The Twitter Bot Inquiry Intensifies as Musk is Seemingly Stiff Armed


Posted Originally on the conservative tree house on May 16, 2022 | Sundance

The ramifications for Twitter surrounding fake users or algorithmic bots are considerable.  One issue is overcharging advertisers for ad impressions based on mDAU’s, which are “monetized Daily Active Users.”  The second issue is an outcome of the first and relates to the valuation of Twitter.  If Twitter bots are higher than Twitter estimates, then the mDAU rate is overstated.

Elon Musk is indicating there may need to be a lowering of the purchase price unless Twitter becomes transparent with how they are calculating the number of bot users at less than 5%.  All outside reviews attempting to estimate the number of fake accounts, or bots, puts the estimations considerably higher than the claims by Twitter.  Elon Musk tweeted:

At “The All In Summit 2022,” Elon Musk gave the impression the purchase price of Twitter may be tenuous.  He said that a deal with a lower price tag is not “out of the question,” Bloomberg reported.  “Currently, what I’m being told is that there’s just no way to know the number of bots… It’s like, as unknowable as the human soul,” Musk said at the Miami conference, per a social media video, Bloomberg added.

Twitter CEO Parag Agrwal has responded to the controversy in a very obtuse twitter thread:

Let’s talk about spam. And let’s do so with the benefit of data, facts, and context…

First, let me state the obvious: spam harms the experience for real people on Twitter, and therefore can harm our business. As such, we are strongly incentivized to detect and remove as much spam as we possibly can, every single day. Anyone who suggests otherwise is just wrong.

Next, spam isn’t just ‘binary’ (human / not human). The most advanced spam campaigns use combinations of coordinated humans + automation. They also compromise real accounts, and then use them to advance their campaign. So – they are sophisticated and hard to catch.

Some final context: fighting spam is incredibly *dynamic*. The adversaries, their goals, and tactics evolve constantly – often in response to our work! You can’t build a set of rules to detect spam today, and hope they will still work tomorrow. They will not.

We suspend over half a million spam accounts every day, usually before any of you even see them on Twitter. We also lock millions of accounts each week that we suspect may be spam – if they can’t pass human verification challenges (captchas, phone verification, etc).

The hard challenge is that many accounts which look fake superficially – are actually real people. And some of the spam accounts which are actually the most dangerous – and cause the most harm to our users – can look totally legitimate on the surface.

Our team updates our systems and rules constantly to remove as much spam as possible, without inadvertently suspending real people or adding unnecessary friction for real people when they use Twitter: none of us want to solve a captcha every time we use Twitter.

Now, we know we aren’t perfect at catching spam. And so this is why, after all the spam removal I talked about above, we know some still slips through. We measure this internally. And every quarter, we have estimated that <5% of reported mDAU for the quarter are spam accounts.

Our estimate is based on multiple human reviews (in replicate) of thousands of accounts, that are sampled at random, consistently over time, from *accounts we count as mDAUs*. We do this every quarter, and we have been doing this for many years.

Each human review is based on Twitter rules that define spam and platform manipulation, and uses both public and private data (eg, IP address, phone number, geolocation, client/browser signatures, what the account does when it’s active…) to make a determination on each account.

The use of private data is particularly important to avoid misclassifying users who are actually real. FirstnameBunchOfNumbers with no profile pic and odd tweets might seem like a bot or spam to you, but behind the scenes we often see multiple indicators that it’s a real person.

Our actual internal estimates for the last four quarters were all well under 5% – based on the methodology outlined above. The error margins on our estimates give us confidence in our public statements each quarter.

Unfortunately, we don’t believe that this specific estimation can be performed externally, given the critical need to use both public and private information (which we can’t share). Externally, it’s not even possible to know which accounts are counted as mDAUs on any given day.

There are LOTS of details that are very important underneath this high-level description. We shared an overview of the estimation process with Elon a week ago and look forward to continuing the conversation with him, and all of you.  (Link to Twitter Article)

Methinks Parag Agrwal doth protest too much….  Especially if you overlay the ideological incentives that Twitter carries into its operational platform.

If you accept that Twitter is manipulating the public conversation intentionally (they are), then Twitter bots would serve an ideological function.  However, the issue of ‘bots’ operating on the Twitter platform is interesting when you consider the cost of platform operation.

On one hand, extensive auto-generated ‘bots’ would be an issue of cost and data-processing, a net negative.  On the other hand, the use of bots would be a manipulative practice for the creation of false impressions to generate advertising revenue.

If the scale of data-processing was subsidized, an outcome of a network of data processing centers -the AWS cloud- linked to government resources, the bots would not be a cost issue for the operation.  Despite the false impressions generated, bots would, however, under this weird situation, be useful for the manipulation of the conversation.

At the root of Elon Musk’s line of inquiry is the need to discover if this suspicion is true.

If the scale of bots has been underestimated (likely by a willfully blind operation) the advertising fees charged by Twitter were potentially fraudulent.  This is another operational reason (mitigating lawsuits from advertisers) for Musk to make the determination prior to the final purchase of the platform.

Taking Twitter private as a company, eliminating bots (which is essentially removing fraudulent users) then carries the potential benefits of both lowering costs and positioning the company to increase genuine ad revenue from authenticated users as real people.

Many people suspect the size of the political left on the Twitter platform is manipulated by programatic bots.  Meaning there seems to be more people on the left side of the spectrum because bots are deployed to give the impression of like-minded users.  I am one of the people who believe this suspicion is accurate, because it would be a typical way the ideological left operates.

The bots would be in addition to the deployment of algorithms that are designed to suppress speech the platform operators do not like.

I have long suspected the Twitter algorithm process is essentially assigning certain users into specifically designed data-processing containers where their voice is suppressed.   Some people call this ‘shadow-banning,’ I simply call it suppression.

Elon Musk represents a threat to the way the platform was/is designed to operate.  If Musk removes the discussion constraints, opens the containers and removes the restrictions, while simultaneously eliminating bots and fake accounts, the entire perspective of the platform could change very quickly.  This is what I think the current board and operators are trying to avoid.

Another rudimentary way to look at it…. Think about the last several months of public opinion polls.   Despite the efforts of a compliant media, repeatedly we see a 75/25 split against Biden and leftist policies.  The 3:4 and/or 4:5 ratio has been a consistent pattern for several months.  That ratio shows up in almost every poll.  However, if you look at Twitter that ratio is not present in the “organic” conversation about the same issues.

As CTH has said for many years, there are more of us than them.  However, Big Tech controls the mechanisms we use to communicate – and as a consequence the scale of our assembly is severely understated.

Twitter user fraud is the digital and social media equivalent to voter election fraud.   The voices raised in opposition to researching both issues are exactly the same.

Suspicious Cat remains, well, suspicious….

Global COVID Summit Declaration IV


A Joint Statement, representing 17,000 Physicians and Medical Scientists to End the National Emergency, Restore Scientific Integrity, and Address Crimes Against Humanity

Robert W Malone MD, MS22 hr ago1,516104

The time is now. As most readers of this substack are now well aware, this is not just about COVID. The constitution hangs in the balance. Please help us to get these messages spread far and wide. The 17,000 Physicians and Medical Scientists in our organization, who are not financially conflicted and remain committed to the Hippocratic Oath, are doing our part. Now we ask that you help us to help you. We need your help.

https://globalcovidsummit.org/news/declaration-iv-restore-scientific-integrity

Alternative link


Global COVID Summit, Declaration IV

A Joint Statement, representing 17,000 Physicians and Medical Scientists 

To Restore Scientific Integrity

17,000 Physicians and Medical Scientists Declare that the State of Medical Emergency must be lifted, Scientific integrity restored, and crimes against humanity addressed.


17,000 physicians and medical scientists declare that the state of medical emergency must be lifted, scientific integrity restored, and crimes against humanity addressed.

We, the physicians and medical scientists of the world, united through our loyalty to the Hippocratic Oath, recognize that the disastrous COVID-19 public health policies imposed on doctors and our patients are the culmination of a corrupt medical alliance of pharmaceutical, insurance, and healthcare institutions, along with the financial trusts which control them. They have infiltrated our medical system at every level, and are protected and supported by a parallel alliance of big tech, media, academics and government agencies who profited from this orchestrated catastrophe.

This corrupt alliance has compromised the integrity of our most prestigious medical societies to which we belong, generating an illusion of scientific consensus by substituting truth with propaganda. This alliance continues to advance unscientific claims by censoring data, and intimidating and firing doctors and scientists for simply publishing actual clinical results or treating their patients with proven, life-saving medicine. These catastrophic decisions came at the expense of the innocent, who are forced to suffer health damage and death caused by intentionally withholding critical and time-sensitive treatments, or as a result of coerced genetic therapy injections, which are neither safe nor effective.

The medical community has denied patients the fundamental human right to provide true informed consent for the experimental COVID-19 injections. Our patients are also blocked from obtaining the information necessary to understand risks and benefits of vaccines, and their alternatives, due to widespread censorship and propaganda spread by governments, public health officials and media. Patients continue to be subjected to forced lock-downs which harm their health, careers and children’s education, and damage social and family bonds critical to civil society. This is not a coincidence. In the book entitled “COVID-19: The Great Reset”, leadership of this alliance has clearly stated their intention is to leverage COVID-19 as an “opportunity” to reset our entire global society, culture, political structures, and economy.

Our 17,000 Global COVID Summit physicians and medical scientists represent a much larger, enlightened global medical community who refuse to be compromised, and are united and willing to risk the wrath of the corrupt medical alliance to defend the health of their patients.

The mission of the Global COVID Summit is to end this orchestrated crisis, which has been illegitimately imposed on the world, and to formally declare that the actions of this corrupt alliance constitute nothing less than crimes against humanity.

We must restore the people’s trust in medicine, which begins with free and open dialogue between physicians and medical scientists. We must restore medical rights and patient autonomy. This includes the foundational principle of the sacred doctor-patient relationship. The social need for this is decades overdue, and therefore, we the physicians of the world are compelled to take action.

After two years of scientific research, millions of patients treated, hundreds of clinical trials performed and scientific data shared, we have demonstrated and documented our success in understanding and combating COVID-19. In considering the risks versus benefits of major policy decisions, our Global COVID Summit of 17,000 physicians and medical scientists from all over the world have reached consensus on the following foundational principles:

  1. We declare and the data confirm that the COVID-19 experimental genetic therapy injections must end.
  2. We declare doctors should not be blocked from providing life-saving medical treatment.
  3. We declare the state of national emergency, which facilitates corruption and extends the pandemic, should be immediately terminated.
  4. We declare medical privacy should never again be violated, and all travel and social restrictions must cease.
  5. We declare masks are not and have never been effective protection against an airborne respiratory virus in the community setting.
  6. We declare funding and research must be established for vaccination damage, death and suffering.
  7. We declare no opportunity should be denied, including education, career, military service or medical treatment, over unwillingness to take an injection.
  8. We declare that first amendment violations and medical censorship by government, technology and media companies should cease, and the Bill of Rights be upheld.
  9. We declare that Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, Janssen, Astra Zeneca, and their enablers, withheld and willfully omitted safety and effectiveness information from patients and physicians, and should be immediately indicted for fraud.
  10. We declare government and medical agencies must be held accountable.

Airlines Playing Russian Roulette with Passengers’ Lives


Armstrong Economics Blog/Vaccine Re-Posted May 11, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Airlines are playing Russian roulette with passengers’ lives after numerous pilots experienced heart attacks, which is believed to be a direct result of the vaccine mandate.

American Airlines Captain Robert Snow was flying an Airbus 231 carrying 200 passengers. An otherwise healthy Snow experienced a sudden heart attack six minutes after landing. Snow said he dreamed of teaching his daughter to fly one day but will likely never fly again.

The US Freedom Flyers are a group of volunteers within the transportation sector fighting to end vaccine mandates. They are warning the government that a tragedy could be on the horizon due to the FAA initially mandating vaccines under Biden’s guidance. The group would like all vaccinated pilots to receive medical clearance through EKGs and MRIs to rule out blood clotting issues. Once a pilot loses their FAA medical clearance, their career is over.

United Airlines even issued a “pilot incapacitation” manual and urged pilots and co-pilots to report incidents. As it stands, pilots are not permitted to fly for 48 hours after receiving the vaccine. However, the side effects could occur much later, and no one is seriously investigating why pilots are falling ill. “It’s as simple as standing up and saying NO! When we join together, we are an unstoppable force,” the US Freedom Flyers said.

Dr. Fauci was asked about the issue last October. “ I’m sure there is a very, very, very, very rare exception, but the long-term effects are really essentially nonexistent,” Fauci claimed. “Getting COVID is far, far worse than getting vaccinated for absolutely certain.”

Market from Volume to Targeted Boosts


TrialSite Staff by Staff at TrialSite | Quality Journalism May. 10, 2022, 9:00 a.m.

After 16 months of major COVID-19 immunization initiatives worldwide, government appetite for COVID-19 vaccine products appears to morph into a more focused, market-based, targeted booster series, a change that vaccine producers are now adjusting to accommodate. With a confluence of forces, from COVID-19 vaccine gluts to increasing numbers of producers to leeriness of waning effectiveness due to highly transmissible variants, the market drivers, heavily driven by government, give way to an unfolding new reality.

In the United States, like in many other nations, including those aligned with the World Health Organization (WHO), centered responses to COVID-19 emphasized production and distribution of a maximum number of vaccines with targets of achieving at least 70% vaccination. That effort, again coordinated to some degree by groups such as WHO, led to the inoculation of about 4.68 billion people (according to Our World in Data) worldwide, or neatly 60% of humanity, representing an unprecedented pandemic response.

Vaccine producers such as Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson (Janssen), AstraZeneca, and others understand that unless there are continued government mandates effectively priming the pump of demand, those individuals with a preference for COVID-19 immunization have already gone ahead with the procedure.

What’s left is a market for boosters and what could become some sort of annual shot available for targeted populations. Of course, in some markets, young children are still a target for COVID-19 vaccines.  Regardless, companies now operate in a quite different environment now, than they did in the period of late 2020 through 2021: a period driven by massive government spending, heavy industry influence on the regulatory process, risk-sharing, and the like to a more traditional competitive marketplace.

The Last Market: Young Children

While the children’s markets in places like America are still relevant, awaiting approval, what’s becoming apparent will be the emphasis on booster shots. In the world’s most lucrative drug market, America, Pfizer, and Moderna will more than likely persist as market leaders vying for the parental demands of children as public health agencies such as the CDC continue to emphasize that the risk-benefit analysis of the COVID-19 vaccine favor by a long-shot vaccination. The point of view is that there are no risk-free choices and that it’s better to be safe than sorry with the very youngest members of society. 

To date, the CDC recommends the Pfizer vaccine for both the 5-11 age and 12 to 17 cohort while not recommending Moderna. Under 4 is the last market segment the vaccine makers vie for, and if the FDA authorizes, then Pfizer would own that market. A potential battle emerges over this cohort (aged 4-11) as a growing movement concerned for the safety associated with the vaccines, especially the mRNA-based products, gains momentum to question the mass vaccination on this young population. Critics argue that the original premise for mandates and the like was to control community transmission.  Given substantial waning vaccine effectiveness combined with mutating variants, critics suggest the risks of serious infection and death are too low, and the safety issues are higher than the government is letting on. 

Demand for Vaccines Wane

But demand for vaccines is flat in much of the world. In America, there is little uptick in vaccination as the “fully vaccinated” defined as receiving the two jabs of either Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna or one jab from Janssen equals 66.8% of the population while about 30.7% of the population opted for a booster dose.

Meanwhile, TrialSite, on several occasions, has chronicled a global glut of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics, especially in places like India, the world’s second-highest populated country. In places like Australia, where the death rate associated with COVID-19 has absolutely skyrocketed despite high immunization rates, the public health agencies and politicians continue to promote booster doses as the answer. TrialSite reported recently that Australian politicians in an election season essentially pretend that times are back to normal despite record numbers of cases, near-record hospitalizations, and double the deaths in the first months of 2022 than all of 2020 and 2021 combined.

Some Possible Explanations

Reuters’ Michael Erman and Manas Mishra write that vaccine producers such as Novavax and CureVac, the German mRNA-vaccine maker in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline, seek to target this booster market. Novavax still awaits FDA authorization despite the fact that much of the developed world, from Europe to Canada and Japan to the WHO, have authorized the use of the Novavax vaccine.

Meanwhile, the outlook for Janssen and AstraZeneca (Oxford) is that bright, report the Reuters journalists. According to Hartaj Singh, an analyst from Oppenheimer & Co., “It becomes a very competitive game with companies battling it out with pricing and for market share, even for vaccines that are considered to be the best, like Pfizer and Moderna.”

Interestingly, Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla went on the record in an interview recently that those adults that have opted to receive a COVID-19 vaccine are not likely to start accepting shots now in a recognition that the mega push for vaccine administration has come and gone.

Moderna has pegged the unfolding market as the annual shot market, targeting the following:

  • Adults 50 and above
  • People with comorbidities or other risks
  • High-risk occupations (e.g., healthcare, etc.)

According to the estimates of Stephane Bancel, Moderna’s CEO, this emerging annual shot market totals 1.7 billion, representing 21% of the global population. The mRNA-based vaccines are more expensive and cumbersome to distribute and store, hence a sizeable chunk of that estimated target may opt for other vaccines such as the two recently touted by vaccine insiders at WHO including a plant-based vaccine from Canada and one from China. 

More than likely Western Europe and America will represent central markets for sales for Pfizer and Moderna who will move toward more competitive, targeted responsive strategies as large government pre-purchases are probably going to be far less. Moreover, TrialSite suggests what were cozy relationships between industry and government agencies will become less so as the various governments’ responses to the pandemic will be a hot topic, especially in democracies in current election cycles.

Key Question: A flu shot model or something else?

The Reuters writers posed an important question in the recent piece: will the likes of Pfizer and Moderna starting this fall market a tailored, redesigned vaccine targeted relevant variants of concern (e.g., Omicron, BA.2, etc.)?

Both Moderna and Pfizer executives are on the record that they are developing Omicron-targeted vaccines.

This becomes an important topic as even the mainstream media starts to become slightly critical of the pandemic response, including mRNA-based vaccine makers that never modified the vaccine product once. The vaccine authorized and approved in the United States was developed based on the original Wuhan variant of SARS-CoV-2 which didn’t seem to make it in circulation to America nor most of the world.

Revenues Decline (but still unprecedented)

2023 sales numbers, while still staggering as compared to historical precedent in the pharmaceutical industry, are nonetheless, on the decline. Reuters reports $17 billion projected for Pfizer-BioNTech (down nearly half from $34 billion) and $10 billion for Moderna as compared to $23 billion in 2022. Sales will continue to drop because enormous fortunes were generated in the winner-take-all pandemic market.

TrialSite suggests the COVID-19 pandemic response must be seriously evaluated due to levels of bias, political interference, and potentially corruption at an unprecedented level. Should the political conditions change in the United States for example, leading to serious inquiries, the pandemic winners may incur unexpected costs.

After 16 months of major COVID-19 immunization initiatives worldwide, government appetite for COVID-19 vaccine products appears to morph into a more focused, market-based, targeted booster series, a change that vaccine producers are now adjusting to accommodate. With a confluence of forces, from COVID-19 vaccine gluts to increasing numbers of producers to leeriness of waning effectiveness due to highly transmissible variants, the market drivers, heavily driven by government, give way to an unfolding new reality.

In the United States, like in many other nations, including those aligned with the World Health Organization (WHO), centered responses to COVID-19 emphasized production and distribution of a maximum number of vaccines with targets of achieving at least 70% vaccination. That effort, again coordinated to some degree by groups such as WHO, led to the inoculation of about 4.68 billion people (according to Our World in Data) worldwide, or neatly 60% of humanity, representing an unprecedented pandemic response. TrialSite Staff by Staff at TrialSite | Quality Journalism

May. 10, 2022, 9:00 a.m.

After 16 months of major COVID-19 immunization initiatives worldwide, government appetite for COVID-19 vaccine products appears to morph into a more focused, market-based, targeted booster series, a change that vaccine producers are now adjusting to accommodate. With a confluence of forces, from COVID-19 vaccine gluts to increasing numbers of producers to leeriness of waning effectiveness due to highly transmissible variants, the market drivers, heavily driven by government, give way to an unfolding new reality.

In the United States, like in many other nations, including those aligned with the World Health Organization (WHO), centered responses to COVID-19 emphasized production and distribution of a maximum number of vaccines with targets of achieving at least 70% vaccination. That effort, again coordinated to some degree by groups such as WHO, led to the inoculation of about 4.68 billion people (according to Our World in Data) worldwide, or neatly 60% of humanity, representing an unprecedented pandemic response.

Vaccine producers such as Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson (Janssen), AstraZeneca, and others understand that unless there are continued government mandates effectively priming the pump of demand, those individuals with a preference for COVID-19 immunization have already gone ahead with the procedure.

What’s left is a market for boosters and what could become some sort of annual shot available for targeted populations. Of course, in some markets, young children are still a target for COVID-19 vaccines.  Regardless, companies now operate in a quite different environment now, than they did in the period of late 2020 through 2021: a period driven by massive government spending, heavy industry influence on the regulatory process, risk-sharing, and the like to a more traditional competitive marketplace.

The Last Market: Young Children

While the children’s markets in places like America are still relevant, awaiting approval, what’s becoming apparent will be the emphasis on booster shots. In the world’s most lucrative drug market, America, Pfizer, and Moderna will more than likely persist as market leaders vying for the parental demands of children as public health agencies such as the CDC continue to emphasize that the risk-benefit analysis of the COVID-19 vaccine favor by a long-shot vaccination. The point of view is that there are no risk-free choices and that it’s better to be safe than sorry with the very youngest members of society. 

To date, the CDC recommends the Pfizer vaccine for both the 5-11 age and 12 to 17 cohort while not recommending Moderna. Under 4 is the last market segment the vaccine makers vie for, and if the FDA authorizes, then Pfizer would own that market. A potential battle emerges over this cohort (aged 4-11) as a growing movement concerned for the safety associated with the vaccines, especially the mRNA-based products, gains momentum to question the mass vaccination on this young population. Critics argue that the original premise for mandates and the like was to control community transmission.  Given substantial waning vaccine effectiveness combined with mutating variants, critics suggest the risks of serious infection and death are too low, and the safety issues are higher than the government is letting on. 

Demand for Vaccines Wane

But demand for vaccines is flat in much of the world. In America, there is little uptick in vaccination as the “fully vaccinated” defined as receiving the two jabs of either Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna or one jab from Janssen equals 66.8% of the population while about 30.7% of the population opted for a booster dose.

Meanwhile, TrialSite, on several occasions, has chronicled a global glut of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics, especially in places like India, the world’s second-highest populated country. In places like Australia, where the death rate associated with COVID-19 has absolutely skyrocketed despite high immunization rates, the public health agencies and politicians continue to promote booster doses as the answer. TrialSite reported recently that Australian politicians in an election season essentially pretend that times are back to normal despite record numbers of cases, near-record hospitalizations, and double the deaths in the first months of 2022 than all of 2020 and 2021 combined.

Some Possible Explanations

Reuters’ Michael Erman and Manas Mishra write that vaccine producers such as Novavax and CureVac, the German mRNA-vaccine maker in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline, seek to target this booster market. Novavax still awaits FDA authorization despite the fact that much of the developed world, from Europe to Canada and Japan to the WHO, have authorized the use of the Novavax vaccine.

Meanwhile, the outlook for Janssen and AstraZeneca (Oxford) is that bright, report the Reuters journalists. According to Hartaj Singh, an analyst from Oppenheimer & Co., “It becomes a very competitive game with companies battling it out with pricing and for market share, even for vaccines that are considered to be the best, like Pfizer and Moderna.”

Interestingly, Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla went on the record in an interview recently that those adults that have opted to receive a COVID-19 vaccine are not likely to start accepting shots now in a recognition that the mega push for vaccine administration has come and gone.

Moderna has pegged the unfolding market as the annual shot market, targeting the following:

  • Adults 50 and above
  • People with comorbidities or other risks
  • High-risk occupations (e.g., healthcare, etc.)

According to the estimates of Stephane Bancel, Moderna’s CEO, this emerging annual shot market totals 1.7 billion, representing 21% of the global population. The mRNA-based vaccines are more expensive and cumbersome to distribute and store, hence a sizeable chunk of that estimated target may opt for other vaccines such as the two recently touted by vaccine insiders at WHO including a plant-based vaccine from Canada and one from China. 

More than likely Western Europe and America will represent central markets for sales for Pfizer and Moderna who will move toward more competitive, targeted responsive strategies as large government pre-purchases are probably going to be far less. Moreover, TrialSite suggests what were cozy relationships between industry and government agencies will become less so as the various governments’ responses to the pandemic will be a hot topic, especially in democracies in current election cycles.

Key Question: A flu shot model or something else?

The Reuters writers posed an important question in the recent piece: will the likes of Pfizer and Moderna starting this fall market a tailored, redesigned vaccine targeted relevant variants of concern (e.g., Omicron, BA.2, etc.)?

Both Moderna and Pfizer executives are on the record that they are developing Omicron-targeted vaccines.

This becomes an important topic as even the mainstream media starts to become slightly critical of the pandemic response, including mRNA-based vaccine makers that never modified the vaccine product once. The vaccine authorized and approved in the United States was developed based on the original Wuhan variant of SARS-CoV-2 which didn’t seem to make it in circulation to America nor most of the world.

Revenues Decline (but still unprecedented)

2023 sales numbers, while still staggering as compared to historical precedent in the pharmaceutical industry, are nonetheless, on the decline. Reuters reports $17 billion projected for Pfizer-BioNTech (down nearly half from $34 billion) and $10 billion for Moderna as compared to $23 billion in 2022. Sales will continue to drop because enormous fortunes were generated in the winner-take-all pandemic market.

TrialSite suggests the COVID-19 pandemic response must be seriously evaluated due to levels of bias, political interference, and potentially corruption at an unprecedented level. Should the political conditions change in the United States for example, leading to serious inquiries, the pandemic winners may incur unexpected costs.

After 16 months of major COVID-19 immunization initiatives worldwide, government appetite for COVID-19 vaccine products appears to morph into a more focused, market-based, targeted booster series, a change that vaccine producers are now adjusting to accommodate. With a confluence of forces, from COVID-19 vaccine gluts to increasing numbers of producers to leeriness of waning effectiveness due to highly transmissible variants, the market drivers, heavily driven by government, give way to an unfolding new reality.

In the United States, like in many other nations, including those aligned with the World Health Organization (WHO), centered responses to COVID-19 emphasized production and distribution of a maximum number of vaccines with targets of achieving at least 70% vaccination. That effort, again coordinated to some degree by groups such as WHO, led to the inoculation of about 4.68 billion people (according to Our World in Data) worldwide, or neatly 60% of humanity, representing an unprecedented pandemic response.

Rand Paul Questions DHS Secretary About Disinformation, Mayorkas Accidentally Gives Game Away “Should I Sit Back and Take That?”


Posted originally on the conservative house on May 4, 2022 | Sundance

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul questioned DHS Secretary Mayorkas about what constitutes disinformation and what will the DHS Disinformation Bureau do about it?  {Direct Rumble Link}

After multiple back and forth dodges by the DHS Secretary, at 06:40 Mayorkas slips a little and gives an example using the COVID vaccination program. After giving the example of a hypothetical claim of the vaccine containing fentanyl, Mayorkas asks “should I sit back and accept that,” meaning do nothing about it.

Right there Mayorkas gives away the intent and purpose of the Ministry of Truth.  Identify disinformation, then communicate with the networked partnership of social media companies, and then target whoever made the claim.  The government then controls the speech.  The government then becomes the arbiter of what is true and/or false.  The problem as Rand Paul is drilling down, is that ultimately government will approve speech.  WATCH:

There is no such thing as “disinformation.”  There is information the government approves of, and information that is averse to the interest of government.  That’s the bottom line and the end of this regulatory slippery slope discussion.

Example: Ask the DHS Disinformation Governance Board if a fetus is a baby human?

George W Bush Will Campaign for GA Republican Candidate Brian Kemp, The GOP Club Have Set The Stage


Posted originally on the conservative on May 4, 2022 | Sundance

It’s not that hard to see the GOPe Club moves in Georgia, you just have to shake off the ‘battered conservative syndrome‘ to accept it.

Georgia is holding an open primary, where democrats can vote for republicans and republicans can vote for democrats.

The Democrat Governor candidate is Stacy Abrams, and she is running unopposed.

The AME Church Network (think prior Mississippi strategy for Thad Cochran by  Haley Barbour and Mitch McConnell) have been activated to vote in the republican primary, so democrats in Georgia will choose the republican candidate who will run against Stacy Abrams.

Georgia Democrats will vote for incumbent republican governor Brian Kemp this month because that’s who they want on the ticket in the November general election, facing their candidate, Stacy Abrams.  Georgia is the homebase of the AME church network and their political operations.  This is part of the reason why Georgia politics is: (a) racially divisive; and (b) fraught with corruption.

As a direct result of democrats selecting the opposition, Stacy Abrams will win in November.  Open primaries are club rules used to make red states turn blue.  Allowing your opposition to choose your candidate is never smart. [Note: Texas is soon to follow if they are not careful.]

Everything at this level of electoral games is controlled by the state political clubs.   The republican club in Georgia is ideologically against MAGA more than they are against Democrats.  The GA parties control the rules and thereby the political outcomes, the voters in GA operate under the illusion of choice.  This is not uncommon.

The key point is to note that republican governor Brian Kemp (pictured right) is going to be the predetermined primary winner.  Kemp will have GOPe support, some smaller faction of conservative support, and he will have more than enough democrats voting for him to beat any challenge.

President Trump has endorsed former GA Senator David Perdue for the governor race.  Likely Senator Perdue sought that endorsement, and Trump gave it to him despite Perdue being a lifetime member of the Mitch McConnell stable.

We can debate Perdue and McConnell’s motives for running this strategy, but the weedy point is essentially moot.  Even with full MAGA support, David Perdue will not beat Brian Kemp in the GA primary because organized democrats (AME church network) are going to vote for Kemp.

There is no scenario where Kemp doesn’t win the primary, it is a done deal.  The club is happy.

Into this scenario the GOPe club now have an opportunity to attack and diminish their real enemy, Donald Trump and the MAGA movement.

Donald Trump, trying to break the GOP corruption cycle in Georgia (noted by their activity in 2020) has endorsed David Perdue.  However, Mitch McConnell and now George W Bush are very publicly supporting Kemp.  Duh, the Kemp victory is assured.

When Kemp wins the primary, the MAGA-ino (in name only) candidate, David Perdue, will be defeated.  This allows the GOPe club to push the narrative that Trumpism is dead within the republican party.  We are dealing with an internecine battle between the old guard and maga inside the RNC club.

The Mitch McConnell/George W Bush crowd will use the Kemp primary victory to diminish MAGA and the national media will put the massive spotlight on the Trump-endorsed loss in order to diminish Donald Trump and MAGA.  It’s a familiar playbook and repeated pattern (see Tea Party).

GEORGIA – The [Kemp] fundraiser with Bush this month will put Kemp in front of an influential room of Texas donors just days before the Georgia primary on May 24. Hosts of the May 16 event include Crow; Jim Francis, a major Texas bundler; Republican strategist Karl Rove; and Ross Perot, Jr., son of the former presidential candidate.  Tickets for a V.I.P. reception are listed at $15,200, while the general reception is going for $5,000. (read more)

The high information Georgia conservative voters know that Brian Kemp is corrupt and would have a very hard time voting for him.  However, Brian Kemp losing in November to Stacy Abrams is no big deal to the GOPe club.  The Club would rather lose the Governor’s seat and retain power, than defeat a democrat opponent and be held accountable for political reform and federalism policies they really don’t support.

Besides, even in the unfortunate event that Kemp did win the general election (GA base voters all collectively decide to hold their nose), the Club knows Kemp’s crew will not reform or change anything; so, it’s a win/win either way.

On the other side of the Club dynamic (the democrat wing), the most likely scenario is Stacy Abrams winning.

This would flip the state from red to blue, and provide the fuel for the national press and DNC to proclaim that Democrat policies are on the rise and everyone loves democrats.   Even if Abram’s is the only win in the entire 2022 mid-term election, that will be their message.

This outcome sets the stage for the return half of the AME Church Network quid-pro-quo that was established in 2020.

When Obama and James Clyburn cut the 2020 Biden deal, Obama got his third term to execute radical kamikaze policies without concern for reelection, in exchange for AME support of Biden.  The 2024 return payment is Stacy Abrams as the 2024 democrat nominee.

It’s all club games.  Unfortunately in the Georgia mid-term Donald Trump endorsed the candidate the GOPe club had specifically put into place in order to lose.  David Perdue will land a cushy Wall Street organized corporate gig; Brian Kemp will land a cushy Wall Street organized corporate gig, and Stacy Abrams will be the Georgia governor.

Having looked carefully, I cannot see a countering move that would disrupt the Republican Club plan for this one.

With Democrats able to select the Republican nominee, unfortunately Georgia looks lost.

Joe Biden, “This MAGA crowd is really the most extreme political organization that’s existed in American history”


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 4, 2022 

The democrat narrative for 2022 is from the exact same playbook used against the Tea Party in 2011/2012.  Weaponizing the J6 committee to frame the construct this year, democrats are back to the playbook of calling their opposition “extremists.”

After resounding MAGA candidates won all the contested primary elections yesterday, Joe Biden takes to the microphones today and says:

…”this MAGA crowd is really the most extreme political organization that’s existed in American history.”

WATCH (prompted):

[Transcript of Remarks]

Mandatory Mask Theater Returns, CDC Announces Long Term Extension for Biden Transporation Mask Mandate, No Expiration Date, Planes, Trains and Busses


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 3, 2022 | Sundance 

Previously a federal judge overturned the federal mask mandate for transportation, thereby allowing travelers to make their own choices.  The DOJ has appealed that decision after the CDC said it wanted the mask mandate to remain in place.  The status of that litigation is unknown.

Today, the CDC has announced a semi-permanent extension of the federal transportation mask mandate with no expiration date noted. [Announcement Here] That means all travelers on airplanes, trains, busses and ridesharing will be required to wear facemasks again, including inside the terminals and operational hubs of those transportation nodes, pending the outcome of the DOJ appeal to the federal court.

CDC Announcement – “At this time, CDC recommends that everyone aged 2 and older – including passengers and workers – properly wear a well-fitting mask or respirator over the nose and mouth in indoor areas of public transportation (such as airplanes, trains, etc.) and transportation hubs (such as airports, stations, etc.).

[…] This public health recommendation is based on the currently available data, including an understanding of domestic and global epidemiology, circulating variants and their impact on disease severity and vaccine effectiveness, current trends in COVID-19 Community Levels within the United States, and projections of COVID-19 trends in the coming months.

[…]  “CDC continues to recommend that all people—passengers and workers, alike—properly wear a well-fitting mask or respirator in indoor public transportation conveyances and transportation hubs to provide protection for themselves and other travelers in these high volume, mixed population settings. […] Additionally, it is important for all of us to protect not only ourselves, but also to be considerate of others at increased risk for severe COVID-19 and those who are not yet able to be vaccinated. Wearing a mask in indoor public transportation settings will provide protection for the individual and the community.”  ~ Rochelle Walensky, CDC Director

If the Biden administration lose the court appeal to reinstitute the mask mandate, this announcement by the CDC would appear to be moot, they couldn’t enforce it.  However, if the Biden administration is successful in their appeal, the mandatory mask wearing returns.

Put another way….. If the Biden administration lose the appeal, the people wearing masks will be the COVID worshippers.  If the Biden administration win their appeal we all have to wear them.

The mandate created by Joe Biden did not have legal structure.  It was a dictatorial fiat that exceeded the capacity of the executive branch to create.  U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle found the CDC exceeded its statutory authority with the mask mandate and violated the rules that guide CDC regulations.   {LINK} After Joe Biden arbitrarily announced the federal transportation mandate, the CDC triggered enforcement of the mask mandate without any required time for public feedback on a new regulation.

Congress could easily write a law authorizing mechanisms for the CDC and TSA to use in enforcement of a federal Transportation mask mandate; but they won’t – because the public doesn’t support it.  However, the Biden administration doesn’t care about majority public opinion, they are fine-tuned to push virtue signaling as a political strategy.

The White House is very committed to all their mandates around COVID-19, the mask mandate is no different.  From the perspective of the professional political left, the theater of forced mask wearing represents the visible power and authority of government to rule the lives of the irrelevant proles.

Any pesky legal rulings, that seek to reduce or remove the power of government, are viewed by the left as arbitrary and insignificant efforts to block their almighty power of government.  They can choose to wear a mask if they want, but that’s not really the issue behind the mask mandate.  The true power of the left is in the ability to force everyone to comply to their whims regardless of individual freedom.

The Covidians who define themselves by their adherence to the dictates of the U.S. government, will be happy with this position from the CDC today. They worship at the altar of COVID science and use masks as an expression of their sanctimonious feeling of superiority.  However, in an election year where the overwhelming majority of the American people have had enough of this political science, this CDC position may fuel an even more angry response.

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.

Solid Take from Glenn Greenwald on Elon Musk Motives and Purchase of Twitter


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 26, 2022 

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson previewed a discussion with Glenn Greenwald that will appear in full tomorrow on Fox Nation.  In this segment {Direct Rumble Link Here} Greenwald gives his perspective on the motives of Elon Musk purchasing Twitter.

Greenwald does a good job encapsulating the essential support most feel for the Musk effort.  There are many people still uncertain about how this will all roll out, and Musk has been favorable to Big Govt in his two most famous endeavors, Tesla and SpaceX.   Elon Musk’s phase of pushing back against speech and internet control is more recent, and as a result has left many people wondering about it.

As Greenwald notes, there really isn’t a downside for people who are trying to break the totalitarian and monopoly control systems on the internet.  The upside benefits to on-line freedom, debate, discussion and the first real effort to stop internet censorship are well worth supporting.  Greenwald eloquently puts an appropriate context to the battle.  WATCH: