Probably OK,
Jeremy provided these top 3 articles today. Jeremy is channeling the Spirit of Truth.
For those readers not familiar with the crisis; here is the short version (see the linked post for a deeper explanation). Because humans have consumed the cheapest and easiest fossil fuel deposits first, the quantity of energy we have to devote to securing energy rises remorselessly. Throughout the growth phase of industrial civilisation (broadly 1750 to 2000) this was not a problem because the energy cost of energy was never high enough to limit growth in the much larger non-energy sectors of the economy. Beginning in the 1970s though, growth in the western economies began to slow as the energy cost of energy began to drag on the wider economy. Restricted – and heavily debt-based – growth was able to continue through the 1990s; but at some point in that decade, the energy cost of energy caused average prosperity to begin to decline. The ensuing debt overshoot eventually brought down the banking and financial system; obliging governments to bail out the system at the cost of the ongoing decline of the “real economy.” ...
In employment, then, the practical response to the rising energy cost of energy is that employers and workers seek to circumvent labour market regulation which was created in a bygone age when real growth was still possible. And note that this is a very different reality to the wildly optimistic, hi-tech fantasy of the “Great Reset” in which we are meant to generate sufficient growth to automate almost everything.
Nor is the gig economy the place where decline stops. While a large part of the gig economy exists in a legal twilight zone in which a great deal that goes on is unlawful – subject to civil law – very little crosses the boundary into criminality. But as the energy cost of energy increases, criminal gangs also have a growing incentive to engage in crime as a means of circumventing the laws and regulations of a by-gone age.
It is no accident that growing demand for the abolition of slavery corresponded to the growth of coal-powered industrialisation. Such an economy no longer needs raw labour power – whether waged or forced – because of the huge increase in productivity achieved by industrial technologies backed by an explosion of fossilised sunlight. Wage labourers were still needed to mind the machines; but they were no longer the power source behind them. This is seen most clearly in the nineteenth century division between the industrial northern states of the USA, where freed slaves were a useful addition to the growing industrial workforce, and the manual labour-based colonial economies of the southern states whose profit margins were built on the back of slave labourers...
In the immediate aftermath of the pandemic we will be able to turn a blind eye to all of these attempts to get around the net energy bind that we are now trapped in. An infusion of state and central bank “stimulus funding” will most likely generate a brief boomlet before the inevitable stagflation arrives. But the energy cost of energy is going to keep on rising unless someone can very rapidly discover some yet-to-be-discovered higher-density energy source and deploy it at scale. In the meantime, the amount of energy that has to be devoted to the energy sector of the economy will continue to rise – even if it has to be subsidised by states, businesses and households. And that draws us ever closer to that net energy cliff beyond which industrial civilisation cannot function:
This paper in the scientific journal, Nature implies that 81% of us are not susceptible to bad cases of COVID; and never were...
SARS-CoV-2-derived peptides define heterologous and COVID-19-induced T cell recognition
T cell immunity is central for the control of viral infections. To characterize T cell immunity, but also for the development of vaccines, identification of exact viral T cell epitopes is fundamental. Here we identify and characterize multiple dominant and subdominant SARS-CoV-2 HLA class I and HLA-DR peptides as potential T cell epitopes in COVID-19 convalescent and unexposed individuals. SARS-CoV-2-specific peptides enabled detection of post-infectious T cell immunity, even in seronegative convalescent individuals. Cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 peptides revealed pre-existing T cell responses in 81% of unexposed individuals and validated similarity with common cold coronaviruses, providing a functional basis for heterologous immunity in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Diversity of SARS-CoV-2 T cell responses was associated with mild symptoms of COVID-19, providing evidence that immunity requires recognition of multiple epitopes. Together, the proposed SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes enable identification of heterologous and post-infectious T cell immunity and facilitate development of diagnostic, preventive and therapeutic measures for COVID-19 Market Ticker has the relevant implications spelled out here in ALL CAPS:
81% eh? Isn't that an interesting number? Where have we seen that before?You know damn well where, don't you?
It's the rough percentage of alleged Covid-19 infections that were either asymptomatic or very low-symptom for which no medical treatment was sought and, in many cases, not detected.
So it wasn't 30 or 50% who had pre-existing protection it's actually roughly 8 in 10! This was not a "novel, everyone is susceptible" virus at all. It never was. You were lied to from the very beginning and thus all the "models" based on that were trash...
Now we know what Diamond Princess happened the way it did. It was never possible for more than 20% of the people on that ship to get seriously-symptomatic Covid-19 despite being cooped up in close quarters for weeks with an aerosol-spread disease and cruise passengers generally being wildly-overrepresented for various morbidity factors. It also completely explains why one of two people quarantined in the same cabin got sick and the other did not.
We also know why there is no place on the planet that has seen >20% of people with significant, symptomatic disease from Covid-19...
In 100% of the persons who had and recovered from Covid-19 and 81% of those who have never had the virus a vaccine may well be worthless as they already have T-cell response. While this will not prevent them from getting it again there is questionable at best benefit over their existing immunological state but there is risk, including a risk of death, from the side effects... I would like to present a hypothesis from the COVID-19 Treating Physicians list, which is that the increased "confirmed" COVID-19 cases and COVID-19 deaths in the 2 weeks following vaccination are actually vaccine adverse reactions, which test positive for SARS-CoV-2, because the "vaccines" cause the body to produce, and widely distribute, exactly the spike=protein fragments which the test detects in the nasal mucous.
One of my patients was recently hospitalized about a week after an mRNA vaccination, and tested positive for COVID with a nasal swab, so her pneumonia was COVID-Pneumonia. She had been hospitalized last August for a bad case of COVID. She had antibodies. She got an inflammatory response. The hospital put her on steroids and oxygen, and she lived. A week after discharge, still on blood thinners, she was short of breath again, and had a blood clot in her lungs. She was admitted again. We are monitoring her blood thinner doses. My clinic has called her to get her second vaccine shot.
I have written that she should not, but how do I back that up?
She obviously got COVID again, so obviously needs the shot, though a 3 month wait after COVID is considered "abundantly cautious".
It does not appear to matter how close you are to a spreader of SARS-CoV-2 indoors, just that you are indoors with them and their dispering cloud of viral particles.
After relentlessly pushing one of the most injurious vaccines of all time, and suppressing the use of vitamin-D, ivermectin, zinc and hydroxychloroquine,
Pfizer prepares to launch an early-treatment pill for COVID this fall.
Still Asymptomatic
No comments:
Post a Comment