalin preparing to invade Germany.

Frankly, I think the author gives too much credence to the “see no logic” traditional crowd. Anyone who pays any serious attention to history knows that the Soviets were determined to avoid the situation they faced in 1917; the Bolsheviks were – and remain – experts in the strategy of “let’s you and him fight”.

The obvious reason that Stalin wasn’t ready, and therefore the reason Hitler was able to strike first, was because Germany defeated France at least one year sooner than anyone had any reason to believe possible. And the scale of the Soviet preparations, which were considerably larger than those of Operation Barbarossa, was both why it took Stalin longer and why he didn’t expect the Germans to consider themselves ready to attack him when they did.

DISCUSS ON SG