On the Banks

A Year Ago Today: Some Gratitude and Some Rage

 

 

This photo is actually from a year ago yesterday. My dad had gone into ER because (we later found out) he had a stress fracture in his knee. He was able to stand, and even walk, so they sent him home, but the next day–a year ago today–he couldn't stand, and went into the hospital. We didn't know it then, but he was leaving his home for the last time. From the hospital, he went into rehab, to build his strength while his knee healed. 

What we didn't know was that his cancer was progressing very fast. And on Christmas night, he was taken from rehab back to the hospital. Four days later he passed away, with all of us with him. 

I hate that my dad is gone. I wish we could have had him for many more years. But given that he is gone, there are some things I am grateful for about his passing:

1. I am grateful that we didn't know how bad his cancer was, or that he was dying. That's a weird thing for me to say, because normally I want all the information I can get and I am deeply opposed to deception. (And I don't mean that anyone deceived us here, just that we didn't know.) But this time... I'm glad we didn't know. I'm glad that we were able to honestly sit there with him and tell him that the plan was to get him stronger so we could bring him home;

2. I'm beyond grateful that my family lives here, in the same town as my parents, and that I was able to visit him nearly every day that he was in rehab. I am so grateful for the time I had with him, even though I still kick myself for not spending more time with him;

3. I am grateful that I told him, after he had been in rehab for well over a month, and was getting very tired of being there, that nobody could force him to stay there and if he really wanted to come home we would make that happen. He said no, that he thought the best plan was to stay there and work with the therapists to get stronger. But I am so glad I got to tell him that–it would have haunted me forever if I hadn't;

4. I am grateful that we were able to resolve all of our shit well before he died, and that there was nothing left unsaid between us;

5. And I am grateful that he told me how much he appreciated my being there for him those last few months. I didn't think he needed to say it at the time, and was almost offended that he thought he did. But it matters now and I'm so glad he said it.

When we took my dad into ER, a year ago yesterday, my mom started doing her qi gong in the hospital–to hold herself together, I'm sure. I got some pictures of her, and this is one of them. I love these pictures. They say so much about their relationship, and about each of them as individuals. About how they were each very different from each other, on different paths and with very different focuses in life, yet still so deeply connected.

Losing my dad was really hard. It is still really hard. It wasn't long after he left us that "it" all started "coming down"–just like he'd spent our whole lives telling us it would. And if he had gone into the hospital, and into rehab, only a few months later than he did, our experience would have been very very different.

I get that the elderly are the most at risk from Covid-19. Just as they are from a host of other infectious pathogens that entire economies haven't been destroyed over. And I get that that risk–for them, not for the rest of us–seems to be worse than for flu and other corona viruses. But none of that justifies how this has been handled. None of that justifies shutting people away and not allowing them to see their loved ones in their last months, weeks, or days of life. 

I agree that measures should be taken to protect the elderly from Covid-19 (and from other things that might kill them, including loneliness and despair). But if isolating them in that way is the best that the people making these decisions could come up with, then they have failed so miserably that they should never again be allowed to have responsibility for anything beyond–possibly–dressing themselves. Everyone involved in coming up with, and enforcing, these decisions should be so deeply ashamed as to be placed on suicide watch for a good long time.

I can't even imagine, and don't want to, what our last two months with our dad would have been like had he gone into the hospital today instead of a year ago today. He hated being in that place. He chose it, because he thought it was the best way for him to build up his strength, but he did not like being there. The only thing that kept him going was being able to see his people every day. I don't even want to think about what a nightmare it would have been for him, and for us, knowing how miserable and alone he was every day, or the guilt and pain we would have to live with forever after he died.

What has been committed here is a crime. Call it a crime against humanity, or call it a crime against a whole lot of people, but it is a crime and we need to call it that. And one day, the people responsible for this crime will be held accountable.  

 

 

WTMWD #43: Kerry McDonald on a powerful weapon against teen depression. Also: What to do about Halloween!

 

 

 

 

I speak with unschooling mom and homeschooling advocate Kerry McDonald about an upcoming 4-day webinar to help inspire teens' inner entrepreneurs – and about why it is more critical than ever that we encourage our teens to find ways to create and to contribute now.

We also talk about Halloween...

FEE's "Entrepreneur Week" is Nov. 16-19, and is FREE. You can sign up here.

Kerry's book, "Homeschooling in the Time of Covid-19" is available for download here.

Her article "How our Culture Disempowers Teens", from last year, is here.

And her recent article on the Halloween bans is here.

 

 

WTMWD #42: Kevin Kiley's Lawsuit Against Governor Newsom Could Set a Critical Precedent

 

 

 

 

 

 

I spoke with California legislator Kevin Kiley this week, about his (and fellow legislator James Gallagher's)  lawsuit against Governor Newsom's authoritarian orders, and his one-man rule.

You can see Kiley's opening arguments in the case here.

And his blog, with updates on the lawsuit, is here.

 

 

 

WTMWD #41: Bad Assumptions Drive Bad Policy: Masks and Viruses, with Roger Koops

 

 

 

 

 

I speak with retired scientist Roger Koops, about the nature of viruses and how flawed assumptions about how they operate in the natural world have driven mask recommendations and mandates that may do more harm than good.

We also talk a little about how people in Japan have responded to the virus, and how the national and local governments there have reacted.

Roger Koops is a contributing author for AIER, and is also a retired scientist, with a PhD in chemistry and over 25 years in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. He has authored or co-authored several papers on pharmaceutical technology and chemistry.

His article, "The Year of Disguises" is here.

 

 

WTMWD #40: "They could have done this on any cold virus" - Kevin McKernan on PCR deception

 

 

 

 

 

 

I speak with founder and CSO of Medicinal Genomics, Kevin McKernan, about some of the problems with PCR testing, as well as some of the incentives to produce high positive test numbers, both of which are making it difficult to get a meaningful picture of SARS-Cov2 infections and cases.

You can find Kevin  on Twitter, and he recently Tweeted about some of these issues here.

The paper on molecular mimicry that he mentions is here.

The CMS document that spells out penalties for failure to report positive test results is here (p.5)

And the FDA's Emergency Use Authorization summary for the Roche qPCR test is here.

My previous episodes with Kevin are here and here.

 

 

 

Phenomenal Speech by RFK Jr.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously, YouTube? YT Scrubs Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Video: "Everything must be done to make sure that no-one will ever again be in a position of such power"

 

I guess the folks at YouTube don't like talk of taking authoritarian power away from people.

...No worries, it's still up on Bitchute:

 

 

I posted about this earlier, here. But YouTube has pulled down the video.

Here's what I said:

Listen to Dr. Reiner Fuellmich explain how international lawyers can prosecute the perpetrators of the Covid-19 panic and rights violations:

"All the above-mentioned cases of corruption and fraud committed by the German corporations pale in comparison, in view of the extent of the damage the Corona Crisis has caused and continues to cause.

"On a political level, everything must be done to make sure that no-one will ever again be in a position of such power as to be able to defraud humanity or to attempt to manipulate us with their corrupt agendas."

Here's how he plans to do that.

 

 

 

WTMWD #39: Swedish MD Sebastian Rushworth on Why the Herd Immunity Question is not as Simple as it Appears

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I speak with Swedish ER doctor Sebastian Rushworth, about the workings of the immune system and Covid-19. Among other insights: The media (and much of research) focuses on antibodies, but T-cell immunity may be better suited to viral infections; antibodies always wane over time, this is nothing new; the evidence shows that the lockdowns have had no effect on transmission; as the data piles up, it is becoming clear that Covid-19 is indeed very much like a bad flu virus in terms of deaths. Oh, and Sweden is back to normal and we all should be too.

You can read Dr. Rushworth's blog here.

And the article I mentioned, "Herd Immunity Without Antibodies?" is here.

 

Why FB's "Fact Check" of Mask Harm Claims is Utter Bullsh*t - Addendum to "Why I Won't Be Putting Masks on my Kids"

 

So I've just seen that Facebook has "fact checked" the claim (made in my most recent post) that "Wearing face masks can cause carbon dioxide toxicity; can weaken immune system." (I've written elsewhere about why Facebook's "fact checkers" are not really fact checkers.)

Here's why this is bullshit:

1. From the "fact check": "While it is true that hypercapnia can be life-threatening, the claim that it can be caused by wearing face masks, either surgical masks or respirators, is unsupported and runs contrary to existing evidence..." It goes on to claim that healthcare workers "...wear both types of masks for long hours at work without reported impacts to their work performance."

In my post, I cited two studies showing that wearing N95 masks can cause hypoxia, with headaches being the primary symptom revealed by the studies. If the "fact-checkers" want to claim that they are only going after claims of "hypercapnia" and not "hypoxia", then that would be utterly disingenuous. It is clear from the evidence I provided that wearing these types of masks does create serious health problems, whether because of oxygen deprivation or excess CO2 levels. 

2. The "fact checkers" go on to assert, quoting an article in Forbes:

“Take surgeons, for example—during long procedures, they wear surgical masks for hours with no ill-effects on their carbon dioxide levels. Having a surgeon with an altered mental state would not be in the best interests of either the patient or the surgeon and thankfully, this simply does not happen.”

This may be true, I don't know, as I haven't looked into studies on CO2 levels for surgeons using masks. However I did link to a study that looked at the impact on oxygen levels among surgeons wearing masks, and it showed that oxygen levels were indeed adversely affected by the masks.

3. They go on to say: 

"The claim that wearing masks would weaken the immune system is also unsupported by scientific evidence. Prolonged wearing of face masks can cause problems such as discomfort, skin irritation, and even pressure ulcers^[3], however immunodeficiency is not among the problems caused by prolonged face mask use."

This is complete horseshit.

In my post, for example, I cite two studies showing that wearing N95 masks can cause hypoxia among healthcare workers. I also link to studies showing that hypoxia enahnces immune suppression, that hypoxia negatively impacts Th1 function, and that "hypoxia-driven immunosuppression" contributes to creating favorable environments for cancer cells. Also, tangentially related (not necessarily related to immune function), a study showing that continuous cloth mask use was correlated with higher infection rates than was "standard practice" mask use (non-continuous).

So yes, immunodeficiency absolutely IS among the problems caused by prolonged face-mask use, you criminally dishonest pieces of manure.

I'm sure there is more, but I'll stop there.

...except for this last point. The fact checkers say, at the very end:

"A much more likely cause of hypercapnia and asphyxia that the general public should be aware of is covering one’s face with plastic. Because plastic is not porous enough to allow for quick air exchange, unlike face masks, it poses a genuine suffocation risk as cases in the past have demonstrated, and warning labels on plastic bags are used to remind people of this risk."

And I get why they had to say that. 

Because anyone who is stupid enough to take Facebook's "fact-checkers" seriously, is also stupid enough to put a plastic bag over their head and expect it to protect them. This is actually the most responsible piece of information in the entire article.

 

 

 

Why I Won't Be Putting Masks on my Kids:

 

 

 

 

This is a video that by some miracle is still up on YouTube. It is in German, and maybe that's why it's still up. It is a video of a German neurologist, Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson MD, PhD, explaining that wearing masks for any extended period of time can cause permanent brain damage.

There's a translation here (which I can't personally vouch for as I don't speak German), and a partial transcript here.

(UPDATE: Now here, because the account for the link I posted earlier has been "...archived or suspended for a violation of our Terms of Service" - WordPress. You all are paying attention now, right? You're starting to physically copy and save anything you see online that might be important because you know it may not be there the next time you look for it. Right?)

From that transcript:

“The rebreathing of our exhaled air will without a doubt create oxygen deficiency and a flooding of carbon dioxide. We know that the human brain is very sensitive to oxygen depravation. There are nerve cells for example in the hippocampus, that can’t be longer than 3 minutes without oxygen – they cannot survive. The acute warning symptoms are headaches, drowsiness, dizziness, issues in concentration, slowing down of the reaction time – reactions of the cognitive system.

"...The second problem is that the nerve cells in your brain are unable to divide themselves normally. So in case our governments will generously allow as to get rid of the masks and go back to breathing oxygen freely again in a few months, the lost nerve cells will no longer be regenerated. What is gone is gone.

"For children and adolescents, masks are an absolute no-no. Children and adolescents have an extremely active and adaptive immune system and they need a constant interaction with the microbiome of the Earth. Their brain is also incredibly active, as it is has so much to learn. The child’s brain, or the youth’s brain is thirsting for oxygen. The more metabolically active the organ is, the more oxygen it requires.  In children and adolescents every organ is metabolically active.

"To deprive a child’s or an adolescent’s brain from oxygen, or to restrict it in any way, is not only dangerous to their health, it is absolutely criminal. Oxygen deficiency inhibits the development of the brain, and the damage that has taken place as a result CANNOT be reversed.

 

Dr. Griesz-Brisson is not the only one saying this. 

In March, a study of healthcare workers in Singapore found that "(m)ost healthcare workers develop de novo PPE‐associated headaches or exacerbation of their pre‐existing headache disorders" after increased (mandated) PPE usage, including wearing N95 masks. This repeats the findings of a similar study done in 2003, and another study from 2008 found that surgeons experienced a decrease in oxygen saturation levels after the first hour of wearing a surgical mask.

As Dr. Griesz-Brisson points out, headaches can be one symptom of oxygen deprivation. And while these studies involved the use of N95 masks and surgical masks, not cloth masks, I have heard anecdotally from several people who wear masks to go shopping, etc. that doing so gives them headaches and can cause lightheadedness and a drop in O2 levels (yes, one friend measured this.) So while it is technically true that these studies were not done using cloth masks, I am pretty confident that one would get the same results if they were.

There are other studies showing some of the harm that face masks can cause, including immunosuppression. I won't go into all of them here, but am providing a few links in case anyone wants to look at them.

Meanwhile, in early September, a group of 70 doctors in Belgium wrote an open letter to the Flemish Minister of Education, calling on him to "abolish mandatory mouth mask at school." The doctors argued that forcing masks on children hampered their development and would cause serious problems for them. 

From their letter:

In recent months, the general well-being of children and young people has come under severe pressure. We see in our practices an increasing number of children and young people with complaints due to the rules of conduct that have been imposed on them. We diagnose anxiety and sleep problems, behavioral disorders and fear of contamination. We are seeing an increase in domestic violence, isolation and deprivation. Many lack physical and emotional contact; attachment problems and addiction are obvious. ‘

The mandatory mouth mask in schools is a major threat to their development. It ignores the essential needs of the growing child. The well-being of children and young people is highly dependent on the emotional connection with others. (…) The aim of education is to create an optimal context so that a maximum development of young people is possible. The school environment must be a safe practice field. The mouth mask obligation, on the other hand, makes the school a threatening and unsafe environment, where emotional connection becomes difficult.

 

But, as with mandatory vaccines, doesn't every parent have a duty to put their own child in harm's way in order to potentially protect others?

To put it bluntly: No.

However, for those who are genuinely worried about the harm you might be causing to others by not wearing a mask, or by not putting a mask on your child, take heart: It really does look like–with a few very specific exceptions–wearing a mask is not going to help anyone else, and in fact could be helping to spread the virus.

And, as many epidemiologists and others have been saying from the beginning of all of this, it does not make sense to try to isolate an entire population from a new virus in the first place. The way that humans have always dealt with new pathogens is to interact with them and develop immunity to them. More and more doctors and scientists are speaking out about this now.

But getting back to the mask efficacy issue, here are some links to articles that explain why I say that the masks aren't going to help prevent the spread of the virus (if you think that's a worthy goal in the first place):

This is a very good piece from Jeremy Hammond, back in June, examining the mask efficacy issue, including a discussion of the specific situations in which they may help prevent transmission. (I spoke with Jeremy about masks on my podcast in June.)

This is a wonderful piece from Roger Koops, who has a Ph.D in chemistry, and is the author of several papers on pharmaceutical technology and chemistry. He goes into painstaking detail here, to explain how serious PPE masking works, and how cloth masks interact with viruses. It is well worth reading the entire piece, although I will warn you that you won't come away with any false sense of security regarding cloth masks and viruses intact.

This letter from Patricia Neuenschwander details many of the reasons that healthy people should not be wearing masks, and includes links to studies supporting what she says. She includes a reference to this study from the Chicago School of Public Health, which says:

"We do not recommend requiring the general public who do not have symptoms of COVID-19-like illness to routinely wear cloth or surgical masks because:

• There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission..."

And finally, (it's not really "finally" because there's a lot I'm not including here) the folks at Rational Ground have put together some illuminating graphs that shed light on the effect (rather, non-effect) that mask mandates have had where implemented. You can see those here.

They have also created a phenomenal interactive tool that looks at mask use by location, against Covid-19 cases and deaths. I really recommend taking a look.

In fact, because I know that some of you won't take a look, I'm going to post a few sample results from that tool, as well as some of their graphs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't really know what else to say. Except that every time I see a post from one of my parent friends, about how they are getting their child to wear their mask, I just want to weep. Especially when it is a parent of a child with special needs. Our kids are already "harmed" developmentally. They don't need more harm done to their brains through oxygen deprivation. And certainly not for a cause for which there is little if any justification.

As always, I welcome any information that counters any of what I have posted here. I would especially love to be wrong about the harm that masks can cause to children. Because I know that no matter what I or others say on the topic, there will be countless parents who still decide to put masks on their kids. 

 

 

Can California be Saved from its Politicians?

 

 

My latest piece on FEE.org:

 

It's hard to choose one image, or juxtaposition of images, that best sums up the state of California at the end of summer, 2020.

Is it the eight-year-old girl's birthday party being broken up by a long line of police officers, or the lone paddleboarder arrested out in the ocean for violating social-distancing orders? While only two months later, violent mobs tore through Los Angeles, obstructing traffic, destroying businesses and burning buildings?

Is it Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claiming that she was "set up" when she went to have her hair done at a salon—an activity she has complicit in prohibiting for ordinary citizens—or some of Governor Newsom's wineries remaining open while wineries and other businesses outside of Napa were ordered closed over Fourth of July weekend?

Or is it the "let them eat cake" tweets from the woman who was instrumental in helping wipe out out the livelihoods of freelancers and other independent contractors across California, or perhaps the comical attempts by a puppet politician for the pharmaceutical industry to portray those who oppose the forced vaccination of their children as "violent?"

Perhaps it's the "fire tornado," or the millions of acres of charred land left in the wake of devastating wildfires—largely the result of years of failing to employ rudimentary principles of forestry management that Native Americans understood centuries ago.

Or maybe it's just the recent uptick in the throngs of people who have been steadily making their way out of the state for well over a decade.

...

The people who rule over the state of California—and yes, "rule" is the correct word—may be ridiculous, but they are not harmless. And they are waging open political warfare on everyone living in the state.

 

Is there anything we can do to stop them? Read on to find out...

 

WTMWD #38: Jeremy Hammond - Central Planning is Just as Deadly in Public Health as Anywhere Else

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I speak with independent journalist Jeremy Hammond about the problems of central planning and why it always leads to disastrous outcomes - even in the realm of public health.

We also talk about why it is more important than ever to develop the skill of consuming news intelligently.

You can find Jeremy's writing on topics from the middle east to vaccine safety and the responses to Covid-19, here.

 

 

 

An Excellent, Short Summary of Some of the Reasons Not to Get a Flu BeachBall

 

Image: Public domain

 

This letter from a retired physician, published in the BMJ, is one of the best short summaries I've seen of some of the most obvious problems with the flu vaccine. It doesn't mention the Department of Defense study that has been getting a lot of attention lately, showing that receiving the flu vaccine is correlated with an increased susceptibility to coronavirus infection. However it does mention several of the other studies, and gives some possible explanations as to how receiving a flu shot can actually weaken your body's ability to respond to other infections.

From the letter:

A prospective case-control study in healthy young Australian children found that seasonal flu shots doubled their risk of illness from noninfluenza virus infections (unadjusted OR 2.13, CI 1.20—3.79). Overall, the vaccine increased the risk of virus-associated acute respiratory illness, including influenza, by 73% (OR 1.73, CI 0.99—3.03). (Table 2 in Kelly et al, Pediatr Infect Dis J 2011;30:107)….A randomized placebo-controlled trial in Hong Kong children found that flu shots increased the risk of noninfluenza viral ARIs fivefold (OR 4.91,CI 1.04—8.14) and, including influenza, tripled the overall viral ARI risk (OR 3.17, CI 1.04—9.83). (Table 3 in Cowling et al, Clin Infect Dis 2012;54:1778)…..To my knowledge, the foregoing risk figures have not been explicitly published anywhere. They will not be found in the abstracts of the articles, so you have to go to the tables and look at the numbers themselves.

What is going on? We are told year after year that influenza vaccines are 60% effective…30% effective…45% effective…etc. Does this mean that they prevent a significant proportion of all viral respiratory infections? No, these reports are based on non-randomized surveys known as “test-negative case-control studies”; they look only at influenza infections and make no attempt to look at the other 200-plus respiratory viruses. Furthermore, they make no attempt to look at any vaccine adverse effects such as seizures, narcolepsy, Guillain-Barre’ syndrome, or oculorespiratory syndrome.

How can influenza vaccines increase the risk of other infections? There are at least two possible mechanisms: first, influenza vaccines probably alter our immune systems non-specifically to increase susceptibility to other infections; this has been observed with DTP and other vaccines. (Benn et al, Trends in Immunology, May 2013) Secondly, there is the phenomenon of “viral interference” in which a virus infection stimulates the innate immune system to provide temporary and non-specific protection against other viruses. By preventing influenza infection a vaccine could prevent this unexpected but positive side effect. The Cowling study discusses this possibility in some detail. A recent study of virus population dynamics found, at least, that influenza A prevented subsequent rhinovirus infections, and influenza B prevented adenovirus infections. (Nickbakhsh et al, PNAS, 12 Nov 2019)

In the US seasonal influenza vaccines are now recommend every year for the entire population (excepting infants before 6 months of age). It is important to realize that this policy was instituted without acquiring safety and effectiveness data from randomized controlled trials. When routine vaccination for healthy young children was being contemplated some experts in pediatrics and infectious disease issued warnings. Kenneth McIntosh called for the performance of multi-center randomized trials over several seasons before such a policy was instituted. In explicit language he worried about adverse effects, and the possibility that the risks of annual vaccination would outweigh the benefits. (Editorial, NEJM 2000;342:275) Twenty years later we must ask, “What harm is done by annual influenza vaccines? Where is the balance between risks and benefits?”

It's worth reading the whole letter. (Again, it's short.) 

...and ask me again why I need to say "Beach Ball" instead of the "V" word.

 

 

Letter to our Son's Summer Camp

Our son has a summer camp that he has gone to for the past several years now. He absolutely loves it, and it really is one of the things he most looks forward to each year. 

This year, the people running the camp really did try to keep it going, even if only for part of the summer. But for whatever combination of reasons (lockdown "restrictions", and the fears of other families, etc.) they were unable to. I cried when I got the email.

A few days ago, they sent out an email asking for parents to voice any concerns they might have about coming back in the summer of 2021.

Here is my reply (I've changed the name of the camp). I am posting it here in case it is helpful as a guide or template for others who might want to correspond with their children's schools or camps, etc.:

 

Hello,

We love, love, love Camp Wilderness Adventure. It is one of the things our son most looks forward to every year. So we were heartbroken when there was no camp this year, although we understand why you had to make the decision you did.

Our main concern now regarding next summer is that there might be restrictions in place that would either prohibit our son from attending, or would make the experience significantly less than what it has been in the past.

Again, we understand the position you are in: You have to deal with both state government orders (which, as many have pointed out, are NOT laws, and the governor of California does not have the lawful power to dictate to businesses the conditions under which they may operate), and with the fears and preferences of many different families. Of course you cannot build your business around the preferences of a single family, and we understand that.

However, since you asked, we do want to let you know what our preferences and concerns are:

1. We are not at all concerned about our son contracting Covid-19. All the available evidence shows that this virus does not pose a serious risk to young people. Children in particular, are more at risk from common influenza viruses. Should he become infected, we would keep him isolated from any elderly or vulnerable people in our lives;

2. We are very concerned about the social isolation our son is currently experiencing, as well as about the kinds of restrictions that are being put forward as the "new normal" for children in schools and other settings. To be very very clear: We have no interest at all in these restrictions. We find them dehumanizing, psychologically damaging, and in some cases dangerous to children's health. And given our first point, above, they are also completely unnecessary;

3. Some government and public health authorities are saying that these measures will have to be in place until there is a vaccine for SARS-Cov-2. Without going into all of the problems that are surfacing about this particular vaccine, let us be absolutely clear that under no circumstances will we be having our son vaccinated. So if this becomes a condition of his attendance at Camp Wilderness Adventure, then he will not be able to attend. Again, this would be heartbreaking for him and for us;

4. We understand that it must seem as if all of these restrictions and conditions are being imposed upon you and there is nothing you can do about them. But that is not true. Many people, including business owners, ARE fighting the orders that have already been imposed, and are planning to fight any future orders. We can provide information about some of these people, and resources, if you are interested.

Again, we understand that you are operating a business and that you must satisfy the needs and preferences of a wide range of different people. And we understand that there is a lot of fear out in the world right now around this virus. We believe that that fear is unwarranted, especially in the realm of children's and young people's activities. And we are committed to helping to educate about this and to combatting the fear, so that everyone's children can go back to having normal childhoods, to being around other children and to not being taught that it is normal to fear other people.

We are not alone. Just last week, a group of highly esteemed scientists came out with a statement–the Great Barrington Declaration–saying essentially what we have said here: That the lockdowns were misguided, that the vast majority of the population–including children–should be able to get back to their normal lives, and that only the elderly or otherwise vulnerable need to be protected.

We understand that you have a business to keep alive, and we are in no position to tell you how to do that. However we also feel that there is something critically important at stake here. How we interact with each other, how our children learn and play, the very foundations of human interaction and human society are being turned upside down, and for no good reason. We do not know what your opinions or beliefs about that are, but we hope that you will choose to do what you believe is right, and not just what is expedient or the least troublesome.

Thank you for your time, and for all that you have created over the years! We hope that our son will be able to spend many more years with you all!

Sincerely,

 

WTMWD #37: How the Great Barrington Declaration Came to Be, with AIER's Jeff Tucker

 

 

 

 

 

I speak with Jeffrey Tucker of the American Institute of Ecomonic Research, about the Great Barrington Declaration - the document created by four esteemed scientists, calling for an end to the lockdowns. Jeff talks about how the idea came about, and about some of the backlash they have faced since the Declaration was released.

You can read–and sign–the Great Barrington Declaration here.

You can watch the video about the Declaration here.

See coverage of some of the attacks on the Declaration here, here, and here.

...and witness Jeff demolish one pro-lockdown talking head, here.

 

 

"Everything must be done to make sure that no-one will ever again be in a position of such power"

 

Listen to Dr. Reiner Fuellmich explain how international lawyers can prosecute the perpetrators of the Covid-19 panic and rights violations:

"All the above-mentioned cases of corruption and fraud committed by the German corporations pale in comparison, in view of the extent of the damage the Corona Crisis has caused and continues to cause.

"On a political level, everything must be done to make sure that no-one will ever again be in a position of such power as to be able to defraud humanity or to attempt to manipulate us with their corrupt agendas."

Here's how he plans to do that:

 

 

If the Pandemic Thinking Was Applied to Everything - JP Sears

 

More sheer genius from JP Sears:

 

 

WTMWD #36: Sara Brady on Resisting Tyranny

 

 

 

I speak again with Sara Brady, the Idaho mom who was arrested for being on a playground.

I spoke with Sara back in May, not long after she had been arrested for "trespassing" in a public park. In this interview, we talk about what is next for her case, and about what each one of us must do if we value our own liberty and a free society.

You can purchase one of Sara's Freedom Masks by emailing her: [email protected]

And you can support her legal defense here.

 

 

 

Covid Vaccine or No Covid Vaccine? A Friendly Debate

 

 

 

Last week, I participated in a friendly debate hosted by Deepen, a company that is committed to helping people create deeper and stronger relationships. With that in mind, they host MindSports - a series of "debates", held every Wednesday night, online - and last week, the topic was: "Covid Vaccine vs. No Covid Vaccine."

You can guess which side I was on. But here's something to note: The organizers tried very hard to get some people from the pro-Covid-19-vaccine side to come on the show. The resistance they ran into was across the board: Either the individual themself told them that they were not willing to come on, or they said that their institution would not allow it.

Fortunately, we did have a few people from the audience chime in.

You can watch the whole thing above, or here.

 

 

Some Thoughts on "Public Health"

 

Image: Public domain.

 

There is of course much more to say about this, but I wanted to offer up the following response to a reader's question regarding my "You Don't Have a Right to Infect Others" post:

This is my response to a question that came up re: my post the other day about our interaction with and relationship to the pathogens in our environment. Someone asked (quite reasonably): What about HIV? (And in a later comment, compared exposing other people to ANY virus with "rape.)

Here is my reply:

 

It's a good question - and another obvious example that comes to mind is Ebola. (Which would be even easier to contract than HIV, if infected people were walking around in public.) Clearly, there are SOME viruses that most people would quite reasonably choose to avoid contact with.

The much bigger question is: Who decides who gets exposed to what?

 

As (someone else) said above, that decision should be made by consent. Nobody should be forced to be exposed to something they don't want to be, just as nobody should be forced to take a vaccine or other medical treatment if they don't want it.

 

This is why "public health" and "public property" are so problematic - because each individual has their own preferences for (in this case) what they want to be exposed to and what they don't. So it is impossible to have one standard that accomodates everyone's preferences.

 

To the extent that things are privately owned, this problem goes away. People get to decide what happens on their own property (homes, businesses, cars, etc.) - and if you aren't comfortable with the standards set by a certain business, you don't go there.

 

Unfortunately though, there is still "public" property - and even if everything were privately owned, there would still be social norms that develop in different locations, expectations about what safety standards will be in place, etc.

 

So we should look at what those social norms should be, and have been in the past. And the reality is that for MILLENNIA - including periods where common illnesses were much more deadly than they are today (because of improved living standards) - it has NEVER been the case that people walking around in public while (knowingly or not) infected with the flu, or some other non-Ebola-grade virus were considered criminals. Never.

 

The social norm has always been: If you go out in public, you take a risk that you might be infected by some virus or bacteria that someone else is carrying. The responsibility is on YOU to avoid the kind of contact that will cause you to be infected, to the extent that you don't want to be infected. It is NOT on everyone else to make sure they don't infect you.

 

Yes, there are common courtesies that have developed, things like sneezing into a handkerchief, or even staying home if you know that you're sick. But until very recently, it has never been seriously proposed that NOT doing these things should be criminalized. For literally thousands of years, it has NOT been considered "rape" to go out in public carrying flu or other respiratory viruses.

 

What is happening now is that centuries of social norms for human interaction are being turned on their head. We are being told that the "new norm" is social isolation, minimal human contact, and avoiding every other person as if they are carrying the plague (which, by the way, can now be treated with antibiotics.)

 

THIS IS NOT NORMAL. And there is nothing "healthy" about it.

 

Please stop and think about what is going on. Ask yourself why, all of a sudden, after thousands of years of NOT doing it this way, and for a virus that is pretty benign for the vast majority of the population, we are being told that human contact is dangerous, that we must wear masks, that everything must be sanitized, and re-sanitized, and re-sanitized again.

 

Ask yourself why, all of a sudden, we are being told that we must all live our lives as if we are badly immunocompromised. Why? Who is pushing that narrative on us, and what is their purpose in doing so?

 

Just start there.