• As of March 13, 2020 the National Security Council (NSC) was officially in charge of the US government’s Covid policy.
• Starting on March 18, 2020, The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), was officially in charge of the US government’s Covid response.

The Covid Task Force Coordinator was brought in by the NSC

On March 11, 2020, at a Heritage Foundation Talk, Trump’s National Security Advisor, Robert O’Brien, when discussing what the White House and NSC were doing about the virus, said: 

“We brought into the White House Debi Birx, a fantastic physician and ambassador from the State Department. We appreciate Secretary Pompeo immediately moving her over to the White House at our, well at the President’s, request.” (min. 21:43 – 21:56)

The National Security Council was in charge of our Covid Policy

An astonishing government document dated March 13, 2020 entitled: “PanCAP Adapted U.S. Government COVID-19 Response Plan” (PanCAP-A) (embedded at the end of this piece) reveals that United States policy in response to SARS-CoV-2 was set not by the public health agencies designated in pandemic preparedness protocols (Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act, PPD-44, BIA), but rather by the National Security Council, or NSC. 

This is the pandemic response org chart, from p. 9 of PanCAP-A, showing the NSC solely responsible for Covid policy:

What is the National Security Council?

According to its website, the NSC “is the President’s principal forum for considering national security and foreign policy matters with his or her senior advisors and cabinet officials.” 

The NSC does not include as regular attendees any representatives from public health-related agencies.  

It does include the President’s National Security Advisor, who is “the President’s most important source of policy advice on foreign and national security policy,” according to the White House Transition Project’s document for The National Security Advisor and Staff. “In some administrations,” the document continues, “foreign and national security policy making is essentially centralized in the hands of the NSC advisor with minimal input from cabinet-level departments such as State or Defense.” Furthermore, “there is little statutory or legal constraint (beyond budgetary limits) in how the role of NSC advisor is defined or how the NSC staff is organized and operates.” (pp. 1-2)

In other words, if the NSC is in charge of Covid response, it can pretty much decide and impose anything it wants without any constraints or oversight, as long as the President agrees, or at least lets them take the lead.

But what exactly is PanCAP-A, in which the NSC appears in such a surprising Covid-response leadership role?

PanCAP-A is the closest we have to a national Covid response plan

PanCAP-A stands for Pandemic Crisis Action Plan – Adapted. 

An exhaustive online search did not turn up the Pandemic Crisis Action Plan from 2018, which was apparently “adapted” to produce PanCAP-A. However, the existence of the original document is confirmed in various documents, including a statement on “Preparedness for COVID-19” presented to the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs on April 14, 2021. 

In this statement, Elizabeth Zimmerman, a former FEMA Administrator, who is sharing with the Senate Committee her findings on “The Initial Pandemic Response and Lessons Learned,” says she had trouble finding the government’s plan for the US response to Covid-19:

“In researching disaster response plans to refresh my memory for this hearing, I found several detailed plans that were publicly available and saw mention of plans and directives that were not publicly available. The time spent searching for these plans and directives was frustrating for an experienced emergency manager…” 

Then, in reference to the plans she was able to find, or knew about but may not have actually seen, she says:

“Following the Anthrax attacks in 2001, the federal government invested a lot of money on processes and plans centered on public health response – bioterrorism and pandemics in particular. … One of the latest plans, January 2017, is the Biological Incident Annex (BIA) to the Response and Recovery Federal Interagency Operational Plans (FIOPs). The BIA is the federal organizing framework for responding and recovering from a range of biological threats, including pandemics. 

However, it was not publicly seen that these plans were being used during the onset of COVID-19 nor does it seem that there was a national COVID-19 response plan. 

Finally, she references the 2018 PanCAP, the adapted PanCAP, and then makes another surprising statement:

Also, there was a 2018 Pandemic Crisis Action Plan (PanCAP) that was customized for COVID-19 specifically and adopted in March 2020 by HHS and FEMA; the plan identified the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as the Lead Federal Agency (LFA) with FEMA supporting for coordination. However, a mere five days after the national COVID-19 emergency was announced, FEMA became the LFA.” [BOLDFACE ADDED]

FEMA replaced HHS as the Lead Federal Agency, with no warning or preparation

What Zimmerman is saying here is that, in the PanCAP-A org chart, where the NSC is in charge of policy and the HHS is in charge of almost everything else – actually, FEMA is in charge of everything else.

This means that, in effect, starting on March 18, 2020, the HHS –which comprises the CDC, NIAID, NIH and other public-health-related agencies – had NO OFFICIAL LEADERSHIP ROLE in pandemic response – not in determining policy and not in implementing policy.

This is a staggering piece of information, considering that all pandemic preparedness plans, as Zimmerman notes, placed the Health and Human Services Agency (HHS) at the helm of pandemic response.

How was FEMA put in charge?

According to the Stafford Act, which “constitutes the statutory authority for most Federal disaster response activities especially as they pertain to FEMA and FEMA programs,” the disasters to which FEMA is empowered to respond include: 

“any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, winddriven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought), or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under this Act to supplement the efforts and available resources of States, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby.”

Very clearly, FEMA is an agency neither designed nor intended to lead public health initiatives or the country’s response to disease outbreaks. 

Yet, as Zimmerman reported, on March 18, 2020, just five days after the official date of PanCAP-A, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was removed from its lead role in pandemic response, and FEMA was (at least operationally if not policy-wise) put in charge.

In a Congressional Research Service report from February 2022, entitled “FEMA’s Role in the COVID-19 Federal Pandemic Response,” the opening paragraph states:

“On March 13, 2020, President Donald J. Trump declared a nationwide emergency under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288 as amended), authorizing assistance administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Five days later, the President notified then-FEMA Administrator Peter Gaynor that the agency would assume leadership of the federal pandemic response effort—the first known instance of FEMA serving in such a role for a public health incident.”

FEMA’s January 2021 COVID-19 Initial Assessment Report emphasizes how unusual this chain of events was:

“The agency’s response to COVID-19 has been unprecedented. When the White House directed FEMA to lead operations, COVID-19 became the first national pandemic response that FEMA has led since the agency was established in 1979. It was also the first time in U.S. history the President has declared a nationwide emergency under Section 501b of the Stafford Act and authorized Major Disaster Declarations for all states and territories for the same incident.” (p. 5)

A FEMA fact sheet from March 4, 2020 reveals that the agency was not given advanced warning of the enormous new responsibilities that would be thrust upon it just two weeks later:

“At this time, FEMA is not preparing an emergency declaration in addition to the Public Health Emergency declared by HHS on January 31, 2020.” (p. 2)

The table below is from a September 2021 report from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Homeland Security, “Lessons Learned from FEMA’s Initial Response to COVID-19.” This document stresses that “The PanCAP-A did not address the changes that ensued when FEMA was designated the LFA. Furthermore, FEMA (and HHS) did not update the PanCAP-A or issue interim guidance addressing the changes in critical roles and responsibilities for each agency.” (p. 11)

In other words, HHS – the agency designated by statute and experience to handle public health crises – was removed, and FEMA – the agency designated by statute and experience to “help people before, during and after disasters” like earthquakes and fires – was put in charge. But the pandemic planning document was not updated to reflect that change or how that change would affect the Covid response.

Why was FEMA suddenly and unexpectedly given this lead role? I would argue that the NSC wanted to ensure that no policy or response initiative emanating from the public health departments would play any role in the Covid response. Since FEMA had no planning documents or policies regarding disease or pandemic outbreaks, there would be nothing in the way of whatever the NSC wanted to do.

So what did the NSC want to do? PanCAP-A, in which the NSC takes the lead role in setting Covid policy, does not give a detailed answer, but does clearly place NSC policy above anything else that might contradict it.

What does PanCAP-A say?

On p. 1, under “Purpose” it states:

“This plan outlines the United States Government (USG) coordinated federal response activities for COVID-19 in the United States (U.S.). The President appointed the Vice President to lead the USG effort with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) serving as the Lead Federal Agency (LFA) consistent with the Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA) and Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 44.”

In other words, in accordance with a bunch of pandemic preparedness laws and directives, the HHS is the Lead Federal Agency in charge of pandemic response. 

As we move through the document, however, the roles and responsibilities of the HHS become increasingly muddled and diminished.

On p. 6 under “Senior Leader Intent” it says:

“The National Security Council (NSC) requested adaptation of the PanCAP to address the ongoing threat posed by COVID-19 in support of the Administration’s efforts to monitor, contain, and mitigate the spread of the virus. The plan builds on objectives that prepare the USG to implement broader community and healthcare-based mitigation measures…” [BOLDFACE ADDED]

In other words, everything the Pan-CAP-A says about how the HHS is planning to address the pandemic is “adapted” in favor of “objectives” that prepare the government to implement “broader measures.” 

On the next page, we get the exact same vague language under “Strategic Objectives,” which include implementing “broader community and healthcare-based mitigation measures.” A footnote tells us “These objectives were directed by the NSC Resilience DRG PCC on February 24, 2020.” [BOLDFACE ADDED]

What is the NSC Resilience DRG PCC? There is no explanation, appendix, or addendum, nor anything in the entire PanCAP-A to answer this question – a noteworthy omission, since it apparently defines the objectives upon which the entire US pandemic response is based.

Similarly, on p. 8 under “Concept of Operations,” we read:

“This concept of operations aligns interagency triggers to the CDC intervals for each phase and groups key federal actions according to response phase. It also layers in the COVID-19 Containment and Mitigation Strategy developed by the NSC.” [BOLDFACE ADDED]

There is no explanation or description of what the “Containment and Mitigation Strategy developed by the NSC” is referring to. 

Conclusion

Everything we thought we knew about the US government’s Covid response is upended in the Pandemic Crisis Action Plan – Adapted (PanCAP-A), which gave the NSC sole authority over policy, and the simultaneous Stafford Act declaration, which resulted in FEMA/DHS taking the lead role in its implementation.

This means the doctors on the White House Task Force who headed HHS departments – including Fauci, Redfield, and Collins, the heads of the CDC, NIAID and NIH – had no authority over determining or implementing Covid policy and were following the lead of the NSC and the DHS (Department of National Security), which is the department under which FEMA operates.

It means our response to the Covid pandemic was led by groups and agencies that are in the business of responding to wars and terrorist threats, not public health crises or disease outbreaks.

I believe that the national security authorities took control of the Covid pandemic response not just in the US but in many of our allied countries (the UK, Australia, Germany, Israel and others) because they knew SARS-CoV-2 was an engineered virus that leaked from a lab researching potential bioweapons.

Whether or not the “novel coronavirus” was in fact a highly lethal pathogen, it was a military threat because it was a potential bioweapon, and therefore it required a military-style response: strict lockdowns in anticipation of Warp Speed vaccine development. 

Furthermore, all of the seemingly nonsensical and unscientific policies – including mask mandates, mass testing and quarantines, using case counts to determine severity – were imposed in the service of the singular goal of fomenting fear in order to induce public acquiescence with the lockdown-until-vaccines policy.

And once the national security authorities were in charge, the entire biodefense industrial complex, consisting of national security and intelligence operatives, propaganda/psy-op (psychological operations) departments, pharmaceutical companies and affiliated government officials and NGOs assumed leadership roles.

Much research is needed to unearth more evidence in support of these hypotheses. The work continues. (read more)

The Head Girl will probably be a big success in life, in whatever terms being a big success happens to be framed …. But the Head Girl is not, cannot be, a creative genius.

Modern society is run by Head Girls, of both sexes ... Modern colleges aim at recruiting Head Girls, so do universities, so does science, so do the arts, so does the mass media, so does the legal profession, so does medicine, so does the military...

The Head Girl can never be a creative genius because she does what other people want by the standards they most value. She will worker harder and at a higher standard in doing whatever it is that social pressure tells her to do - and she will do this by whatever social standards prevail, only more thoroughly. …

We live in a Head Girl’s world - which is also a world where creative genius is marginalized and disempowered to the point of near-complete invisibility.

There’s probably some reason to be sceptical of Charlton’s concept of the creative genius, but he’s dead right about the malign influence of Head Girls like Oster. Modern social institutions—particularly schools—have been caught for decades in an escalating spiral of harsh selection for conscientiousness and conformity. Since 2000 especially, Head Girls have cemented their dominance across a great many bureaucratic institutions and white-collar professions, and they have used their growing influence and seniority, above all, to recruit and promote more Head Girls like themselves. The problem is that traits like conscientiousness correlate not at all with raw intelligence and ability. Thus, our world has come to be steered by fleets of extremely agreeable, deeply concerned, highly productive and overly socialised Emily Osters—midwits who have very few original thoughts, and who make up for that by caring a lot about what other conformist midwits of similar status think about them.

There’s nothing wrong with Head Girls, when their worst tendencies are counterbalanced by a sufficient number of disagreeable, intelligent, and less conformist colleagues. When they become the predominant personality type in newsrooms, faculties and government offices, though, you start to have serious problems. Then, your schools and your media organisations come to be dominated by committees and meetings, by the avoidance of open conflict, by the constant erection of and sheltering within consensus positions, and by preference cascades kicked off by clamorous organised minorities. All of these characteristic symptoms of government by Head Girl are intolerable to everyone who isn’t a Head Girl, and talented people with any other options at all will ultimately leave their influential positions in Head Girl-dominated institutions, driving the Head Girls to ever greater ascendancy.

[Editor's Note: However, the conformity and virtue-signaling of Head Girls will be their downfall. The ascendancy of Head Girls is ending one "died suddenly" or "died unexpectedly" at a time. I daresay Head Girls are at least 99% fully vaxxed and boosted. Head Girls who did not receive saline solution injections already have micro-clots and foot-long clots along with organ damage and vascular damage. They did it to themselves. Ain't Karma great?]

One of the reasons things like lockdowns and mass vaccination frenzies have become possible in the first place, is the uniformity of outlook and opinion among the governing elite. When everybody, from university professors to the minister president of Bavaria to municipal police administrators, believes that with enough social distancing we can eradicate SARS-2, and that the unvaccinated are responsible for prolonging the pandemic, the result is a powerful if erratic and ever-shifting social tyranny. Social media technologies have been particularly noxious for the consensus formation of the Head Girls, widening the range of issues on which they have functionally identical opinions and enforcing conformity more thoroughly than was ever before possible. And should one of their runaway preference cascades go off the rails and destroy society, they’ll rapidly reunite around the new consensus position, that nobody could’ve known any better and all the worst offenders—especially their friends and colleagues—acted in good faith with the knowledge that was available at the time. (read more)

Shuck-and-jive from America’s broken thinking class, the people who pretend to know better than everybody else.

By now, everybody and his uncle has seen Emily Oster’s plea for “pandemic amnesty” in The Atlantic magazine, a house organ of the people in America who know better than you do about… really… everything. Emily’s wazoo is so stuffed with gold-plated credentials (BA, PhD, Harvard; economics prof at Brown U) it’s a wonder that she could sit down long enough to peck out her lame argument that “we need to forgive one another for what we did and said when we were in the dark about COVID.”

Emily wasn’t “in the dark.” She had access to the same information as the Americans who recognized that everything the public health authorities, the medical establishment, and many elected officials shoveled out about Covid and its putative remedies and preventatives was untrue, with a patina of bad faith and malice — especially when it was used to persecute their political adversaries.

These dissenters turned out to be “right for the wrong reasons,” she declared, the main reason being that they were not aligned in good-think with the Woke-Jacobinism of her fellow “progressives” at Brown U, and academics all across the land, who were righteously busy destroying the intellectual life of the nation, making it impossible for the thinking class to think.

Let’s face it: every society actually needs a thinking class, a cohort able to frame important issues-of-the-moment that require argument in the public arena to align our collective thoughts and deeds with reality. America used to have a pretty good thinking class, with a pretty good free press and many other platforms for opinion — all animated by respect for the first amendment to the Constitution.

The thinking class destroyed that by vigorously promoting a new censorship regime in every American institution, shutting down free speech and, more crucially, the necessary debate for aligning our politics with reality. Hence, America’s thinking class became the torchbearers of unreality, in step with the Party of Chaos which held the levers of power. This included the powers of life and death in the matter of Covid-19.

These were the people who militated against effective early treatment protocols (to cynically preserve the drug companies’ emergency use authorization (EUA) and thus their liability shields); the people who enforced the deadly remdesivir-and-ventilator combo in hospital treatment; the people who rolled out the harmful and ineffective “vaccines”; who fired and vilified doctors who disagreed with all that; and who engineered a long list of abusive policies that destroyed businesses, livelihoods, households, reputations, and futures.

How did it happen that the thinking class destroyed thinking and betrayed itself? Because the status competition for moral righteousness in the sick milieu of the campus became more important to them than the truth. In places like Brown U, what you saw was an escalating contest for status brownie-points, which is what virtue-signaling is all about. And the highest virtue was going along with whatever experts and people-in-authority said — the pathetic virtue of submission. Anything that got in the way of going along — such as differences of opinion — had to be crushed, stamped out, and with a vicious edge to teach the dissenters a lesson: dissent will not be tolerated!

Some thinking class. The case of Emily Oster should be particularly and painfully disturbing, since she affects to specialize, as an economist, on “pregnancy and parenting” (her own website declares), while the Covid regime of public health officialdom she supported instigating a horrendous pediatric health crisis that is ongoing — it was only days ago that the CDC added the harmful mRNA “vaccines” to its childhood immunization schedule for the purpose of conferring permanent immunity for the drug companies after the EUA ends, a dastardly act. Where’s Ms. Oster’s plea to the CDC to cease and desist trying to vaccinate kids with mRNA products?

The CDC is still running TV commercials (during World Series ballgames!) touting its “booster” shots when only weeks ago a top Pfizer executive, Janine Small (“Regional President for Vaccines of International Developed Markets”), revealed in testimony to the European Union Parliament that her company never tested its “vaccine” for preventing transmission of SARS CoV-2. The CDC under Director Rochelle Walensky is still extra-super-busy concealing or fudging its statistical data to obfuscate the emerging picture that mRNA “vaccines” are responsible for the shocking rise of “all-causes deaths” in the most heavily-vaxxed nations. In short, the authorities are to this minute still running their whole malign operation.

Notably, Ms. Oster’s plea for amnesty and forgiveness, showcased in The Atlantic, omits any discussion of accountability for what amounts to serious crimes against the public. A whole lot of people deserve to be indicted for killing and injuring millions. At the heart of her plea is the excuse that “we didn’t know” official Covid policy was so misguided. That’s just not true, of course, and is simply evidence of the thinking class’s recently-acquired allergy to truth. The part she left out of her petition for pandemic amnesty is: we were only following orders. (read more)

April 2020, with nothing else to do, my family took an enormous number of hikes. We all wore cloth masks that I had made myself. We had a family hand signal, which the person in the front would use if someone was approaching on the trail and we needed to put on our masks.  Once, when another child got too close to my then-4-year-old son on a bridge, he yelled at her “SOCIAL DISTANCING!”

These precautions were totally misguided. In April 2020, no one got the coronavirus from passing someone else hiking. Outdoor transmission was vanishingly rare. Our cloth masks made out of old bandanas wouldn’t have done anything, anyway. But the thing is: We didn’t know.

The thing is, Emily Oster, that we did know. We’ve studied respiratory virus transmission for years. All the virologists and epidemiologists who aren’t total morons knew your 2020 mask routine was crazy and they just didn’t care. They wanted you to do it anyway, because they thought that if they got you to act paranoid and antisocial enough, your insane behaviour might have some limited effect on case curves. Joke’s on you, and it’s sad you still haven’t realised.

[T]here is an emerging (if not universal) consensus that schools in the U.S. were closed for too long: The health risks of in-school spread were relatively low, whereas the costs to students’ well-being and educational progress were high. The latest figures on learning loss are alarming.  But in spring and summer 2020, we had only glimmers of information. Reasonable people—people who cared about children and teachers—advocated on both sides of the reopening debate. …

No, reasonable people could see already in March 2020 that SARS-2 posed no measurable threat to children. There was never any honest debate to be had about this.

The people who got it right, for whatever reason, may want to gloat. Those who got it wrong, for whatever reason, may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn’t accord with the facts. …

We have to put these fights aside and declare a pandemic amnesty. … [W]e need to learn from our mistakes and then let them go. We need to forgive the attacks, too. Because I thought schools should reopen and argued that kids as a group were not at high risk, I was called a “teacher killer” and a “génocidaire.” It wasn’t pleasant, but feelings were high. And I certainly don’t need to dissect and rehash that time for the rest of my days.

Moving on is crucial now, because the [insane response to the fake] pandemic created many problems that we still need to solve.

I’m sorry somebody called you genocidal, Emily Oster. That must’ve been tough for you. You know what’s also tough? Getting your head kicked in by riot police because you had the temerity to protest against indefinite population-wide house arrest.

Emily Oster may have said a few reasonable things in the depths of her pandemic moderation, but she can take her proposal for pandemic amnesty and shove it all the way up her ass. I’m never going to forget what these villains did to me and my friends. It is just hard to put into words how infuriating it is, to read this breezy triviliasation of the absolute hell we’ve been through, penned by some comfortable and clueless Ivy League mommyconomist who is ready to mouth support for basically any pandemic policy that doesn’t directly affect her or her family and then plead that the horrible behaviour and policies supported by her entire social milieu are just down to ignorance about the virus. We knew everything we needed to know about SARS-2 already in February 2020. The pandemicists and their supporters crossed many bright red lines in their eradicationist zeal and ruined untold millions of lives. That doesn’t all just go away now. (read more)

• Russian collusion

• Trump called neo-nazis "fine people"

• Jussie Smollett

• Bubba Wallace garage pull

• Covington kids

• Governor Whitmer kidnapping plot

• Kavanaugh rape

• Trump pee tape

• COVID lab leak was a conspiracy theory

• Border agents whipped migrants

• Trump saved nuclear secrets at Mar-a-Lago

• Steele Dossier

• Russian bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan

• Trump said drinking bleach would fight COVID

• Muslim travel ban

• Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation

• Andrew Cuomo best COVID leadership

• Trump built cages for migrant kids

• "Austere religious scholar"

• Trump overfed Koi fish in Japan

• Build Back Better will pay for itself

• Trump tax cuts benefited only the rich

• Cloth masks prevent COVID

• If you get vaccinated you won't catch COVID

• SUV killed parade marchers

• Trump used teargas to clear a crowd for a bible photo

• "Don't Say Gay" was in a bill

• Putin price hike

• Ivermectin is a horse dewormer and not for humans

• "Mostly peaceful" protests

• Trump overpowered secret service for wheel of "The Beast"

• Officer Sicknick was murdered by protesters

• January 6th was an insurrection

• BYU students hurled racist insults at Duke volleyball player

• And don't forget "democracy is under threat..."

• Vaccines were never tested or proven to stop transmission.
• The fatality rate was around 0.005%
• Ivermectin worked
• Masks don’t
• Lockdowns did more damage than good

…and the final straws for the credibility of all involved:

• This thing came out of a lab, and
• “Safe and effective” turned into “sudden and unexpected”

Innumerable careers, reputations and lives have been destroyed in order to enforce a completely debunked narrative as truth. The mainstream media, Big Tech, governments at all levels, neo-liberal glee clubs like the WEF, all coordinated to gaslight the entire population of the world that we were facing existential annihilation, and would have to henceforth trade in our civil liberties and basic human rights to these authorities to escape it.

The economic damage is only now beginning to be felt in runaway inflation with central banks powerless to contain it, at risk of destroying what’s left of the economy.

We don’t need to enumerate the litany of injustice, ridicule and persecution  anybody who tried to counter these absurd narratives had to endure. Lost friends, family, jobs, position, businesses, cancellations, deplatformings – all of it.

So it is unsurprising now that the edifice is crumbling, that those who feathered their nest being “on the right side of history”, seeing that it’s all turning to dust in real time, are trying to back away from their complicity.

The name of the game now is to try to extract oneself from the most intense and virulent outbreaks of mass formation psychosis in recorded history:

You can f*ck right off with this shit. pic.twitter.com/YmDiHIR7TU

— Clifton Duncan. (@cliftonaduncan) October 31, 2022

There are many who were up to their eyeballs in this who will now try to frame themselves as “the voice of reason” who were trying to introduce some rationality into the conversation.

— Mark Jeftovic, The C̶r̶y̶p̶t̶o̶ ₿itcoin Capitalist (@StuntPope) July 10, 2022

The most nauseating part of #EndTheMandates and #NoMoreLockdowns is going to be when every sociopathic zealot who wanted to literally wreck your life for non-compliance will start taking victory laps and pretending they were always champions of The Great Reopening…

— Mark Jeftovic, The C̶r̶y̶p̶t̶o̶ ₿itcoin Capitalist (@StuntPope) February 9, 2022

Don’t believe them.

Nothing Forgotten. Nothing Forgiven.

If the globally botched pandemic response accomplished one thing, it was to open many people’s eyes to how obsolete and ill equipped our current institutions are for handling a global crisis in this new, decentralized, multi-polar world.

While these oligarchs and technocrats believed they had Divine Right to “re-imagine” every aspect of our lives for some grandiose Great Reset; it’s these self-appointed elites and the sclerotic, self-serving institutions they inhabit who are going to get their asses re-imagined. With a vengeance.

Here’s a few ways that you can start to reclaim your life, and take your power back from those who abused it and used their positions against you:

1. Vote out any politician who imposed lockdowns or vaccine mandates – regardless of party affiliation. At least the ones who doubled down on them after it became clear how destructive and ineffective they were.
2. Cancel all paid subscriptions to the mainstream media – you’re better off supporting the many independent outlets and those doing real journalism and providing high-signal content.
3. Advocate for defunding state-run media apparatuses: NPR in the US, CBC in Canada, BBC in the UK, et al. Stop watching it, listening to it or reading any of their articles. Whatever you do, never click their stories in your timelines or on an ads on their websites. Starve them out.
4. Time for a Big Tech cleanse: Start looking at alternatives to Big Tech. Try using alternative search engines like Duck and Presearch, Facebook is quickly becoming irrelevant (while Twitter may be fun for awhile longer given the meltdowns over the Musk takeover), and there are other places ascending like Gettr, Minds and MeWe.
5. Remember who wouldn’t do business with or employ you: Chart your own course and from now on if you’re hiring, or scouting vendors, check their socials: were they demonizing lockdown skeptics? Hashtagging “#Freedumb”? (Better start scrubbing those timelines, mofos)
6. Buy Bitcoin. Yes, I’m shilling BTC because Bitcoin is the global opt-out – stacking sats is calling b/s on everything – and for the past two years everything has been b/s.

You can put that pandemic amnesty where the sun don’t shine. pic.twitter.com/NGIaMvLb5L

— Eva Vlaardingerbroek (@EvaVlaar) November 1, 2022

Macron’s thugs attacking a…healthcare worker. Hospital staff treated like dangerous criminals. Still blows my mind that it happened.

F*ck your ‘pandemic amnesty.’pic.twitter.com/kWrJQqdXYU

— Nat (@Arwenstar) November 1, 2022

There will be no pandemic amnesty.

By the time this is all over, we’re more likely to see pandemic tribunals. (read more)

"We need to forgive one another for what we did and said when we were in the dark about COVID," writes Brown Professor Emily Oster - a huge lockdown proponent, who now pleads from mercy from the once-shunned.

"Let’s acknowledge that we made complicated choices in the face of deep uncertainty, and then try to work together to build back and move forward," she continues.

Except, they weren't “in the dark” about Covid.  There were numerous sources pointing out the actual science that ran contrary to the mandate claims, and they were deliberately silenced by a vast media campaign.  Evidence suggests that media platforms worked in tandem with Big Tech, the CDC and the Biden Administration.  It was not a simple matter of overreaction, there was collusion to remove all counter-information.  

Nice try, Emily.

As the Daily Sceptic's Michael P. Senger puts it: "There’s a lot wrong here. First, no, you don’t get to advocate policies that do extraordinary harm to others, against their wishes, then say, “We didn’t know any better at the time!” Ignorance doesn’t work as an excuse when the policies involved abrogating your fellow citizens’ rights under an indefinite state of emergency, while censoring and cancelling those who weren’t as ignorant. The inevitable result would be a society in which ignorance and obedience to the opinion of the mob would be the only safe position."

And look at that ratio:

Hey—sorry you lost your job b/c of the vax that doesn’t work and your grandmother died alone and you couldn’t have a funeral and your brother’s business was needlessly destroyed and your kids have weird heart problems—but let’s just admit we were all wrong and call a truce, eh?

It’s too bad we shut the entire economy down & took on tyrannical powers that have never been used before in this country—looking back, you should have been able to go to church and use public parks while we let people riot in the streets—but it was a confusing time for everyone.

Hey I'm sorry we scared the hell out of you & lied for years & persecuted & censored anyone who disagreed but there was an election going on & we really wanted to beat Donald Trump so it was important to radically politicize the science even if it destroyed your children's lives.

OK, yes we said unvaccinated people should die & not get healthcare while never questioning Big Pharma once but we are compassionate people which is why even though we shut down the entire economy we also bankrupted the nation & caused inflation. You're welcome! Let's be friends.

As QTR's Fringe Finance notes, Oster’s plea for the decency that her ilk failed to offer up to most Americans during the throes of the pandemic comes at a point where the Covid narrative has been all but lost by the Democrats and the mainstream media.

There have been several recent large wins for the unvaccinated who had the constitution and backbone to stand up for themselves throughout a year of being constantly berated and ferociously scorned as second class citizens.

A majority of the media and Democrats had demanded that these people be removed from society and generally subject to scorn and ridicule. Now, in a moment that many of us knew would eventually be coming, apologies are being made around the world for how the unvaccinated were treated.

As Fox News wrote last week:

“The premier of Alberta, Canada, said she is working on a plan to pardon residents who were fined or arrested over breaking coronavirus protocols, and apologized to unvaccinated Canadians who faced ‘discrimination.’“

In New York, a Supreme Court judge recently reinstated all employees who were fired from their jobs for being unvaccinated:

The court found Monday that "being vaccinated does not prevent an individual from contracting or transmitting COVID-19." New York City Mayor Eric Adams claimed earlier this year that his administration would not rehire employees who had been fired over their vaccination status.

* * *

The problem was not people's ignorance of the facts, it was the organized antagonism and censorship against anyone presenting data that was contradictory to the mandate agenda. This is setting aside proclamations like those from the LA Times, which argued that mocking the deaths of "anti-vaxxers" might be necessary and justified.  After two years of this type of arrogant nonsense it's hard to imagine people will be willing to pretend as if all is well.

The active effort to shut down any opposing data is the root crime, though, and no, it can never be forgotten or forgiven.

People are livid...

They were tossing terminally Ill people off of organ transplant lists and now call for mercy https://t.co/yRBRo5POVW

— F. Billy McMorris (@FBillMcMorris) November 1, 2022

Arizona Gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake (R) wants investigations.

.@KariLake: "I want to have a commission to investigate Covid and how it was handled in this state. And hand up any civil, or criminal charges that need to be made. Because we're not just got to forget what happened when our lives were turned upside down." pic.twitter.com/mzsFZn6Nv6

— Kari Lake (@KariLake) October 31, 2022

This is where I spent the last 7 months with my mother before she died alone on December 3rd, 2020. You murderous hypocrites have nothing but my undying contempt. Rot in Hell. pic.twitter.com/ZcZ9qoaDwZ

— Rollo Tomassi (@RationalMale) October 31, 2022

Resharing this. Because "let's forgive", right? Nope.pic.twitter.com/XVTLErPNd2

— Dr. Sydney Watson (@SydneyLWatson) October 31, 2022

As QTR further notes, many Americans whipped themselves up into such a terrified hypnotic frenzy that they found themselves clinging to big government to impose their will, advocating for the same draconian and fascist-sounding policies they always claim to be fighting against.

For example, Ramussen reported in January 2022 that Democratic voters supported the following Covid policy ideas (my annotations in bold, Rasmussen in normal text):

• Fines for the unvaccinated: Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters would oppose a proposal for federal or state governments to fine Americans who choose not to get a COVID-19 vaccine.

• House arrest: Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democratic voters would favor a government policy requiring that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times, except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine.

• Imprisonment for questioning the vaccine: Nearly half (48%) of Democratic voters think federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications.

• Forced quarantine: Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine.

• Stripping people of their children: Twenty-nine percent (29%) of Democratic voters would support temporarily removing parents’ custody of their children if parents refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine. That’s much more than twice the level of support in the rest of the electorate – seven percent (7%) of Republicans and 11% of unaffiliated voters – for such a policy.

Emily Oster: let's just forget this happened. pic.twitter.com/fL8BhvQTVp

— John Haar (@john_at_swan) October 31, 2022

Unsurprisingly, American Federation of Teachers chief Randi Weingarten, who 'flunked the pandemic' by pushing for school shutdowns as long as she possibly could before parents revolted, is a big fan of amnesty.

"I've decided that I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works" pic.twitter.com/pNXoHk1d39

— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) October 31, 2022

One cannot help but notice that the timing of the Atlantic's appeal for passive forgetfulness coincides with the swiftly approaching midterm elections, in which polls suggest a much greater chance of a conservative upset than Democrats previously expected.  Though the Atlantic doesn't admit it, there is a growing political backlash to the last two years of meaningless lockdowns and mandates, and Democrats were instrumental in the implementation of both.  A large swath of the population sees one party as the cause of much of their covid era strife.  

Perhaps the mainstream media is suddenly realizing that they may have to face some payback for their covid zealotry?  “We didn't know! We were just following orders!”  It all sounds rather familiar. (read more)

If any Good Citizens reading this attend Brown University, definitely don’t share this with your .edu listserve. And you should probably reconsider offering a dime to that institution.

Historians still get the details of the Spanish Flu pandemic completely wrong. They lie about Polio and its “vaccine”. The details of the cause of every war for the past century are fabrications. Every major society-altering event of this century is part fable, part government cover-up.

If you still believe conspiracy theories aren’t all rooted in facts or actual conspiracies you might as well believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny and consider your own future in those Hobbesian terms ‘poor, nasty, brutish, and short.’

At present, those who control all information are rewriting history while erasing the Internet. They’ll stop at nothing to keep their false narratives on the tongue of every person to try and cover their crimes.

Now they’ve unleashed their credentialed liberal midwits to do damage control and call for a “truce”, on terms they’re fabricating, based on the past two years of abuse, neglect, harassment, discrimination, and a constant assault on human bodies that they want washed from peoples memories.

Sometimes words around here are repeated like a broken record, if only because they can never be repeated enough: The worst people in the west are in positions of power everywhere you look.

From corrupted and fully captured bureaucratic agencies to seats of government to the corporate offices of Plandemic regime communications and stenography to the embarrassingly inept taxpayer-funded ivory towers.

Lacking self-awareness, societal awareness, historical literacy, scientific literacy, and humility are just a few of the prerequisites for consideration to ascending the midwit ranks of the glorified managerial classes who view themselves as the most deserving and capable of managing (and destroying) other people’s lives.

These are our self-appointed “expert” classes. Formulated and fashioned through ivory tower daycare centers for our new dark ages as The Great Pretenders of the twenty-first century. There’s nothing they won’t do for a salary, the promise of a pension, and the warm fuzzy feeling of belonging to a cult of ignoramuses.

Ivy League appointed “Economist” Emily Oster who is teaching a course on “COVID” at Brown University this semester has called for a Pandemic Amnesty. Her poor students are paying a small fortune to sit and listen to someone who until a few months ago was playing the performative games of medical theatre and still works full-time running interference for the social engineers overseeing this assault on humanity.

By now you’ve probably seen her piece in the regime-controlled publication for gullible state-adoring midwits — The Atlantic. It’s a piece that not even the Babylon Bee or The Onion pre-2012 could get away with publishing.

Forgiveness is a powerful virtue. When sincere contrition is expressed on the accurate terms of what is to be forgiven it should always be considered and exercised.

Except there are some things in this world that are completely unforgivable.

We could probably top that list of unforgivable things with many events of the past two years, including variations of the same cullings — hospicide, iatrogenocide, injecticide, remdesicide, and experimentation on humans of toxic substances with an intended purpose we can only still speculate about that involves graphene nanoparticulate matter that alters human DNA. If it doesn’t outright kill the human subject, it functions like nanorobots assembling or performing some kind of dystopian sci-fi function while omitting Bluetooth detectible MAC address inside both living and dead human bodies.

A quick review of the requisite disregards for a Plandemic Amnesty:

☑️ Killing millions in hospitals, especially the elderly who were alone and slaughtered with Fauci-approved Remdesivir.

☑️ Killing millions more with those toxic injections posing as medicine.

☑️ Killing babies in the womb with those toxic injections.

☑️ Potentially rendering younger generations infertile or sterile.

☑️ Locking down society and destroying livelihoods.

☑️ Coercing millions to be injected with this toxic shit while threatening their jobs, healthcare, and participation in society.

☑️ Closing schools, robbing children of two years of their lives, forcing masks, encouraging discrimination and harassment of those with common sense and functioning brains who saw this whole scam as just that.

The list of unforgivable crimes will remain so absolutely unforgivable barring mass trials followed by mass executions. Those who have been paying attention or have suffered from these crimes personally know exactly how unforgivable they are.

Amnesty? After declaring war on humanity decades ago? A fucking olive branch?

“Here’s an olive branch I’ll extend to you sweetheart!” (reaches into trousers and pulls out his olive branch)

And to think they’re still injecting this crap into people including infants and children?

Only an insane person or complete imbecile would fashion such a piece. Or, someone so totally corrupted by the system that allows them to destroy young minds at daycare institutions of lower indoctrination that she’s a psychopath.

The most likely explanation? Emily Oster is another clueless midwit who, even after the past two years, still trusts the state, trusts the experts (thinks herself one), trusts “the science” and still has no idea what really happened and therefore is about as qualified to teach a course on “COVID” at an Ivy League University as Bill Gates is to teach a class on morality and ethics at ADX Florence Supermax in Colorado, where he should be in solitary awaiting his execution for crimes against humanity.

Poor Emily Oster claims she fell for the little things at the start and it was like being in the dark. She didn’t know cloth masks did nothing, social distancing was pointless, and all of it was part of a psyop to dehumanize people while rendering them scared shitless so they went and got injected with the only viable aforementioned “cure”.

Emily Oster is such a devoted midwit to regime tyranny, she is capable of simultaneously virtue signaling (no shaming others) while championing the use of coercive and dehumanizing discriminatory measures to get those deadly toxins injected into as many bodies as possible who didn’t want them.

Amnesty? An olive branch?

These people working for global tyrants are as delusional as they are clueless.

These people deserve nothing but mockery, scorn, ridicule, and contempt.

Those who championed this assault on humanity, including all the midwits of the arrogant “expert” classes should never be eligible to work anything that isn’t rudimentary manual labor for a barely liveable wage.

They should be laughed out of every interview that isn’t for hosing down outhouses or scraping gum from public sidewalks, that includes “Professor” Emily Oster.

Those who organized these crimes against humanity (we all know their names) or carried out any direct orders on their behalf as a state or corporate functionary, should all be put on trial and those few thousand near the top tier of responsibility should have one and only one path to closure after their heinous acts.

The closure of a noose around their necks.

Recently an article began circulating stating that the pandemic pushers deserved amnesty for their actions over the last two years. This article was repeatedly shared in our community as a way of politely saying "How About No” to the author, and to illustrate that enough consequences from the vaccine are starting to emerge that the government has realized they may need to pivot to a new approach (which suggests additional issues from the vaccines will emerge in the future). From having thought this article over, my best guess is that this article was primarily targeted at assuaging the guilt of the left leaning voters who trusted their leaders on these vaccines and are not the most motivated to vote for them in the midterms (as the polling data presently indicates a landslide for the Republican party).

When I read through this article, I realize the author highlighted a very common problem I observe in human interactions (which I will admit I have also been guilty of). The author is demanding to receive forgiveness for their conduct, but in their apology, is refusing to admit they did anything wrong. In order to accomplish this, they utilized a variety of manipulative rhetorical constructs that are relatively simple and frequently utilized.

Because it is so common to encounter propaganda pieces like this, I thought there might be some value in illustrating my thought process as I read this article. I tried to not make this be too sophisticated so that it accurately portrayed what jumped out at me when I first read the article. Additionally, there are a few pieces of information I consider to be quite important to know in my commentary and many more in the comments.

In reading this analysis, it is important to remember that many people make their decisions based on what their peers or the media tells them to do (which is likely the audience this article was written for) rather than being self directed and using critical thinking to discern which decision makes the most sense to them. As a result, we almost certainly interpreted this article dramatically differently from its intended audience which is receptive to this style of persuasion.

Thinking about this article more, I believe the fundamental logical error in this article is that leaders should be absolved of their responsibility for making incorrect decisions if there was a degree of uncertainty with the information at hand. This is not the standard we have held our leaders to, as their job is always to make the best decision they can with the information that is available, and in most eras, if the decision was correct they were praised for their leadership, whereas if the decision was incorrect they were blamed for their mistakes. The “but I couldn’t have known!” excuse has never been deemed an acceptable way for leaders to justify their mistakes.

In the past, leaders have successfully navigated much greater degrees of uncertainty. In the case of COVID-19, Ron DeSantis, who had no previous training in public health or medicine, was able to look at the data himself and correct discern what policy needed to be followed. Although DeSantis deserves praise for his leadership, the fact that he was able to successfully figure this out without a scientific background demonstrates that the degree of “uncertainty” here was relatively trivial.

As this post shows, it can credibly be argued much of this article was intentionally deceptive. What I am more surprised by is the degree of a lack of insight the author shows into the mistakes that were made. I should note that this is very common behavior you will observe from those who have been influenced by cults or cult like groups. As one reader remarked, it is astounding how much the quality of journalism has declined over the last few years and that an article of that quality made it to publication:

I personally bear no ill will towards the author as I am used to dealing with people who drank the Kool-Aid , but I also believe she will need to offer something much more sincere if she wants us to move on and forget how she and her fellow Covidians behaved.

Well how about those who took the jabs and then got screwed, either by side effects or worse, the new data that shows that within 60 days you're more-likely to wind up in the hospital or dead if you were jabbed than not?

Further, this is not a matter of luck, as Emily suggests and Clott Adams has claimed in his puerile attempt to evade responsibility for leading people to their doom.  Do stupid things, win stupid prizes may well apply to him from what I've heard reported of late (he long ago blocked me on social media for calling him out on jabby advocacy.)

Luck was not a factor on many people's parts, mine included.  Many of our positions were in fact the outcome of deductive reasoning, having put in hundreds of hours reading literal hundreds of scientific and medical papers that stretched back decades.  I gave up a hell of a lot of sleep over those two years attempting to analyze what was in front of me and provide useful commentary to the public going all the way back to Diamond Princess.

For example I concluded very early on that masks would be pointless.  Was this "speculation" or "luck"?  No; it was scientific fact that had been repeatedly confirmed over more than forty years, dating back to a study by Neil Orr published in 1981.  That study provided conclusive evidence that in a sterile field (an operating room) with every person present being a trained medical professional adherence to the use of medical-grade masks to interdict transmission of disease failed and in fact potentiated disease transmission.

Obviously nobody in the general public will do better than trained medical professionals and you cannot do better in terms of environment than a sterile operating room.  It was therefore impossible for masks to work -- this was known forty years ago.

How about ventilators?  We knew they were worthless in March of 2020 because in more than 9 out of 10 people with Covid they were used on in Wuhan the person died.  That was published very early and thus it was known they were valueless.  Yet everyone screamed for more things that killed people.  Here is the data table on that from the time -- March of 2020.

32 people were intubated and one survived.  Three got ECMO and that didn't work either; zero of those attempts were successful.

Ventilators and ECMO, in Covid patients, are worthless and this was known in March of 2020.  Yet CMS to this day pays hospitals a bonus if they intubate Covid patients despite knowing all the way back to March of 2020 that it was pointless and if it did anything at all it actually killed them.

We also knew in March of 2020 that if your kidneys got hosed you were screwed too; that is also in that table in that renal replacement did not save one patient (since there were 10, that means its less than 10% effective and perhaps zero.)

Yet CMS did and still does pay hospitals to stuff you full of Remdesivir which has a known side effect profile that includes destroying your kidneys as this risk was known when it was tried against Ebola years earlier and more people died when given the drug than if they got nothing.

We will never know how many people who went into the hospital and were given that drug were killed by the virus and how many were killed by the drug.  If the deceased was given Remdesivir and developed kidney failure it is a reasonable presumption the hospital killed them, not the virus.  Disentangling that is impossible; isn't that convenient when you pay the hospitals to give people a known-dangerous drug rather than paying said bonus only if the person walks out alive under their own power?  I don't need to prove who got killed by one or the other; I need merely to observe that anything you pay for you will get more of -- every time.  This is basic human nature so why didn't we pay bonuses to hospitals only for success?

My position on these things did not come from wild speculation -- it came from detailed and documented study which I dutifully linked in my commentary on a daily basis, expecting nobody to take my opinion at face value without the sources to back up my point of view.  Yet that position earned me the ire of many, including that of Google, Twitter and others who sought to force me to shut up about that which had been true forty years prior and still was at the time -- and remains so today.

Where is the apology and restitution to those of us who got this right not by random chance but by deductive reasoning that came from detailed and laborious study?  What about those who got sick, went to the hospital, were stuffed full of Remdesivir, suffered kidney failure and are now dead, including one of my friends?

At the root of Emily's sin is that she had no evidence for benefit in any of what she backed or the fear she instilled in her family and others, including her demands for policy but the harms of going down the road she advocated for were known.  Specifically, closing schools was known to be harmful in every case, with the only dispute over the degree of harm.  Masking children, especially young children, was known harmful too, because language development in children is largely through facial expression.  This isn't speculation; it has been known to be scientifically true for decades.  Thus we had on the one side known and serious harms and on the other no evidence whatsoever, just fear-driven belief.

This was and remains no different than someone who believes in "witchcraft" and then uses that belief as an argument for burning the alleged witch at the stake.  That harm will take place if you burn the witch is obvious but you have no evidence that the "spells", even if they were actually cast, did or would do anything at all.

Then there's the 40-odd years of economic and social study on pandemics spanning multiple academic works which made clear the correct action when it came to mitigations was to do nothing.  That is, you couldn't stop the virus so there was no benefit to mitigating factors but there was harm that each of those factors would, with certainty, cause.  Therefore from an analytical point of view the best and only defensible measure was to maintain normalcy through the economy and social environment to the maximum possible extent.

Personal fear does not trump 40 years of academic study, but for Emily it not only did so it drove her public pronouncements.  Hiding under the bed is a personal decision.  Demanding others do so, particularly when you start waving around credentials, is another matter.

Emily demanded, and got, the exact opposite of what decades of formal study concluded should be done differing only in degree from one place to another and we deliberately undertook courses of treatment despite having plenty of evidence they were worthless or even were responsible, in whole or part, for the death of the person in question.

Emily wishes for absolution after engaging in this enterprise and being a proponent of it.

Not only should she not get it she, her family and her employer should be utterly destroyed for not only pushing it on others but now trying to profit from it in "teaching" about it, when every bit of what was done in that regard was either due to laziness, fear-mongering, possible political animus (e.g. Trump) or all of the above.  In other words at best it displayed idiocy and at worst malice and nobody who claims the title of "Professor" should be allowed to use the excuse of idiocy.

You don't give someone who is malicious and unrepentant ""amnesty" in a just, lawful society -- you give them a trial and, upon conviction, a date with the hangman.

Unfortunately what Emily wanted didn't end with the stupidity surrounding masks.

Oh no, Emily was and is a shill for this too:

Another example: When the vaccines came out, we lacked definitive data on the relative efficacies of the Johnson & Johnson shot versus the mRNA options from Pfizer and Moderna. The mRNA vaccines have won out. But at the time, many people in public health were either neutral or expressed a J&J preference. This misstep wasn’t nefarious. It was the result of uncertainty.

Oh, that's all it was Emily?  It would appear you're lying by omission:

The Internet is forever; unless this particular excerpt as was posted on Twitter is forged you personally advocated for and supported the deprivation of human rights on the basis of your fear, without evidence, and you were wrong.  For that, above all else, you deserve punishment BEFORE due process exactly as you demanded happen to others.

You weren't alone; here's just one of hundreds of examples calling for people to be shot if they refused the jabs.  I saw more demands of that sort over 2021 than I can count.  You were one of those people varying only in degree so if you think you're getting away with running that crap as it if never happened you've got another think coming.

We further now know your pipe dream was pure horseshit, was predicated on lies and has produced real harm.  Let's go down the list.

Fact: There is no evidence that any vector-based medication, whether viral-vector (e.g. J&J) or mRNA (Pfizer/Moderna/etc.) is safe.  Neither has ever been used on a widespread basis, despite more than a decade of trying.  All previous attempts ended in failure either on efficacy, safety or both.  This is simply due to the mechanism by which they function; rather than introduce an antagonist to the body directly as with every other vaccine they reprogram the cellular machinery in cells that take up the material to produce the antagonist.  This in turn means the immune system will consider those cells which are reprogrammed but are part of the person to be a foreign invader and attack them.  Any injected medication will inevitably result in some of the material winding up in the circulation and thus some of the cells that will take that up are in the circulatory system and the immune system will attack them.  This will in every case result in some amount of damage to the person injected.  That's not speculation, it is fact, it is basic physiology and it cannot be evaded as the very design of the technology uses this exact mechanism to work; the only question to be answered is how bad the damage will be and how that balances against any benefit you might receive.  If you wish to falsify this fact with the claim of "new discovery" it will take decades of formal study to do so.  Until that is demonstrated there is absolutely no place in the medical world for these forms of therapy on a mass-administration basis.  Period.

Fact: There has never been a successful coronavirus vaccine developed and we now know that's true for these jabs too.  This is not due to not trying; we have tried for decades in both man and beast.  All previous trails have failed at the animal testing stage due to adverse events, whether by direct adverse events or causing ADE, potentiation of the actual infection.  The reason for the latter is partly due to the rapid mutational pattern that all coronaviruses exhibit.  We knew immediately, before the shots were deployed, that Covid also mutated rapidly and thus was extremely likely to exhibit evasion or enhancement whether immediately or down the road.  To deploy shots without conclusive proof that this decades-long unbroken record of failure in fact had changed was so wildly-irresponsible that anyone promoting it deserves prosecution and, upon conviction, the death penalty for depraved indifference to the very real possibility of mass-slaughter and morbidity either by disease propagation or direct injury.  It is not possible to obtain this evidence in three months time, say much less two or three years, and thus there was no ethical, moral or legal path to use these shots on a mass-basis given the known state of science at the time.

Fact: A vaccine must produce sterile immunity or it is not a vaccine.  You can take a prophylaxis against a disease but there is never a "public health" argument for a compulsion to do something that impacts nobody but you.  Changing the definition of "vaccine" post-hoc does not change facts but it does prove intent to maliciously deceive.  The original trials were never designed to demonstrate sterile immunity and this was public knowledge as the trial design was published at or around their initiation in the summer of 2020.  Deborah Birx has admitted that she knew this before the first shot went into the first arm.  Anyone "ordinarily skilled" in public health matters or epidemiology knew this too, as did anyone who read the study designs, such as myself.  To represent otherwise was to spread deliberate false information and Fauci, Joe Biden, Birx and thousands of so-called "medical professionals" did exactly that.  Emily says we should take steps to deal with those who spread deliberately false information.  When are the trials scheduled for Biden, Birx, Fauci, the VUNT who came after me here locally in public, every single Governor (including DeSantis, by the way) who pushed and still does push this crap, all the CEOs and more?  Yes, that list includes Trump.

Fact: There is now in those nations where we have the data publicly available and they used these technologies a wildly statistically significant and persistent increase in all-cause mortality that is not, in any plausible way, Covid related and what's much worse is that it is not falling back off to national baselines.  We've all seen the anecdotal reports of people dying of the "suddenlies" and "unexpectedlies" in age groups that statistically do not have that happen, such as cheerleaders, soccer players and the like.  The data shows that this pattern began to emerge a few months after the jabbing started and despite the poor uptake of boosters it has not gone away, implying that the damage done was permanent and these outcomes will be with us for a decade or more if we stop giving these shots now.  In other words the potential risks outlined above now appear to be realized risks.

Fact: We knew, because there were papers published as early as December of 2020, that the risk of severe or even fatal damage if the spike entered the circulation was not theoretical.  To deliberately continue on a program to inject people in a way that was physiologically certain to cause that to happen to some degree in each person is the definition of depraved indifference and that is the difference in law between negligence and murder.   No less than the Salk Institute flagged this discovery in December of 2020, following up a study from September that had suggested it might be true, and said paper was peer-reviewed and published by spring of 2021, long before most people had been jabbed and before all mandates.  That was more than sufficient evidence to put a full and immediate stop to the jabbing program and it was deliberately ignored.  Now we have a new study out of Europe that appears to show that one hundred percent of the people inoculated with these jabs suffer some degree of cardiac injury.  The medical and government personnel involved in this, never mind the corporate and educational actors must be held criminally accountable for these actions as they went ahead with approval and even mandates while intentionally ignoring evidence published by a highly-credible international medical society before mass-distribution began.

Moving on is crucial now, because the pandemic created many problems that we still need to solve.

FUCK NO.

"Moving on" requires the three steps that are always required to demonstrate penitence, none of which you or any of the other people involved in this garbage have displayed. 

Specifically:

• You must admit you were wrong in all material respects where you were.   This extends to masks, schools and shots.  You must do so equally publicly to what you advocated and beg forgiveness for your wrong acts, advocacy and the harm that came from that which was imposed on others not by their free choice but rather by coercion or force, forfeiting every privilege and penny you gained therefrom.
  
  
• You must make restitution for that imposition of coercion or force to the extent it is possible.  There are millions who were materially and even permanently harmed, including being killed as a result of this bullshit.  You can't make adequate restitution but you can forfeit everything you have including all credentials, all capacity to earn a living beyond the fast food industry and live out your miserable days bowing before every single person you meet in atonement.  You won't, of course, because you haven't even taken the first step -- that is, you still don't admit you did anything wrong and instead are making excuses for your behavior.
  
  
• You must act to put into place legal protections such that what you did can NEVER happen again, and if it is attempted any person against whom it is attempted is fully within their rights to use whatever level of force is necessary to stop it, including lethal force.  Of course you'll never agree to that either, nor lift a single finger in furtherance of same, if for no other reason than you want to continue to force your view on others.  That, standing alone, makes you a monster.

Indeed the truth is you are nothing more than a smug piece of excrement unfit to draw oxygen from the air. 

In my opinion you are no longer afraid of a virus but you are very concerned that you may receive exactly the same amount of due process before you are punished by those you fucked, which by the way was none, that you advocated be imposed by force upon others.

I believe THAT, and only that, is why you penned your article and that same fear is why the editors at The Atlantic published it.

To both of you my answer is the same: FUCK OFF.

I will NOT grant amnesty, I will NOT forgive and I WILL rub your bullshit and record in your face at every opportunity, along with reserving the right and option to exact every lawful penalty I can against you and every institution you are associated with, now or in the future, for all eternity.

I remind you that the Biden Administration has yet to drop the "Emergency", it is still trying to mandate jabs and fighting said court cases even after they've lost and neither the Administration, NIH or CDC has issued one apology just as you have not.  Indeed the FDA and CDC have both recently acted to further protect the entities making and distributing these shots from any legal responsibility for the harm they may or have caused.

As a direct and sole result of your and others personal actions and choices I do not care if you and every single other person involved in this fiasco over the last two years receives zero due process before punishment is handed out, whether legally or otherwise, as neither you or they gave a wet crap about due process of law when you and they were acting to screw everyone else.  That which you refuse to accord to others you have no right to expect for yourself.  If that bothers you or keeps you up at night then perhaps you should have acted in accordance with said principles in the first place.

The only way we will stop this crap and prevent future incidents of this sort is if everyone who put their fingers in their ears and deliberately ignored known harms to demand a speculative benefit without a single shred of evidence, or worse ignored decades of evidence that the path they advocated for was dangerous and might have permanent, irreversible harms associated with it, such as these "viral vector" technologies and filling people full of wildly-dangerous experimental drugs in hospitals, is held to full account for their actions and the harms that their demands caused, not by personal choice of those who independently decided to do foolish things but who were coerced or forced, whether it was closure of schools, forced masking or mandates of any other sort including but certainly not limited to the jabs.

There is no money damage award that can provide restitution to the tens of millions of kids who have been irrevocably screwed out of two years of their educations, or those kids who were irrevocably screwed out of language development as the window has closed on that part of their developmental process.  Those harms are going to go through our economy and society for the next sixty to eighty years and there is nothing we can do to change that at this point.  You, and others like you, particularly Teacher's organizations and Democrat Governors, own every bit of that and deserve the consequences.

The ridiculous economic damage imposed through the wild spending spree and inflationary impact resulting from the numerous fiscal orgies vomited forth by both Trump and Biden in that regard is going to screw people for a generation into the future.  How do you propose to compensate the screwed for that harm?  You can't, but the harm is real.

Further, those who were lied to about these jabs or even worse, coerced cannot be made whole.  New study work out of Europe strongly suggests that every single person who got these shots suffered some degree of cardiac damage.  Some more, some less but if the data is correct every single person did take some amount of damage.  A separate French study found that nearly 3% of all persons injected with mRNA jabs had clinical (not simply elevated troponin) myocarditis damage and it was more common in women than men.  How do you compensate two hundred million Americans for what may well prove to be a decade or more off their life expectancy?  What about the kids who are now five or six and lose a parent ten years from now due to heart failure these jabs caused?  How about those who have already died due to this harm?  The number already screwed is in the hundreds of thousands in America alone and nobody knows if or when it will slow down or stop.

Never mind the CDC's "recommendation" to jab kids with this crap, which is entirely unsupportable on facts or science and thus has only one plausible explanation: It is the only way to get these jabs into the NCVIA liability framework and prevent Pfizer and Moderna from being sued to beyond the orbit of Mars with their "businesses" turned into a smoking hole as soon as the EUAs drop.

The difference between Emily's position and mine is that while I set forward my opinion and the data supporting it I did not attempt to force anyone to follow the same path or demand they come to the same conclusions.  If you came to a different conclusion and wanted to wear a mask I had no quarrel with that.  In fact I repeatedly pointed out that if you truly believed you needed respiratory protection the only sane thing to do was to go buy a P100, available at most home stores for painting and other fume-generating procedures which has an exhaust valve, replaceable canisters for when their time-in-use expired and because it filters only in one direction it can actually provide a seal around both the nose and mouth.  I expected even that to fail, given what we knew early on about transmission, but if you concluded it would work then you were free to have at it.  If you, despite the lack of any long-term safety data and deliberately ignoring the fact that spike in the circulation was directly harmful wanted to jab yourself with said dangerous experimental drug anyway, judging that the potential benefits were work the risks, have at it as well.  I had no desire to nor did I advocate that anyone be forced to do or not do anything, but I did demand that those on the other side refrain from attempting to force compliance with their views and expectations which all were, in point of fact, predicated on fear rather than analysis and deliberately ignored the balance of harms in each and every case.

That was and is the difference between my position and those on the other side of the alleged "debate" and there is nothing any of us can do to change it now.

Amnesty for Emily and others like her?

Not a prayer in Hell, bitch.  Not now, not ever -- not for you or anyone else involved in any of this crap.

You're damn lucky the people of this nation have long ago lost their sack to whatever soy-infested crap they worship these days or everyone involved would have already been sacked -- justly so.

Try this sort of crap again -- ever -- and you might find the word "lawful" is left out of the description of what is justly earned and that suddenly said sack has been found. (read more)

These precautions were totally misguided. In April 2020, no one got the coronavirus from passing someone else hiking. Outdoor transmission was vanishingly rare. Our cloth masks made out of old bandanas wouldn’t have done anything, anyway. But the thing is: We didn’t know.

I have been reflecting on this lack of knowledge thanks to a class I’m co-teaching at Brown University on COVID. We’ve spent several lectures reliving the first year of the pandemic, discussing the many important choices we had to make under conditions of tremendous uncertainty.

Some of these choices turned out better than others. To take an example close to my own work, there is an emerging (if not universal) consensus that schools in the U.S. were closed for too long: The health risks of in-school spread were relatively low, whereas the costs to students’ well-being and educational progress were high. The latest figures on learning loss are alarming.  But in spring and summer 2020, we had only glimmers of information. Reasonable people—people who cared about children and teachers—advocated on both sides of the reopening debate.

Given the amount of uncertainty, almost every position was taken on every topic. And on every topic, someone was eventually proved right, and someone else was proved wrong. In some instances, the right people were right for the wrong reasons. In other instances, they had a prescient understanding of the available information.

Moving on is crucial now, because the pandemic created many problems that we still need to solve.

Student test scores have shown historic declines, more so in math than in reading, and more so for students who were disadvantaged at the start. We need to collect data, experiment, and invest. Is high-dosage tutoring more or less cost-effective than extended school years? Why have some states recovered faster than others? We should focus on questions like these, because answering them is how we will help our children recover.

Many people have neglected their health care over the past several years. Notably, routine vaccination rates for children (for measles, pertussis, etc.) are way down. Rather than debating the role that messaging about COVID vaccines had in this decline, we need to put all our energy into bringing these rates back up. Pediatricians and public-health officials will need to work together on community outreach, and politicians will need to consider school mandates.

The standard saying is that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. But dwelling on the mistakes of history can lead to a repetitive doom loop as well. Let’s acknowledge that we made complicated choices in the face of deep uncertainty, and then try to work together to build back and move forward.

(read more)