China claims Taiwan to be a part of its sovereign territory. But that's bunk. A sovereign nation has a defined territory with a single government. But Taiwan and China are distinct territories each with its own government. Therefore Taiwan cannot be part of the sovereign state of China.
Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that the majority of the people of the sovereign nation of Taiwan wish to merge with China and become subordinate to the government in Beijing. That being the case, Taiwan is absolutely entitled to host anyone it wants on its territory, even including Nancy Pelosi, and even if she was wearing that hideous pink pajama suit. For China to threaten the sovereignty of Taiwan because an American politician has visited the island is preposterous.
It is equally preposterous for China to challenge the legitimacy of the Government of Taiwan. Rather it is the Government of Taiwan that has grounds to challenge the legitimacy of the Government of China. China's Communist government was established by insurrectionists in receipt of military aid from Joe Stalin's Soviet Union. The Communist insurgents led by the brutal dictator-to-be, Mao Tse Tung, expelled Chiang Kai -Shek's Nationalist Government from the Chinese mainland. The Nationalists were, however, able to retain a foothold on the formerly Chinese island of Taiwan. So if a question is to be raised about the legitimacy of government, it is clearly the Communist government of China that is illegitimate, and the Government of Taiwan that is the embodiment of a legitimate government of mainland China.
The American Government is right: China should keep its greedy hands off Taiwan. At the same time, China should also get its hands off both Tibet and Xinjiang, where it now pursues a vicious policy of ethnic cleansing. The former independent sovereign state of Tibet is the homeland of the Tibetan people, and Xinjiang is the homeland of the Uyghur people, a Turkic race, many of them blue-eyed and fair-haired, quite unrelated to the Han people of China.
Related:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlygUb9RVgA
ReplyDeleteWhy did Bill Gates says "Sadly"? Because his hugely profitable novel vax technology proved useless as quad-vaxed presidents and health ministers getting sick with Omicron proves. Furthermore, the failure of the vax has meant failure of the tyranny that was to be built on the life-saving authority that the vax was supposed to provide.
DeleteThat's this time. That's why monkey pox or some other laboratory creation is pretty certainly on its way.
Just watch out for when Gates says "this time" and when the epidemiological experts get shut down, as they were over Covid.
For me, Bill's poor grasp of science, and our current predicament with Covid19, is what is sad-- and alarming. I'm sad the sad case known as Bill Gates is allowed to speak to us as if he's an expert.
ReplyDeleteBill is asked the question,
"Where are we today in terms of beating Covid19?'"
He prefaces his remarks with the adverb "sadly". I admit it was an unfortunate word choice. Other than that, I don't believe his word choice is significant.
I quote directly from Bill's answer:
(1)" The virus itself, specifically the variant omicron, is a kind of vaccine";
(2)"It is a vaccine because it creates B cell and T cell immunity";
(3)"It [the omicron variant] has done a better job getting out to the world population";
(4) "Sero-surveys in Africa show 80% have been exposed to the vaccine or 'various variants'";
(5) "This means severe disease (mainly associated with the elderly, obesity, or diabetes) is greatly reduced";
(6)"We didn't do a great job on therapeutics. Two years in to develop a therapeutic. [by therapeutic he means, as far as I can tell, his mRNA vaccine-- do you think this is what he means?]";
(7) "Next time we should, using the mRNA platform, make it [a vaccine therapeutic] in six months."
He may be going mad.
I'd like to examine each of these seven items from the standpoint of my understanding of science, but I have to leave it here for now.
Didn't he just confirm what those epidemiologists --- the Great Barrington Declaration group --- saID, namely that SARSCoV-2 is little if any more deadly than the seasonal flu, and that without intervention we'd reach herd immunity?
DeleteInstead, governments decided it was better to do what very rich fools and shysters said than what the most experienced experts said.
Result: cretins like Trudo, Bojo and brain-dead Bido and all the Euro idiots wrecked the economies of the Western nations with needless economic shutdowns and crazy inflation-driving deficit spending. All this mainly, it was claimed, to save public health services from, well having to provide public health services during the outbreak of a flu-like illness.
Would be glad to include your comments on Gates's 7 points in a new post here.
DeleteIf it is as a tribute to you, I would be glad you'd do so.
Delete(1)" The virus itself, specifically the variant omicron, is a kind of vaccine";
ReplyDeleteWow.
If we say the omicron variant is a kind of vaccine, why not say the original Covid19 virus was also a vaccine?
Why not say all pathogenic organisms are vaccines?
There is something called “natural immunity”.
Succinctly, when an immune system (in an organism: a frog, a bird, a moose, a monkey or whatever) is infected with an antigen, it “naturally” makes antibodies. The antibodies are part of an elaborate defense to protect the organism from the infection, and even prevent future infection.
This happens WITHOUT vaccination. This happened in frogs, birds, moose, monkeys, or whatever—even in humans—before vaccination was even a twinkle in Edward Jenner’s eye.
“Natural immunity” happens without intervention outside the organism, direct or indirect. It happens without understanding, or knowledge, or intent by the organism. It happens naturally. It happens without “vaccination”.
What Bill is saying is that “natural immunity” is a kind of “vaccination”.
If there is some way I can make it more clear “natural immunity” is not a kind of “vaccination”, please let me know. I have no other intention than to show someone believing one is a kind of the other is exhibiting extreme confusion, either from stupidity, or madness.
Re: Anything you wanted to write about Gates' Seven Points, for inclusion here under your name could be emailed to me at CanadianSpectator@gmail.com.
DeleteConcerning the concept of viral vaccination, this is something that has been discussed in the literature. The idea, I think, is to develop a mild strain of a dangerous pathogen, maximize its infectivity and then let it run through the population to generate resistance to severe forms of the disease. The idea is also under consideration as a means to control disease in animals, both wild and domesticated.
In the case of Covid, increase in infectivity seems to have evolved together with a reduction in virulence, which is not a surprising development. But it has happened very quickly. Or it has been hastened by unacknowledged intervention by someone intent on controlling the World through the use of clandestine means, not necessarily limited to the creation and dissemination of lethal diseases?
It could be fun, in a sick way, thinking up secret means to create global catastrophes.
"Concerning the concept of viral vaccination, this is something that has been discussed in the literature. The idea, I think, is to develop a mild strain of a dangerous pathogen, maximize its infectivity and then let it run through the population to generate resistance to severe forms of the disease. The idea is also under consideration as a means to control disease in animals, both wild and domesticated."
ReplyDeleteI am not sure I can buy into the omicron variant becoming a vaccine due to its having these characteristics of a viral vaccine:
(A) Lowered virility;
(B) Very high infectivity.
As far as I can tell, this outcome is serendipitous, but not necessarily beneficial, prophylactic, or therapeutic as implied by terming it "viral vaccination".
LOWERED VIRILITY
(A') Omicron doesn't cause severe sickness, lead to hospitalization, or death very often, but it does lead to sickness. Should we be pleased we're sick and missing either school or work, but it is okay because we're not hospitalized or dying? In fact, omicron is a serious pathogen. Its pathogenicity must be taken seriously.
I grow more and more ill at ease with attempts to minimize the severity of Covid19 variants' pathogenicity. The variants' pathogenicity is not on the order of the flu, even if their IFR is comparable to that of the flu.
(A'') The variants enter the cells of every organ of the human body, including the brain.
(B") The variants are evading immune system defenses in a way we've not seen with the flu. They are more stealthy, and appear to be getting even more stealthy as time goes by.
(C") There is growing evidence the variants undermine the immune systems of humans. Our immune systems are growing weaker as a result of these waves of infection. NOT STRONGER. The flu didn't do this.
My theory is the emergence of monkey pox is due to the undermining and weakening of the human immune system. We may start to see the emergence of many other rarely or never seen diseases as our immune systems become progressively weaker.
VERY HIGH INFECTIVITY
The Ro of the omicron variant is sky high. (Something between 7-13). It is not containable. Virtually everyone on earth is going to contract the omicron virus.
Its IFR is low, but a low IFR combined with a sky high infectivity is going to result in a large number of fatalities.
Given a choice between a high IFR plus a low Ro, OR, a low IFR plus a high Ro, we would do well to choose the former. (There was a good paper explaining the mathematics of this. I should dig it up.) What we've been handed is the latter.
My opinion is, with this high Ro, and the numbers of the already infected we'd be at herd immunity NOW if we were going to reach herd immunity. The mechanism of herd immunity is not the same for Covid19 as for the common flu (or any other communicable disease, perhaps).
You're helping me a great deal in many ways, and I especially appreciate you reminding me about viral vaccination.
Yes, a "vaccine" that makes you only a bit sick in most cases, but seriously sick in a few cases would obviously not pass the standard of safety that, prior to covid, was required of approved vaccines.
DeleteIt would certainly be interesting to know more about the assessment of vaccine safety in terms of IFR and Ro.
Given that Covid is still circulating, if in a somewhat attenuated form, what you say about its impact on the immune system suggests that we have not seen the worst of the Covid catastrophe, and may live to see a huge human die off. But if so, how are Bill Gates and friends preparing for this scenario. Do they have a secret antidote, or what?
DeleteI have a hunch if you post the seven points I took from Bill Gates's February 2022 talk, with or without mentioning Bill Gates as the source, you're going to get tagged with spreading misinformation.
ReplyDeleteThe censorship algorithms pick up key words and combinations of words. "Vaccine" is surely one.
Quoting Gates, I am literally spreading misinformation. The whole point is to identify it as misinformation. It is true this information is false. Yet it is true mentioning misinformation is spreading misinformation. This is weird.
On the percentage required to achieve herd immunity:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.yalemedicine.org/news/herd-immunity#:~:text=At%20the%20start%20of%20the,order%20to%20reach%20herd%20immunity.
This is from Yale, and yet I find it hard to swallow.
As the authors rightly mention, at the start of the pandemic the percentage required for herd immunity was given as 60 to 70%. Now we're being told there is no magic number. Also, we're now being told Covid19 is a new disease, so "we don't know".
We could have been told at the start of the pandemic, "there is no magic number" and "because this is a new disease, we don't know". I would say we should have been told these.
These people expect to have credibility when time and time again they've had to revise their stories?
It's a new disease, but just like the old diseases, it has the same measurable parameters allowing a calculation of the percentage required to achieve herd immunity. (These parameters are given in the article.) Why, if we have examples such as measles, where herd immunity is much higher than 60-70%, and close to 95%, was that not mentioned prior to public disappointment?
I was interested to see Yale says herd immunity may be as high as 85%. (The article was published in May 2021.) Well, Bill Gates thought in February 2022 Africa was at 80%, and I believe we've blown right through 85% by now and are well on our way to 100%. (With omicron and its 7+ Ro.)
I think the new story -- that we'll have to achieve herd immunity to know what percentage was required for herd immunity-- will give way very soon to what we should ALL BE INFORMED RIGHT NOW: this new disease is not just like the old diseases-- there is no herd immunity. There is no promise of herd immunity through vaccination or anything else.
We need to be square on this: RIGHT NOW.
Thanks for the link to the comments from Yale on herd immunity.
DeleteSeveral of the common cold viruses are corona viruses, and there is no herd immunity to the common cold, which seems to indicate that corona viruses, some of them anyway, do not allow the acquisition of herd immunity, i.e., they do not induce the long lasting immunity that herd immunity depends on.
Is that the case?
If so, a viral vaccine, were it possible to create one, would seem the best defence against living endlessly with Covid.
Something I worry about is that Covid does significant irreparable harm to heart and vascular tissue, which may cause a general decline in population fitness, both mental and physical. But do you think that that is a reasonable concern?
Thanks for the email address, CS. I will be able to send you complete articles from the NYT and WSJ.
ReplyDeleteI think the really, really bad news since 2020 has been the power of the corona virus to mutate into variants at a very rapid pace. Our immune system and herd immunity both depend on being able to recognize the antigen. If the antigen mutates too rapidly, all bets are off. I don't think anyone in the world could foresee we'd have multiple strains of corona virus circulating in less than two years. It has caught Bill Gates and crew as off guard as everyone else. They're getting infected and sick, vaccination notwithstanding. This can't be acceptable to them. The only way vaccination programs will help is if we can develop vaccines and vaccinate people even faster than the corona virus mutates. Is this possible?
I worry the corona virus is doing significant harm to many tissues. I believe this may be manifesting in what's being called "long covid". People are speaking of brain fog, reduced vitality, and have many other complaints. I certainly find it reasonable to be concerned, especially if, "we ain't seen nothing, yet". What if ten years from now, we've seen thirty additional mutant strains? What if they have such high Ro virtually everyone has been infected? What if there is cumulative damage from these infections? We have no guarantee one strain isn't going to roll into town with high IFR and high Ro. I feel concern, but I'm not going to go crazy with it, and I hope you don't either. I don't mean to scare monger.
What interests me most is the multisystem inflammatory syndrome associated with Covid19, and that immunity itself may be involved in the enhanced severity of COVID-19:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8355722/#:~:text=The%20most%20common%20pathology%20of,converting%20enzyme%202%20(ACE2).
Just finished a hasty reading of Iida et al., which shows that Covid can damage many tissues and organs, as apparently, can Covid "vaccines."
DeleteWhat I would like to know is to what extent is damage from infection or from vaccination due specifically to the properties of the spike protein. And if the spike protein is the cause of tissue damage, why is it used as the vaccine antigen? Covid has, I believe, something like eighteen proteins, so why use the spike protein as the vaccine antigen?
What the paper by Iida et al. seems to indicate is that with continued circulation of Covid there will be a continual decline in population health, both mental and physical. Apparently, repeated vaccination will have a similar, if less severe, effect.
Does the risk of unlimited deterioration in population fitness, as Covid circulates for ever explain China's fanatical efforts to suppress the virus?
And is China's policy, with its endless testing, temperature taking, disinfectant spraying, mask wearing plus lockdowns the way we should be going?
I'll take a stab at these questions, but I hope you keep researching because I certainly may be wrong.
Delete"What I would like to know is to what extent is damage from infection or from vaccination due specifically to the properties of the spike protein."
The spike protein helps the virus enters cells. It is entering cells through a receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), most commonly found on airway epithelial cells. The primary pathology of the virus is pneumonia, as the virus name, SARS-CoV-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 implies.
As far as I can tell, the respiratory system is the only part of the body directly entered by the virus. I'd earlier thought the lesions and pathology associated with other organ systems was also due to the virus entering the cells of these systems, but have now learned the effect on these other systems is mediated by the host immune system.
"And if the spike protein is the cause of tissue damage, why is it used as the vaccine antigen? Covid has, I believe, something like eighteen proteins, so why use the spike protein as the vaccine antigen?"
The spike protein is part of the cause of tissue damage, for without it, the virus could not enter cells. It isn't the complete cause of the damage, though. Once the virus is in a cell, the virus starts taking over the cell's metabolism, and among other things, replicating itself. My opinion is that's the real damage.
I thought from the beginning it was stupid to use just the spike protein as the antigen. Older methods of vaccine development would have used a more broad range of antigens. (As does natural immunity.) Many nations, among them China and Russia, did use older methods. Some of our scientists claimed there were advantages to specifically selecting the spike protein as antigen because the spike protein is what is unique to Covid19. I suppose this makes some sense, and maybe it would make much more if I understood better how the immune system chooses antigen sites from a selection of antigens sites to recognize. Is it really true antibodies aren't made for all the antigen proteins? Why doesn't it choose to recognize all the antigen proteins? I don't know.
The mRNA vaccines require cold storage and many nations don't have the cold storage required. Of course I am a cynic as to why that alone wouldn't have guided us away from our choice of the mRNA technology.
"Does the risk of unlimited deterioration in population fitness, as Covid circulates for ever explain China's fanatical efforts to suppress the virus?"
My opinion is, in its current variant, uncontrollable due to its remarkably high Ro. The Chinese may choose to overlook this because it does make people feel better believing they have some control and their actions count. If you were in a sinking ship, you still might try to bale out the water, even if the water was coming in much more quickly than it could be baled out.
"And is China's policy, with its endless testing, temperature taking, disinfectant spraying, mask wearing plus lockdowns the way we should be going?"
I don't think so. I think it is better to "hold your fire" and manage your assets carefully and shrewdly, even if you have an irrational desire to "don't just sit there, do something!" That's why, at the present time, I still think the lockdowns and so forth were idiocy. They didn't accomplish anything but to weaken our economy ,(and people's mental, emotional and physical wellbeing) and with it, our ability to respond effectively in the future, if and when we might hit on a strategy for dealing with the crisis.
Re: Cell damage due to virus
DeleteFound some pictures here