American farmers are struggling to send their goods overseas as the East simply does not want American exports. The Ocean Shipping Reform Act passed in the House last week due to Asian carriers “unfairly decimating against American cargo.” Five major Asian liners have been accused of offloading goods at American ports and returning empty-handed, refusing to take American cargo back with them. The US agriculture industry is highly reliant on California ports that are now described as cargo parking lots as there are not enough workers to offload boats. In addition to these supply chain delays, discrimination against American products is causing countless containers filled with agricultural goods to rot.
“Unfortunately because it’s an oligopoly…. you’ve got to take it or leave it if you’re an American shipper,” Rep. Dusty Johnson noted. “The terms often say that liquidated damages for you canceling a container is $100. Well there can be $100,000 of goods in each container.” Johnson pointed to an issue with a cheese manufacturer in South Dakota who has 2 million pounds of lactose awaiting shipment in a warehouse. That shipment sat on the dock for 75 days, spoiled, and over $25,000 was lost. Johnson also used the example of pork, which is a hot commodity in Asia. Non-frozen pork, in particular, goes for a premium. As a result, producers have been forced to freeze numerous pork shipments to Asia, diluting the profits.
The Ocean Shipping Reform Act will go to the Senate before being presented to President Joe Biden. “If you’re going to use this shared infrastructure, you’re going to play fair, and you’re not going to have unprecedented levels of rejection of American cargo – which is what we’re seeing actual rejection a refusal to take this cargo,” Johnson said.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house December 13, 2021 | Sundance | 132 Comments
I’m not confident that Joe Manchin will ultimately hold the line on more spending; however, it is interesting that on the same day Manchin is reported to be casting doubt on more Joe Biden social spending {LINK}, the Washington Post published a hitjob on him around his family finances {LINK}.
Accepting there are no coincidences in politics, it would appear the intelligence agencies are firing a warning shot against Senator Manchin based on his financial connections to the West Virginia coal industry.
(New York Times) – WASHINGTON — Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the most prominent Democratic holdout on President Biden’s $2.2 trillion social safety net, climate and tax bill, cast fresh doubt on Monday on his party’s plans to speed the measure through the Senate before Christmas, saying he still had grave concerns about how it would affect the economy.
Mr. Manchin outlined his skepticism before speaking by telephone about the bill with Mr. Biden, a discussion that aides to both later characterized as positive. After the call, Mr. Manchin, who represents West Virginia, did not rule out the possibility of supporting the measure this month. He said that “anything is possible here” when asked about a vote before Christmas, and that he was still “engaged” in conversations with the White House.
But in a 50-50 Senate where Democrats would need all of their party’s votes to push through the legislation over unanimous Republican opposition, Mr. Manchin’s reluctance to embrace it has helped freeze the measure in place. (read more)
Every article written about the Build Back Better/Social Spending/Green New Deal bill, carries a totally different price tag. The New York Times says $2.2 trillion. Politico said $1.6 trillion, and other media like CBS have put the figure around $3 trillion. Regardless, Joe Manchin has reservations about it.
Those reservations have apparently triggered the ‘six ways to Sunday‘ deep state….
(Washington Post) – In Sen. Joe Manchin III’s hilly West Virginia home county, his family’s business has made millions by taking waste coal from long-abandoned mines and selling it to a power plant that emits air pollution at a higher rate than any other plant in the state.
That enterprise could have taken a hit under a key part of President Biden’s climate agenda, a $150 billion plan to push coal plants toward cleaner energy. One lawmaker, though, played a central role in killing that proposal: Manchin, who has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars annually from the family coal company while using his role as a Democratic swing vote in a 50-50 Senate to dictate Biden’s policies.
When pressed about whether he has a conflict of interest, Manchin bristles. “I have been in a blind trust for 20 years. I have no idea what they’re doing,” the senator told reporters in September, referring to his family’s coal firm. “You got a problem?”
But contrary to his public statements, documents filed by the senator show the blind trust is much too small to account for all his reported earnings from the coal company, as of his latest financial disclosure report, which covers 2020 and was filed in May. (read more)
Nice investment portfolio you have there Joe, it’d be a shame if something happened to it.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 13, 2021 | Sundance | 289 Comments
When New York’s original vaccine mandate for healthcare workers was announced, it included an exemption for religious reasons. However, when the administration changed hands, Governor Hochul removed the religious exemption. A lawsuit was filed. A federal appeals court loss brought the plaintiffs to the Supreme Court requesting an injunction.
Today, the request from the 20 plaintiffs was rejected by the Supreme Court as referred by Justice Sotomayor who covers the New York region. Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas dissented and would have provide the injunctive relief. However, Chief Justice John Roberts, Amy Coney-Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh sided with the liberal wing and denied the request. [Full pdf Decision Here]
Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch wrote in their 14-page dissent that Governor Hochul’s record in the case “practically exudes suspicion of those who hold unpopular religious beliefs,” adding, “That alone is sufficient to render the mandate unconstitutional as applied to these applicants.”
Unfortunately, the alignment of Justices Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh with the left wing of the court makes future constitutional appeals around the vaccine mandate look increasingly tenuous. Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Barrett have been big disappointments.
Posted Originally on the conservative tree house on December 13, 2021 | Sundance | 156 Comments
The New York Federal Reserve survey reflects the obvious. Consumers see staple food and energy price increases far outpacing any wage gains, and the outlook moving forward does not show signs of improvement.
The distance between the inflation line and the wage line is the intensity of the hurricane coming our way.
We are in this very weird place where the politically motivated Fed cannot stop purchasing debt created by legislative spending. At the same time, the political Fed is going to have to raise interest rates or we will enter an impossible spiral of policy caused inflation. There are three options: (1) stop buying debt; (2) increase interest rates; or (3) deploy some COVID mechanism to shut down people and hit the demand side.
Considering that Omicron didn’t work, and further panic pushing does not seem politically viable, that only leaves the two options of the Fed stops buying debt, and/or the Fed raises interest rates. Now, considering that these same political ideologues will not stop pushing the Build Back Better legislative agenda, that means the Fed cannot stop buying debt. That leaves one option remaining, increase interest rates.
Dec 13 (Reuters) – U.S. consumers’ short-term inflation expectations pushed higher in November and expectations for future earnings growth dropped, suggesting they anticipate price increases will outpace wage gains at an even faster rate in the near term, according to a survey released on Monday by the New York Federal Reserve.
Prices for food and other goods are rising at the fastest pace since 1982, according to data released by the Labor Department last week, posing political challenges for President Joe Biden’s administration and cementing expectations the Fed will raise interest rates next year. (read more)
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 13, 2021 | Sundance | 263 Comments
“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.” ~ Niccolo Machiavelli
Never has that quote been more apropos than when considering the MAGA movement and the rise of Donald Trump. Thankfully, we are now in an era when the largest coalition of American voters have awakened to the reality that, to quote the former president: “Economic Security is National Security.”
As we live through the consequences of a Biden administration hell bent on eroding the middle class of the United States, there are numerous pundits contemplating 2024 Republican presidential candidates other than Donald Trump; consider this group the lukewarm defenders Machiavelli noted.
At the same time the leftist coalition, writ large, are apoplectic about the base of the Republican Party now belonging to Donald Trump. This group consists of those affluent Wall Street agents and politicians set on retaining the profits derived from decades of institutional objectives.
Institutional Democrats hate him and institutional Republicans are lukewarm, at best, in defending him.
Both wings of the DC UniParty want a different direction.
In this outline, I rise to explain why Donald Trump is the only option for the America First MAGA coalition; and I make my case not on supposition, but on empirical reference points that most should understand.
If you accept that at its essential core elements the phrase “economic security is national security” is true; meaning the lives of the American citizen, person, worker, individual or family are best when their economic position is secure; then any potential leader for our nation must be able to initiate policies that directly touch the economics of a person’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As a result, economic security and economic policy must be the fulcrum of their platform.
Now, look around and ask yourself this question: “What separated Donald J. Trump from the remaining field of 17 GOP candidates in 2016?” An honest topline answer would be immigration (border control), and his views on American economic policy. In essence, what set Donald Trump apart from all other candidates was his view on the U.S. economy, and that was the driving factor behind ‘Make America Great Again’, MAGA.
Now, look around. Look at every other potential candidate for political office. Is there another person in the field of your political view who comes from the starting point that economic security is national security?
Put aside all other issues and shiny things that may change from moment to moment as the political winds swirl and settle, and ask yourself that question. Who can deliver MAGA, if not the central person who lives, eats, sleeps and thinks about U.S. economic security from every angle at every second of every hour of every day. That’s Donald J. Trump.
Trump knows the extremely consequential sequence of BIG things that lead to a structurally strong American economic foundation. We don’t have to guess at whether Trump can deliver on that policy sequence, we have reference points.
♦ Donald Trump knew that independent U.S. energy policy was a condition for a strong U.S. economy. He also knew there would be negative consequences to allies and partners if the U.S. energy policy was independent. Trump knew that OPEC nations in general would be negatively impacted, and he knew that Saudi Arabia specifically would be weakened geopolitically. That is why the very first foreign trip by Donald Trump was to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States that make up the majority of OPEC.
Look at what President Trump did on that trip. First, he assured Saudi Arabia that the United States would stand with the Gulf Cooperation Council and Mid-East nations as it pertained to their security. Trump knew making the largest energy consuming nation independent from foreign oil would be adverse to the economic stability of the Mid-East, and as an outcome, could open a door to destabilization from extremist or ideological groups therein.
Take away top-line economic revenue from Saudi et al, and the leaders of those oil economies have a more difficult time remaining stable and controlling unrest and extremism. Generations of Arab citizens know nothing other than the trickle down benefits of oil exports. President Trump knew this, and he approached our need for energy independence by first assuring the Arab states of his commitment to their stability and safety.
President Trump delivered to those states a list of approved arms and defense agreements during that trip. In essence, what he was doing was putting the promise of security into actual delivery of tools to retain that security. Actions speak louder than words. President Trump also promised to work diligently on peace in the region; a real substantive and genuine peace that would provide security in the big picture.
Over the course of the next few years, Trump delivered on that set of promises with the Abraham accords. Yes, economic security as national security applies to our allies as well as ourselves. Again, actions speak louder than words.
With the U.S. energy independence program in place, President Trump then moved in sequence to the next big thing.
♦ Donald Trump moved to face the challenge of China. A major shift in U.S. policy that is likely considered the biggest geopolitical shift in the last 75 years. Trump strategically began with Trade Authority 302 national security Steel and Aluminum tariffs at 25% and 10% not only toward China but targeted globally.
The entire multinational system was stunned at the bold step with tariffs. But remember, before Trump went to Saudi Arabia, he held a meeting with Chairman Xi Jinping in Mar-a-Lago. The global trade world was shocked by the tariff announcement, but I’ll bet you a doughnut Chairman Xi was not.
That February 2017 meeting, only one month after his inauguration, was President Trump graciously informing Chairman Xi, in the polite manner that respectful business people do, that a new era in the U.S-China relationship was about to begin. New trade agreements, new terms and conditions were to be expected in the future. The tariff announcement hit Wall Street hard, but not Beijing – who knew it was likely.
U.S. financial pundits proclaimed the sky was surely falling. These tariffs would cause prices to skyrocket, the global order of all things around trade was under attack by Trump. They waxed and shouted about supply chains being complicated and intertwined amid the modern manufacturing era that was too complex for President Trump to understand with such a heavy handed tariff hammer. Remember all of that? Remember how cars were going to cost thousands more, and beer kegs would forever be lost because the orange man had just triggered steel and aluminum tariffs?
Did any of that happen? No. Of course it didn’t. Actually, the opposite was true and no one could even fathom it. Communist China first responded by subsidizing all of their industries targeted by the tariffs with free energy and raw materials, etc. China triggered an immediate reaction to lower their own prices to offset tariffs. Beijing did not want the heavy industries and factories to start back up again in the U.S, so they reacted with measures to negate the tariff impact.
China’s economy started to feel the pressure and panda was not happy. Eventually, as the tariffs expanded beyond Steel and Aluminum to other specific segments and categories, China devalued their currency to lower costs even further for U.S. importers. The net result was something no one could have imagined. With lower prices, and increased dollar strength, we began importing all Chinese products at cheaper rates than before the tariffs were triggered. Yes, we began importing deflation. No one saw that coming…. but Trump did.
While all that initial U.S-China trade shock was taking place, Donald Trump took his next foreign trip to… wait for it…. Southeast Asia.
Just like in the example of the trip to Saudi Arabia, economically-minded Trump told partners and leaders in the export producing countries of Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and ASEAN nations to prepare for additional business and new trade agreements with the U.S., as factories inside China might start to decouple. Look at how they responded, they did exactly what Trump said would be in their best interests.
To seriously gather the focus of this SE Asia group, President Trump started direct talks with North Korea and Chairman Kim Jong-un for peace and regional stability. It’s easy to forget just how stunning this was at the time, but generations of people in Asia were jaw-agape at the U.S. President confronting China, engaging with North Korea, and opening his arms to new trade deals with ASEAN partners.
On the world stage of geopolitics and global trade, any one of these moves would be a monumental legacy initiative all by itself. But together, simultaneously, you can see how the entire continent physically stopped midstride and stood staring at this, this man, this American President, who was just about to step across the Demilitarized Zone in North Korea and shake hands with Chairman Kim…. and, wait for it…. they are smiling.
√ Energy security triggered and friends in Mid-East supported.
√ Mid-East peace initiatives triggered.
√ A return of heavy industry and manufacturing security triggered.
√ A confrontation of Chinese economic influence triggered.
√ Stability between South Korea and North Korea, triggered.
√ New trade deals and economic partnerships with Japan and South Korea, triggered.
And then, as if that was not enough… just as multinational investment groups started realizing they needed to change their outlooks and drop the decades long view of the U.S. as a “service driven economy”… just as they realized they needed to start investing domestically inside the United States for their own growth and financial security… as if all that wasn’t enough… President Trump kicks off an entirely new trade deal and renegotiated standard for all North American trade via NAFTA.
We don’t have to guess at whether Donald Trump can put together a program to ensure Economic Security is National Security. We don’t have to guess at whether Donald Trump can deliver on economic policy. We don’t have guess if Trump’s policy platform, proposals and initiatives would be successful. We have the experience of it. We have the results of it. We have felt the success of it.
We also don’t need to guess at who is the best candidate to lead Making America Great Again, we already know who that is.
There is no other 2024 Presidential Candidate who I am aware of who could possibly achieve what Donald John Trump has achieved, or who could even fathom contemplating how to achieve a quarter of what President Trump achieved.
Do not tell me Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is a better option. DeSantis is an unknown commodity, a blank slate, when it comes to big picture economic outlooks. DeSantis doesn’t have an economic agenda inside his administration from which to contemplate or analyze his economic views.
Governor Ron DeSantis has a lot of really good skills and policies on the domestic front unique to his position in Florida; however, it is not a slight toward him to point out he has never expressed any larger economic proposal that would give any confidence in a national economic policy.
Look at the sum total of it, and there’s so much more that could be outlined to what Donald Trump achieved and could yet still achieve achieve, it’s not even a close question.
And that my friends is exactly why Donald Trump is under relentless attack from both wings of the UniParty in DC. Additionally, it is clear the Wall Street republicans are trying to position Ron DeSantis as an alternative to another Trump term. Look carefully at the current advocates for DeSantis, Nikki Haley and/or Kristi Noem, and you will note every one of those early voices are attached to favorable Wall Street politics and multinational corporate advocacy.
Look at what Donald J. Trump was able to achieve while he was under constant political attack. Just imagine what Trump 2.0 would deliver.
They, the leftist Democrats and Wall Street Republicans, are yet again absolutely petrified of that.
Aubrey Marcus, the founder of holistic health and lifestyle brand, Onnit, and New York Times best-selling author, invited three guests on his self-titled podcast. According to the podcast page, guests provide “expertise in mindset, relationship, health, business, and spirituality.” Episode #337, titled “The Inconvenient Injured w/ Vaccine Advocates Dr. Aditi Bhargava, Kyle Warner, and Brianne Dressen,” explores the perspective of Bhargava, molecular biologist, Professor, and Principal Investigator at UCSF who develops mRNA technology. The additional guests tell their personal stories of experiencing an mRNA vaccine injury which we will summarize in our Part II article.
An open mind is most definitely important with a novel, unfolding pandemic such as the one we now face. Marcus begins by prefacing the conversation for viewers/listeners to keep an open mind so that ideas and issues can be discussed, examined, and critically explored regardless of politics or the current scientific taboos.
Exposing Scientific Loopholes
Bhargava is concerned about the way that scientists have approached the pandemic. It seems like scientific standards, norms and ideals have been abandoned. However, she also believes that coronavirus research and publication speed has exposed many loopholes in the scientific process that should be addressed in a methodical manner.
For example, it took 11 years for scientists with differing opinions to come to a consensus regarding SARS-CoV-1 as the pathogen that caused the SARS epidemic in the early 2000s. The outbreak, she believes, was likely a result of gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses being performed in many institutions and as highlighted by a laboratory-acquired infection in Singapore, in the case of bat CoV, gain-of-function entails intentionally creating mutations that could infect humans, not a natural host, simply to see what could happen. This seemingly unwarranted justification, says Bhargava, is “playing with fire” especially given that CoV in bats does not cause disease, just mild sniffles, and bats clear that virus fairly quickly; under the guise of pathogen discovery program, an ulterior purpose is “to develop biological warfare weapons.”
In contrast, the rigid consensus that Sars-CoV-2 is the cause of the current COVID-19 pandemic was made in less than two months; how to treat it or contain it, has been a chaotic and unscientific process, at best for the last two years.
The Technical Term for Preventing Infection
In terms of mRNA vaccines, Bhargava says they do not meet the traditional definition because unlike live-attenuated vaccines, (MMR, chickenpox, yellow fever,) mRNAs do not qualify due to their inability to reduce the viral load or prevent infection, or transmission. They could more accurately be categorized as a drug, says Bhargava.
(In the summer of 2021, the CDC changed its definition of a “vaccine” by replacing the word “immunity” with “protection” which they have claimed is for accuracy. Merriam-Webster also updated their definition in May, as pointed out by Dr. Peter Doshi.)
Bhargava also states that there have not been well-controlled clinical trials control-group studies (which compare vaccinated vs. unvaccinated with a similar health history, age, sex, and exposure risk) to conclude that the vaccines are efficacious and safe.
The Claim that “the Science is Clear”
Bhargava is “puzzled” as to why the scientific community is “turning a blind eye” to severe side effects. To not objectively acknowledge and explore adverse events, “is contradictory to everything we know about developing drugs,” she explains. The media continually suggests that the “science is clear.” Yet, when she reviews peer and non-peer-reviewed scientific publications, it leaves her with more questions and less clarity, despite her expertise and experience.
The topic of biological science and research had never been so widely consumed by the media and the public in “real-time” until recently, she says. While the urgency for answers is understandable, studies that normally take months to establish and peer-review are fast-tracked, yet devoid of the cautionary mindset that “science is always changing.” For example, if a natural infection takes 2 weeks to train the immune system, so does the vaccine. And the vaccine only trains a small arm of the immune system. (The architect of mRNA technology, Dr. Robert Malone, echoes this issue, saying established scientific data, which health officials rely on, is usually six months behind.)
Mechanism of Action for Covid-19 Vaccines:
There are currently three categories of vaccines developed for Covid-19. They include 1) inactivated (e.g., India’s Covaxin or a couple of the Chinese vaccines such as SinoVac, CoronaVac) representing the traditional approach; 2) Recombinant (Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca) which use adeno-associated virus fused with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (“the shell” of the virus); and 3) mRNA (Pfizer and Moderna).
In the short-term (2-3 months post-vaccination), it may appear that vaccines decrease infection and transmission, the long-term effects of these vaccines on cellular and immune function is a complete unknown; it’s uncertain that these will be the only changes produced, says Bhargava.
In the past, adeno-associated viral (AAV) vectors used in gene therapy caused issues when they were integrated into patients’ genomes randomly. Some of the patients in the gene therapy trials found the original disease being cured but development of other symptoms or cancers gene therapy trials experienced a cure of one disease, but other types of cancers resulted in their place, causing death in every single trial, says Bhargava. Due to these unforeseen outcomes, the FDA wants a minimum five-year follow-up for adeno-associated viral vectors used in therapy.
Interestingly, many people are naturally infected with adenovirus but have no symptoms or disease; the virus lies dormant in their genome. “We don’t know if the recombinant AAV vaccine (with Sars-CoV-2 spike protein), a mutated adeno-vector, can somehow activate the virus which is latent in some people, and if that virus becomes activated…,” she says, it could essentially perform a “rescue” to the mutant version of the virus in the vaccine by providing the missing pieces; this could have unintended consequences.
These unintended consequences highlight the issue of the public-facing stance that Covid-19 vaccines are unequivocally “safe and effective.” Bhargava dispels the notion that these side effects are random and not causation from the vaccines because side effects “are clustered.”
Warner agreed, stating that he recently attended a vaccine-injury press conference in which those who claimed to be affected had injuries in three main groups: neurological, cardiac, and autoimmune. (Warner experienced severe cardiac and autoimmune issues after his second dose of Pfizer.) He noted that the vax-injured cohort compiled a mixed demographic, with their only common denominator being the vaccine, says Warner. Prior to the pandemic, says Bhargava, scientists would proceed in investigating this perplexing commonality, instead of ignoring the reports.
The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, (where patients and doctors can make vaccine injuries known to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,) has been discounted by health officials, scientific publications, and the media, citing that self-reporting is not credible in determining that the vaccines are the causation of the injury.
Warner says the in-depth amount of information that must be provided to make a valid claim gives credibility to the genuineness of the reports. Also, false reporting to VAERS is a federal crime. Warner references a study conducted by non-profit Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare called the Lazarus report, which found that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” Given this determination, —even using the most conservative figure— the death toll would be alarming.
Warner clarifies that neither he nor Dressen (who experienced debilitating neurological disorders with one injection of AstraZeneca) are advocating for ending the vaccine initiative. However, if medical professionals continue to deny their patients a vaccine-related injury diagnosis, they cannot get the appropriate medical support. Warner also claims that doctors who do acknowledge and diagnose vaccine injuries are in jeopardy of losing their license.
Mandates vs. Fundamental Immunology
To Bhargava, mandates do not make scientific sense for several reasons. She provided her rationale including:
One, the vaccines fail to stop infection or importantly, transmission, so how will they end the pandemic? The CDC stopped tracking breakthrough infections in fully vaccinated people since May of 2021 (just a few months into the vaccine drive) unless they were hospitalized or had severe disease. In contrast, all cases, whether mild or asymptomatic in the vaccinated are being reported. This is skewing of data. The promise of herd immunity for Covid-19 is doubtful considering our failure to reach herd immunity with the flu—despite the widespread use of yearly flu shots. “Have we eradicated it?” asks Bhargava. “No.”
Two, even for mandated childhood vaccines such as chickenpox, there can be breakthrough infections and transmissibility. However, with natural immunity, the recovered patient cannot be reinfected and is therefore exempt from needing the pox vaccine. But somehow there is no exemption for natural immunity with Covid-19. Of course, TrialSite reminds it has followed studies that evidence reinfection with CoV-2 is a rare phenomenon, but it does occur. Some early data indicate Omicron may pose a larger threat for more reinfection, but the notion is mere speculation; re-infections have yet to be confirmed by sequencing and prior infection variant identity is seldom reported. Only time and data will tell.
Three, there are fundamental differences between RNA and DNA viruses. “You can’t compare Covid to chickenpox, because chickenpox is caused by DNA viruses. They don’t mutate as often, and they induce life-long immunity…” —even if they are around someone who is actively infectious—. In contrast, the flu (RNA) behaves differently, selectively, as does Covid. Household members may not contract it from a sick member, and if they do, symptoms and their level of severity can vary.
Furthermore, it is rare to contract flu year-after-year, (evidence of a significant level of robust, ongoing immunity.) Upon reinfection perhaps five or ten years later, the subsequent infection is often milder. “The idea that people who have recovered from Covid also need to be vaccinated is completely mind-boggling to me, and to the whole principle of immunology.”
Four, “natural immunity has been known to be the gold standard for the longest time,” says Bhargava. Consider the development of the smallpox vaccine:
It was observed in 1796, that milkmaids who contracted the cowpox disease were protected from smallpox. Therefore, scientists were able to inoculate others using some of the secretions in the cowpox blisters (gross but necessary,) and exposed it to people who became resistant to smallpox.
Historically, scientists unanimously recognized the value of natural immunity. Why won’t virologists affirm its crucial role in this pandemic?
Mass Vaccination Causing Evolutionary Pressure
Five, putting pressure on the virus by vaccinating during a pandemic causes it to mutate for its survival. Bhargava uses “a disguise” analogy: mRNA vaccines are built in a way that the body recognizes “the face” of the virus, (the spike protein.) So, when the virus wants to infect a vaccinated host, it puts on “a mask.” However, with natural immunity, the body is acquainted with all facets of the virus’ identity, making it harder to conquer its host.
These ideas are shared by Malone, and Belgian virologist, Geert Vanden Bossche, who advocate that mass vaccination is compelling the virus to mutate, essentially training it to become more resilient.
Incomplete Data Breeds Public Distrust
Bhargava reviewed recent data from the United Kingdom’s Health Ministry. It examined alternate antibodies created in vaccinated vs. naturally acquired immunity cohorts, which fight other parts of the virus, such as the nucleocapsid protein. The vaccinated group was reported to have lower amounts of antibodies for the nucleocapsid protein than the unvaccinated, naturally infected group. “What that tells me is that the vaccine is interfering with the function of your immune system to mount a robust response against the virus when you get infected,” says Bhargava.
Most of the published research comparing antibody levels in vaccinated immunity vs. natural immunity are comparing spike protein antibodies only, “and disregarding other components,” says Bhargava. If our immune system’s antibody defense were a pie, the spike protein would only comprise 35 – 50%. Comparing the data this way often favors the vaccinated, while ignoring all the other antibodies that naturally infected persons produce.
There were also flaws in the way scientists evaluated the virulence of the Delta variant. In the studies, she read they did not track the symptoms of the unvaccinated which would provide necessary info for comparison against the vaccinated breakthrough cases.
Without the Delta data of the unvaccinated, how can we know it is more virulent? To make such a conclusion, researchers would have to observe cases of more severe disease in the unvaccinated, ensuring that underlying health conditions were similar in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Of course, if that information was present in scientific publication, and it was determined to be the case, the media would have shared it worldwide, right? Is it possible that the unvaccinated experienced milder symptoms, which may explain why this data was not recorded or shared?
It’s also fair to note that the CDC no longer tracks breakthrough infections in the vaccinated unless there is death or hospitalization, so there is not truly a clear picture in which to make scientific determinations. The scientific community is “cherry-picking” their data, says Bhargava.
Marcus confirms that these inexplicable actions on behalf of the leaders in scientific research provoke the mounting doubt of the general public. Things aren’t right, and their minds are compelled to search for or reach for answers. On the other hand, there are voices on both sides of the political spectrum who are allowing their conclusions to run off the deep end.
Confidence in Truth Emerging
“If people lose faith in science, that will be, I think, the end of medicine as we know it,” says Bhargava.
Bhargava acknowledges why physicians and nurses who see and treat patients adhere to the protocol given by health authorities, however, “in the lab, there are always deviations from the experimental protocol. That’s how discoveries are made.” Lab experiments fail 99% of the time. Protocol is only a guideline; she encouraged her surgical students to deviate from the protocols as needed and ask questions during experimentation that might lead to insight along the way. “If you do that, your chances of succeeding will be much higher.”
Final thoughts:
With only incomplete data on hand, how can scientific inferences be made with strong confidence? Bhargava declared, “When there are no appropriate controls and no proper documentation of data,” the inferences made hold little value. She emphasizes the importance of accepting the inconvenient-yet-important data. Information such as adverse events or alternative therapeutics should be examined so that it can help us understand more about SARS-CoV-2 and the role that our current vaccines have in protecting the world from Covid-19.
Call to Action: Check out Aubrey Marcus’ podcasts here.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 12, 2021 | Sundance | 319 Comments
The NBC media panel for Meet the Press is absolutely apoplectic about their inability to destroy President Donald Trump and his supportive base of pragmatic, awakened Americans. The pearl-clutching and fear are palpable, as the leftist roundtable contemplates future elections that may deconstruct decades of election control, manipulation, fraud and falsehood.
What the panel of John Heilemann, Marianna Sotomayor, Kimberly Atkins Stohr and Brendan Buck really fear is the pesky system within our constitutional republic we call ‘federalism’. They need to keep their attacks against Donald Trump cast in the role of eliminating baby Hitler simply to avoid confronting the flaws in their own ideological arguments. They fear freedom. They need the collective. Individual liberty is against their own sense of self and purpose.
If you listen through their nonsense (not for the faint of heart), all of the panel apoplexy boils down to individual states in control of their own elections. What they fear is federalism itself, which makes sense when you remind yourself there are two generations of leftists who were taught that collectivism (the we are the world crap), where only one centralized federal government, of all consuming power and authority, should be allowed to make decisions. WATCH:
While it would be fun to debate a group like this, the core of their fear is a diminishing ability to control. As CTH reminds frequently, the need for control is a reaction to fear. This applies in all levels of social society from elections to COVID responses. Elites need control, because at their core they fear the inherent inequity of freedom.
Sally Struthers pleads into the camera for donations to feed the starving child in her arms in Africa… leftists swoon, and the U.N. activates. Meanwhile, some pragmatist watching the commercial leans over to her husband and says, “I wonder why the cameraman didn’t just give the kid a sandwich”?
Control is a reaction to fear. Think in terms of politics and society – the fear behind leftist politics is the fear that someone might withhold things (opportunities, money, whatever) from me. Fear that if you live your life in a way I dislike that it might affect my life. Fear that if you get that job, there will be nothing left for me. Fear that if you make tons of money, it means there’s less money out there for me. So, people who believe in leftist ideologies seek control as a means of trying to create guarantees and safeguards against those circumstances they fear.
The DC UniParty knows exactly how to exploit that fear, and both Democrats and Republicans love to provide those guarantees and safeguards.
Modern “liberals”, leftists, try to control the world and people to enable their comfort and happiness. Which, as we know, is an endless quest. Trying to control others does nothing in the way of making oneself happy. By extension, voting in this mindset so that government can try to control others will also – shocking – not lead to a happier, more comfortable life.
The conservative (and moderate, independent, but for the sake of expediency, the conservative), on the other hand, relies on himself to meet his own needs. And the trade off of being free to live his life as he wishes, is also understanding that he has to make peace with how you live yours. By extension, aware that he wants to be able to hold onto this liberty and freedom forever, the conservative votes accordingly, so that everyone can remain free and in charge of his or her own life.
But here’s the crucial difference, perhaps, particularly where misery on the left stems: The conservative does not worry, so to speak, about you. The conservative knows that you were born with the same access to self-love, self-empowerment, self-determination and self-reliance that we all were, no matter the circumstances into which you were born. (Think about the millions of people this country has allowed to crawl up from poverty into prosperity – the conservative KNOWS this is possible.) And the conservative believes that if you want prosperity, or a good job, or a good education, you can make it happen – but you have to work hard.
The conservative hopes and intends that the free markets bring you all of the affordable and positive opportunities and resources that you need. The conservative also knows that on the other side of that hard work is great reward – material and, more importantly, emotional, spiritual and mental.
The conservative understands that not only is it a waste of time to try to control you, it’s actually impossible. Humans were born to be free. And if we put a roadblock in front of you, you’ll find another way around it. So we see attempts at control as a waste of resources, energy and time at best, and at worst, creating detrimental results that serve to hinder people’s upward mobility or teach dependence. We see much more efficiency, as well as endless opportunity, in leaving you to your own devices. And we want the same in return.
This is where modern democrats misview conservatives as heartless. But really, the conservative believes that there is one and one path only to sustainable success and independence – and that is self-empowerment. All other avenues – welfare, affirmative action, housing loans you can’t actually afford – ultimately risk doing a disservice to people, as they teach dependence on special circumstances, the govt, or arbitrary assistance (that can disappear tomorrow). And the real danger – they will ALWAYS backfire, and leave the recipient in equally or more dire circumstances. Any false improvement will always expire.
The conservative believes in abundance. The liberal believes in scarcity.
The conservative believes man is born free and will be who he is, no matter what arbitrary limitations or rules are put on him. The leftist believes man is perfectible, and by extension, believes a society at large is perfectible, and command and control is justified in the quest to a “perfect” utopian society. (Sounds familiar!)
The conservative tends to be more faithful – and not necessarily in God, but in the ability of the individual to find great strength in himself (or from his God) to get what he needs and to be successful. Therefore the conservative has an outlet for his fear and disappointment – trust and faith in something bigger.
The leftist believes the system must be perfected in order to enable success. Therefore disappointment is channeled as anger and blame at the system. Voids are left to be filled by faith in the govt, which they surely then want to come in and “fix” things.
And therein lie the roots of love and fear respectively. For the conservative, when life presents great struggles, he knows he has the power to surmount them. Happiness stems from internal strength and perseverance. For the modern leftist, when life presents great struggles, the system failed, therefore they were at the mercy of a faulty system, and they believe that only when the system is fixed can their life improve. Happiness is built on systemic contingencies, which they will then seek to control or expect someone else to.
One blames himself. The other blames anyone and everyone but himself.
And there it is. There’s where the meanness comes from. The leftist ideology causes that person to cast anger at the world when things go wrong or appear “unfair.” He constantly chooses only to see the “injustices” – and that makes for a very miserable, mean, blame-casting existence.
One last point that we have seen over and over and over with many (not all) of our leftist friends: Extreme stinginess and cheapness.
In our conservative community growing up, we were always taught that you give when people are in need – make donations to the Red Cross when there’s an earthquake, donate to charity when you can afford it, etc. Even if it’s just $50 here and there – it’s the right thing to do. Conservatives see this as the responsibility that comes with gaining from the capitalistic system; if you happen to benefit greatly from the system, it’s your duty to give back.
The liberal, on the other hand, does not seem to share this same viewpoint, at least not in my experience. They perhaps think this is linked to believing in scarcity, and that your dollar comes at the cost of mine. So it seems that liberals, on some level of consciousness, feel guilty about not being voluntarily charitable. Therefore, to write off their guilt, they outsource their “generosity” to the government by voting for wealth re-distributive policies. Thus, the liberal cheats himself of the joy and addictiveness of direct generosity. (Not to mention – redistributive policies ALWAYS end up disempowering those who they’re meant to help.)
We think the Treehouse is a good armory for those who are doing long distance walking for the sake of our nation. We hope you’ll think so, too. Find yourself a good branch….or just pull up a rock to the campfire.
Posted Originally on the Conservative tree house on December 12, 2021 | Sundance | 123 Comments
ABC/IPSOS are trying hard, very hard, to provide cover for Joe Biden. [IPSOS Release Here – pdf data Here] However, even within what they call a “probability-based sample of pre-selected” Americans, aka “the knowledge panel“, the responses toward Joe Biden show a nationwide rejection of the White House occupant.
A heavily weighted sample of 28% support Biden’s efforts on inflation. The rest of their pre-selected panel say he sucks.
Another weighted sample shows 36% think Biden is doing a good job on crime. The rest of their pre-selected panel say no, Biden sucks.
(Via ABC) President Joe Biden is facing significant skepticism from the American public, with his job approval rating lagging across a range of major issues, including new lows for his handling of crime, gun violence and the economic recovery, a new ABC/Ipsos poll finds.
[…] More than two-thirds of Americans (69%) disapprove of how Biden is handling inflation (only 28% approve) while more than half (57%) disapprove of his handling of the economic recovery.
[T]he survey also reveals weaknesses from Biden’s own party with only a slim majority of Democrats (54%) approving. Biden’s orbit is also hemorrhaging independent voters, with 71% disapproving of his handling of inflation.
[…] As the national murder rates see historic jumps, only a little more than 1 in 3 Americans (36%) approve of Biden’s handling of crime, down from 43% in an ABC News/Ipsos poll in late October. (read more)
The White House strategy to deny chaos created by their policies, and yet demanding that media report good things about Main Street collapsing, does not seem to be working. Apparently, an overwhelming majority of Americans now believe what they see and feel for themselves.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 12, 2021 | Sundance | 359 Comments
It was always Chris Wallace’s job to protect the DC interests by tamping down any sunlight upon corrupt UniParty politics. That’s the reason why CTH called Wallace the deep swamp ‘gatekeeper‘ for a decade.
Wallace, the top player amid many such players at Fox News, was always a narrative platform provider to distribute media points that supported the institutional administrative state in DC. However, thanks to the rise of pragmatic conservatism, a movement created by Donald Trump and commonly identified as MAGA, in recent years more people have caught on to how this insufferable media game is played.
Chris Wallace was increasingly becoming naked to his audience, and as a direct outcome, increasingly useless for propaganda distribution. Today, the functionally obsolescent gatekeeper announced, effective immediately, he was leaving Fox News. Moments later, CNN announced Chris Wallace was joining them. In essence, Wallace moves from controlled opposition to direct opposition. WATCH:
Wallace was not the first departure. The increased public awareness of the manipulative construct that is Fox News (writ large) is the same reason why Steve Hayes and Jonah Goldberg were released. That is also the same motive for Fox hiring Dan Bongino.
Although it is yet to be announced, the Fox News contracts for Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham also will not be renewed after their current terms expire. With more people finding more places where genuine source material facts are cited with sunlight, the ability for controlled opposition pundits to thrive is demonstrably lessened.
Traditional cable news is modifying itself accordingly with subscription based services.
If you want to avoid uncomfortable truth, if you want to be fed propaganda, if you want to get talking points just to support your skewed and ideologically flawed world view, and if you want to avoid confronting your own preconceptions, the subscriber services from both Fox News and CNN will now provide the direct injection of propaganda and misinformation you need to retain the status quo. This is the new business model for cable news platforms.
An entirely new media infrastructure has assembled outside the influence of corporations. Understanding current events, real news and information based on fact, is no longer dependent on corporations. Independent researchers and information providers are giving the raw material citations directly to audiences on a variety of platforms.
In the bigger picture, these are the consequences from identifying “fake news” publicly, and yes, we can thank Donald J. Trump for that. This is the biggest gift that Donald Trump created outside of his America First political agenda. Donald J. Trump was/is a walking red pill; a “touchstone”: a visible, empirical test or criterion for determining the quality or genuineness of anything political.
Without Trump, the business models of CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and the alphabet broadcasters would never have collapsed as quickly. He alone accomplished that.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 