Trudeau Admits He Does Not Understand Basic Math


Armstrong Economics Blog/Canada Re-Posted Apr 27, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

In an old video that has resurfaced from Justin Trudeau’s days as a West Point Great Academy teacher, the now prime minister admitted that he struggles with basic math. “I have a slight learning disability…that was never addressed,” the 29-year-old teacher stated. “I am dysnumeric,” Trudeau said after self-diagnosing why he cannot understand small math problems. Trudeau said that his learning disability did not prevent him from later teaching children mathematics. “Dysnumeric” is not a medical term, although there are learning disorders involving numbers.

Trudeau admitted he could not remember phone numbers. He said that he was still unsure of his multiplication tables.

Ironically, Trudeau says, “Questioning as a skill is not taught anymore.” Perhaps it is so that tyrants like Trudeau can invoke martial law over a peaceful protest and shriek at people to stay inside and trust the ever-changing “science.” Feasibly his revelation explains why he thought only a “fringe minority” of Canadians wanted to escape his COVID restrictions. He goes on to say that he also does not understand computers, but that his skill is teaching the youth how to think. “It’s not about teaching facts anymore,” he admitted years ago. It is about manipulating the people to trust what government claims is factual and implementing penalties for anyone who questions the status quo. It is no wonder that Schwab scooped Trudeau up to be one of his Young Leaders.

Antidepressant Prescription Sales Spike


Armstrong Economics Blog/medicine Re-Posted Apr 27, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

A SingleCare Team study revealed the majority of the US population takes some form of a prescription pill. The insurance agency found that the number of people reliant on prescriptions significantly rose after the pandemic. In fact, medications for mental health issues are on the rise. The company reported a 70% increase in prescriptions for the antidepressant Lexapro, a 31% increase in Zoloft, a 21% increase in Trazadone, a 20% increase in Prozac, and a 16% increase in Adderall. The agency noted that the American Psychological Association reported an uptick in individuals self-medicating illegally with opioids as well.

Currently, around 66% of adults in the US are reliant on Big Pharma. Canada is in a similar situation, albeit with lower prescription costs, with 65% of their adult population on prescription medicine. In contrast, only 26% of adults in the UK and 35% of adults in Australia are reliant on medications.

Why are people in the US and Canada more likely to take prescription medication? One could argue the US population is not as healthy as other nations due to obesity and limited walkable cities, but that does not account for the large disparity. One big reason is marketing – but that does not apply in Canada. Only in the US do you see commercials and billboards promising a pill to cure the woes of life. It is not common practice in other countries for people to ask their doctor for a specific medicine.

This all comes down to business and corporate profits. The average American takes FOUR different pills each day. So over 131 million Americans are reliant on at least one medication. Citizens in the US spend more than any nation on prescription drugs, with the average consumer spending $1,229. Canadians spend around $879.

In addition to the billions Big Pharma made on COVID-related drugs and vaccines, they have also profited from COVID restrictions deteriorating the public’s mental health. In mid-June 2020, when many restrictions began to ease, SingleCare reported a 50% increase in antidepressant medication. The same increase was reported during the third week of March when lockdowns began. “Between the concern over job loss, isolation, and general anxiety, this growing trend in antidepressants over the past few months may well be due to the pandemic’s impact on mental health,” Ramzi Yacoub, Pharm.D., the chief pharmacy officer at SingleCare stated. Insurance and pharmaceutical companies believe the need for prescription drugs will only continue. Thanks to COVID, antidepressants are now the most prescribed medication in the US and the second-most prescribed medication in Canada.

Rhode Island Lawmakers Propose Doubling Taxes for Parents of Unvaccinated Children


Armstrong Economics Blog/Uncategorized Re-Posted Apr 25, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Democrats in Rhode Island have prepared legislation that could double taxes for parents of unvaccinated children. Senator Sam Bell, who is championing the bill, claims that there is a need for a universal mandate. Under the proposed law, unvaccinated residents would face a $50 monthly fine for noncompliance. Employers would also be required to mandate vaccines for all employees or face a $5,000 fine per violation. The biggest burden – “Any person who violates this chapter shall be required to pay a monthly civil penalty of fifty dollars ($50.00) and shall owe TWICE THE AMOUNT OF PERSONAL INCOME TAXES.”

To receive an exemption for a minor, three separate doctors must confirm that the child is “not fit for immunization.” Then the state would need to investigate each claim and determine whether or not the parents should be financially ruined. So even if three different doctors say that a child should not be vaccinated, the state may override them.

Biden lost his bid to implement a federal vaccine for employers last year, but the battle is not over. State lawmakers still have the capabilities to force compliance through any means possible. Bell wants to make the state of Rhode Island unlivable for the unvaccinated. While this is unlikely to pass, the fact that they are still attempting to force vaccinations in April 2022 shows that the war on medical freedom has not ceased.

The BMJ: Evidence Based Medicine has Been Corrupted by “Corporate Interests, Failed Regulation, and the Commercialization of Academia”


Posted originally on TrialSite by Staff originally on April 21, 2022

A March 16 opinion piece in The BMJ raises some serious questions about what they call, “The illusion of evidence based medicine.” Authors Jon Jureidini and Leemon B. McHenry posit that the prominence of evidence-based medicine constituted a paradigm shift, meant to give a solid foundation in science for our medical care system. But the validity of the paradigm depends of accurate data from clinical trials, and most of these are conducted by the pharma industry and then published under the name of “senior academics.” Public release of what had been confidential pharma industry documents gives the medical world key insights into the level to which pharma-sponsored trials are mischaracterized. Getting a bit philosophical, The BMJ argues that critical rationalism is key for both the integrity of science and the role of science, “in an open, democratic society.” But this ideal is under threat by corporate power, a world in which, “financial interests trump the common good.” The dominance of massive pharma firms involves some competition, but all these players are united in working to expand the general pharma market. And while what the authors call, “free market champions” have embraced privatization, “the unintended, long-term consequences for medicine have been severe.”

Medical Schools Take Neo-Liberal Approach

Knowledge and data ownership hamper progress in science due to the fact that the pharma industry tends to suppress negative trial outcomes, not report adverse events, and not share their raw data with the research community. To quote The BMJ, “Patients die because of the adverse impact of commercial interests on the research agenda, universities, and regulators.” And duty to shareholders’ “hierarchical power structures” prioritizes both product loyalty and public relations over integrity. Further, while our fancier universities face influence from their endowments, “they have long laid claim to being guardians of truth and the moral conscience of society.” And facing reduced government funding, these schools have taken the, “neo-liberal market approach,” seeking out pharma funding, with strings attached.

Doctors as “Product Champions”

And thus, science departments at a broad swath of our universities can be seen as “instruments of industry.” When you combine firm-level control of the research agenda and the “ghosting writing of medical journal articles and continuing medical education,” scholars can transform into promotors of commercial products. Further, media reports of “industry-academe partnerships[s]” add to a general mistrust of our academic institutions that betrays the very vision of an open society. And what The BMJ calls the “corporate university” itself undermines the idea of academic leadership. Where once deans were folks with “distinguished contributions to their disciplines,” now they are more of fundraisers/academic managers who must show their “profitability” and ability to attract corporate sponsorship. And medical academia’s stars, who tend to be opinion leaders, advance their careers via industry opportunities. These folks are hired based largely on their influence on the “prescribing habits” of other doctors. The opinion leaders are also often well-paid by pharmaceutical advisory boards and speakers’ bureaus in the context of presenting results of pharma industry trials. And instead of being “independent, disinterested scientists,” they can become “product champions,” in the parlance of marketing executives.

Reforms Called For

Proposals for reform can include, “liberation of regulators from drug company funding; taxation imposed on pharmaceutical companies to allow public funding of independent trials; and, perhaps most importantly, anonymized individual patient level trial data posted, along with study protocols, on suitably accessible websites so that third parties, self-nominated or commissioned by health technology agencies, could rigorously evaluate the methodology and trial results.” For readers seeking more information, the American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 7.1.4 sets out that organization’s policies on conflicts of interest in industry-funded research.

A March 16 opinion piece in The BMJ raises some serious questions about what they call, “The illusion of evidence based medicine.” Authors Jon Jureidini and Leemon B. McHenry posit that the prominence of evidence-based medicine constituted a paradigm shift, meant to give a solid foundation in science for our medical care system. But the validity of the paradigm depends of accurate data from clinical trials, and most of these are conducted by the pharma industry and then published under the name of “senior academics.” Public release of what had been confidential pharma industry documents gives the medical world key insights into the level to which pharma-sponsored trials are mischaracterized. Getting a bit philosophical, The BMJ argues that critical rationalism is key for both the integrity of science and the role of science, “in an open, democratic society.” But this ideal is under threat by corporate power, a world in which, “financial interests trump the common good.” The dominance of massive pharma firms involves some competition, but all these players are united in working to expand the general pharma market. And while what the authors call, “free market champions” have embraced privatization, “the unintended, long-term consequences for medicine have been severe.”

Medical Schools Take Neo-Liberal Approach

Dr. Jackie Stone Put it All on the Line to Treat the Ill During the Pandemic: Zimbabwe Throws Criminal Charges at Her


Posted originally on TrialSite New by StaffApril 12, 2022

TrialSite chronicled the efforts of Dr. Jackie Stone in Zimbabwe during the worst stages of the pandemic. Born in Zimbabwe, Dr. Stone has been fascinated by research since a young age, and her commitment to caring for people during the pandemic has been legendary. While her off-label ivermectin-based combination regimen was identified with the saving of many lives in this southern African country, the medical establishment isn’t too keen on thinking outside of the box, even during the worst pandemic in a century. Dr. Stone now faces a court trial with criminal charges for merely treating COVID-19 patients with an early outpatient treatment protocol based on a combination of off-label treatments that includes ivermectin. This, even though Dr. Stone treated many in the Zimbabwe government and military successfully. In fact, for a while, the Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe (MCAZ) authorized access on an emergency basis for research—which amounted to care in this low-and middle-income country. The regulatory agency did a turnaround with ivermectin due to the results in the clinic of Dr. Jackie Stone.

Articles about Dr. Stone and Zimbabwe can be found at TrialSite. A fighter to the end originally of English and Norwegian descent, curious, and tough, yet elegant and empathetic, she grew up in the bush in this part of Africa, as her father was involved with geology and mining. Dr. Stone’s ethos, integrity, and commitment to doing good should have led her to awards from groups such as the World Health Organization.

Together Trial Mainstream Media Interpretations Could Put Low-Cost Regimen at Risk in MICs

Stone recently got together remotely with TrialSite’s founder Daniel O’Connor to discuss her concern with the Together Trial. While mainstream media have pounced on the findings, at least a dozen physicians and scientists are findings various issues with the data. 

Ed Mills, the principal investigator, did the right thing investing his time as well as raising money to study repurposed drugs. While the Together trial’s primary endpoint failed to show efficacy for ivermectin, even Mills went on the record in a private email declaring ivermectin proponents should be upbeat about some of the data generated in the study. But Mills’ data was taken by mainstream media and used as a weapon to attack the use of the drug worldwide. This isn’t Dr. Mills’ fault–again he took the time to investigate the drug as well as other important repurposed drugs.

But Stone’s concern centers on the needs of low and middle-income countries (LMICs) for low-cost, available regimens for early care. Stone told TrialSite, “in poor and up-and-coming countries we don’t always have the luxury of waiting around for gold standard evidence. Rather, in the case of the pandemic, we need to move fast, and we did, leading to the saving of many thousands of lives.”

She continued, “My concern now is that papers such as the New York Times or Wall Street Journal pounce on data, often misinterpreting quotes from the PI can lead to a cutting off of life-saving approaches in LMICs such as my country.”

“Dr. Stone’s commitment to LMICs cannot be denied based on a clear track record of success. With COVID-19 came politics around the use of off-label drugs such as ivermectin, and unfortunately, Dr. Stone is caught in the middle of a political battle, but she is one of the most resilient individuals I have ever come across,” reports TrialSite’s O’Connor.

What about Together?

Dozens of scientists and doctors now pour through data of the Together Trial. Recently, Dr. David Wiseman, affiliated with TrialSite, shared a dozen bullet points of concern associated with Together, including inputs from Dr. Flavio Cadegiani and others that TrialSite poses as questions.

Together Trial Questions: Ivermectin

#Question/Concern Issues for Discussion with Together Trial
1.Did the ivermectin arm of Together run later than the placebo arm, a time when a more virulent strain was present in that part of Brazil?
2.Why wouldn’t the protocol call for screening for ivermectin use—after all the drug was used in many parts of Brazil.  Were those participating already using the drug? It would be hard to prove now.
3.The critics fret about the lack of reported boosts in gastrointestinal side effects in the ivermectin arm leading to what they believe is a fundamental problem with the study—either A) placebo group was on ivermectin or B) those taking ivermectin were not administered real study drug
4.Were these placebo pills produced to look identical to the study drug?  As the drug is commonly used, this would have unblinded the study.
5.Together used ivermectin alone yet the early care community uses the drug in combination with other economical safe drugs such as antibiotics, steroids, as well as nutraceuticals such as vitamin D, C, and zinc. The study of ivermectin alone doesn’t mean much to frontline doctors.
6.Together started up to 8 days post symptom onset, but frontline ivermectin proponents declare the drug should be given immediately upon symptomatic infection. The P.1 variant also saw a faster progression to severe illness only compounding the problem.
7.In the Together study, they used a dose of (0.4 mg per kilo per day) which many critics called inadequate for ill patents–was the study underdosed?
8.Given ivermectin proponents suggest using the drug till symptoms are resolved, why did the Together protocol only call for use for 3 days?
9.Why did the protocol call for administration of the drug on an empty stomach when proponents declare the drug works best when associated with consumption of fatty food?
10.Why is so much basic data missing from the study results such as Recruitment Period, Recruitment Locations, Recruitment and allocation order per sit, Description of how the molecules and placebo were produced or compounded to look identical (otherwise loss of blinding); why is there missing age data for 98 patients?  Other gaps in data or anomalies are present for those interested
11.Some basic math shows that the numbers listed in the trial paper for the different arms and outcomes in the trial do not add up to the totals and percentages that they give – either a gross mathematical error or fraud. To see many of the strange mathematical discrepancies which invalidate the trial conclusions, go to investigative journalist Phil Harper’s article: Moreover Wiseman declares And the alteration of the death count in the trial data raises serious questions:

Seeking more information about Dr. Stone?

For all of those interested in Dr. Stone’s story check out the many articles published in TrialSite along with this important letter authored by Dr. Eleftherios Gkioulekas, Professor of Mathematics Undergraduate Program Coordinator at The University of Texas — Rio Grande Valley School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences in Edinburg, Texas.

Call to ActionTrialSite suggests a fund to support Dr. Stone in her legal battle if needed.

Neil Oliver, the COVID Schemes Cost Billions, but the Aftermath Costs Are Worse Than Money


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 9, 2022 | Sundance

Neil Oliver takes a look at the economics of COVID and how government intervention and spending has crushed the working class.  However, it is not the financial aspects that carry the worst debt in the aftermath, there is a human cost that can never be repaid or recreated.  WATCH:

{TRANSCRIPT} –  “There are debts that can be repaid and debts that can’t. During the time of Covid, vast piles of money were conjured into being by the government, borrowed as if by magic from the distant future. Unimaginable quantities of that funny money were wasted – spent on PPE that didn’t work or that wasn’t needed and is now yet more plastic heaped into landfills or otherwise littering the landscape and seascape. Millions went on the Nightingale hospitals that were never used. Around 37 billion pounds – ten percent of a total of 370 billion pounds set aside for Bounce Back Loans and the Eat Out to Help Out scheme – were lost to fraudsters. £37 billion pounds.”

“Lost to fraud and gone for good. Whatever the final figure for the theft, that money has simply been written off as irrecoverable. Taxpayers will foot the bill for it all eventually of course – along with paying back the rest of the trillions sprayed around with abandon by a government of headless chickens.

Furlough schemes paid billions more to employers so they could pay and thereby retain staff sent home to months of lockdowns during which the economy ground to a halt. All that debt has to be repaid too, by taxpayers. Hundreds of thousands of people, at least – many of them self-employed, did not qualify for any help at all while simultaneously being barred from going to work to try and earn livings for themselves and their families. To add insult to injury, those who received nothing, many who thereby lost everything – who had their noses pressed up against the outside of a window showing a financial feast to which they were not even invited – still have to put their hands in empty pockets to pay for help enjoyed by others but denied to them.

Those debts – including sums squandered, sums exploited by friends of those in power – will eventually have to be repaid, you might reasonably assume, one way or another, even if the sums concerned are so eye-wateringly huge those accounts will be glowing red for decades. It’s only money, you might say. You might say that if you’ve never gone without.

But then there are the other debts. Other debts that can’t be repaid and will never be repaid. Many and determined were the voices that warned and kept warning month after month that society was being undone by lockdown and the masking of faces.

The isolation and, perhaps worst of all, the incessant fear deliberately whipped up by government nudge units and pushed day after day until too many souls didn’t know which way was up, and still don’t. All of it was deliberately inflicted upon millions of people, some of them the most vulnerable – the poor, the elderly, children.

There were warnings of inevitable damage to mental health, to physical health – and so it has come to pass. The NHS has acknowledged what it has described as a “second pandemic” of depression, anxiety, psychosis and eating disorders.

So overwhelmed are specialists they are “bouncing back” many of those in need of help to the GPs who referred them – even those most at risk from suicide, self-harm and starvation. Doctors have warned people will simply die of conditions that must only be left untreated.

And then there are the children, and yet more debts that cannot be repaid. An Ofsted report says face masks and lockdowns have left a generation of our youngest children struggling to crawl, walk, talk, dress themselves, make friends – even to go to the toilet unaided.

Children that are two years old now spent their whole lives in a locked down, masked up world. Many of those of the poorest families spent weeks and months in homes with no outside spaces, stuck in rooms watching screens of one sort or another. The same report revealed children were mimicking the voices of cartoon characters after long hours spent watching and listening to nothing else.

The authors noted, in the simplest terms, that youngsters had missed out on: “stories, singing and having conversations.”

Babies born and raised in masked worlds are: “struggling to respond to facial expressions … particularly anxious and not used to seeing different faces.”

Stories, singing, playing, talking, seeing faces, after being fed and held in loving arms, these are among the most fundamental necessities of childhood. Tens of thousands of years ago our ancestors knew it mattered to tell their children stories, to sing them songs, so that all that had been learned by the ancestors would not be forgotten and the tribe would remain closely bound by the sharing of it all.

That some stories and songs have come down to us from a time beyond the reach of memory is testament to how much they were deemed to matter. Behaviour that was possible and essential around campfires in worlds separated from our own by ice ages, was thrown away by ours. What is lost or denied at the beginning of a life, is not necessarily obtained or regained later.

That an Ofsted report should find such basic life experience knowingly denied to millions of our youngest is appalling, unforgivable and shaming. This is nothing less than neglect – wholesale neglect by society of the most precious and vulnerable resource we have. All of it was avoidable and should have been avoided.

The decision to lock down and to enforce mask wearing was, I say, utterly wrong. And yet, this week, when questioned by this channel, prime minister Boris Johnson said he would not rule out applying lockdowns again in the future.

Obviously, to vow never to lock down again would be a tacit admission by him that they were the wrong move all along – and no modern, self-preserving PM would ever be so honest – but there we are … the lockdowns that did so much needless damage, caused so much unforgivable harm, remain on the table.

There will inevitably be those that say children are resilient – and so they are, thank goodness. But just because children are resilient doesn’t mean we should stress test them to destruction. And make no mistake – some of the ground lost already will never be recovered by many. Our debt to them will remain always unpaid.

Children now are growing up in a world very different to the one most of us remember. To take but one example: online, on social media, are images, videos and posts all pushing the same message – that changing your gender is the cure for all manner of problems.

Crowdfunders raise money to help children bypass the NHS and obtain puberty blocking drugs from private sources, and to pay for private operations to remove breasts, or to construct them, or to reshape genitals, or to remove internal anatomy including the womb. No one can honestly claim to know the long-term consequences of taking such steps.

This is another epidemic.

Between 2014 and 2015 there were around 700 referrals each year to the Gender Identity Service at London’s Tavistock clinic. That number rose to around 2,600 each year between 2019 and 2020.

That more and more children are unhappy, at the existential level, and reporting feeling uncomfortable with the sexual identity they were born with, is undeniable and poses all manner of questions in urgent need of answers. It is almost as though Gender Dysphoria had mutated to become as airborne as Covid ever was.

There is also, anyway, a growing preoccupation with the sexuality of children – all children. In Scotland and Wales, government surveys ask children as young as 13 about their “sex lives”, enquiring about what age they were when they first had sex, how long it has been since they last had sex.

Those are not even the most intrusive or intimate of the questions in those surveys. If I had been asked questions like those, by relative strangers, when I was 13, my explicit instructions from my parents were to run for home.

The incessant, relentless push to spend more and more time talking to children about sex and gender means I personally find it hard not to conclude that we are, as a society, being increasingly familiarised with the thought of sexually active children. Why would that be? To what end? For whose benefit? Certainly not necessarily the benefit of children who are, anyway, below the legal age of consent.

Life is short. Childhood is shorter still and, judging by what schools and other manifestations of officialdom want to talk to them about, have them think about, getting shorter every day.

Psychologists have known for years that children must be socialised by the age of four. If they have not become by then children able to take up their place in society – through mixing and playing with their peers and being supervised by responsible adults, whose faces they can see, whose mouths they can watch forming words, and all the rest of it – then at the most fundamental level they never will.

More and more it feels like the needs of children are being set aside and overlooked – sacrificed to ensure the wellbeing, comfort or objectives of their elders. Childhood itself is under attack, sullied by earlier and earlier confrontation with, and initiation into, the ways of adults.

During the time of Covid, the needs of children were put last. Education compromised or abandoned altogether. Play reduced to an afterthought, contact with family and friends forbidden. We could argue all day about the threat posed to children by the vaccines. Undeniable harm however has been done by two years of the mass psychosis of their elders.

More has been taken from children than might ever be measured. That debt will never be repaid.” (LINK)

.

COVID Outbreak on 100% Vaccinated Cruise Ship


Armstrong Economics Blog/Vaccine Re-Posted Apr 7, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Princess Cruises requires all passengers and crew members to be fully vaccinated for COVID-19. Yet, a ship of only vaccinated individuals recently docked in San Francisco after experiencing a COVID outbreak. “Guests and crew vaccination rates were at 100 percent,” the company confirmed after saying it has been operating under CDC guidelines for the entire pandemic.

Around 70% of cruise liners reported layoffs and furloughs due to the pandemic. The industry lost at least $63 billion between 2020 and 2021 when cruise ships were either prohibited from operating or experienced a decline in travelers due to fear. There are numerous examples of cruise ships experiencing COVID outbreaks despite vaccination mandates to board.

The CDC recently lowered cruise ship risks to “moderate; level 2” after deeming them “highest-risk- level 4” after the initial omicron outbreak. They never prohibited cruises during flu season or nearly dismantled an entire industry for a virus with a negligible death rate. The vaccine does not prevent infection. The vaccine does not prevent transmission. This is yet another unintentional case study proving that this was never “a pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

WHO: COVID Vaccine Can Cause Hearing Loss


Armstrong Economics Blog/Tyranny Re-Posted Apr 4, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

The skeptics were concerned about the long-term effects of the mRNA vaccines. “Safe and effective” was the slogan promoted to the masses as the major pharmaceutical companies refused to reveal their initial studies. We know that the vaccine can cause heart inflammation (myocarditis), menstrual changes, anaphylaxis, thrombosis, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and even death.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is reporting on a new side effect: hearing loss. The WHO has recorded 367 cases of tinnitus and 164 cases of hearing loss. The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine specifically was responsible for around 80% of reported cases, according to the WHO. Hearing loss is not currently listed as a side effect of the vaccine, and only the Janssen product has been flagged for causing tinnitus (primarily in women).

Yet, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) still asks people as young as five to take the “safe and effective” vaccine. I fear that additional ailments will present themselves as time goes on. Bottom line: these vaccines are not safe. Governments can no longer ignore this fact, and yet, they are continually forcing the masses to take countless doses of this poison.

“Trust the science!” Oh, sorry, what was that? I did not hear you.

CDC Recommends More Booster Shots for COVID Compliance, FDA Unilaterally Authorizes Fourth and Fifth Vaccination Shot


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on March 29, 2022 

Proving yet again, that once you get locked into the vaccine rona-coaster, you are not getting off until the ride’s over.  The CDC has recommended, and the FDA has approved COVID-19 booster shots number four and/or number five depending on your life expectancy and vulnerability status.

Step right up comrades and get em’ fast, while there’s still time before Big Pharma first quarter financial statements are closed.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, a woman of notoriously sketchy flip-floppery disposition, has decreed new boosters for most.

Because the life-saving vaccine products are the greatest thing ever, the FDA advisory panel wasn’t even needed this time.  You guessed it, no medical consultations, discussions or opinions were considered prior to the CDC and FDA announcement.

Yes, you read that confidence building paragraph correctly.

CDC Director – “Today, CDC expanded eligibility for an additional booster dose for certain individuals who may be at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19. Boosters are safe, and people over the age of 50 can now get an additional booster 4 months after their prior dose to increase their protection further.”

“This is especially important for those 65 and older and those 50 and older with underlying medical conditions that increase their risk for severe disease from COVID-19 as they are the most likely to benefit from receiving an additional booster dose at this time. CDC, in collaboration with FDA and our public health partners, will continue to evaluate the need for additional booster doses for all Americans.” (more)

(Via NBC) […]  The FDA had already authorized a fourth shot for immunocompromised individuals. On Tuesday, the FDA also cleared a fifth shot, or second booster, for that group. Previously, immunocompromised individuals were authorized to receive a three-dose primary series of a vaccine followed by a booster.

Tuesday’s decision bypasses the independent panel of experts from both the FDA and the CDC, which have issued recommendations to the agencies throughout the pandemic on whether they should clear additional shots, and if so, for which groups.

During a call with reporters, Dr. Peter Marks, the FDA’s top vaccine regulator, said officials didn’t seek the advice of the committees because they believe the risk of harm from an additional shot, including the risk of myocarditis, is low.

He said it’s possible Americans may need to get yet another dose of a Covid vaccine this fall.

That later dose, Marks said, may not be the same version of the shots currently in use — regulators may transition to a variant-specific vaccine or one that targets more than one strain. Both Pfizer and Moderna are testing a vaccine that targets the omicron variant. Moderna is also testing a shot that targets both the delta and omicron variants.

“At some point, we are going to have to realize that this is a virus that’s going to be with us and that we have to come to grips with dealing with it on a regular basis,” he said.

The share of people who’ve received their first booster remains low in the United States, with fewer than 50 percent of those who are eligible for a booster having received one, according to data from the CDC.

Officials may have a hard time persuading people to get a second booster — as Covid cases, hospitalizations and deaths remain low, some people feel a lack of urgency and have a reduced fear of the disease, experts say. (more)

What say you?

Justice Clarence Thomas Hospitalized


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on March 20, 2022 | Sundance

According to media reports tonight, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is in the hospital.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Clarence Thomas has been hospitalized because of an infection, the Supreme Court said Sunday.

Thomas, 73, has been at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, D.C., since Friday after experiencing “flu-like symptoms,” the court said in a statement.

The court offered no explanation for why it waited two days to disclose that the justice was in the hospital. It also provided no additional details about the infection, but said Thomas is being treated with antibiotics and his symptoms are abating. He could be released in the next couple of days, the court said. (more)

Supreme Court Statement HERE