Click the image above to watch the video video on Twitter. Right after claiming that there is a shortage of truckers, the United States Deputy Secretary of the Treasury says:

"...We face an economy that's in transition. And as far as that transition we are seeing high prices for some of the things that people have to buy. But, the reality is that the only way we're going to get to this place where we work through this transition is when everyone in America, and everyone around the world gets vaccinated. That's why the president continues to be focused on the idea that we get everyone we can vaccinated in this country."

How does everyone in the world being vaccinated coincide with a shortage of truckers? Once everyone on the planet is vaccinated, are the truckers going to come back? At which point will they know that everyone in the world that can be vaccinated is vaccinated. That's a ridiculous notion. What this really means is that the supply chain issues have nothing to do with "trucker shortages" or any of the other excuses they are giving.

This is evident by the fact that we had no shortages, other than toilet paper, for the most part during the first wave of COVID. There were no food shortages like there are now, and the price of meat wasn't inflated.

I'm afraid that he just let the cat out of the bag. This whole supply chain fiasco is 100% manufactured. They are trying to put the squeeze on the remaining people who won't get vaccinated. Not only is food about to become much more expensive, this will be happening at the same time that many people will be loosing their jobs because of the vaccine mandate. It all lines up just right.

The question everyone needs to ask themselves is, "Why didn't this happen --before there was a vaccine?"

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

UPDATE 10-22-21: What I was worried about, now seems to be the case.

URGENT: Covid vaccines will keep you from acquiring full immunity EVEN IF YOU ARE INFECTED AND RECOVER

What the British are saying is they are now finding the vaccine interferes with your body’s innate ability after infection to produce antibodies against not just the spike protein but other pieces of the virus. Specifically, vaccinated people don’t seem to be producing antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, the shell of the virus, which are a crucial part of the response in unvaccinated people.

This means vaccinated people will be far more vulnerable to mutations in the spike protein EVEN AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN INFECTED AND RECOVERED ONCE (or more than once, probably).

It also means the virus is likely to select for mutations that go in exactly that direction, because those will essentially give it an enormous vulnerable population to infect. And it probably is still more evidence the vaccines may interfere with the development of robust long-term immunity post-infection.

Aside from that, everything is fine.

Here's the info from the Red Cross website, detailing that they've known this all along.

I have screen captured this entire web page because I know it's subject to change, or be removed as it points out one very important detail.

Q: What is the different between COVID-19 antibodies that you develop from exposure to the virus and antibodies you develop as a reaction to the vaccine?

A: Antibodies that an individual produces when they’ve been exposed to the virus are slightly different from the antibodies that an individual produces when they’ve been vaccinated. When an individual has been infected with a virus, they produce antibodies to multiple regions of a virus. At the Red Cross, we use two antibody tests to generate our results on blood, platelet and plasma donations. One test – Ortho’s total test – detects antibodies to the spike protein of the virus. The other detects antibodies to a different protein of the virus called the nucleocapsid protein. If a donor has had the COVID-19 vaccine, they will generate an antibody against the spike protein but not the nucleocapsid protein, which will only occur in the event of a COVID-19 infection.

Initial reports were that the vaccines would "wipe-out" the antibodies trained to the nucleocapsid protein, and leave only the spike protein antibodies. They are not denying this claim. They instead use the phrase "not accurate." There's a huge difference in "not accurate" and not true. This is written in legal verbiage. The only reason to write a non-denial, denial is because there is truth to claim. Those who have been vaccinated no longer produce the antibodies for the nucleocapsid protein, only the spike protein.

Q: I’ve heard claims that the Red Cross refuses to accept convalescent plasma from individuals who have received a COVID-19 vaccine because it wipes out the antibodies. Is this true?

A: There are claims circulating that incorrectly state that the Red Cross will not accept convalescent plasma donations from those who have received the COVID-19 vaccine because “the vaccine wipes out those antibodies making the convalescent plasma ineffective in treating other COVID-19 patients.” This is not accurate.

The FDA allows people who have received a COVID-19 vaccine to donate dedicated COVID-19 convalescent plasma within six months of their infection of the virus, based on data that antibodies from natural infection can decline after six months.

They are really parsing words here. So in the statement above they say, "The FDA allows people who have received a COVID-19 vaccine to donate dedicated COVID-19 convalescent plasma within six months of their infection of the virus, based on data that antibodies from natural infection can decline after six months." Then we have the Red Cross requirements below.

Q: Are individuals who received a COVID-19 vaccine eligible to give COVID-19 convalescent plasma?

A: The FDA revised its convalescent plasma donor eligibility guidance on February 11 specifically to ensure that convalescent plasma donors have sufficient levels of antibodies as a result of their illness or immune response to a COVID-19 infection versus just the vaccine. The FDA allows people who have received a COVID-19 vaccine to donate dedicated COVID-19 convalescent plasma within six months of their infection of the virus.

One of the Red Cross requirements for plasma from routine blood and platelet donations that test positive for high-levels of antibodies to be used as convalescent plasma is that it must be from a donor that has not received a COVID-19 vaccine. This is to ensure that antibodies collected from donors have sufficient antibodies directly related to their immune response to a COVID-19 infection and not just the vaccine, as antibodies from an infection and antibodies from a vaccine are not the same.

The Red Cross has their own requirements. The Red Cross requirements, "One of the Red Cross requirements for plasma from routine blood and platelet donations that test positive for high-levels of antibodies to be used as convalescent plasma is that it must be from a donor that has not received a COVID-19 vaccine."

The Red Cross is following the guidance of the FDA. If you were not infected 6 months before vaccination they won't accept convalescent plasma donations.

The COVID-19 vaccines change your immune response. This is undeniable. All vaccines change your immune response. But I'm unaware of any other vaccine that will stop your body from producing one particular type of antibody over another. The COVID-19 vaccines are not enhancing your immune system, like a traditional vaccine. The COVID-19 vaccine is modifying your immune system to produce a particular antibody, and no longer produce the antibodies from a natural immune response.

This could create a large deficit in your immune response when it comes to SARS-CoV-2, and possibly other viral infections as well. Has this been studied? What is the effect on those who have been vaccinated, and are exposed to the Flu? There are a lot of unanswered questions here. but I do know when I'm being lied to, and this is a legally approved lie. It's trying to have it both ways. Wiping out the antibodies is not the same as no longer producing them. But that's a literary difference, not a real world difference. If you are left with the inability to produce the nucleocapsid protein antibodies, they will necessarily die out. Nobody knows the long term effects of this condition, or if it effects nucleocapsid protein antibody production for other infections.

Now there's this! Click the picture to view the study info.

Conclusions This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

Here is a link to Red Cross website and below is a screenshot of the whole webpage, because I'm sure they will change it to remove references to this data. After all, as they say in the document multiple times, "the Red Cross stopped collecting convalescent plasma completely on June 14." That translates to, stop asking questions!

Here's a screen capture of the webpage. Click the image to enlarge it.

What do you think?

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

We have heard for many years now that low dose aspirin can be helpful in reducing the risk of heart attack and stroke in both high risk individuals and in general. But now, all of a sudden, that is no longer the case? Aspirin hasn't changed, so what did?

Task Force Issues Draft Recommendation Statement on Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease

People 40 to 59 should decide with their clinician whether to start taking aspirin; people 60 or older should not start taking aspirin.

Based on new evidence since the 2016 Task Force recommendation, it is now recommended that once people turn 60 years old, they should not consider starting to take aspirin because the risk of bleeding cancels out the benefits of preventing heart disease. The latest information also shows a closer balance of benefits and harms than previously understood for people in their 50s and that starting aspirin use as young as 40 years old may have some benefit.

“Daily aspirin use may help prevent heart attacks and strokes in some people, but it can also cause potentially serious harms, such as internal bleeding,” says Task Force member John Wong, M.D. “It’s important that people who are 40 to 59 years old and don’t have a history of heart disease have a conversation with their clinician to decide together if starting to take aspirin is right for them.”

This recommendation only applies to people who are at higher risk for CVD, have no history of CVD, and are not already taking daily aspirin. When deciding whether patients should start taking aspirin to prevent a first heart attack or stroke, clinicians should consider age, heart disease risk, and bleeding risk. It is also important to consider a patient’s values and preferences. If someone is already taking aspirin and has any questions, they should talk to their clinician about their individual circumstances.

The guidance went from one low dose aspirin a day, to "promote a health lifestyle." It's not as if doctors were promoting an unhealthy lifestyle before. Doctors weren't recommending that people take aspirin daily and continue to eat poorly and just sit around and don't exercise. Something had to have changed.

Aspirin lowers risk of COVID: New findings support preliminary Israeli trial

Over-the-counter aspirin could protect the lungs of COVID-19 patients and minimize the need for mechanical ventilation, according to new research at the George Washington University.

The team investigated more than 400 COVID patients from hospitals across the United States who take aspirin unrelated to their COVID disease, and found that the treatment reduced the risk of several parameters by almost half: reaching mechanical ventilation by 44%, ICU admissions by 43%, and overall in-hospital mortality by 47%.

“As we learned about the connection between blood clots and COVID-19, we knew that aspirin – used to prevent stroke and heart attack – could be important for COVID-19 patients,” said Dr. Jonathan Chow of the study team. “Our research found an association between low-dose aspirin and decreased severity of COVID-19 and death.”

Low-dose aspirin is a common treatment for anyone suffering from blood clotting issues or in danger of stroke, including most people who had a heart attack or a myocardial infarction. Although affecting the respiratory system, the coronavirus has been associated with small blood vessel clotting, causing tiny blockages in the pulmonary blood system, leading to ARDS - acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Israeli researchers reached similar results in a preliminary trial at the Barzilai Medical Center in March. In addition to its effect on blood clots, they found that aspirin carried immunological benefits and that the group taking it was 29% less likely to become infected with the virus in the first place.

“Aspirin is low cost, easily accessible and millions are already using it to treat their health conditions,” said Chow. “Finding this association is a huge win for those looking to reduce risk from some of the most devastating effects of COVID-19.”

We know, and have known for 20+ years, that aspirin is beneficial to people with cardiovascular issues. And aspirin has been around commercially since 1899, when Bayer trademarked the name. It's not like aspirin hasn't been well studied. It's taken 122 years of study to determine that aspirin might cause intestinal bleeding? But the new vaccines are completely safe right? It's been one year, and the vaccines are proven safe, but it's taken "science" 122 years to determine that an aspirin regimen could be dangerous. Just think about that for a minute.

Doesn't it seem strange that guidance comes out with literature stating that doctors should stop prescribing low dose aspirin to those at lower risk of cardiovascular disease, right around the same time that they come out with studies showing that low dose aspirin can improve COVID outcomes?

Is this coincidence? I'll leave that up to you to decide.

Better stock up on aspirin, because that might be the next thing they are going to restrict!

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

Pay very close attention to exactly what she is saying. Remember that most people are not going to be able to hear this repeated on live TV. Which is why catching these sorts of things are important.

Those who are vaccinated, we now know, because of the CDC... They are now able... But with the Delta Variant, because they carry so much more virus. [The vaccinated] They could transmit it to their unvaccinated family members, and so, I for example, even though I’m fully vaccinated. My children are not, because they’re too young to be vaccinated. So, I need to be now careful for my children, because of all the unvaccinated people around us.

She is saying that the vaccinated carry a higher viral load than the unvaccinated, so they can more easily spread the virus. But, she is worried about the unvaccinated people that might spread it to her?

I’m afraid she just let the cat out of the bag. It’s the vaccinated who are spreading the Delta Variant. If the vaccines are working, why would those who are vaccinated have a higher viral load than the unvaccinated?

The unvaccinated often are already immune to the Delta Variant, because of their natural immunity from the first round of COVID. Those who are infected by the wild virus and build a natural immune response, have a response to more parts of the virus than just the spike protein. Because of this, the variants are much less likely to have a severe effect on those with natural immunity.

And now you know why the CDC changed the definition of "VACCINE."

To fully understand the importance of the change, it’s crucial to note that, before the COVID pandemic, the definition of a vaccine had been relatively stable for nearly a couple decades with minor word changes occurring every few years. All through that time the intent of a vaccine — to give you immunity by protecting you from a specific disease — had remained basically the same.

For example, according to an archived snapshot of the CDC’s website, the definition of a vaccine February 24, 2011, was:

“A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease. Vaccines are administered through needle injections, by mouth and by aerosol.”

By July 2015, the wording had changed to:

“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed in the nose.”

The wording was the same in June 20179 and likewise in June 201910 and June 2020.11 By August 26, 2021, however, the definition had changed slightly to add the words “to produce immunity”:

“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.”

Then, less than a week later, just days after the FDA gave final approval to Pfizer’s mRNA jab, the definition changed again, September 1, 2021 — this time, significantly. The definition of a vaccine now reads:

“A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.”

As you’ll note, the second sentence remains the same. It is the first part of the definition that has dramatically changed. In the latest definition, a vaccine:

• Is no longer a “product” but instead is a “preparation”
• No longer directly stimulates the immune response, but is used to stimulate the system
• Does not produce immunity
• Stimulates the immune response against diseases, not against a specific disease
• No longer protects a person from the disease

These dramatic changes were likely created to allow the CDC, FDA and other governmental agencies to call the genetic therapy experiment being administered worldwide a “vaccine” — while they knew full well the so-called “vaccine” was not created to either produce immunity or prevent transmission of disease. In fact, by any definition of a vaccine in use before 2021, this jab is not a vaccine.

People like Dr. Leana Wen must have some kind of disconnect between their ability to speak and comprehend. If their goal is to get people to run out and take the vaccine, telling them that once they do, they are more likely to spread the virus --is not a good selling point.

Knowing what we know now, how is anyone to believe that the vaccine is going to help people? Now that we know that the vaccinated spread infection at a higher rate, what's the point? The whole goal from the start of this "pandemic" was to "stop the spread," "flatten the curve." But the vaccines won't do that, and the evidence proves that out. They might provide a level of protection against symptoms for a limited amount of time, where natural immunity is lifelong, we have to assume that because there is no data claiming that it doesn't. In fact all of the data available shows that natural immunity is lifelong.

If you follow the vaccine narrative to its conclusion. You will have vaccinated everyone, but those people are still going to be infected, and won't gain long term immunity. When their vaccine wears off, they'll have to get a booster, then they'll have to get another booster after that in perpetuity. Why would anyone agree to that, when the natural path to immunity is safe, and lifelong?

Then there's the fact that more than 99% of healthy people who contract COVID, will recover. Remember that the number of people with comorbidities had (3) on average. None of this adds up.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

Democrats have a problem. They have done things that have angered the general public. Whether Democrat voters want to admit it or not. I guarantee that very few of them voted for any of the things that have happened recently on the National level. That is to say, I haven't seen anyone defend the Biden administration on their Afghanistan withdraw, or beg for more lockdowns.

The Senate Parliamentarian voted not to allow immigration law to be included in this budgetary bill.

Finally, it is important to note that an obvious corollary of a finding that this proposal is appropriate for inclusion in reconciliation would be that it could be repealed by simple majority vote in a subsequent reconciliation measure. Perhaps more critically, permitting this provision in reconciliation would set a precedent that could be used to argue that rescinding any immigration status from anyone - not just those who obtain LPR status by virtue of this provision -- would be permissible because the policy of stripping status from any immigrant does not vastly outweigh whatever budgetary impact there might be. That would be a stunning development but a logical outgrowth of permitting this proposed change in reconciliation and is further evidence that the policy changes of this proposal far outweigh the budgetary impact scored to it and it is not appropriate for inclusion in reconciliation.

In other words, if you can pass an immigration reform law as part of a budgetary measure, granting citizenship to hundreds of thousands of people, you could also strip that citizenship away using another budgetary law. Point being, you shouldn't mix immigration laws with budgetary laws, because they can be changed too easily, and huge swaths of people will be stuck in the middle.

But there's more to it than that I believe.

Congressional Republicans praised the parliamentarian's decision Sunday. Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, tweeted that the parliamentarian "confirmed [the] obvious: mass amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants isn’t a budgetary issue appropriate for reconciliation." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) added, "Senate rules never contemplated a majority circumventing the filibuster by pretending that sweeping and transformational new policies were mere budgetary changes."

ecades of failing to enact their amnesty agenda, Democrats tried this latest unprecedented gambit," McConnell said. "It was inappropriate and I'm glad it failed.”

What does this mean? It means that they are not going to legalize the Dreamers with a budget reconciliation bill.

However, I believe that this is a setup. The Democrats have wanted to pass the legislation (H.R. 1 / S. 1) ever since the 2020 election. These/this is the legislation that basically makes every aspect needed to steal an election legal. Yes that's right, everyone would be able to vote, regardless of whether you are here legally or not. It's the "Democrats Stay In Office Forever Plan." But this is such a purely political move that it would be impossible to try and explain it away. Democrats haven't made much ground when it comes to convincing people that it's too hard to vote. Not because they are not good at marketing, it's because it's a lie, and everyone knows it. Voter ID laws don't exclude anyone, especially the poor. Anyone on government assistance has to be identified. If they can provide identification for welfare / government assistance, they can provide identification to vote. Everyone knows this.

I think that they Democrats want to remove the filibuster, but they haven't been able to find a "cause" to do it. If they were to remove the filibuster to pass "voter reform" it would be an obvious and open political move. The Democrats need something that they can argue is for helping people --like the Dreamers!

I believe that they are going to remove the filibuster rule so they can pass "immigration reform." The democrats want to save the Dreamers. That way they can pull on people's heart strings and appear to have someone else's interest in mind.

Now you know why the SCOTUS ruled that the Trump administration couldn't end the DACA program. I believe that this has been their plan all along. That's why they went so far with the 2020 election fraud. They have all of this planned out and they couldn't get it done with another year of Trump in office.

With the filibuster removed, they can pass (H.R. 1 / S.1) and stay in power for as long as they want.

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"