Power generation is not a favorite subject of many people, so I'll try to keep this part short, while still touching on some of the most important points.

First of all let's take a look at how much power is produced, on average, in the US. Then we can brake it down by production type to get a better idea of where we stand with varying types of technologies.

What are considered "fossil fuels" (petroleum, natural gas, and coal) make up 79% of the total energy production. Renewable energy sources make up 13% of the total.

Solar only makes up 14.2% of the total for renewable energy, that's around 1.85% of the total energy production of the country.

Wind makes up 29% of the total for renewable energy, that's around 3.78% of the total energy production of the country.

Wood makes up 16% of the total renewable energy, around 2.08% of the total energy production of the country.

Considering that the Biden regime wants to push for net-zero emissions by 2050, we've got a long way to go.

The only possible way to catch up, based on current technology, is nuclear power.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In support of President Biden’s Investing in America agenda, today the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a request for proposals (RFP) for uranium enrichment services to help establish a reliable domestic supply of fuels using high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU)—a crucial material needed to deploy advanced nuclear reactors, which will help reach President Biden’s goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, increase energy security, create good-paying jobs, and strengthen U.S. economic competitiveness. Currently, HALEU is not commercially available from U.S.-based suppliers, and boosting domestic supply could spur the development and deployment of advanced reactors in the United States.

If US suppliers can't produce HALEU, then who can?

The current fleet of nuclear reactors runs primarily on uranium fuel enriched up to 5% uranium-235 (U-235). High-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) is defined as uranium enriched to greater than 5% and less than 20% of the U-235 isotope. Applications for HALEU are today limited to research reactors and medical isotope production. However, HALEU will be needed for many advanced power reactor fuels, and more than half of the small modular reactor (SMR) designs in development. HALEU is not yet widely available commercially. At present only Russia and China have the infrastructure to produce HALEU at scale. Centrus Energy, in the United States, began producing HALEU from a demonstration-scale cascade in October 2023.

This is why energy policy is vitally important and should be handled by serious people. Russia and China have the fuel that we might need for new advanced commercial nuclear reactors -- but we can't yet produce it at scale. This illustrates the lack of seriousness as it relates to energy policy. If any of these people pushing for net-zero energy production were serious, they would have been pushing for the production of HALEU domestically decades ago.

Solar Power

Here's my personal experience with solar power.

They are trying to sell solar panels everywhere in Florida right now. So, I decided to do some research. I found out there are two kinds of systems. Ones where you have your own batteries, and you basically go "off-the-grid." Or, you can have a system that runs the house on solar when there's enough sunlight, and you get to sell the "leftover" power back to the power company. They use a Net Meter to do that. After calling around, and talking with the people at our power company, I found out that they don't even have any of the Net Meters available. They are made by Landis and Gyr (Siemens), and there's a supply issue. They don't even know when they are going to get more.

To make a long story a little shorter. The engineer from the power company said that solar started out in Florida at about $10 per kW [this was many years ago]. It went down at one point to $3 per kW, and now it's back up to $5 per kW. When you do Net Metering, you do still draw from the grid at night, so the power that you sell them during the day is supposed to offset what you use at night. But, he pointed out that there's an issue with that, because unless the cost of the solar system is less than $2.56 per kW, you're going to end up spending more money with the solar system, and the utility bill than you would if you just stayed with the utility. In other words, it's a scam. But man are they trying hard to sell it.

A system big enough to power my house would run us about $86,000. So we would have a payment of around $286 per month for the solar loan, and we would still have a utility bill. Making things worse, we can't do Net Metering, because they don't even have the meters. LOL It's crazy, the reason I was looking into it is because we had a power bill that was $335. Which is the highest we've had in this house, and I don' think that the cost of fuel is going to go down any time soon. But alas, it's a wash. We're just going to stay on-grid, and use our generator if we have to. But at least we know what we're looking at now.

After all, we can always cut back on our power usage.

Most residential solar power is to offset peak usage during the day, the majority of houses are not self sufficient, they don't have enough energy storage capacity. In order to go "off-grid" the systems require large battery storage systems. They're warrantied for many years, but if there's a supply issue, you're going to be out of power, with no quick option to switch back to utility power.

Smart Grid Technology

I'm sure you've heard of smart grid technology by now. The basic concept is that electrical meters and switching devices controlled by the power company can have two-way communication. They can also be controlled remotely. What advantage does this afford the home owner, or end user? There's very little benefit to either. What smart grid technology does is put more control in the hands of the utility company.

Smart grid technology allows them to balance loads more easily, and control the overall system capacity. Most importantly, it allows them to do this remotely -- and with greatly reduced manpower.

If we're to be serious about renewable energy replacing fossil fuel energy sources, a few things have to happen. Large scale manufacturing would have to stop world-wide, because that's where the majority of energy is expended. I've written about this before. Some of the world's most efficient manufacturing facilities can't run 5-days a week, because the cost of energy is too high.

Supply will not be able to keep up with demand, with cutbacks to large-scale manufacturing. People will just have to make due without those products. There is no aspect of large scale manufacturing that doesn't require fossil fuels along the production and supply chain.

In order for wind and solar power to be sufficient, many things would have to happen. Manufacturing would have to be localized, pretty much everywhere. You would have to produce most of the things you need -- where you are. Think "Little House on The Prairie." Everyday life would change drastically.

While that might not sound too bad, there are many things to be considered. Producing goods closer to where they are needed is not always possible. There are many goods produced where they are, because location is a requirement of production. Not all crops grow in all places. You can't grow oranges outside of greenhouses if you go too far north. Some plants won't reproduce, or bloom, without being exposed to sunlight and/or darkness for the correct amount of time. The latitude at which these plants are grown determines this.

Where does depopulation fit in?

This professor at Stanford University, Paul Ehrlich, seems to think there are too many people in the world. And he's been vocal about it for (56) years as of this writing. A quick internet search will reveal that this is not some “fringe” belief either.

The world's most renowned population analyst has called for a massive reduction in the number of humans and for natural resources to be redistributed from the rich to the poor.

Paul Ehrlich, Bing professor of population studies at Stanford University in California and author of the best-selling Population Bomb book in 1968, goes much further than the Royal Society in London which this morning said that physical numbers were as important as the amount of natural resources consumed.

The optimum population of Earth – enough to guarantee the minimal physical ingredients of a decent life to everyone – was 1.5 to 2 billion people rather than the 7 billion who are alive today or the 9 billion expected in 2050, said Ehrlich in an interview with the Guardian.

William Rees from the University of British Columbia in Canada, also thinks that there are too many people on earth, and that something is going to happen to "correct" this problem.

Today, there are around 8 billion people on the planet.

That sort of growth is unsustainable for our ecosphere, risking a 'population correction' that according to a new study could occur before the century is out.

The prediction is the work of population ecologist William Rees from the University of British Columbia in Canada. He argues that we're using up Earth's resources at an unsustainable rate, and that our natural tendencies as humans make it difficult for us to correct this "advanced ecological overshoot".

The result could be some kind of civilizational collapse that 'corrects' the world's population, Rees says – one that could happen before the end of the century in a worst-case scenario.

...

The question is whether improvements in technology – in everything from combating climate change to increasing food production – are capable of keeping pace with the growing demands our consumption places on the planet.

If innovation can't provide solutions, food shortages, habitat instability, war, and disease may well start to make an impact in population numbers, this study predicts.

If the global population is drastically decreased, many things can become a lot easier to manage.

Consider, all of the heavy labor will have already been completed by people -- while the population was still high. There will be an excess of manufactured materials at the ready. All of those smart grid houses will still be producing power through their solar cells, regardless of whether or not someone is living in them.

The truth is that the proposed energy and food solutions won't support the current population, much less a larger population in the future. Combine that with all of those people at the highest levels of government and the scientific community, repeating year after year, "The global population is too large. If we don't reduce it we'll destroy the planet."

Why would anyone not consider that population reduction would be part of the "Master Plan for Humanity" as the Chinese Communist Party put it?

The Chinese Communist Party boasted that it played a “crucial role” in the SDG plan, which UN leaders said represents a “master plan for humanity” that will “transform our world.”

Remember the UN SDGs?

The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also referred to as UN Agenda 2030, represent a comprehensive global effort to reform governance and the economy to be more in line with what the UN considers to be sustainable.

I would guess that most people would think that all of these initiatives are "conspiracy theories." But that doesn't fly anymore. You can go straight to the UN website, and read all about it.

What do you think?

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

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

As it relates to COVID-19 vaccines, I would like people to look at these things in a much different context.

Consider what we now know. We know the COVID-19 vaccines didn't work, or at least they didn't work in the way they were marketed to work.

Also keep in mind that masks and lockdowns did absolutely nothing to flatten the curve, or reduce reported COVID-19 cases, this is well documented.

I've been watching a lot of Korean shows on Netflix lately, which made me wonder, how did things shake out in Korea during the COVID-19 scare? After a little research I found this article. As you read the following excerpts, keep in mind what we now know about the COVID-19 vaccines.

SEOUL — Less than three weeks after South Korea relaxed pandemic restrictions under a new living-with-covid policy, the country is experiencing a surge in coronavirus cases.

On Wednesday, the country reported a record 522 coronavirus patients hospitalized with moderate to serious symptoms requiring intensive care, intubation or oxygen to help with breathing. It tallied 3,187 new infections the same day, the second-highest daily figure since the start of the pandemic.

South Korea’s government began relaxing pandemic restrictions on Nov. 1 [2021], deeming that a sufficient proportion of the population had been vaccinated. South Korea has fully immunized close to 80 percent of its 52 million people, despite a later start than many other wealthy countries. Fewer than 10 countries have higher vaccination rates, Washington Post figures show.

Let's take a look at this, 80% of the Korean population have been fully vaccinated, and the vaccinations started later than they did in most wealthy countries. However, they are experiencing a surge in coronavirus cases?

The article is dated Nov 17, 2021 so it was 16-days after COVID restrictions were eased. That isn’t “less than three weeks,” that’s just over 2-weeks.

If 80% of the population is fully vaccinated, where did the surge come from? The vaccines were supposed to stop the spread.

Let's see how they try to explain this away. You'll see the glaring logical fallacy in this.

An Israeli study published in the New England Journal of Medicine last month showed that six months after receiving the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine, people’s immune response to the coronavirus “substantially decreased,” especially among men, those age 65 or older and those with immunosuppressed conditions.

More than half of the vaccine doses administered in South Korea so far were of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, although the country has also given out doses of the Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccines.

Though daily deaths are rising, South Korea’s covid fatality rate is low — and has fallen from 2.4 percent in May 2020 to less than 0.8 percent now, according to Our World in Data. This, experts say, is partly due to its high vaccination rate.

“This does show that vaccines work,” said Kim, the infectious-disease doctor. “But this isn’t a cause for celebration. The whole point of vaccines is preventing deaths. The number of deaths is rising.”

These are all conflicting statements. After receiving a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine people's immune response was "substantially decreased?" Decreased in relation to what, below the baseline? Notice they don't say.

Daily deaths are rising, but it's not do to COVID-19, and this shows that vaccines work? Work how exactly?

If the daily death rate is rising, and it's not COVID-19 -- then what is causing the increase? Of course, they're not going to say vaccines. However, the only nation-wide event coinciding with increased deaths temporally -- was mass vaccination.

Knowing what we know now, it's easier to see how people who were skeptical early on, were correct in their assumptions -- something isn't right with all of this.

After a mass vaccination campaign in South Korea, coronavirus cases, and deaths are at record levels.

The entire COVID-19 vaccine operation was at best a scam, and at worst an intentional culling.

What do you think?

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

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

My garage refrigerator was a life saver. We needed more space for frozen foods, and more capacity. I found it on Craig's List. I went back and fourth with the owners by email, and decided that I should go check it out. It was in great shape, so I bought it for $75.

We used it for probably 5 years before we had any real issue with it, other than a condenser fan motor failing. I rigged it with a 120mm high volume computer fan until I could get a new condenser motor. However, one fine day, the coil iced up. So the freezer side was not getting cold enough.

The defrost system on these older mechanical refrigerators is relatively simple.

Looking at the diagram you can see how the bi-metallic thermal switch controls the defrost system (it's on the upper right of the pic). It's a glorified temperature switch, sometimes called a defrost thermostat. In some commercial systems they call it a "defrost delay timer." That's confusing because it's not a literal timer. What it does is stop the defrost cycle if the freezer side is too hot or not cold enough. The reason they call it a defrost delay timer, is because it won't allow the defrost timer to cycle until the freezer is cold enough to require defrosting. That way you aren't heating the coil with the defrost heater -- adding heat before the freezer has pulled the temp down. It needs to be "cold enough" before defrost should work.

Because the defrost thermostat failed the defrost timer would never run. So, the refrigerator's evaporator coil was icing up. Here's a picture of what the temp switch looks like.

The defrost thermostat was cheap, less than $10 on Amazon.

When I took the old one off I immediately saw what was wrong. The assembly had leaked, and water infiltrated it. The entire thing was corroded inside. The wires going into it both just broke off.

I replaced the defrost thermostat and I replaced the defrost timer as well, just in case. But that might be where I got burned. Here's a picture of the timer. It has a little motor in it that runs it. This is beneficial because the motor generates just a little heat, keeping the unit from becoming wet inside.

Here you can see what went wrong with this defrost timer. Notice that the markings on the shaft line up with the marks on the housing. That means it's in defrost mode. This activates the defrost heater, and disables the refrigerator's compressor.

This is where things went drastically wrong. With the timer stopped in the defrost position, the refrigerator's compressor will not be allowed to start, causing the whole thing to eventually heat up. However, the defrost thermostat should stop the defrost heater from running, once the coil temperature is too high. BUT IT DIDN'T.

The result was completely nasty. The refrigerator's defrost heater just kept on chugging, heating the freezer side so much that it turned my frozen shrimp, which were white, red! It cooked the frozen shrimp in the package. Milk on the refrigerator side was all chunky. The smell could knock you down. It was a sad sight, because I lost a few hundred dollars worth of food.

Here's a picture of what the refrigerator's evaporator fan housing should look like.

Here's what I saw when I took it apart.

Needless to say, it was a perfect storm. Not only did the new defrost timer fail, but the defrost thermostat failed as well -- in the closed position. If I would have left the original defrost timer in place, this never would have happened. because I never turn the refrigerator off the failed closed defrost thermostat wouldn't really hurt anything.

Normally things like mechanical defrost timers work for 15+ years, but not these newer parts. They're just not like they used to be.

I even took apart the defrost timer to see if it appeared to be damaged, jammed or whatever. Nothing appeared to be wrong with it, and I checked the motor with an ohm meter, it appeared to be OK too. I'm not really sure why it failed.

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

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

This information is from Our World in Data.

70.6% of the world population has received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.
13.53 billion doses have been administered globally, and 21,130 are now administered each day.
32.8% of people in low-income countries have received at least one dose.

This is a rather morbid subject, understand I'm looking at this from a purely logical standpoint.

Many people believe that the COVID-19 vaccines were designed to reduce the global population as a whole. While that's possible, it's not very probable. How would you know who to kill off?

Is it possible that this is more of a culling? Which is the essential method of action with eugenics. Culling requires removing specific animals from a herd, or people in this case.

Given the strange side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines, the oddest is the frequent and sudden onset of congenital disorders. Diseases that are normally present from the time of birth, or at least have some genetic historical connection to the patient. Perhaps someone else in their family had a particular genetic disorder.

The vast majority of of people "coming down with" genetic disorders are developing autoimmune diseases. Many people are not aware, but infection is listed as the number one cause of "waking up" dormant, or recessive genes that result in autoimmune disorders. This article is rather long, but it consists of a list of various immunity disorders that are linked to infections.

Autoimmune diseases (ADs) are chronic pathologies triggered by the loss of immunological tolerance to self-antigens, which can cause systemic or organ specific damage. ADs are common, with an estimated prevalence of 3,225/100,000. They are also a frequent cause of morbidity and mortality (1,2). Genetic and environmental factors are the main ones involved in the pathogenesis of ADs. Infections and exposure to pathogens or opportunistic organisms are among the environmental factors and may induce the initiation or exacerbation of ADs (3-5). Many types of infection may influence one or more of these diseases, and a single organism may be able to trigger more than one AD (1,6). In this chapter, the evidence indicating a causal role of infections in the development of ADs is reviewed.

Could it be that the vaccines were really a way to "wake up" dormant genes in people who have genetic predispositions to various genetic "defects?" In other words a literal culling. Perhaps to kill off the people who are considered genetically inferior. Like those who have a genetic predisposition to immune disorders.

Then there's the cancer aspect. Cancer is essentially an immune disorder. You might have never heard this before.

Autoimmune disease results from the immune response against self-antigens, while cancer develops when the immune system does not respond to malignant cells. Thus, for years, autoimmunity and cancer have been considered as two separate fields of research that do not have a lot in common. However, the discovery of immune checkpoints and the development of anti-cancer drugs targeting PD-1 (programmed cell death receptor 1) and CTLA-4 (cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4) pathways proved that studying autoimmune diseases can be extremely helpful in the development of novel anti-cancer drugs. Therefore, autoimmunity and cancer seem to be just two sides of the same coin. In the current review, we broadly discuss how various regulatory cell populations, effector molecules, genetic predisposition, and environmental factors contribute to the loss of self-tolerance in autoimmunity or tolerance induction to cancer. With the current paper, we also aim to convince the readers that the pathways involved in cancer and autoimmune disease development consist of similar molecular players working in opposite directions. Therefore, a deep understanding of the two sides of immune tolerance is crucial for the proper designing of novel and selective immunotherapies.

Vaccines are immunotherapies -- just not for cancer. They are functionally the same thing. They both attempt to produce a specific immune response in the host.

With mRNA vaccines nearly all of the potential Adverse Events or (AEs) were known -- long before the vaccines were pushed on the public. This paper was published in April 24, 2019. You might be surprised at the long history of clinical testing as it relates to mRNA vaccines. There is an exhaustive list of reasons that the technology rarely moved past early stage trials. To assume that the inherent issues with mRNA vaccines were corrected and tested just months, before the COVID-19 vaccine rollout are simply not believable. Operation Warp Speed allowed for nearly all of the normal regulatory safety measures to be bypassed.

I'll list a few of the tables from the article, highlighting those adverse events that have now been observed in patients who have received the current COVID-19 vaccines. Keep in mind, all of these adverse events were still and issue as of the above listed article from April 24, 2019.

Summary and conclusion from the 2019 document.

In summary, despite all the excitement over pre-clinical efficacy of mRNA, it should be remembered that in many ways, the mRNA field is recapitulating what occurred with plasmid DNA 20+ years ago, when seemingly almost any disease could be prevented or treated in pre-clinical animal disease models with the administration of an unformulated plasmid encoding a key antigen [1]. Therefore, one must keep in mind that pre-clinical immunogenicity or even protection/therapy, and human immunogenicity are low hurdles and are not predictive of human efficacy. One reason this is so challenging is that, for many of the diseases under evaluation, scientists do not know which immune response or combination of immune responses and which antigen targets are the crucial elements for efficacy; the vaccine technology alone is not the only piece of the puzzle. Table 5 summarizes the main advantages and disadvantages of mRNA vaccines with a comparison to DNA vaccines.

Reported Phase I clinical trial results for mRNA vaccines are encouraging, although only the results of the first rabies mRNA vaccine have been published in the peer reviewed literature. The results for the human Metapneumovirus + Parainfluenza virus 3, and the Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) phase I studies were announced via press release, thus details are not available. The target for the RSV vaccine mRNA was not publicly disclosed at the time the Phase I study was initiated, and to this date, the study appears to not be listed on clinicaltrials.gov. Whether the immune responses are at sufficient levels or have the types of needed immune responses and the necessary duration to result in protective efficacy is unknown and is not necessarily predicted by the Phase I studies.

One should also not ignore the reported toxicities seen with the rabies mRNA vaccine [55] that included limited systemic AEs for the majority of patients (78%) and even grade three AEs in ~10% of patients following doses of 80–400 μg mRNA via different routes, although the conclusions were that the vaccine was generally safe. It is not known whether the pre-clinical hepatic toxicity that proved to be a “no go” result for a particular Crigler-Najjar mRNA candidate is relevant to the mRNA vaccine studies from the same company, because, despite the low doses used, the doses and mRNA formulation for vaccine studies may be different. This is in comparison to DNA vaccine clinical trials where 4 mg doses of DNA i.m. with boosts have been used in a variety of clinical trials with limited systemic symptoms [83,84,85] while generating good immune responses.

Just as DNA vaccines, after more than 25 years since the first publication of preclinical protective efficacy, are still a work in progress in improving potency and finding the right antigens and targets, there remain challenges for mRNA to become clinical products. For both DNA and mRNA vaccines (and monoclonal antibodies and bi-specific antibodies before them), a simple concept may have a challenging path to reality, and the technology may not be totally generic. mRNA may be even more complex than plasmid DNA because of the modifications (modified nucleosides) plus the formulations needed for stability, delivery, and the need to control the innate immunostimulatory activity of the mRNA. However, it also offers advantages in terms of manufacture that avoids the need for any animal or cellular products. The hope is that once the fundamental key challenges are solved for both plasmid DNA and mRNA, the clinical successes will come rapidly, although that has not occurred for moving from the veterinary licensed products for DNA vaccines into humans, demonstrating how much still needs to be understood, not just about the technologies but about the diseases that are being treated or prevented.

I read parts of this article in 2019 on Wikipedia. This was before the entire COVID-19 Pandemic scare. I found it searching for something to do with animals. The dangers related to mRNA tech -- were still listed in the Wikipedia article in 2019. I went to show the Wikipedia article to my wife, in late 2020, and it had changed. I decided to look on the Internet Archive (WayBack Machine) to view an older version, and the history for the "mRNA Vaccine" page for Wikipedia only went back to 2020! We know that research has been going on for more than 25 years per the article I quoted above. Are we really to believe that there wasn't an mRNA Wikipedia article before 2020?

It was at that point that I knew something was definitely not right with the entire COVID-19 situation.

Considering the history of eugenics in the US, it's rather easy to see how this "culling" might be possible.

The Nazis got their inspiration for eugenics from the United States of America?

What is often not appreciated is that Nazi efforts were bolstered by the published works of the American eugenics movement as the intellectual underpinnings for its social policies. One of Hilter's first acts after gaining control of the German government was the passage of the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring (Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses) in July 1933

Is it possible that through all of the mRNA testing, perhaps some of it that was never published, they found that mRNA could be used to awaken recessive genetic defects? If the goal was to cull the population (removing those with genetic defects, or those who might die from cancer) convincing as many people as possible to get “vaccinated” might be a simple way to accomplish that goal.

When questioning the possibility of a "global culling," it would be wise to consider -- perhaps they never stopping working towards this goal.

US Eugenics Poster Circa 1926:

What do you think?

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

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

Everyone was told that if they just get the vaccine, things will return to normal. I didn't believe it then, and I don't believe it now. Things went way too far -- way too fast, for this not to be a giant permanent power grab.

Let's take a look at what Cathy Hochul is saying in New York.

The updated vaccine, necessary due to waning immunity and mutated variants, was reformulated and developed in recent months following the FDA decision to target a subvariant of Omicron, called XBB.1.5. According to CDC, more than 90% of the COVID viruses circulating are closely related to that strain, with tests showing the updated vaccine effective at increasing immunity to a more recent variant, called BA.2.86.

Isn't that the same language that was used for the first round of shots, and the boosters?

“The vaccine has always been the best way to protect yourself and your community against COVID-19, and this updated vaccine addresses newer strains of the virus that are currently circulating,” Governor Hochul said. “As we enter the Fall season, when respiratory viruses circulate, it is vital that New Yorkers consider getting this updated vaccine to protect themselves from this still dangerous virus.”

We know that the vaccines don't protect other people from infection. They don't "stop the spread." Why are they still parroting this? Even USA Today underhandedly says that this is not true.

Susan Hassig, an epidemiologist at Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, similarly said that vaccines protect vaccinated individuals by greatly reducing their risk of infection, illness and death. That individual vaccination then protects the broader community by making the vaccinated person less likely to become a host.

“This benefit is most evident when the majority of persons in a community are vaccinated,” Hassig said. "The virus, if introduced, has nowhere to go, and dies out. Cannot spread, cannot mutate.”

You have to pay close attention to what is said here. Susan Hassig didn't mention the COVID-19 vaccines, she said, "vaccines" as in traditional vaccines. She said what has been said for the past 80+ years. Besides, we still have variants all over the place, and it is well known that there is no way to eradicate a respiratory virus through vaccination. Not to mention there are multiple animal vectors. Animals that are claimed to get SARS-CoV-2 infections. Are we going to vaccinate every animal that they claim can carry SARS-CoV-2?

The the CDC says, "The risk of animals spreading COVID-19 to people is considered low."

Risk of animals spreading SARS-CoV-2 to people

The risk of animals spreading COVID-19 to people is considered low.

There is no evidence that animals play a significant role in spreading SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, to people. There have been a few reports of infected mammalian animals spreading the virus to people during close contact, but this is rare. These cases include farmed mink in Europe and the United States, white-tailed deer in Canada, pet hamsters in Hong Kong, and a cat in Thailand. In most of these cases, the animals were known to be first infected by a person who had COVID-19.

Animals infected with SARS-CoV-2 have been documented around the world. Most of these animals became infected after contact with people with COVID-19, including owners, caretakers, or others who were in close contact. We don’t yet know all of the animals that can get infected. Animals reported infected worldwide include

Companion animals, including pet cats, dogs, hamsters, and ferrets.

• Animals in zoos and sanctuaries, including several types of big cats (e.g., lions, tigers, snow leopards), otters, non-human primates, a binturong, a coatimundi, a fishing cat, hyenas, hippopotamuses, and manatees.
• Mink on mink farms.
• Wildlife, including white-tailed deer, mule deer, a black-tailed marmoset, a giant anteater, and wild mink near mink farms.

The CDC says, "There is no evidence that animals play a significant role in spreading SARS-CoV-2." Of course their story is that it first infected a human because of a bat. Or was it made in a lab? I'm not sure anymore, and neither are the "experts." Because they keep changing their story -- each time the current story becomes less plausible.

Remember, if you just get the vaccine, things will go back to normal. The lockdowns will stop, we can all take off the masks, stop standing 6-feet apart, and using salad bar sneeze guards at checkout counters. Only that was a lie to get people to take the vaccines. If you remember Fauci was asked multiple times as to what the vaccination level needed to be before things could go back to normal.

Fauci has in the past said that if the U.S. achieves 70% to 85% of the population vaccinated, that would equate to good “herd immunity,” and the country should start to see a return to normality by the fall. That, of course, may depend on individuals’ age, circumstances and underlying conditions.

Also Thursday, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla told CNBC that people will likely require a third vaccine dose after 12 months, and potentially annual vaccinations thereafter. When asked about the prospects for a next-generation vaccine that can fend off emerging variants of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, Fauci told the hearing that the endgame was a universal vaccine, the business-news channel reported.

At any rate, the goal is to get people to take these mRNA vaccines in perpetuity. If public health were ever the true goal things would not have progressed this way.

What do you think?

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

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