Enemy of the State-Read the Book-Know the Man
This is not a Safe Space but Baby, I don't care.
"I am not a number, I am a Free Man" - No. 6
Information Liberation Alex Jones’ Prison Planet Gary North Specific Answers Antiwar The Daily Bell Tenth Amendment Center Economics Policy Journal The American Thinker The New American Lew Rockwell
Posted by M. C. on September 4, 2021
FFF president Jacob Hornberger gives an update on the current status of the country’s healthcare system. COVID-19 has made a centrally planned system even worse. The only solution is get the state completely out of the healthcare business.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Separate Healthcare, the State | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on September 4, 2021
Bassani sees in the states’ rights tradition the primary focus of resistance in the American context to the Leviathan state. “Whatever else might be said about the states’ rights tradition, one thing is certain: Over the course of the modern era it has shown itself to be the most potent intellectual restraint on the growth of Leviathan. . .
https://mises.org/wire/how-america-abandoned-decentralization-and-embraced-state
Chaining Down Leviathan: The American Dream of Self-Government 1776—1865. By Luigi Marco Bassani. Abbeville Institute Press, 2021. Vii + 356 pages.
Marco Bassani is a historian of European political thought and it is from the perspective of his discipline that he looks at the American political system that came to an end in 1865. As he sees matters, the United States from its inception as an independent country resisted the dominant trend of nineteenth-century Europe, the rise of the all-powerful state. Before the Civil War, the United States, as its plural name suggests, was federal and not central in form, and sovereignty resided ultimately in the people of the several states, taken separately, rather than in a unified entity. Bassani’s book is rich and complex, and, rather than attempt of a summary of its many valuable ideas, I’ll discuss only a few of them.
The state, he tells, us is a modern invention. “In fact, the state is modern. Indeed, the term ‘modernity’ itself makes very little sense politically except in relation to the state. . .The state is European in the sense that it originated and developed in Europe (thought it then became highly exportable). It is modern because it began its history during a period which more or less coincides with the modern age. And it is an ‘invention,’ not a discovery.” (pp. 12-13)
This puts him at odds with Franz Oppenheimer and Albert Jay Nock, and Bassani is explicit about this disagreement, but I do not think admirers of these authors need be too disturbed by this. Bassani does not deny that predatory bands that permanently settled in a territory extracted resources through the “political means” from the subject population. What he argues is new is the state taken in the Weberian sense, an entity that claims to be the sole source of legitimate authority. “In short, the first item on the agenda of the modern state was the centralization of power. At the dawn of the modern era the state began its long journey when absolute monarchs created a single decision-making center of command, which gradually imposed itself on all other decision makers. The centers that constituted the ‘medieval cosmos’ were obliterated. The state asserted itself as the sole, overriding and exclusive focus: In due time no other political power remained.”(p.24)
America took another path, though centralizers, most notably Alexander Hamilton, would have been happy to follow the European pattern. But though the Constitution increased the power of the central government over the weak arrangements provided for in the Articles of Confederation, it did not enact the plans of the centralizers. Moreover, the Constitution was ratified only after a bitter struggle. Bassani stresses the continuing influence of Antifederalist opposition to the Constitution on the Jeffersonian party, the principal opposition to the Federalist centralizers whose greatest figure was Hamilton. “The Antifederalists absolutely did not disappear from the American political scene; rather they simply became less visible for a few years. . .The divergent views of society—essentially, whether it directs itself or must be directed by the paternal iron fist of a national government—were at the heart of the divisions over power between the newly emerged Jeffersonian party and the Federalists in power. And these in turn were but the further development and the ideological crystallization of the political issues raised during the ratification debate. “(p.119)
Bassani devotes a great deal of attention to Jefferson and Calhoun as leaders of the opposition to the centralizers. Calhoun, in particular, he regards as the greatest American political theorist since the Constitutional debates, an opinion also shared by John Stuart Mill. “John Stuart Mill’s judgment reserved for the Disquisition [by Calhoun] is much better known. Calhoun, he wrote, ‘has displayed sharper powers as a speculative political thinker superior to any who has appeared in American politics since the authors of the “Federalist”’”. (p.233, note 111) But I will leave it to readers to investigate what he says about them, in order to concentrate on something else.
This is the role of Abraham Lincoln as a proponent of the European central state. “Lincoln’s deep political convictions emerged with great clarity and marked the decline of all the conceptions that had presided over the development of the Republic to that point. Lincoln stated that he held the Constitution to be an ‘organic law,’ thus introducing a European idea that had little precedent in America. . .Within the space of a few phrases we encounter all the constitutive elements of the theory of the modern state, expressed by a man who had probably never heard of Machiavelli, Bodin, or Hobbes, but who nevertheless was following in their footsteps.” (p.278)
Lincoln regarded the American national union as a matter of world historical importance. ”As proof of Lincoln’s concept of the Union and its goals, there is no more important document than his message to Congress of December 1, 1862. His impassioned description of the United States as a living being, as our ’national homestead,’ is the premise on which the President erected his argument for union. ‘In all its adaptations and aptitudes it demands Union and abhors separation. In fact, it would ere long force reunion, however much of blood and treasure the separation might have cost.’ In short, the Union, being an article of faith and exempt from rational cost-benefit analysis, has no price.” (pp.284-285)
Bassani sees in the states’ rights tradition the primary focus of resistance in the American context to the Leviathan state. “Whatever else might be said about the states’ rights tradition, one thing is certain: Over the course of the modern era it has shown itself to be the most potent intellectual restraint on the growth of Leviathan. . .The Constitution is not enough: The modern state, because it is self-regulating and judge of the extent of its own power, inevitably creates an absolute monopoly. In contrast, in an authentic federal system the government is subject to controls by other governmental powers. The institutional history of America, at least in the time frame we discussed, can be clearly seen as a large laboratory in which Calhoun’s refrain is clearly corroborated: Power can be checked only by power.” (p.311, emphasis in original)
Marco Bassani has written an outstanding book, based on a thorough knowledge of political theory and American history. I noted only a few mistakes. It is not true that “the formidable indictment in the Declaration of Independence targets only George III.” (p.66) The shift in the Declaration from the clauses that begin “He has” to those that begin “For” mark a movement from indictment of the king to an indictment of parliament. The 10th Amendment does not use the phrase “expressly delegated.” I would have preferred also a greater emphasis on the importance of individual rights. But all students of political theory and American history will learn a great deal from Bassani’s impressive work. Author:
David Gordon is Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute and editor of the Mises Review.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Decentralization, Marco Bassani, the State | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on September 4, 2021
The country’s police and military services are installing security checkpoints throughout New Zealand in an effort to make sure citizens are not traveling during the lockdown. Freely traveling during the lockdown now carries a massive fine and/or prison sentence as punishment.
https://dossier.substack.com/p/covid-zero-new-zealand-has-completed
| Jordan Schachtel Investigative journalist. |
New Zealand, the last of the dedicated “COVID Zero” nations on earth, has completed its transformation into a full-blown tyrannical regime, and shockingly, it has come with the consent of the vast majority of Kiwis. Trötter @Trtter6@janhoglund Meanwhile, A poll conducted by Kantar and published by The New Zealand Herald shows 85 percent of Kiwis support the elimination goal, compared with 13 percent arguing to “live with” the virus.<= Publicerad idag Kiwis back Covid elimination strategy: pollNew Zealanders have signalled overwhelming support for Jacinda Ardern’s Covid-19 elimination strategy, even as the country endures another lockdown…odt.co.nz
Once hailed as the media and “public health experts’” favorite COVID-19 managerial “success story,” the puff pieces have been increasingly hard to find, as Wellington has spawned a dystopian concoction of insane, despotic government edicts, claimed as an absolutely necessary part of their everlasting fight against a disease with a 99.8% recovery rate. nzherald @nzheraldExclusive: Dr Anthony Fauci on why NZ ‘rose to the top’ in Covid battle nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-co…
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: COVID Zero, lockdowns, New Zealand, Police State, security checkpoints | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on September 4, 2021
And yet, the primary objective of any government is to increase its size and power as rapidly as the populace will tolerate it. The only reason that they rarely do this quickly, is that they can’t get away with it. Like boiling a frog, it takes time to lull the populace into submission, bit by bit.
And, in order to make sure that the public do not figure out what’s been done to them, the news reporting becomes Orwellian in its endless repetition of a false narrative.
It is, however, true that, “You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Eventually, the Band-Aid peels back to reveal an infection that’s far beyond what had been generally perceived. It then falls away in layers, as increasing numbers of people become aware that they’ve been scammed – that the media is entirely corrupt and that the media’s owners – big business – have, with the enthusiastic compliance of the government, robbed them on a wholesale basis.
https://internationalman.com/articles/quantitative-brainwashing/
by Jeff Thomas
We’re all familiar with the term, “quantitative easing.” It’s described as meaning, “A monetary policy in which a central bank purchases government securities or other securities from the market in order to lower interest rates and increase the money supply.”
Well, that sounds reasonable… even beneficial. But, unfortunately, that’s not really the whole story.
When QE was implemented, the purchasing power was weak and both government and personal debt had become so great that further borrowing would not solve the problem; it would only postpone it and, in the end, exacerbate it. Effectively, QE is not a solution to an economic problem, it’s a bonus of epic proportions, given to banks by governments, at the expense of the taxpayer.
But, of course, we shouldn’t be surprised that governments have passed off a massive redistribution of wealth from the taxpayer to their pals in the banking sector with such clever terms. Governments of today have become extremely adept at creating euphemisms for their misdeeds in order to pull the wool over the eyes of the populace.
At this point, we cannot turn on the daily news without being fed a full meal of carefully- worded mumbo jumbo, designed to further overwhelm whatever small voices of truth may be out there.
Let’s put this in perspective for a moment.
For millennia, political leaders have been in the practice of altering, confusing and even obliterating the truth, when possible. And it’s probably safe to say that, for as long as there have been media, there have been political leaders doing their best to control them.
During times of war, political leaders have serially restricted the media from simply telling the truth. During the American civil war, President Lincoln shut down some 300 newspapers and arrested some 14,000 journalists who had the audacity to contradict his statements to the public.
As extreme as that may sound, this practice has been more the rule in history than the exception.
In most countries, in most eras, some publications go against the official story line and may very well pay a price for doing so. But, other publications go along with the official story line to a greater or lesser degree and are often rewarded for doing so.
It should come as no surprise, then, that media outlets often come to report the news in a less than accurate manner.
Mark Twain is claimed to have said, “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you’re misinformed.” Quite so.
Still, only fifty years ago, much of the then “Free World” enjoyed a relatively objective Press. Even on television, reporters such as Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, etc. presented the news in a bland manner. It wasn’t very exciting, but at least it was relatively balanced and, to this day, most people who were around then still have no idea as to whether reporters like Walter Cronkite were liberal or conservative. Although he was a committed Democrat, he never allowed that to significantly colour his reporting.
But today, we have a very different corporate structure as regards the media. The same six corporations hold the controlling interest of over 80% of the media. And those same corporations also own a controlling interest in the military industrial complex, Wall Street, the major banks, Big Pharma, etc.
What we’re witnessing today is media having been transformed into something more akin to a three-ring circus than journalism of old. This is no accident.
The present travesty that is the 21st century media, is journalism in name only.
So, why should this be so?
Well, as it happens, people tend not to like governments dominating their lives – simple as that.
And yet, the primary objective of any government is to increase its size and power as rapidly as the populace will tolerate it. The only reason that they rarely do this quickly, is that they can’t get away with it. Like boiling a frog, it takes time to lull the populace into submission, bit by bit.
Once having had enough time to do so, there comes a point at which the government becomes woefully top-heavy, as well as unworkably autocratic. At such times, all that’s necessary to make people rebel is an economic crisis.
Such is the case in much of the world today – the EU, the US, Canada, etc.. Even in their arrogance, the powers that be have to be aware that they’re right at the tipping point. An economic crisis would almost certainly push the situation over the edge.
When truth threatens to undermine machinations for self-aggrandizement, individuals tend to obfuscate in order to delay the inevitable fallout. Governments are no different.
So it was that, in 1999, the largest banks entered into a massive lending scam that would most certainly collapse within a decade. However, before putting the scam in place, they arranged for a “bailout” by the government, which would effectively pass the bill to the taxpayer, while the banks themselves simply increased their own wealth massively.
Of course, QE, as massive as it was, was a mere Band-Aid solution. All those involved (big business and the government) understood that it would hang like a sword of Damocles over the economy until it inevitably came crashing down – a fate far worse than if QE had never been implemented.
And so, for those entities to have invested into the domination of the media was, in fact, essential. Had they not done so, it’s entirely likely that, with a free press, the man on the street would, by now, have figured out that he’d been hoodwinked.
Thus do we see the journalistic equivalent of Quantitative Brainwashing, in which the inevitable realization is delayed for as long as possible.
And, in order to make sure that the public do not figure out what’s been done to them, the news reporting becomes Orwellian in its endless repetition of a false narrative.
It is, however, true that, “You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Eventually, the Band-Aid peels back to reveal an infection that’s far beyond what had been generally perceived. It then falls away in layers, as increasing numbers of people become aware that they’ve been scammed – that the media is entirely corrupt and that the media’s owners – big business – have, with the enthusiastic compliance of the government, robbed them on a wholesale basis.
Historically, that’s when the jig is up. What happens then is a matter of historic record.
Editor’s Note: It’s clear the Fed’s money printing is about to go into overdrive. The Fed has already pumped enormous distortions into the economy and inflated an “everything bubble.” The next round of money printing is likely to bring the situation to a breaking point.
We’re on the cusp of a global economic crisis that could eclipse anything we’ve seen before. That’s precisely why bestselling author and legendary speculator Doug Casey just released this urgent video. Click here to watch it now.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Mark Twain, Media, Quantitative Brainwashing, Quantitative Easing | 1 Comment »
Posted by M. C. on September 3, 2021
Today’s guest on the Ron Paul Liberty Report is Murray Sabrin, author of a new book that describes why the current system of employer-based insurance and government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare are financially untenable and yield less than optimal outcomes for patients. Find Murray Sabrin’s book on Amazon: Universal Medical Care from Conception to End of Life: The Case for A Single-Payer System https://www.amazon.com/Universal-Medi…
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Free-Market, Medical Care, Murray Sabrin, Single-Payer System | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on September 3, 2021
https://mises.org/wire/theres-nothing-profreedom-about-nudging-people-government-policy
The July/August 2021 Cato Policy Report hosted a friendly debate between Cass Sunstein and Mario Rizzo. Sunstein is a Harvard Law professor, a onetime member of the Obama administration, and coauthor of Nudge and other books advocating public policy applications of behavioral economics. Rizzo is an economist at New York University. Sunstein argues that modifying the “choice architecture” available to consumers so as to “nudge” them toward the correct choice is a libertarian position perfectly compatible with Friedrich Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty. Rizzo disagreed, arguing that behavioral economics does not solve Hayek’s knowledge problem, quoting psychologist Jerome Kagan’s 2012 book: “Few psychological concepts intended to represent a person’s tendency to react in a certain way apply across diverse settings.” In other words, we do not know enough psychology to know how people will react in every choice situation. Kagan did not write about behavioral economics, but, as we will see, his reservation applies there with special force.
The “knowledge problem” manifests itself in many places in this short debate; I will mention just one: Sunstein’s frequent use of the undefined term “epistemically favorable conditions,” which seems to mean conditions under which people will act “rationally”—which of course presupposes the kind of knowledge that Kagan and Hayek dispute. We cannot in general know what epistemically favorable conditions are. Much more could be said along these lines, but here I simply want to point out a couple of serious flaws in behavioral economics.
The seminal paper in behavior economics is the 1979 paper by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky called “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” This work eventually led to many thousands of citations and an economics Nobel Prize in 2002. Kahneman and Tversky consulted their own intuitions and came up with simple problems which they then asked individual subjects to solve. The results generally confirmed their intuitions.
Here is a typical problem. Subjects were asked to pick one of two choices. In one case, the choices were A, 4,000 (Israeli currency) with probability 0.2, or, B, 3,000 with probability 0.25. Sixty-five percent of the subjects picked A, with an expected gain1 of 800 over B, chosen by 35 percent, with an expected gain of 750. This represents rational choice on the part of 65 percent of choosers.
The authors contrast this result with an apparently similar problem, A, 4,000, p = 0.8, versus B, 3,000, p = 1.0. In this case, 80 percent of subjects chose B, the certain option with the lower expected value (3,000 versus 3,200), an irrational choice. Kahneman and Tversky then used this contrast, and the results of many similar problems, to come up with an alternative to standard utility theory. Prospect theory, as they called it, is not like most scientific theories, namely a modest set of assumptions from which many predictions can be deduced. It is rather list of effects—such as the certainty effect (this case), loss aversion, confirmation bias, and the like (Wikipedia lists more than a hundred “biases” like this). Prospect theory attempted, with only partial success, to account for these discrepancies by proposing a modified utility function (a more complex version appears in a later paper), but basically it is a set of labels, rather than a theory.
There two problems with this superficially attractive approach: teleology and the object of inquiry. First, as to teleology, the use of utility functions: Ludwig von Mises argued that “teleology presupposes causality,” and teleological accounts often fail, because they are either silent on the causal processes which, under some conditions, allow people to maximize utility or, more commonly, because they assume that the mathematical method for obtaining the maximum, equating marginals, is in fact the one that people use. Kahneman and Tversky did not (and we still do not) know the processes by which people arrive at their decisions. Hence the failure of their teleological models and the reduction of “prospect theory” to a set of labels.
The more serious problem, hinted at by Rizzo’s Kagan quote, is prospect theory—any theory that attempts to account for the majority choice—cannot apply to the minority choice. Neither the 35 percent who chose rationally in the first case nor the 20 percent who chose irrationally in the second. If the object of inquiry is the psychology of individual human beings, the work is incomplete. To finish the job, the experimenters need to find out what it takes to produce the same result for all subjects.
Kahneman and Tversky’s results, and the theory that describes them, are a property of groups of people under very restricted conditions. They are not, as is sometimes assumed, general properties of human nature. The method is just opinion polling, albeit with a clever set of questions. Yet each effect is presented as an invariant property of human choice behavior. Because the group effect is reliable, individual exceptions are ignored. There is little doubt, for example, that subjects given a lesson or two in probability, or faced with a question phrased slightly differently (e.g., not “What is your choice?” but “What would a statistician choose?”), would choose differently. As Rizzo hints at one point, under some conditions, a group might even choose differently than an individual. For example suppose the subjects were allowed to consult among themselves before choosing. If the choice were between, say, 1,000 for sure versus a 0.6 chance of 2,000, would it not be wise for the group of, say, twenty subjects to agree among themselves to always choose the 0.6 and 2,000 option and then split the proceeds evenly—thus ensuring that everyone would probably get more than $1000?
People’s choice in a problem like this almost certainly depends on the absolute quantities involved. Who can doubt that if subjects were offered a credible choice between, say $10 million for sure versus a 0.6 chance of $20 million, close to 100 percent would choose the sure thing? Until the theory is developed to account for the minority choice and the effect of absolute amount, until it is in a form that allows no individual exceptions, it cannot pretend to be an adequate model of human choice behavior. Hence, quite apart from all the other objections to “nudge” policy is the fact that to the extent that it relies on behavioral economics, it relies upon a fallacy.
Author:
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Cass Sunstein, Cato Policy Report, Mario Rizzo, Nudging People, Profreedom | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on September 3, 2021
The level of antibodies needed to provide protection isn’t known.
We are two years into what is billed as the worst epidemic to hit mankind with the main emphasis being a “vaccine”. The greatest medical minds (Fauci and Gates) have been on the “case”.
Now we are told there is no way to measure antibody levels due to Covid NATURAL immunity NOR FROM VACCINES. It makes me wonder how vaccine developers can measure anything antibody related.
This is literally unbelievable. Either the greatest 21st century medical minds (like Fauci and Gates) are inept or we just aren’t meant to know.
Then again, when the vaccinated can still get covid, can still transmit and are encouraged to wear a mask after being told the vaccine was a passport to no mask, it isn’t that hard to believe.
Don’t worry about it, by all means don’t think about it, just obey or you won’t get to go to the big game.
https://erietimes-pa-app.newsmemory.com/?publink=1f8704429_1345efb
Adrianna Rodriguez USA TODAY People would like to know whether their COVID-19 vaccine is protective enough or a previous infection will keep them safe. Experts warned that taking an antibody test isn’t a good way to find out.
The tests were designed to show whether someone was recently infected with the coronavirus – not whether they have enough immune soldiers to prevent an infection.
The level of antibodies needed to provide protection isn’t known. There are nearly 90 different antibody tests on the market, most of which measure something slightly different.
Taking a test could give people a false sense of security, health experts said, or a load of unnecessary anxiety.
‘(Antibody tests) were never developed and designed to detect or tell us anything about vaccine-induced protective immunity,’ said Dr. Elitza Theel, director of the Infectious Diseases Serology Laboratory at the Mayo Clinic.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration recommend against using antibody tests to assess immunity after COVID-19 vaccination.
As of Aug. 18, the FDA authorized nearly 90 different antibody tests to detect previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Each test varies in which antibodies it detects, how well it detects them and how it reports results.
‘There are so many antibody tests out there that look for antibodies to different antigens,’ Theel said. ‘Their performance characteristics differ … there’s a lot of variability.’
A test’s sensitivity is its ability to recognize antibodies from the virus that causes COVID-19. Antibody tests can range from 85% to 99% sensitivity. Tests vary in specificity, which shows how likely a positive result is accurate.
Not all of them look for the same antibodies. Some tests look for antibodies created from a part of the virus called the nucleocapsid protein.
These antibodies serve only as a marker of previous infection and don’t provide any kind of protection against the virus, said Dr. Reynold Panettieri, professor of medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
‘It’s like a smoking gun,’ he said. ‘The bullet is the virus, the smoke from the gun is the nucleocapsid … all it (says) is you’ve gotten an exposure, but it’s not going to help you prevent infection.’
Only antibodies that prevent the virus from entering a cell provide protection from infection.
The COVID-19 vaccines help the body create antibodies to only the spike protein, which means people who have been vaccinated but not previously infected will show a negative result to a test that detects only antibodies from the nucleocapsid protein.
Some tests specifically test antibodies to the spike protein, but not all antibodies are protective.
Protective antibodies bind to the virus’s spike protein ACE2 receptor and prevent the virus from entering the cell.
‘They bind to the virus in a way that they neutralize its ability to infect the cell,’ Theel said.
Non-neutralizing antibodies may bind to other parts of the spike protein and have no effect on virus entry. Most tests don’t differentiate between the two types of antibodies.
A test that yields no spike protein antibodies doesn’t necessarily mean a person is unprotected from the virus, said Dr. Daniel Kuritzkes, chief of the division of infectious disease at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
The body has experience producing those antibodies from the vaccine, he said. Even though there aren’t any detectable at the moment of testing, the body can quickly produce them again if it encounters the virus.
‘With any vaccine, the response you measure in the blood is going to decrease over time after vaccination because the body isn’t being constantly exposed to the foreign protein,’ Kuritzkes said. ‘But if they encounter the virus, the body can very rapidly have a recall, or a memory, response that is able to basically rush to the scene of infection and contain it.’
Even if all commercial tests were able to detect neutralizing antibodies from COVID-19 vaccines, health experts said, immunity would not be guaranteed as it’s unclear what levels ensure protection.
‘One of the biggest challenges and the reason why it’s not recommended to do post-vaccination antibody testing is because we still don’t have a defined correlate of protection,’ Theel said. ‘The higher number, the more antibodies you have. But what number is clinically significant and associated with protection? We can’t say, yet.’
Measuring antibodies captures only one part of the immune system, Theel said.
T-cells are one of the most important players in cellular immunity. Whereas protective neutralizing antibodies bind to the spike protein to prevent the virus from entering the cell, T-cells search and destroy infected cells where the virus reproduces.
The FDA authorized a test that detects a T-cell immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in March, but it’s not widely available.
‘So it would be a mistake for someone to measure an antibody response five or six months after the vaccine as not having immunity because your T-cell response is going to peak at that time, (and) it’s going to be more robust in generating immunity,’ Panettieri said.
Kuritzkes said Americans shouldn’t depend on antibody tests to assess immunity after COVID-19 vaccination, but there are a few exceptions. One includes people who have an immunocompromising condition or take immune suppressing medications.
If a spike protein antibody test yields no antibodies in a person who has a compromised immune system a month after getting fully vaccinated, it’s safer to assume that person did not build a sufficient immune response from the vaccine.
‘In that situation, people need to be concerned that they may be susceptible to COVID-19 and should continue to take precautions such as wearing masks when they’re out and about and avoid large gatherings,’ Kuritzkes said.
Health and patient safety coverage at USA TODAY is made possible in part by a grant from the Masimo Foundation for Ethics, Innovation and Competition in Healthcare. The Masimo Foundation does not provide editorial input. Most tests on market measure something slightly different
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Antibody Testing, Elitza Theel, nucleocapsid, SARS-CoV-2 | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on September 3, 2021
The letter of resignation below represents today the feelings of about just the entire US military according to our sources. Our heroic soldiers have had just about as much as they can take from our woke government and their imposition of woke perversions on the military as sodomy, abortion, critical race theory and transgenderism.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/09/no_author/the-collapse-of-the-us-military-continues/
By David Lifschultz
The Lifschultz Organization
The letter of resignation below represents today the feelings of about just the entire US military according to our sources. Our heroic soldiers have had just about as much as they can take from our woke government and their imposition of woke perversions on the military as sodomy, abortion, critical race theory and transgenderism. We saw the likes of this in the similarly rotten and corrupt Weimar Republic though the German military was largely unaffected where Prussianism prevailed. I always thought that 1933 Germany required the Versailles Treaty, the hyperinflation of 1920-1923, and a 1929-1933 depression culminating in 50% German unemployment to create the National Socialist Revolution but this may not be the case as we watch the US morally implode into an Aldous Huxley medical dictatorship under an Orwellian Animal Farm under the most degraded values in history. Here mass abortion has killed in the US alone 60 million souls not to speak of our US influence on the 1.5 billion abortion murders worldwide not including the after morning pill.
90 RETIRED OFFICERS DEMAND THAT THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS RESIGN.
We have written up the history of Afghanistan in two parts below.
Operation Disclosure | So Ends the Afghanistan Heroin War
So Ends the Afghanistan Heroin War: Part 2
The following quote was taken from an RT article by Chris Hedges that appeared today that complements my points. As my above articles just above points out that Brzezinski lured the Russians into Afghanistan and here was the cost:
One million Afghan civilians were killed in the nine-year conflict with the Soviets, along with 90,000 mujahideen fighters, 18,000 Afghan troops, and 14,500 Soviet soldiers. But these deaths, along with the destruction of Afghanistan, were “worth it” to cripple the Soviets.
Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, along with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, oversaw the arming of the most radical Islamic mujahideen groups fighting the Soviet occupation forces, leading to the extinguishing of the secular, democratic Afghan opposition. Brzezinski detailed the strategy – designed, he said, to give the Soviet Union its Vietnam – taken by the Carter administration following the 1979 Soviet invasion to prop up the Marxist regime of Hafizullah Amin in Kabul:
We immediately launched a twofold process when we heard that the Soviets had entered Afghanistan. The first involved direct reactions and sanctions focused on the Soviet Union, and both the State Department and the National Security Agency prepared long lists of sanctions to be adopted, of steps to be taken to increase the international costs to the Soviet Union of their actions. And the second course of action led to my going to Pakistan a month or so after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for the purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis a joint response, the purpose of which would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible; and we engaged in that effort in a collaborative sense with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the British, the Chinese, and we started providing weapons to the Mujaheddin, from various sources again — for example, some Soviet arms from the Egyptians and the Chinese. We even got Soviet arms from the Czechoslovak communist government, since it was obviously susceptible to material incentives; and at some point we started buying arms for the Mujahideen from the Soviet army in Afghanistan, because that army was increasingly corrupt.
Next Hedges writes about the Afghanistan heroin war that was justified by 9-11 that no one in Afghanistan was involved in. The CIA brought us in there for only one purpose which was to restart the heroin. As my heroin war pieces point out, no member of Islam was involved in 9-11 but we invaded Afghanistan for the only purpose which was to restart the heroin production shut down by Mullah Omar which was a righteous act. Here is the cost of the Afghanistan War Two.
Here Chris Hedges:
Things are already dire. There are some 14 million Afghans – one in three – who lack sufficient food. There are two million Afghan children who are malnourished. There are 3.5 million people in Afghanistan who have been displaced from their homes. The war has wrecked infrastructure. A drought destroyed 40 percent of the nation’s crops last year. The assault on the Afghan economy is already seeing food prices skyrocket. The sanctions and severance of aid will force civil servants to go without salaries, and the health service, already chronically short of medicine and equipment, will collapse. The suffering orchestrated by the empire will be of biblical proportions. And this is what the empire wants.
UNICEF estimates that 500,000 children were killed as a direct result of sanctions on Iraq. Expect child deaths in Afghanistan to soar above that horrifying figure. And expect the same imperial heartlessness Madeleine Albright, then the US ambassador to the United Nations, exhibited when she told ‘60 Minutes’ correspondent Lesley Stahl that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children because of the sanctions were “worth it.” Or the heartlessness of Hillary Clinton, who joked, “We came, we saw, he died” when informed of Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi’s brutal death. Or the demand by Democratic Senator Zell Miller of Georgia, who after the attacks of 9/11 declared: “I say, bomb the hell out of them. If there’s collateral damage, so be it.” No matter that the empire has since turned Libya, along with Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, into cauldrons of violence, chaos, and misery. The power to destroy is an intoxicating drug that is its own justification.
Death of 500,000 Innocent Children is Worth It – We Want Oil – Madeline Albright
Murdering innocent civilians in war did not start in Afghanistan or Vietnam, or Korea but in World War Two. It was not US policy in World War One for its soldiers to kill women and children as we did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were not military targets. Secretary of State James Byrnes persuaded Truman to nuclear bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki to deter Stalin from overrunning Europe as our forces could not hold back the Russian Army which had faced 80% of the German Army finest divisions whereas the US faced at Normandy and in Europe largely the rump of the German Army except at the Battle of the Bulge where we suffered an attack by crack German Panzer divisions brought from the Eastern Front. Hitler rolled the dice in an attempt to cut off the bulk of the Anglo-Saxon Army that required capturing allied fuel depots. Germany largely lost the war based on lack of oil. It was a close call anyway as they came near to some major oil depots. Allied forces suffered over 75,000 casualties.
“The Cherwell memo described in quantitative terms the effect on Germany of the British bombing offensive on Germany between March, 1942-September, 1943. This paper laid down the strategic policy. The bombing must be directed essentially against German working class houses. Middle-class houses have too much space around them, and so are bound to waste bombs; factories and “military objectives” had long since been forgotten, except in official bulletins, since they were much too difficult to hit. (The meaning here is that more women and children could be murdered per bomb for lower classes as their homes were closer together.) The paper claimed that–given a total concentration of effort on the production and use of bombing aircraft–it would be possible, in all German towns (that is, those with more than 50,000 inhabitants), to destroy 50% of the houses.”
The US Air Force General Jimmy Doolittle vehemently opposed bombing women and children unlike General Curtis Lemay who supervised the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: abortion, collapse, critical race theory, Hiroshima, innocent civilians, Nagasaki, sodomy, US military | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on September 3, 2021
Covid terror attack imment but it isn’t.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/09/no_author/red-alert-false-flag-incoming/
By James Corbett
Go to link for the video. Not lengthy.
https://www.bitchute.com/embed/KNhOlwmTmJAx/
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Covid terror attack, False flag, James Corbett | Leave a Comment »
