There is substantial statistical evidence suggesting – suggesting, mind you, not proving – that sufficient vaccines can make you trans and gay:
Here are the odds ratio between the fully vaccinated/fully unvaccinated. Odds ratios >2 are traditionally associated with causality:
Sexual orientation: 4.78
Gender identity: 4.81
Gender dysphoria: 5.54
These effects are huge and consistent.
Also, the odds ratios for partially vaccinated are in line with the fully vaccinated: in general, the greater the number of vaccines someone has, the more likely they are to have a trait that differs from traditional norms. So the vaccines themselves are the elephant in the room here and the driver of the response, not environment, upbringing, social pressure, etc.
Now, I already lean pretty heavily anti-vax, which is why refusing the Covid not-vaxx didn’t even rise to the level of having to think about it for one second. But these results should make even the most mindless pro-vax parent think twice about signing up little Bobby or Jenny for the endless series of foreign substances presently being pushed on the parents of young children. Especially in the aftermath of the global vaxx debacle.
At the very least, more genuine scientific research is required, and no amount of fake ethical special pleading about how it is immoral to have an unvaccinated control group will suffice to avoid it.
UPDATE: Additional information on the subject from a doctor who is very concerned about the adverse effects of standard childhood vaccines.
A curious embargo exists on testing vaccines for safety. As a result, the basic trials we would expect to have been done to assess whether the CDC’s vaccine schedule is safe have never been publicly conducted. Moreover, no independent researcher has ever been given access to the large databases that could easily demonstrate if vaccines were indeed “safe” or “effective.”
It’s not exactly news that the Littlest Chickenhawk is absolutely terrified of anyone who isn’t a college student, and therefore, is capable of unmasking what a mediocre little midwit he is. Lauren Witzke broke the news of the Daily Wire’s secret gag order that Little Benny managed to have imposed on Candace Owens in order to avoid the public debate he claims to have wanted:
“But the debate was never going to happen. That is because the Daily Wire — in secret and unbeknownst to its readers — sought a gag order to be placed on Owens after she had called for a debate. They did this under the cover of secrecy, before a private arbitrator, at exactly the same time that they were claiming in public that they wanted this debate and were even negotiating the terms with her. To this date, the Daily Wire has not informed its readers, seeking to understand why the much-anticipated debate had not yet happened, that they had sought and obtained a gag order against Owens.
When seeking a gag order to be imposed on Owens, the Daily Wire accused her of violating the non-disparagement clause of her agreement with the company. To substantiate this accusation, the company specifically cited Owens’ initial tweet requesting a debate with Shapiro as proof of this disparagement, along with concerns she voiced that Shapiro appeared to be violating the confidentiality agreement between them by publicly maligning Owens’s views to explain her departure from the company. While the company claimed before the arbitrator that it did not object in principle to a “healthy debate,” it urged the imposition of gag order on Owens by claiming that the way she requested the debate constituted disparagement of Shapiro and the site.
To justify the gag order it wanted, the company also cited various criticisms of the Daily Wire and Shapiro on X that Owens had “liked.” This proceeding took place as part of an exchange of legal threats between the parties after the public agreement to debate about Israel was solidified. Those threats arose from the fact that various Daily Wire executives and hosts, in both public and private, were castigating Owens as an anti-Semite. On March 22, Daily Wire host Andrew Klaven published a one-hour video that hurled multiple accusations, including anti-Semitism, at Owens. The Daily Wire cited Owens’ response to that video — her defense of herself from those multiple accusations — as further proof that she needed to be gagged.”
“After the prior restraint hearing sought by the Daily Wire and Shapiro, the arbitrator sided with them and against Owens. The arbitrator agreed with the Daily Wire that Owens’ call to debate Shapiro, and her follow-up negotiations of the debate, constituted “disparagement” of the company and Shapiro. The company argued that any further attempt by Owens to debate, as well her suggesting that the debate would expose the Daily Wire’s real “priorities,” constituted criticisms of the site and of Shapiro, criticisms that the arbitrator concluded Owens was barred from expressing under her contract with the company.
The arbitrator thus imposed a gag order of prior restraint on Owens. Among other things, the order banned Owens from saying or doing anything in the future which could tarnish or harm the reputation of the Daily Wire and/or Ben Shapiro. Given that the Daily Wire had argued, and the arbitrator agreed, that Owens’ offers to debate Shapiro about Israel and anti-semitism were themselves “disparaging,” the Daily Wire has ensured that the debate with Owens that they publicly claimed to want could not, in fact, take place. Any such debate would be in conflict with the gag order they obtained on Owens from expressing any criticisms of the site or of Shapiro.”
The ironic thing is that Shapiro will never understand how much his cowardice and “cleverness” is the cause of all the hatred directed toward him. No one envies his manufactured “success”. He’s a miserable little midwit, eaten up by his certain knowledge that he’s an imposter. I know this, because I was there when he was a young man deciding between making his own way and taking the ticket. And against my advice, he chose the latter.
Now he has learned that there is no amount of money that can compensate a man for selling his soul.
The fundamental problem in dealing with scientists in general and biologists in particular is that they literally do not know how stupid they are. Very, very few, if any, of them are even National Merit-level intelligence, which is to say they are not only sub-geniuses, they are relatively low-level midwits. And this was true of them sixty years ago; imagine how much dumber today’s diversity scientists are, especially given their decidedly-inferior modern educations:
The report of the exchange is fascinating, not just because of the substance of the mathematical challenge, but even more because of the logic of the Darwinist response. For example, the mathematician D.S. Ulam argued that it was highly improbable that the eye could have evolved by the accumulation of small mutations, because the number of mutations would have to be so large and the time available was not nearly long enough for them to appear. Sir Peter Medawar and C.H. Waddington responded that Ulam was doing his science backwards; the fact was that the eye had evolved and therefore the mathematical difficulties must only be apparent. Ernst Mayer observed that Ulam’s calculations were based on assumptions that might be unfounded, and concluded that ‘Somehow or other by adjusting these figures we will come out all right. We are comforted by the fact that evolution has occurred.’
“The Darwinists were trying to be reasonable, but it was as if Ulam had presented equations proving that gravity is too weak a force to prevent us all from floating off into space. Darwinism to them was not a theory open to refutation but a fact to be accounted for, at least until the mathematicians could produce an acceptable alternative. The discussion became particularly heated after a French mathematician named Schützenberger concluded that ‘there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.’ C.H. Waddington thought he saw where this reasoning was headed, and retorted that ‘Your argument is simply that life must have come about by special creation.’ Schützenberger (and anonymous voices from the audience) shouted ‘No!,’ but in fact the mathematicians did not present an alternative.”
Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 1991
Now, if it’s not immediately apparent how fundamentally retarded this scientific illogic is, imagine that instead of debating the validity of a scientific theory, these gentlemen were in a court of law, and that Waddington was the prosecutor, Schützenberger the defense attorney, and Sir Peter Medawar the judge.
Schützenberger: Your honor, my client could not have committed the attack on the late victim, which the surveillance cameras confirm took place in Philadelphia at 10 PM on April 15th. We have here an airline ticket from Philadelphia to Miami on April 15th that left Philadelphia at 7 PM and landed in Miami at 9 PM, affadavits from fellow passengers and airline stewardesses testifying to my client’s presence on the flight to Miami, and security camera footage from the Miami Hilton at 10 PM, all of which clearly proves my client is not guilty because he was not in Philadelphia at the time the murder took place.
C.H. Waddington: So your argument is simply that the victim was killed for his money!
Schützenberger: No, that’s not my argument. I am not making any argument about the motivations for the murder and I don’t know who was responsible for it. My argument is that my client did not kill the victim. My client could not have killed the victim. It’s not possible for my client to have killed the victim, because the murder took place in Philadelphia at a time when it has been conclusively demonstrated that he was in Miami!
C.H. Waddington: But if the accused didn’t kill the victim, who did? Who is the culprit? What’s the alternative?
Schützenberger: I have no idea. I don’t have an alternative.
C.H. Waddington: Your honor will note that I’ve asked for an alternative theory and the defense refuses to provide one.
Sir Peter: Noted. Is that the best you can do, counselor? Do you have any alternative to the active theory, any alternative at all? I will remind you that the active theory is a consensus that is widely supported by the scientific community, a consensus based on the assumption that your client did, in fact, kill the victim.
Schützenberger: Finding the actual killer is not my job, your honor. I’m a defense attorney, not a detective.
Sir Peter: The counselor will answer the question.
Schützenberger: No, your honor, I do not have an alternative theory.
Sir Peter: Very well. Since no alternative theories have been presented, I have no choice but to pronounce the accused guilty. Bailiff, take him away!
That would be totally absurd, doesn’t it? An absolute parody of justice, truth, and reason. No prosecutor would even attempt to advance such an obviously stupid argument in front of any judge. And yet, that is absolutely, 100-percent confirmed to have been the actual state of what passes for scientific thinking on the subject of evolution for the last sixty years. Don’t ever give scientists even a modicum of intellectual respect on the basis of their profession. Not only have they not earned it, they have repeatedly and reliably demonstrated that their level of philosophical analysis and their ability to discern truth is considerably below that of trial lawyers and public defenders.
Lest you think I exaggerate, consider the attempt of one true Darwinian believer to defend the science on the basis of criticizing my math, which apparently pains him, even though he admits there is no mathematical error.
I’m no biologist, and I do enjoy math. It pains me to see bad math, which is the only reason I keep on poking at this. Ultimately, it’s not even a math error, the error is in the priors. Asserting that 1600 fixations per generation is the highest possible fixation rate is the root.
The reader will, I hope, note that the actual number concerned is not “1600 fixations per generation” but rather “Generations per fixed mutation: 1600”.
BACTERIA Years: 3,800,000,000 Years per generation: 0.000071347 (37.5 mins per generation) Generations per fixed mutation: 1600 Years per fixed mutation: 0.114 Maximum fixed mutations: 33,288,000,916
Source: Sequencing of 19 whole genomes detected 25 mutations that were fixed in the 40,000 generations of the experiment. NATURE, 2009
Maximal Mutations, Vox Day, February 7, 2019
I’ll admit that I probably use the description “reprehensibly stupid” too liberally, but this sort of multi-level stupidity really is reprehensible.
You can’t make yourself smarter, but you can make yourself more prepared than everyone else. One of the ways I was able to break into the game industry was because I knew more about all of the people involved than anyone except a few of the deepest and most experienced insiders.
How did I do that despite being just out of college, with zero contacts in the industry, and never having attended a single industry event? I studied every single issue of Computer Gaming World like a seminary student performing exegesis on a single Bible verse, putting every single name I could find into a database with their position, company, and associated titles. So, when I finally attended CGDC for the first time, I knew most of the guys there and could speak intelligently with them about their past and present projects.
Not only that, but when they would recognize someone they knew, I’d be able to say something like “Carter… is that the Carter from SSI?” Which, almost inevitably, would lead to a friendly introduction from a trusted source. By my second conference, I was already acquainted with two-thirds of the devs there; by the third one, I was speaking at the conference, regarded by most as one of the old school, and was openly recognized a member of the CGW team, being the only active dev who was permitted to write reviews for the magazine.
I truly loved those days. Epic, Blizzard, Activision… the corporate monsters of today were just guys like everyone else. I’ve never felt a sense of unlimited possibility like that before or since.
Paul Pierce, the NBA champion, clearly knew the power of researching people. He was the Celtics’ longtime play-by-play announcer’s favorite, but there was more to their close relationship than mere mutual affection:
People used to say, ‘Boy, it’s great the relationship you have with Paul Pierce,’ because every time, second time through the layup line, Paul would come and give me a hug no matter where I was. People said that’s great. Well, what was happening was Paul would give me the hug and say, ‘Who we got tonight [officiating the game]?’ And I’d say, ‘It’s Chris, Danny’s the Black guy, and Joe is the white guy. He’s kind of bald.’ And then Paul would go through around the layup line, I’d see him go, ‘Hey, Danny, how are you tonight, Paul? What’s happening over there?’ And I swear it used to buy him one or two whistles every game at least.”
There is really no excuse for not bothering to put in the effort of truly knowing the field you’re in. It takes nothing but persistence and a little time. And yet, not one man in a thousand ever bothers to make even minimal efforts in this direction, despite the fact that it reliably pays off no matter what the industry or field.
Thanks to one of our international men of mystery, I’m able to bring you the opening remarks from the chairman of the 1966 Philadelphia symposium on the mathematical challenges to Neo-Darwinism that long preceded my own conclusive mathematical disproof of evolution by natural selection, regardless of the Dawkinsian “probably” that has recently been appended to what is now more formally known as the Theorum of Evolution by (probably) Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, Biased Mutation, Genetic Drift, and Gene Flow.
Ladies and gentlemen: I want to make just a few introductory remarks. I think it is the distinguishing mark of all true biologists as opposed to mere sectarian specialists that they are deeply interested in the mechanism of evolution. As Dr. Kaplan has explained, the immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought of as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian Theory. This dissatisfaction has been expressed from three quarters and is not only scientific.
First of all, religious: Where once the complaint was that evolution happened at all, now the complaint generally is that it happens without Divine motivation. Many of you will have read with incredulous horror the kind of pious bunk written by Teilhard de Chardin on this subject, if Professor Schultzenberger will excuse my putting it that way.
Then, there are philosophical or methodological objections to evolutionary theory. They have been very well voiced by Professor Karl Popper — that the current neo-Darwinian Theory has the methodological defect of explaining too much. It is too difficult to imagine or envisage an evolutionary episode which could not be explained by the formulae of neo-Darwinism.
Finally — and these are really, I think, the only objections that should concern us — there are objections made by fellow scientists who feel that, in the current theory, something is missing, and we look forward to hearing their formulation of what, precisely, is missing. These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them. The very fact that we having this conference is evidence that we are not making light of them.
Sir Peter Medawar, National Institute for Medical Research, 24 April 1966
It’s rather remarkable that within ten years of these professional biologists publicly declaring that they must, no on account, make light of the mathematical objections to their pet theory, my high school biology teacher was telling me that the science was settled and no intelligent, educated person would even consider doubting the sacred Neo-Darwinian dogma.
How things change! Thanks to developments in genetic science, we now have conclusive mathematical evidence of the absolute impossibility of both Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolutions. The hoary old dragon of Darwin has been slain, once and for all. It may not have stopped twitching yet, and the faithful are still hoping against hope for a revisionist third coming, but any impartial and sufficiently numerate observer will admit that it is clearly pining for the fjords.
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich on Monday called for the “total annihilation” of Rafah and other cities in the Gaza Strip.
“There are no half measures. Rafah, Deir al-Balah, Nuseirat – total annihilation. ‘You will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven’ – there’s no place under heaven,” Smotrich said.
Smotrich’s reference to “Amalek” was from a line in Deuteronomy, a book in the Hebrew Bible. Amalek is a nation the ancient Israelites were commanded to destroy, and in the book of Samuel, the Israelites were told to “slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has previously compared Gaza to Amalek, which has been cited as evidence of genocidal rhetoric in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.
I’m not sure that “Putting the NAZI in Ashkenazi” is a particularly great campaign program, but then, I don’t know much about Israeli politics these days. Hitler’s rhetoric went over fairly well in his time, after all.
However, I think it’s bizarre to see conservatives, Boomers, and conservative Boomers to be complaining that American college students are protesting against the genocidal actions of the Israeli government when the IDF is literally killing tens of thousands of Palestinians while top Israeli government officials are openly calling for a literal genocide of an entire people.
The Gazacaust isn’t going to be forgotten any faster than the Holocaust was, so Israelis had better get used to the idea of paying reparations to the Palestinians and their descendants for at least another 70 years.
Tucker Carlson: So what you’re describing is clearly happening and it’s horrifying. But it’s not the definition of liberalism I have in mind when I describe myself, as what we say the United States is a classical liberal. So you think of liberalism as individual freedom and choice from slavery. Right? So the options as we conceive them, as I was growing up, were the individual who can follow his conscience, say what he thinks, defend himself against the state versus the statism, the totalitarianism embodied in the government that you fought against: the Soviet government. And I think most Americans think of it that way. What’s the difference?
Aleksandr Dugin: Very interesting question. I think that the problem is in two definitions of liberalism. There is old liberalism, classical liberalism. And new liberalism. So classical liberalism was in favor of democracy. Democracy understood as the power of majority of consensus, of individual freedom. That should be combined somehow with the freedom of other. And now we have totally the next station already. Next phase: new liberalism. Now it is not about the rule of majority, but it is about the rule of minorities. It is not about individual freedom, but it is about wokism. So you should be so individualistic that you should criticize not only the state, but individual, the old understanding of individual. So you need now – you are invited to liberate yourself from individuality to go further in that direction. I have spoken once with Fukuyama, Francis Fukuyama on TV. And he has said, before, democracy has meant the rule of majority. And now it is about the rule of minorities against majority, because majority could choose Hitler or Putin. So we need to be very careful with majority, and majority should be taken under control and minorities should rule over majority. It is not democracy, it is already totalitarianism. And now we are not about defense of the individual of freedom, but about prescription to be woke, to be modern, to be progressive. It is not your right to be or not to be progressive. It is your duty to be progressive, to follow this agenda. So you are free to be a left liberal. You are no more free enough to be a right liberal. You should be a left liberal. And that is a kind of duty. It is prescription. So liberalism fought during its history against any kind of prescription. And now it at its turn became totalitarian, prescriptive, not free as it was.
Tucker Carlson:And do you believe that was inevitable, that process? That was always going to happen?
Aleksandr Dugin: I perceive here a kind of logic. So a kind of logic that is not just a reversion or deviation. You start with one thing. You want to liberate individual. When you arrive at the point when it is possible, it is realized. So you need to go further. And you start to liberate ourselves from this time from old understanding of individual in favor of more progressive concepts. So you could not stop here. That is my vision. So if you say “Oh, I prefer old liberalism,” they would say, the progressives, they would say, it is not about old liberalism. It is about fascism. You are defender of traditionalism, conservatism, fascism. So stop here. Either be progressive liberal or you are done, or we will cancel you. That is what we observe, I would say.
The Castalia Library substack has been so popular, and so useful in providing Library and History subscribers with updated information about the production process and necessary shipping news that it is obvious that we need the same thing for Arkhaven Comics, especially in light of the delays in shipping Ghost of the Badlands to the recent retail purchasers.
More about that soon, hopefully later today, but the TL;DR version is that the first printing of the retail editions had a problem, so we fixed it, sent out copies to Razorfist for approval, and we’re waiting for him to receive them and approve the revised editions for shipping out to everyone.
One can theorize as to the whys and wherefores all one likes, but the simple fact of the matter is that provably Substack works to keep a community informed in a timely manner much better than a blog, a mass-mailing service, a social media site, the post, or carrier pigeons.
So, if you are a) an Arkhaven buyer, b) an Arkhaven backer, c) an Arktoons reader, or d) an Arktoons creator, I would very strongly encourage you to subscribe to the Arkhaven substack in order to keep up on all the latest news related to our print and digital comics.
Reader’s Digest’s UK edition has closed down after 86 years due to ‘financial pressures, as the iconic magazine’s editor-in-chief shares a touching tribute. In an honest and heartfelt tribute, the iconic magazine’s editor-in-chief Eva Mackevic said ‘the company just couldn’t withstand the financial pressures of today’s unforgiving magazine publishing landscape’.
The closure comes 14 years after it fell into administration because of a £125m pension fund deficit.
Founded in the the US in 1922, Reader’s Digest – whose motto was ‘Articles of enduring interest’ – was first published in the UK in 1938. Back in 2000 Reader’s Digest UK was selling more than one million copies a month.
I loved Reader’s Digest. My grandparents were subscribers, and whenever I visited them I would read several of those thick little magazines a day. Laughter the Best Medicine was all right, but I preferred the more subtle humor to be found in Life in These United States. And the abridged novels it contained often provided exposure to interesting authors to be explored more fully in the the future.
But diversity doesn’t read. And increasingly, neither does the three-second attention span crowd. Books are in the process of returning to the elite status they once held prior to the release of the dime novel and the mass market paperback, which is not a bad thing for deluxe leather book binders, but isn’t a healthy sign for society.
With more than 3 million subscribers in the USA, the original magazine should be around for a while. But the failure of the once-powerful UK edition is a good reminder of the vagaries of time. Yesterday’s success not only doesn’t guarantee success today, it often plants the seeds for tomorrow’s failure.
