Saturday, September 18, 2021

Shall We Make a Deal?

Now that we are a few more weeks into the accelerating Covid-Jab Mandates & Passports, let's check in to see how we’re all doing. 


Personally I know folks who got coerced to get the jab. Not out of fear of Covid, but out of the fear of losing their jobs, their health insurance, and/ or their retirement. They have kids, so they couldn't take the risk of losing this security for their family. So they went against their own best overall sense of things, they went against their best intuition, and they took the jab.


People are being coerced into taking a jab to which nobody knows the long-term consequences.


It is not my concern about whether or not you did or did not take the jab. I respect that that is up to you, and no-one else. The ones closest to you, the ones that you love and that love you, should have some say. But, in the end, it is your choice, and yours alone.


I am, however, growing increasingly frustrated that our society is somehow normalizing the coercion of others to take the jab.


To stress again, I continue to share my own personal reasons to not take the jab not to get you to question the jab, but to get you to question the Covid-Jab Mandates and Passports. Whether or not you agree with any of my personal reasons to refuse the jab, I pray that you can begin to see how an intelligent person can make an informed and respectable choice to not take it. And that everyone is entitled to make their own choice.



There is only one argument that I have heard that I believe comes even close to having any validity in regards to the coerced Covid injections. And that is that society needs to reduce the impacts on our healthcare systems from Covid. And that in the short-term, the jabs do seem to suppress symptoms. So the argument goes that a higher percentage of jabbed people within our population could potentially relieve some stress on our over-burdened health-care systems in the short-term. 


Of course, this argument is undermined incredibly by the notion that we should fire healthcare workers for not getting jabbed. If our health-care systems are over-burdened, the very last thing we should even consider is firing employees that have been working hard on the front lines of Covid for the last year and half. In a sane and decent society, this would be a obvious choice. 


To which the mainstream narrative responds: “but the un-jabbed are the ones who are responsible for the bulk of transmission and for the evolution of the variants. Of course we don’t want un-jabbed health-care workers.”


If someone can show me actual scientific evidence of this narrative being even remotely true, please do let me know. Otherwise, please drop it.


If you don’t want to believe me when I say that the Jabbed can transmit the virus, maybe you’ll listen to Fauci:   Dr. Fauci on COVID-19 spread: Vaccinated people who have an... infection are capable of transmitting


Let’s get this straight: what Fauci is saying is that the Jabbed are less likely to show symptoms, but if infected, are just as contagious as the Un-Jabbed. 


But if they are less likely to show symptoms, does it not also follow that they are less likely to know they are infected?


So let’s just think about this for a second.

Let's say that two nurses have been infected with Covid. One jabbed. One un-jabbed.

The un-jabbed nurse is showing symptoms. The jabbed nurse isn’t.

Therefore the un-jabbed nurse is more likely to know that they are sick. That nurse is more likely to stay home, start the early treatment protocols, try to get better, and therefore not infect anyone else.

 

Which nurse do you want treating you for a broken leg in a hospital? 

Personally, I want the un-jabbed nurse taking care of me, as they are more likely to know if they are infected. They are more likely to know if they are contagious. 

Which do you want taking care of you in a hospital?


Please note that this last thought experiment doesn't just apply to nurses who may take care of you in a hospital, but to each and every individual that you meet.

 


As far as the burden on our healthcare system, I have a friend who is an ER doctor in a hospital in KY, who notes how overwhelmed their hospital's care systems are right now because of Covid. I do understand that. And I do not want to contribute to this problem.

 

The first thing to say here is that it is way past time to talk about Covid early treatment options - the type of treatments that helped prevent many states within India from descending into a medical catastrophe: https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/lucknow-news/33-districts-in-uttar-pradesh-are-now-covid-free-state-govt-101631267966925.html

 

Uttar Pradesh is an incredibly densely populated state within India with ~2/3 the population of the entire US in an area smaller than Oregon. They are now close to being Covid-free.


Less than 35% of their population has received at least one dose of the jab. This is almost half of the US’s present rate of 64% having received at least one dose. Yet, with these comparatively low jab-rates, they have almost become Covid-free.


How is that possible? We were told that everybody had to be jabbed for Covid to disappear here so we can all go back to normal. Isn't that now the mainstream narrative (after a number of "moving-of-the-goal-posts")?

 

Is the US Mainstream “News” even asking questions about Covid-free Indian states - just a few months after the same "News" was insisting that India was a sign of what is to come for us - warning us all that this proved that we all had to hurry up and get jabbed?

 

This is one possible explanation for Uttar Pradesh's reduction in Covid: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/uttar-pradesh-government-says-ivermectin-helped-to-keep-deaths-low-7311786/

 

Does the mainstream narrative have a better explanation for Uttar Pradesh's success with Covid other than this Indian state's use of Ivermectin as prophylaxis and early treatment? Does anyone have a better explanation?


On the contrary, both our Mainstream "News" and our "top medical authorities" simply ignore the success with Covid that many Indian states have achieved, and instead they demonize Ivermectin. They are putting lives at risk with this embarrassing and reckless behavior.


I'm not going to say that is is as embarrassing and reckless as the whole "Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction" fiasco only because it's so hard to compare, and because it's perhaps too early to tell how full-blown this catastrophe will be in its wake.

  


If we truly wanted to reduce the burdens on our healthcare systems, we would:


  1. Stop firing healthcare workers based on their jab status.

  2. Adopt widespread use of Covid Early Treatment protocols to keep people out of our hospitals.

 

These are the top priorities in reducing the burden on our healthcare systems.



However, I am still willing to go one step further here. I am willing to make a deal:

 

As an un-jabbed person, I am willing to forego the use of any hospital or emergency care facility if I get sick from Covid and need medical help.

 

But the deal would be:  that if the situation here in the US follows England's trend, where Covid becomes less and less a disease of the un-jabbed, and it eventually got to the point where it was more a disease of the jabbed - that those jabbed are also willing to forego the use of any hospital or emergency care facility if they get sick from Covid and need medical help in such a potential future.

 

They would only have to forego care if there was evidence that the tables truly had turned, and that the hospitalizations and deaths of the jabbed were higher than their representative proportion of the country.

 

Before making that deal, I recommend that everyone really pores over the data coming out of England that is available to all. I’ve added the most recent data that was just released by Public Health England on Friday September 17th, 2021 to my previous chart.

 

Spot any trends? What do you say? Shall we make a deal?




The data for the chart above comes from Public Health England’s regular Technical Briefings “SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern and Variants Under Investigation”. Table 5 data from Briefings #17, #19, #21, #22, & #23 was entered into the following spreadsheet to 1) segregate out the most recent data, and 2) to calculate percentages:      PHE Data through #23



I would imagine that seeing the trend in the chart above would make someone question whether or not to get jabbed at all. But once again, that choice should be entirely up to you.


Within most specific age brackets in England other than the youngest few, there is still a benefit from getting jabbed in regards to lessening hospitalization and death. Someone might see that benefit and choose to get jabbed.


On the other hand, someone might see that short-term benefit, and weigh it against the potential short- and long-term risks that come both from the jab and from the subsequent boosters that seem to be coming down the pike. (Israel is already talking about their citizens getting their fourth jab).


What are the long-term consequences of getting multiple boosters? Once again, nobody knows.


Someone might also weigh the short-term benefits of taking the jab now against what seems like a very clear trend-line for the longer-term risks that England's data reveals.


Personally, I choose not to get jabbed. I choose not to hand over the future of my immune system to the pharmaceutical industry. I choose to go the route that many poor nations and states around the world have gone, and use early treatment protocols if I get sick.


If you don't want to do the same, if you choose, or have chosen, to get the jab, that is completely fine with me. I am not trying to get you to question your decision for yourself. I recognize that this is a very complicated choice to make. All of the risks and benefits have to be weighed relative to one's own very personal medical history.


However, what I very much want you to question is our society’s increasing normalization of coercing others to take the jab. That has to stop. 

It is past time to question the mainstream narrative

It is now time for us to take a stand for people's right to choose - regardless of what choice we make.


Health and happiness to you all.

Thanks for your time and attention.

Take care



P.S. I welcome fact-checks, but please don't bother sending me some "fact check" that you took one minute to google and then only took seconds to actually read, and somehow missed that the "fact check" is two and half months old - so not relevant at all to the data to which I include in my chart on England's recent Delta Hospitalizations and Deaths.


P.S.S. Also please note that if you want to convince me to get jabbed, go ahead. Just note that I am setting a higher bar here for you than that. You don't need to convince me that I should get jabbed. You need to convince me that it is somehow OK for everyone to be coerced to get jabbed. Please understand that it's the higher bar you need to meet here.


And regarding Ivermectin in India, I am also setting a higher bar for you. You need to not only seed doubt that it was Ivermectin that reduced Covid harm in Uttar Pradesh, you need to 1) prove what otherwise accounts for their success in treating Covid, and 2) prove that it's not worth at least trying here. It was tried in a state with 2/3 of the US population with success and no drawbacks. Therefore the onus is on you to prove that it would somehow be dangerous or otherwise different to try it here.


With all of that said, have at it.


Please do feel free to comment. I request, however, that you comment here on this blog-post, and not to my personal email or on facebook (faceplant). This will allow more people to follow the threads. I will moderate the comments to ensure an open, fair and courteous conversation, because I see what happens elsewhere on the internet and I am not so insane as to think it couldn't happen here.



16 comments:

  1. Hey mate. You have mixed the stats for the population of the UK with the population of England (a constituent nation within the United Kingdom). See the UK Office of National Stats for England population. This will make % of vacced much higher.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alex. Both the chart and the spreadsheet are updated now. Thanks for paying attention. Much appreciated.
      I used the data from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/latest
      Your link was from mid-2019. This link is from mid-2020. Does anybody know where to find up-to-date population data from England? It's easy to find for the UK.

      Delete
  2. Cell B120 should be - 56,286,961
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2019

    ReplyDelete
  3. Please note that Dr Fauci is comparing those who have been vaccinated and have break-thru infections are just as capable, based on virus levels in their nasal passages, as a non-vaccinated, infected person. These statements are with groups of vaccinated and non-vaccinated people WHO ARE SHOWING SYMPTOMS. So of course they are equivalent.

    What I have heard from various sources is that while even though a vaccinated person can spread covid-19 it is still at a significant lower level than non-vaccinated individuals can spread it. In both cases this is non-symptomatic carriers. So apples are being compared to oranges which are in turn being compared to baked beans.

    The biggest problem in all of this is that no one can tell who they should actually be trusting. We all tend to pick someone and stick to that source. Fauci lied when he said we didn't need masks. Is he lying now about the spread of this virus via vaccinated people--just because he wants us all to get vaccinated? I don't know, but it sure sounds fishy to me. BTW: I enjoy your posts :-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Curious about your choice of the term "jab" throughout. I may have missed this in an earlier post, but is this intentional and why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Holly, for three main reasons: 1) I heard (and admittedly haven't confirmed this) that Fauci himself had a patent application for an HIV vaccine rejected years ago by the US Patent Office because it did not meet the "standard art definition" (something like that) because a) it did not provide protection from the disease, and b) because it did not prevent infection. It seems that the Covid jabs do meet the first criteria (at least in the short term), but like Fauci's earlier HIV patent application, they do not meet the second criteria. So just a few years ago, our own patent office would have itself objected to the name "vaccine" for these jabs. (If the rumor that I heard was correct). I'm open to hearing otherwise.
      My second reason is because it is a common English (British) word used to describe injection with a vaccine. I think the English have the best data on the planet, as far as I can tell.
      Third, as long as these "vaccines" are being coerced upon people that otherwise would not take them, with the threat of losing their job, their health insurance, their retirement, and/or their ability to engage in wider society, well, to me, that sounds a lot like a "jab".

      Delete
  5. * Alex, Yes I see that now. Thanks for noticing that. I will update that cell and the rest of the spreadsheet and chart as soon as I get a chance.
    * Bob, Yes, but did they not stop testing asymptomatic vaccinated folks for Covid on a regular basis? I'm also wondering - do you know of actual tests on vaxxed folks that were asymptomatic but were infected? If my guess is correct on the first issue, then there probably isn't any reliable data on the second issue. I'm open to hearing data that says otherwise.
    * Holly, for three main reasons: 1) I heard (and admittedly haven't confirmed this) that Fauci himself had a patent application for an HIV vaccine rejected years ago by the US Patent Office because it did not meet the "standard art definition" (something like that) because a) it did not provide protection from the disease, and b) because it did not prevent infection. It seems that the Covid jabs do meet the first criteria (at least in the short term), but like Fauci's earlier HIV patent application, they do not meet the second criteria. So just a few years ago, our own patent office would have itself objected to the name "vaccine" for these jabs. (If the rumor that I heard was correct). I'm open to hearing otherwise.
    My second reason is because it is a common English (British) word used to describe injection with a vaccine. I think the English have the best data on the planet, as far as I can tell.
    Third, as long as these "vaccines" are being forced upon people that otherwise would not take them, with the threat of losing their job, their health insurance, and/ or their retirement, well, to me, that sounds a lot like a "jab".

    ReplyDelete
  6. * Alex. It's all updated now. Thanks for paying attention.
    I used the data from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/latest
    Your link was from mid-2019. This link is from mid-2020. Does anybody know where to find up-to-date population data from England? It's easy to find for the UK.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Farmer, No I haven't heard of any tests regarding non-symptomatic, vaccinated individuals, only the claim that they can still be carriers. That is why I pointed out that Fauci's report was comparing symptomatic vaccinated vs symptomatic non-vaccinated and that I would assume that the viral load in the nasal passages of both groups to be quite similar. But Fauci's presentation makes it appear like he is comparing non-symptomatic vaccinated vs. symptomatic non-vaccinated--thereby increasing the fear factor significantly.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Is the plan here to allow random people with an internet connection from all over the world to replace trained experts and world organizations? Are you proposing that we dump scientists and engineers for people that can convince the general population with powerful rhetoric? How do you propose we organize the scores of clueless honkies from all over the world if we don't use our current organizations for maturity and training?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My plan is to continue questioning the mainstream narrative when it makes no sense to me.
      My plan is to continue questioning any scientist who may have forgotten their training in regards to both “informed consent” and the “precautionary principle”.
      My plan is to continue questioning anyone who has a “plan” for organizing “the world”.
      Thanks for asking

      Delete
  9. All, I have received a couple of comments via email that I want to share here. They both ran along the same lines, and spoke to the reader's reaction to the chart.
    Both reader's had a reaction to the chart because at a casual glance, the chart could imply that those jabbed have a higher chance of dying or being hospitalized than those un-jabbed.
    In the text of my post, I tried to make it clear that I was showing the chart for the sake of showing the TREND over time of the jab's waning effectiveness. I also spoke directly in the text of the post to the fact that, at this point, the jabs still show some kind of short-term benefit.

    However, I will state that I think that the reaction by the two email-commenters mentioned above is a fair reaction.
    I have created another chart from the same PHE data - but which excludes those English under 50 - since the youngest age brackets have the highest percentages of un-jabbed, and also the least hospitalization and death from Covid. So the young's data was skewing the overall population's numbers.
    Without the youngest English in the data, it is more clear to see the continuation of the short-term benefits from the jabs.
    Yet it is also still clear to see the continuing trend of waning effectiveness over time.
    This new chart can be found on the spreadsheet that is linked to beneath the chart - "PHE Data through #23". It is on the third tab at the bottom, entitled "PHE Chart >50".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, I just went ahead and switched out the chart in the body of the post. So now the old, original chart can be found in the same link. It's the middle tab at the bottom, entitled "PHE Chart".

      Delete
  10. Chris, I respect your right to use the preventative care and treatments of your choice. I also don't want you to stay out of the hospital if you get sick with Covid and need critical care, deal or no deal.

    I too have a friend who is a doctor of internal medicine who works almost exclusively these days with hospitalized Covid patients in Charlotte, NC. Needless to say she has been extremely busy, sometimes working 14 or more hours in a day.

    I agree with your call to adopt widespread early treatment protocols to keep people out of the hospital.

    **Yes I am vaccinated. No I was not coerced, Yes I believe it helps keep people out of the hospital and prevent deaths.

    AND ...I am completely on board with researching and developing effective and safe options ASAP. Honestly, I would be thrilled and relieved not to get a third " jab" or even worse a "jab" every year from now until.... I imagine a lot of people feel the same. However, if I decide that a third vaccine is still the best option I will get vaccinated.

    From the Indian Express article cited: Ivermectin or Ivermectin administered along with Doxycyline appears to lower positivity and fatality rates. ALSO important to note was the implementation of aggressive contact tracing and surveillance.

    So why is Ivermectin not being widely used as an Early Covid Treatment in the USA?

    "Does the mainstream narrative have a better explanation for the Uttar Pradesh's success with Covid other than this Indian state's use of Ivermectin as a prophylaxis and early treatment?"

    HMM... I wonder how many in USA mainstream media even consider news from India? And I have to say that there is not a lot of easily Googled info on the topic. YET there is a lot going on in the USA and around the world in the medical community that suggest that there is a significant interest in Ivermectin.

    While the culture wars rage, doctors in the USA and around the world are prescribing Ivermectin for Covid...
    Pre-pandemic 3,589 was the weekly average amount of Ivermectin prescriptions filled for its intended use as an anti-parasitic agent. At its peak during Covid so far, 39,102 prescriptions of Ivermectin were filled the week of January 8, 2021. I can't find any data on how effective those doses were in the treatment of Covid. In the USA medicines need to be proven through clinical trials and research. Until new, or in this case repurposed, medications meet a certain standard in clinical trials it will not be recommend for medical use to treat Covid.

    AND still, even if there is compelling information coming out of India or anywhere else in the world that Ivermectin decreases viral loads in Covid patients and keeps them out of the hospital, until the clinical trial studies in the USA confirm the efficiency and safety of the treatment it will continue to be an labeled an unproven drug in articles and in the media.

    Are you open to making another type of deal?

    Rather than make a deal to forgo the use of any hospital or emergency care facility would you consider helping the medical community by pledging to enter a clinical trial study of Ivermectin and/or any other treatments that look promising to you.
    Results from clinical trials are what help doctors like your friend in Kentucky and mine in N.C. to make the best decisions for the types of treatments and care patients receive. On my next phone date with Dr. Lisa I will ask her about Ivermectin and report back here on your blog page if she has anything to add to this conversation.

    I highly recommend checking out this informative article
    https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/feature/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-covid-19-therapy-trials

    Ivermectin trial links:

    https://web.musc.edu/about/news-center/2021/09/17/trial-of-outpatient-drugs-for-covid19-opens-to-all-south-carolinians

    https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/ivermectin-principle-trial-covid/

    Health and Happiness to you as well.
    Marie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marie, thanks for your response.
      The "deal" to which I was referring to in my post was just a thought experiment meant to enlighten.
      But I will openly and honestly answer "yes" to you question about whether or not I would be open to taking part in a clinical trial in regards to IVM and early treatment protocols.
      I will look further into the links you provided when I get a chance.
      Thanks again

      Delete

Thanks for reading a Clueless Honky. Feel free to leave constructive feedback.