Theoretically a government has an obligation to their citizens.  That obligation is very simple, enact policies that benefit the largest number of citizens possible.  There is great debate about what those policies might be.  Should the government re-distribute wealth or should they stay out of the way and allow people to create their own wealth.  It is an ideological debate with the same end point; benefiting citizens.

That is the theory, here is the reality.  Very few modern politicians believe they have any obligation to the citizens of their country.  For them the world is inverted.  Modern politicians believe their obligation is to the citizens of other countries.  Why else would they allow unrestricted illegal migration?

There is a deluge of people pouring over the American southern border.  Instead of treating these people for what they are, intruders, the US government is treating them as invited guests.  Taxpayers are paying to house these intruders in hotels all over the country and there are hundreds of thousands of them.  In New York alone 50% of the hotel rooms are occupied by migrants.

In 2019 there were 138,000 hotel rooms in New York City.  69,000 rooms with multiple people in each room means that in New York alone there are likely more than 200,000 intruders living off taxpayers.  Has anyone stopped to think about what this is costing?  There is of course the obvious cost of the hotel rooms but has anyone considered how many jobs will be lost due to this?

There are a lot of hotel rooms in NYC because normally a lot of people travel to NYC.  Hotel owners have no problem filling their rooms without freeloading invaders.  Normally these rooms are full of tourists and business people.  People who stay a short time.  The rooms get turned over regularly which requires and army of maids, laundry staff, bell hops, etc.  Not only do the normal occupants stay for a short period but they move around NYC spending a lot of money in restaurants, bars, shops, galleries, and theatres.  Those days of supporting thousands of jobs are over.

The rooms are now full of long term residents who do not go to restaurants or the theaters.  How long do you think it will be before these businesses start laying off staff?  This is not different than the lockdowns.  Wealthy political elite are pursuing their own selfish agenda.  Their agenda will be paid for by people with less than them.

Anything they do not get punished for they will do again.  In 2020 we allowed these sociopaths to classify waiters, maids, and bartenders as non-essential and force them in to unemployment.  For the greater good the lowest rung of the productive economic ladder were deemed expendable.  Here we are in 2023 and they are doing it again.  Gaining what they want at the expense of people who can afford it the least.  How many times will we allow them to do this before we say no?

For some reason the ridiculous claim that COVID vaccinations saved 19 million lives is circulating again on twitter.  The claim was made last year in the medical journal Lancet.  The claim was based on extrapolating increasing COVID deaths essentially forever.  The fact that the pandemic did not continue to rage was taken as proof the vaccines worked.  It was politically motivated junk science that should have never been published.

The first thing any scientist must consider is whether something else could explain the phenomena you are studying.  No pandemic or infectious outbreak has ever lasted forever.  They all peak and fall off naturally so how do you now the decline in COVID deaths was not natural?  The authors of the lancet paper basically discarded everything we know about pandemics and declared COVID would never have ended without the vaccines.  There conclusions are bullshit.

Since the paper was published many people have done rather detailed math and concluded the vaccines likely save no one.

Moreover, 30% to 40% is not necessarily the true effectiveness. We have clear evidence of ‘healthy vaccinee bias‘, a type of confounding bias, in both the U.S. and the U.K.. People of the same age who were vaccinated against Covid were healthier, on average, than their unvaccinated counterparts, as evident by lower non-Covid mortality. Therefore, the unbiased VE should be smaller. For example, a modest bias correction factor around 1.5 would drive VE of 40% close to zero.

Billions have been vaccinated under the slogan”safe and effective’.

It was neither.

I don’t know why they bothered.  The math is really quite simple something I pointed out in October of last year.  You only need to consider 2 things.  First by their design it is impossible for the COVID jabs to prevent a single infection.

When the mRNA vaccines were introduced we were told that they were +95% effective at preventing infection.  Anthony Fauci and other hoaxers went on television to claim the vaccines would stop the virus in its tracks.  This was a lie.  It is impossible for any intramuscular injection to produce immunity to airborne viruses.  These charlatans know that to be true, this is why pharmaceutical companies are working on nasal spray flu vaccines.  For immunity against airborne viruses you must produce an antibody response at the point of infection which is the airways.

And that the ratio of deaths to infection did not change after vaccinating 90% of the population.

If the vaccines don’t prevent infection but do prevent serious infection then infections may not go down but deaths should.  The ratio of deaths per infection should go down dramatically after vaccination programs start.  So did that happen?  No it did not

Here is how that math works.  Let’s assume that over a set period of time 1% of people will get infected and die from COVID.  If no one gets jabbed then everyone is in the same boat and in a group of 10,000 people 100 will die.  Now we jab 90% of the people.  The jabs cannot prevent infection so the same number of people gets infected but the Jabs save 50% of the people.  Remember that is the claim the jabs do not prevent infection but they do prevent severe infection and death.

So without the jab 1% die but with the Jab only 50% of the 1% die.  The ratio of deaths to infection for the jabbed is 0.5% while the un-jabbed remain the same at 1%.  With that we get the following numbers.

• In an un-jabbed world 1% of 10,000 people die so total deaths are 100.
• With 90% jabbed and the jabs work 50% of the time we have 0.5% of 9,000 dying and 1% of 1,000 people dying. 45 jabbed people and 10 un-jabbed people die for total deaths of 55 people out of 10,000; a ratio of 0.55%.

Using that quick math we can see that a 50% effective treatment would have caused the infection fatality ratio to drop from 1% to 0.55% and that did not happen.  The only way the jabs could work without changing the death to infection ratio would have been if the virus suddenly became far more deadly to un-jabbed.  The 45 deaths prevented in the jabbed group would have to occur in the un-jabbed group so total deaths in the un-jabbed would be 55 out of 1000 or 5.5%.  Do you really think a virus would sudden become 5.5 times more dangerous?

The only reason I can think of for these ridiculous claims to re-surface is that the government is planning a new vaccination program.  They are priming people to believe the vaccines saved them last time so this winter, when there is a new variant or a brand new virus, you will line up for the new “vaccine”.  Don’t fall for this again.  MRNA injections are not vaccines and they did not work.

This morning I found and article detailing the trouble 2 women have had finding help for their vaccine injuries.  Both women suffered nerve damage.  One woman took AstraZeneca the other Pfizer.  The article was very sensitive to the women’s plight but did take the time to let you know that while serious vaccine injuries were rare.

At the same time, public-health authorities, anxious to promote vaccination, played down risks that were real if rare

That statement is true but in keeping with the standard of modern journalism it is also very misleading.  Rare is a comparative word.  Compared to the number of people who received the jabs severe reactions are rare.  Compared to the track record of other vaccines and medical treatments, COVID vaccine injuries are not rare.  This is obvious when you consult the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).  Injuries from the COVID vaccines dwarf the total of all injuries from all other vaccines.

And VAERS is just the tip of the iceberg.  There has been a coordinated effort to manipulate VAERS data by eliminating injury records.  One of the victims is an MD and she tried to report her injuries to VAERS 9 times without success.

She says she filed nine reports with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or Vaers, the government surveillance system that is supposed to track possible side effects, and “nobody has ever contacted me.” She also filed reports with Pfizer, which she says didn’t respond.

This is the state of science in the 21^st century.  A single hot day or storm is irrefutable proof CO2 is destroying the planet but millions of vaccine injuries are not proof the COVID jabs are unsafe.  In science the purpose of experiments and data collection is not to prove your theory, it is an attempt to refute your theory.  Millions of pieces of supporting data are inconsequential if there is one single data point that does not fit.

It does not matter how many people got jabbed without complications.  That is does not prove the hypothesis that the jabs are safe.  What matters is how many people were injured.  With the COVID vaccines we have millions of data points that say the vaccines are not safe.

The question always should have been are the risks worth it?  Still, more than 2 years later no one is asking that question.  No one is asking because everyone already knows the answer.  The Jabs are not safe and are not worth the risk.

I came across this study a few days ago that shows spike proteins can cause brain damage.  This is just one more study documenting the toxic effects of the spike protein.  So are we finally able to admit using the spike proteins as a treatment for COVID is very bad idea?  Vaccine advocates will point out that a natural infection will also expose you to spike proteins.  The question is then, what is the greater risk?  Do you get more spike proteins from the jab or from the virus?

This is a very important question.  Even water is dangerous if you consume too much.  I am not aware that anyone has tried to answer this question by actually measuring spike protein concentrations but I think we can let common sense be our guide.

A natural infection runs its course in 14 days.  After that the virus no longer replicates; no more spike proteins are produced.  Jabs and regular boosters cause your body to produce spike proteins for months after each injection.  Which do you think exposes you to more spike proteins?

Quite obviously the jabs expose you to a much higher concentration of the poison for a longer period of time than a natural infection.  That is precisely why the jabbed have problems that naturally infected un-jabbed people do not.  Serious problems like heart attacks, strokes, nerve damage and even blindness.

Everyone involved with the jabs knew the spike protein was toxic and that they could not control the concentration you would be exposed to.  They knew it was Russian roulette and they went ahead anyway.  Their profits were more important than your life.

Canadian Vaccine mandates are finally being challenged in the courts.  The BC Supreme Court has allowed a carter rights challenge to proceed.

A B.C. Supreme Court judge has rejected an attempt by provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry to throw out a case alleging her office infringed on the Charter rights of health-care workers when she issued orders requiring they get two COVID-19 vaccines to continue working.

This is nice to see but I wish it were happening outside of Canada.  A suit like this has almost no chance of succeeding in Canada.  The basis of the lawsuit is that vaccine mandates violate Canadian’s rights.  The problem with that approach is that Canadians do not have rights; it says so in our charter of rights and freedoms.

Rights and freedoms in Canada

1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The very first paragraph of the document says that governments can at any time pass a law that limits any of the rights found in the document.  That statement means there are no rights in the document; only privileges that can be revoked at any time.  It is enshrined in Canadian law that Canadians do not have rights.

Even if Canadians had rights the chance of success would still be low.  Every institution in Canada is corrupt including the courts.  The basic fundamentals of a functioning democracy in Canada are broken beyond repair.  Canadians can be criminally prosecuted for disagreeing with Justin Trudeau and health services are contingent on displaying fealty to government.

Canada has a reputation on the world stage as a caring just society but it is all a façade.  In the real Canada, government taxes you into poverty and then offers assisted suicide as the only way out.  You read that correctly.  The Trudeau Liberals solution to poverty is to kill poor people and then import millions more from third world countries.  Canadian government is not just immoral it is insane.  If we had a functioning judiciary none of this would have happened.