The Pub is OPEN!
And we’re finally serving a NORMAL DRINK tonight. Even though it’s a SECOND ROUND.
While our beloved REAL bartender takes a needed break of unknown duration, we continue to ENDEAVOR TO PERSEVERE.
and what time of year is it now???
We continue our WAAAAAY too-long celebration of Christmas by noting that some of our neighbors STILL have their lights and decorations up.
We saw a nice red Christmas bow laying in somebody’s yard by their driveway.
We ourselves just got rid of our tree.
And TODAY is the 25th of the month. That’s VERY “Christmassy”.
So yeah. Given that there are a few
days weeks months AFTER Christmas where it’s STILL Christmas, that means we have a few more weeks left. Riiiiiiight?
Sure! So have some hot CHRISTMAS chocolate!
And now, the rules of the pub.
God bless us, every one! Tiny Tim had such a beautiful soul. He hadn’t a mean bone in his body…unlike most of us. But in keeping with Christmas, we promise to honor Wolf’s rules and keep Scrooge at bay. The Utree is where the Ghost of Christmas Present will conduct you should you need to rattle some chains. Another option, should all hell break loose is here.
Now, back to business.
Free the January Brothers!
Current Art On The Wall
We’re just gonna segue into the next item with our selection, if that’s OK.
This gets a bit “planetary”…..
COVID-19 Vaccine Interference With AIDS and Syphilis Tests
This had to do with a CDC alert…..
…..which was based off of an FDA alert (sketchy link)…..
…..which actually links back to a different CDC alert (even sketchier link)…..
Here is that final CDC alert. Only the top 3 paragraphs are important here.
Let me quote the text of those first 3 paragraphs for Zoe. I will make BOLD what is important.
Dear Partners in Prevention,
December 20, 2021
I’m writing to share the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) alert sent to clinical laboratory staff and health care providers about a syphilis test. The alert reports that false reactivity, or “false-positive,” Rapid Plasma Reagin (RPR; non-treponemal) test results, when using the Bio-Rad Laboratories BioPlex 2200 Syphilis Total & RPR kit, can occur in some people who received a COVID-19 vaccine and includes recommendations for addressing these potential false positives.
Historically, false-reactive RPR test results have been observed in people with systemic infections unrelated to syphilis, such as tuberculosis, rickettsial diseases, and endocarditis. False-reactive RPR testing also has been previously observed following immunization (specifically following smallpox vaccine). False reactivity with RPR can also occur during pregnancy.
Per CDC’s 2021 STI Treatment Guidelines, reactive RPR results should always be confirmed with treponemal testing (e.g., Treponema pallidum particle agglutination, TP-PA). This is, in part, because of the above-mentioned issue: false-positive nontreponemal test results can be associated with multiple medical conditions and factors unrelated to syphilis. According to FDA’s alert, treponemal testing for syphilis does not appear to be impacted by this issue.
Allow me to translate.
It turns out that “being vaccinated for COVID-19” throws off an ANTIBODY-BASED SYPHILIS TEST, and can give false positives.
The reason is that these are a sort of antibodies against substances released from cells attacked by certain diseases and conditions. Thus, they’re not exclusively the downstream product of syphilis.
Normally, certain diseases, certain vaccines, and pregnancy can all throw off this more rapid but less conclusive syphilis test, and that is part of the reason why people are supposed to follow up this easier test, with a test that looks for the actual organism which causes syphilis.
Thus, we have added one more cause for the test to be thrown off.
This is not the same as the HIV test that was thrown off by a particular Australian vaccine, because the antigen in the vaccine actually contained an HIV protein (gp41) as part of the vaccine, and created antibodies against HIV. I talked about that last week. That was a much more direct test interference, easily expected.
How a Psycho Vaccine Marrying the Infamous COVID Spike Protein to HIV’s Neurotoxic gp41 Was [Allegedly] Canned by a Mere Testing SNAFU How Australia Dodged The First Mad Vax Bullet of the WEF Scamdemic / Plannedemic Darwin Award Vaccine Featured Insane Merger of HIV and COVID But Failed Due to Buggering of AIDS Tests, NOT …
What I find interesting is that one of the things that normally sets off the syphilis test is endocarditis.
Endocarditis, which is inflammation of the inner surfaces of the heart, is one of the three main heart inflammations, thus being pretty damned close to myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the outer sac), both of which have very prominent correlations to the jabs.
So while this means that – NO – the shots are not giving people syphilis – the shots ARE basically acting like an illness, and very much like a known cardiac illness.
You were warned.
Now – while I was researching syphilis, I became interested in the treatment with compounds of mercury.
Traditional mercury-based pastes were used in cures. Whilst this was partially effective, the toxic side effects of the mercury probably outweighed any advantages.
This is actually a HUGE understatement.
It turned out that arsenic was considerably better.
The first effective treatment for syphilis was arsphenamine, discovered by Sahachiro Hata in 1909, during a survey of hundreds of newly synthesized organic arsenical compounds led by Paul Ehrlich. It was manufactured and marketed from 1910 under the trade name Salvarsan by Hoechst AG. This organoarsenic compound was the first modern chemotherapeutic agent.
It wasn’t too long after that success, that penicillin took over as the real cure for syphilis.
I will come back to MERCURY in a future post, because I found something quite amazing in its history.
But if you look ONE COLUMN TO THE LEFT and TWO ROWS UP…..
COPPER is also bacteriostatic and algicidal – and at concentrations below where it is a health risk. And THAT leads back to a DRINK that Grandmaintexas introduced us to……
Moscow Mule Revisited
Based upon my reading of Grandma’s post on the subject, the Moscow Mule simply is not a proper Moscow Mule unless it is served in copper vessels.
The health effects of COPPER are about as debatable as the effects of mercury – although, in general, copper is much less toxic, so when it’s being “not good for you”, it’s a lot less “not good for you” than lead. At the same time, copper is much MORE toxic to things like algae, fungi, plant roots, and other “pests”, than it is to us, and that is why it is found among the gardening pesticides in hardware stores. The antimicrobial activity of copper is extremely well-documented, but appears to be complex. Simply having copper in the household or workplace environment seems to have health benefits – and this was particularly noted back in the days of less sanitary environments. Water passing through copper fixtures tended not to spread disease.
We tend to forget about OLD SCIENCE, so we can’t put new things into good perspective.
LEAD and other CHEMICAL ADVANCES saved us from the horrible BIOLOGICAL diseases and maladies of the uncivilized life.
Did they have chemical consequences? Yes. The TRICK is REMEMBERING AND ADMITTING OLD RISKS AND BENEFITS while also DISCOVERING AND ADMITTING NEW RISKS AND BENEFITS, then BALANCING HONESTLY with the PROPER PRIORITIES which put PEOPLE FIRST.
It is VERY easy to see where CDC went off the rails with the COVID-19 vaccines, being unable to admit old benefits (of lasting immunity to caught and treated diseases), while also being unable to admit new risks (of vaccines using untested and immature technologies).
Likewise, looking back, it is easy to see that basic sanitation – not vaccination – REALLY conquered diseases. Vaccines came in, mopped up, and took all the credit, by design, because bad people realized that vaccines in the hands of a technological elite, combined with an ignorant populace they can essentially murder and experiment on at will, allow them to basically FARM HUMANITY.
Sorry, Bill Gates. We understand your social engineering of us. We know your M.O. We know your real intentions. Including for the “people of color” you pretend to care about.
You will note that, in general, the further down the periodic table one goes, the more toxic the metals. Surprisingly, the second-lightest one – beryllium – is quite toxic, but even lightweight aluminum simply isn’t all that bad, in the big picture (but you’ve got to keep it on the OUTSIDE). In contrast, if you get down and heavy there with mercury, thallium and lead, or even as far down the table as cadmium and indium, the metals can be quite toxic.
Lead used to be used for plumbing – enough to lend its name to the profession. Copper then took over – before plastic began to displace copper. Nevertheless, copper is still highly valued for plumbing, as well as for electrical wiring.
As noted above, copper in drinking water is an interesting beast. Lead and copper in drinking water are controlled by the EPA under something called the Lead and Copper Rule, or LCR. Note that the linked document, which talks about the most recent “upgrade” to the rule, is over 400 pages. Yeah – there is a MESS of goofiness outside the actual rule there. Most of the concern is about lead, which is now highly restricted. Here is all that is said about copper’s toxicity in the linked explainer:
Acute copper exposure causes gastrointestinal distress. Chronic exposure to copper is particularly a concern for people with Wilson’s disease because they are prone to copper accumulation in body tissue, which can lead to liver damage, neurological, and/or psychiatric symptoms. For a more detailed explanation of the health effects associated with copper see Appendix E of the final rule Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2020). EPA did not propose revisions to the copper requirements; thus, the final rule does not revise the copper requirements.
Copper is basically off the hook at 1.3 ppm or below. That number has not been upgraded. Why is that level important? In my opinion, it’s because copper is bacteriostatic and algicidal in practice at between 0.1 and 1.0 ppm. Thus, one can SAFELY DRINK water which is being purified against microorganisms with copper.
And THAT would include the Moscow Mule, depending upon how long it sits.
I refer you now to an excellent article, which relies on a breathless scaremongering headline, but actually DOES provide a balanced set of viewpoints on both the DANGERS and BENEFITS of dietary copper.
Sipping This Popular Cocktail Is a “Health Hazard,” Experts Say
AFTER 27 MINUTES, YOU MAY BE AT RISK OF HEAVY METAL POISONING.
First of all, copper isn’t really a “heavy metal” IMO, but whatever. It’s heavier than some.
You will note, after reading at the link, that you have to drink a ton of Moscow Mules, or a few that have sat around for a very long time, to MAYBE get sickened by them.
In general, avoid drinking acidic things that have been in contact with copper for a long time, and you will be OK.
Remember – most household water has sat around in copper pipes for quite a while at neutral pH, and it’s simply not toxic (due to copper). You DO get less lead if you flush your water 30 seconds before getting drinking water, but again – we’re talking about levels that would make Romans, Victorians, and even people from 70 years ago howl with laughter at our prissy over-concern – even knowing the science.
Perspective is very important – as you are about to see in a beautiful example of the failure of modern science, thanks to CCP socialism infecting both global science and science publishing.
Failure of Socialized Science and Peer Review Exposed in a JAMA-Published Ivermectin Study
The fact that Pierre Kory now calls JAMA “PHAMA” is a nice short way of saying that medicine has been utterly taken over by the pharmaceutical industry, and IMO set back several thousand years. Hippocrates would be HORRIFIED by what has happened to medicine – and I say that as somebody OUTSIDE medicine, and a lot closer to the pharmaceutical industry.
IMO it’s too late to save the pharmaceutical industry from scandalous criminal survival – but it’s not too late to save the profession of medicine from utter moral death. And thus, you will be treated to my following scientific opinion.
Steve Kirsch doesn’t play defense. He saw how JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association) completely FUMBLED an ivermectin paper, and how Pierre Kory picked it up off the ground, taking complete control, but more or less just standing there, lamenting the bad refs and horrible cheating. So Kirsch did the only thing he does. He grabbed the ball from Kory and ran it back for a touchdown.
“New JAMA paper show Ivermectin blows the COVID vaccines out of the water”
This is an utter reversal of the conclusion of the paper.
All because some guy in the stands named “Massimaux” spotted the free ball and yelled “FUMBLE!!!”
If you understand science, and science publishing, then you will see that what Kirsch did here was BRUTAL. And I’m gonna show you where all the bruises and black eyes are.
I almost feel sorry for JAMA, but not enough to miss this opportunity to LEAP ONTO THE DOGPILE and give AMA’s hare-brained PC leadership a good WEDGIE.
Don’t worry about the AMA. They’re protected by Pfizer, Biden, and the media. And just like any good mafia arrangement, as long as AMA keeps saying the right things, and not saying the wrong things, everything is gonna be OK.
Everything but science. But that’s OK, too.
We’ll take care of things. Just like we did here.
Here is the Kirsch gab that grabbed my attention.
Repeating for Zoe, as well as our silicon friends…..
New JAMA paper show Ivermectin blows the COVID vaccines out of the water
Now, as soon as I saw this, I was going….
“Wait a second. I thought there was some paper just out that Alex Berenson said was basically the end of ivermectin, although scientifically, I know that’s pretty much impossible. I know there is SOME explanation for why this paper (which I have not read yet) has to be deviating in some way from the MANY papers that show limited but solid efficacy – and especially against DEATH – just like HCQ. But this CANNOT be the same paper. No way! Kirsch would not be saying this unless the results were stunningly IN FAVOR of ivermectin, and there is no WAY that some authors with a NEGATIVE-LEANING study would be……. I mean….. WHAT THE HELL????”
SO – I just stopped to see what in the hell paper Kirsch was talking about.
This is the SAME PAPER.
This is the SAME PAPER that caused Alex Berenson to issue TWO articles:
Now we’ve discussed (in the comments on this site) Berenson’s very weird attack on Robert Malone when they appeared together on Fox News, which didn’t make sense THEN, but which does NOW – and I will explain that momentarily. But first, back to Kirsch.
Kirsch explains that – YES – this paper states in BOTH its abstract and its conclusion the following:
“The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.”
However, that is NOT what the data says.
Certainly not to everybody.
Certainly not to me.
In other words, DIFFERENT scientists (like Kirsch, Kory, me, and an anonymous Twitter poster names Massimaux, who found the key issue) have looked at the data, and see something quite different.
Kory goes into a rather long analysis of the whole war against ivermectin, but Kirsch digs into Kory’s article and then finds and elucidates the key nugget – discovered by Massimaux – that just ends the arguments.
It helps to read this in Kirsch’s article, but if you’re going to be lazy, I’ll explain here.
Here is Massimaux’s tweet:
Look at the bottom line in the two tables and compare. Not only is ivermectin CLEARLY better than the vaccine at preventing death – the significance of the result is significantly greater.
If the efficacy of ivermectin against death is not true, then very little else in the study is true.
This data says that ivermectin is exactly what we’ve been saying it is. It’s not a miracle cure, but it WORKS – particularly in preventing DEATH – its only real purpose. That result is IN THE PAPER. It is IN THE DATA. And if the authors want to argue that it’s not in the data, because it’s not significant enough, then nothing ELSE is in the data, because most everything else is even LESS significant.
Now it’s very important to realize that this nice little pair of tables FROM THE DATA is not due to the original authors – it’s due to a POST-PUBLICATION “peer review” by somebody who looked at the very same data, and PROVED using the authors’ own data that they were WRONG to say that the data didn’t support use of ivermectin.
So why did the authors tack on that wrong statement?
Did the EDITORS make them tack on that statement?
Did the AUTHORS tack it on to get the paper to publish?
Or is the “peer bias” against ivermectin, mostly due to the media, SO STRONG that scientists didn’t even look through their own data to see a conclusion they didn’t want to see?
Or is it a combination of ALL of these?
It is clearly in the data that ivermectin is three times as effective as the vaccines in preventing death. Even more importantly, if you add in what is known OUTSIDE the paper in question – namely the adverse effects of the vaccine and the safety of ivermectin, then it’s a no-brainer to NOT take the vaccine and to just use ivermectin. And Kirsch explains THAT rather nicely.
The data LITERALLY justify our position.
This was my hunch all along, and as vaccine side effects loomed larger and larger, and ivermectin proved to be rather shockingly harmless, even at antiviral doses comparable to large-animal systemic antiparasitic doses. All ivermectin had to do was prevent death to some moderate extent, and it was a no-brainer that people should take it.
To conclude anything else, based on the data, is murderous folly, in my opinion.
When I was a young lad – a mere student – but also one who WROTE PAPERS (because I had a great professor who TRAINED US to be full-blooded scientists), we EXPECTED to be CRITICIZED in peer review by people exactly like Steve Kirsch, Pierre Kory, and myself. We expected that others would look at data and see it completely differently.
And we would then have to ACKNOWLEDGE the alternative interpretations, or convince the editors that the criticism was not even worth acknowledging (a VERY rare occurrence in any legitimately contested field).
My lab had PRACTICE criticizing other people’s work – and we expected it in return. I personally found quite a few errors in the literature. Most were small – mostly problems of the writing – but some were huge and affected the science. Sometimes the big errors would only partially alter the author’s conclusions, but other times they had a significant impact.
However, I have to admit that I never ran into data which PROVED THE OPPOSITE of the authors’ main conclusion – even if only to the critic – and THAT is what we have here.
PEER REVIEW is designed to subject a paper to (hopefully at least TWO) critical readers who will very likely DEMAND improvements. Those improvements often mean acknowledging DIFFERENT views of the data as being possible and maybe even reasonable.
That kind of QUALITY peer review was VERY OBVIOUSLY not done here.
What we have RIGHT HERE is a demonstration that HERD REVIEW is much more important than PEER REVIEW.
PEER REVIEW is subject to BIAS. It is subject to SUBVERSION and GAMING.
I go back to the Zhang mask paper, for crying out loud.
To me, this will always remain a horrifying example of “fitting the data to the theory”, rather than looking to see what the data says. You can just look at this graph and see the crime.
I lay this stuff SQUARELY at the feet of SOCIALISM, which has politicized science and removed control of science from the people of science themselves, investing much of it in a media which WILL NOT question government narratives. People raised under socialism who become “go-alongers” – and so SOME degree that is everybody – stop questioning things that need to be questioned.
I have WATCHED and I have SEEN how WEF and CCP corruption have degraded science everywhere.
They’re not going to fix this stuff – at least not yet.
But until then, know this:
Ivermectin WORKS, and it was just proven by people who said it doesn’t work.
Thanks to HERD REVIEW.
One last point.
Why did Alex Berenson not see this?
IMO, it’s because Berenson is simply not a scientist – he’s an investigative journalist. Thus, his virtue-signaling attack on Malone was meant to show “journalistic balance”, NOT that he himself had deeply researched the history of the topic, in which case he (Berenson) would have likely said “Yes, Malone really is the most foundational of the founding fathers of the tech.”
But let’s not blame Alex too hard. THE AUTHORS OF THIS STUDY – that’s right – the authors themselves – didn’t see it, either.
See what I’ve always said? Real science is contentious.
But it has a good heart.
It wants the TRUTH.
ENJOY THE SHOW.
Thank you all for being here. Have a great weekend.