Hope all are well!

Follow the science

That's what they said, er, admonished. Follow the science.

ME: OK great, I LOVE science. How 'bout this zinc science?

THEM: NO not that science, this VaxRx science.

ME: Lookie here at this neat Vitamin D science!

THEM: NOO not that science, this VaxRx science.

ME: Will ya look at this great Hydroxychloroquine science?

THEM: NOOO not that science, this VaxRx science.

ME: GEE WHILAKERS have ya seen this Ivermectin science?

THEM: NOOOOO not that science, this VaxRx science.

ME: Well shit fire and save matches, how 'bout this ventilation science?

THEM: NOOOOOO not that science, this VaxRx science!

ME: Here is some aerosol and mask science, see that?

THEM: Now yer pissin' me off, the FN VaxRx science aho.

ME: preventive and prophalactic science?

THEM: VAXRX science!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ME: OK, let me see the science.

THEM: NOOOOOOOO you can't have it until everyone involved is dead.

So anyway folks, I don't think negotiations are going very well.
When you are this selective about what science you want me to see,
it is not about science. What you are hiding is probably not
good science would be the logical scientific conclusion.

message to Neil Young: Don't let it bring you down

The Science Discussion between Bergen and Trudeau took place between educated elites. In my grateful opinion, I think Dystopian's summary of his experience with Team Pfizer is consonant with the ass whipping that Bergen gave Little Justin. Could he look any more like a weenie?

Many of us have been beating our heads against that wall for too many months. It took the convoy to force Trudeau to defend the Narrative in a public forum.

My personal take on all this is that the problem is the Educated Middle Class. We fancy ourselves as capable of debating science in pursuit of truth. Many are. Most think we are, but really aren't. Me, I know I am not capable of debating science in pursuit of truth.

We are facing political power deployed for its own purposes and "science" is just like "economics" to the personalities who are setting policy now. Hired hands provide the "proof" that rationalizes the policy. I suppose it is a worthwhile effort to assemble a rational and evidence based rebuttal like Bergen smacked Trudeau with. But that is not what will carry the day in this dispute about power.

The Convoys are the most beautiful example of Organic Organizing that I have ever seen. It did not come from the Educate Middle Class. It came from folks who drive big assed trucks for a living. Their basic ideology is Fuck This Shit. That resonates with the majority of human beings who are not educated middle class internet addicts.

The truckers also understand the cardinal rule of organizing. Define your single goal. No more mandates. From that bedrock definition of your campaign, you pose the binary question to society at large: Do we want mandatory vaccinations? Just asking, of course, is just like our quarantined covid discussion on this board -- a reasonable way to explore our thoughts on all this. But with zero impact beyond this board.

This leads us to the second rule of organizing. Figure out an "Or Else" -- then do it. In this case it is disruption by big assed trucks that are too valuable to blow up. You never ask permission for Or Else. You never worry about what "public opinion" thinks about your tactics. That is just another way to change the subject.

It is now unfolding and the end is utterly uncertain. Here is what it takes to win: You have to convince the other side that you will do this forever. The instant your opposition realizes that you can and will keep fucking with them, they find a way to give you what you want while claiming to have solved the problem in spite of you.

Fair deal as far as I'm concerned.

Gandhi walked to the ocean to make salt, challenging the British monopoly.

King walked from Selma to Montgomery to register to vote, challenging the white monopoly.

Both filled up the jails with civil disobedience.

For it to end quickly, the Other Side must realize that the disruption will not stop until the mandates are withdrawn.

.

That will create a new political universe all over the planet. That is why Trudeau is going hammina hammina hammina. I don't think it is his ego that makes him stubborn. It is his training with the good folks at Davos. I imagine that they are not the forgiving type when a key player pussies out on them.

In a break from my usual programming, this morning I recalled a story from when decades ago I discovered the importance of Vitamin D.

The research said that Vitmin D was essential to staying healthy and my (younger) inquisitive mind asked, What happens to the Inuit, native Americans and Canadians who see little sunshine part of the year?

Here's the answer---Some Northern folks, on the rare days in winter when there is strong sunshine, lay out in the snow with their faces bared to the sun.
That direct exposure, 10 minutes at a time, does the trick.

It is a lot easier for all of us. 1000iu every day for as long as can remember and a twice yearly Vitamin D check by the doctor is what I do and it has worked out pretty well.

Now The Blockades!!! New One Today.

You the people have the power, we stand with our truckers. Carway border closed. #freedomconvoy2022 #truckerconvoy2022 #freedom2022 #albertafreedom #standupforfreedom #GodsCountry #Alberta #TruckersForFreedom https://t.co/nTQGfDLaaL

— Bob - Fact Checker(@Bob31685906) February 9, 2022

AND---NOBODY said this will be easy

So it looks like the Ambassador Bridge, among other crossings will be blocked for "some time to come".

Funny how that works eh @fordnation, @celliottability.#EndTheMandates#FireElliott#TruckersForFreedomhttps://t.co/NokfDz2jGe

— Unacceptable Fringe Minority Dr Nick (@Hi_Everyb0dy) February 9, 2022

The CDC is finally recognizing 'natural immunity' — legislators should follow suit

There are now more than 65 million people who have recovered from COVID-19 in the United States. While vaccination for COVID-19 has been critically important to protect us against severe disease, hospitalizations and death, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are finally acknowledging the strong protection provided from immunity after a SARS-CoV-2 infection: so-called "natural immunity."
...
The pattern of improved protection after natural infection makes sense. It always has. That's how immunity against infections works. That is why vaccines work. The COVID-19 vaccines were developed to mimic a natural infection based on the original virus that was identified in 2019, what biologists call the "wildtype" strain of SARS-CoV-2. The vaccines, especially the commonest mRNA-based ones, use the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, the protein that acts as a key to enter cells and cause infection. By blocking that entry with vaccine-induced antibodies, infection is prevented.

In contrast, during a natural infection, the human body is exposed to all parts of the virus, including the spike protein. When the immune system responds to enable recovery from the infection, it is broader and more diverse, with a greater ability to defend against any future SARS-CoV-2 virus variants. Therefore, while mutations naturally form in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein through the process of viral evolution, the targeted vaccine-based approach to attack the spike protein, while still effective, is not as robust as the armamentarium created from surviving a true infection, and most effective in combination with vaccination.
...

This is a 2014 paper that explains why sirtuins may be useful in fighting viruses. Lets hope natural substances will remain unpatentable.

Koyuncu E, Budayeva HG, Miteva YV, Ricci DP, Silhavy TJ, Shenk T, Cristea IM. 2014. Sirtuins are evolutionarily conserved viral restriction factors. mBio 5(6):e02249-14.
doi:10.1128/mBio.02249-14. Editor Diane E. Griffin, Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health
Copyright © 2014 Koyuncu et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
license, which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Address correspondence to Ileana M. Cristea, icristea@princeton.edu.
This article is a direct contribution from a Fellow of the American Academy of Microbiology.

The seven human sirtuins are a family of ubiquitously expressed and evolutionarily conserved NAD ⴙ -dependent

IMPORTANCE We live in a sea of viruses, some of which are human pathogens. These pathogenic viruses exhibit numerous differences: DNA or RNA genomes, enveloped or naked virions, nuclear or cytoplasmic replication, diverse disease symptoms, etc.
Most antiviral drugs target specific viral proteins. Consequently, they often work for only one virus, and their efficacy can be compromised by the rapid evolution of resistant variants. There is a need for the identification of host proteins with broad spectrum antiviral functions, which provide effective targets for therapeutic treatments that limit the evolution of viral resistance. Here, we report that sirtuins present such an opportunity for the development of broad-spectrum antiviral treatments, since our findings highlight these enzymes as ancient defense factors that protect against a variety of viral pathogens.

mBio 5(6):e02249-14.
doi:10.1128/mBio.02249-14.

https://mbio.asm.org/content/mbio/5/6/e02249-14.full.pdf

country if we do anything that "reduces the value of their investment".

So politicians options are limited. Note the legal obligation is to corporations not to do anything, nomatter what it is that reduces the value of their investment, or that negates of impairs what they are owed under trade agreements. Thats what I have read. Most people think their obligations are different things, but I am talking about their legal obligations under our trade commitments.

Previously investors were worried that the fickle US voters, suffering under the yoke of oppression as MLK put it, that our voters if faced with an "impossibly burdensome" situation, such as a contract that was arguably unconscionable, or the offshoring of their jobs and ending of the incomes necessary to pay these globally uniquely high prices, and getting so little for it in return, would elect a populist who them might change the deal to be more friendly to their pocketbooks. And indeed they did, and now the insurance companies are up in arms about it in many ways. They are trying to challenge it in national courts however, no doubt afraid of the publicity a court under trade tribunals might stir up. How they rigged the healthcare system implicates both US parties and a great many US politicians. It becomes obvious that they shamelessly lied to the entire country, they cant talk themselves out of it. , and why.

In short they worried political action- and politics might vote to reduce or impair the value of their investments. Things like guaranteed issue cost a lot and so they only lasted a short time. Insurance companies are starting to reinstate various provisions like lifetime limits and pre-existing coindition bans for nongroup policies.

These trade deals are international contracts that subsume domestic regulation, most significantly , freezing regulation at the level which is the regulatory state on the date in 1998 the Understanding took effect, (February 26) and they create a "roolback date" on that date that regulation can be rolled back to if demanded to. Look up "standstill rollback" Also read up on TISA, Bidens baby.. the pending trade agreement on services. Years of work on it has already taken plce, its intent is to eliminate the red tape that stands in the way of a massive increase in cross border labor and data flows. Ending the barriers to doing millions of jobs where they can be done the cheapest.. likely India. The money to be gained by outsourcing the desk jobs or America is measured in the Trillions. According to the Coucil on Foreign elations. It will give foreign oligarchs patronage jobs to give away, keping our authoritarian partners in power. It will lauder the fake degrees of millions of their children. These job losses are called "efficiency gains" because replacing high paid workers with law paid ones, either here or on the other side of the world, is deemed to increase efficiency. Its why Biden was elected. Repolacing the Anti globalizaton Trump (3 minutes HATE) and legitimizing the large scale offshoring of US jobs. The American people have generously given their jobs to the poor young oligarchs. So they dont have to do the menial labor forbidden to them by their caste. The children of the most unequal nations wealthiest oligarchs. Their staffing companies bringing them incredible wealth, reselling others labor for a huge mark up and lowering the market value of many different very technical and stressful professions. When done by US workers, they now pay well, but it was too good to last. They labeled it unsustainable. GATS brings competition. Especially to unjionized professions like nursing and teaching, constructioin, green collar jobs, administration, and especially IT and computer services. "The will of the people has spoken". Of course this past few years was all planned out meticulously and staged, but this is why these guys make the big bucks. What an incredible theatrical performance, huh? Didnt Coronavirus come along at exactly the right time to make this scheme happen?

Just like 9-11 did, the World Trade Center terror attack occurred exactly one month before the DOHA meeting of the WTO. Allowing anything that was unrelated but which contines similar sounding words to be banned from the press. To protect us from democratic cebate overt this most important theft of our lives. Slick, huh?

Yes, these deals strip all the middle class jobs from our workers, but think of the money they will save on wages by hiring foreign workers to do their jobs.

Since the contract is all speled out in a treaty, the deal is done. They GATS rules are one way, and they permanenyly proivatize all these services, arguably its almost impossibly costly to reverse any of them. Thank you, Bill Clinmton. I guess Hillary wasnt trying to fix healthcare she was successfully hiding the rigging of it. Just look at the timeline of the Marrakesh Agrement Establishing the WTO, and the horrible terror incident that pushed the GATS out of the British press, apparently because of the similar sounding name. Poof, it vanished from the UK media, just vanished. Because GATS conflicts with the NHS that was important. Trade deals are binding contracts of by and for the rich. They cant be thrown away just because they are horrible, thats understood that they might not be the best deals, as they are the repayment by our people of a debt we incurred. They are intended to both make the US the safest place in the world to invest and also to forever solve sticky problems like health care lack of profitability that spooked investors out. Now nomatter what happens they are protected from laws that otherwise might reduce or impair the arguably very high value of their investments. (Its almost like free money, now) These treaties prevent someone like a Bernie Sanders from coming along and legislating away their profits, forever. Nomatter what happens. If anything was to reduce or impair their expected profits the United States would have to compensate them for an intentionally inflated arguably unrealistic value that might be much larger than any profit they could in the real world expect to make, because after all, our system is perfect and we are SO certain of that that we will gladly indemninfy them with our tax money and retirement benefits funds, etc. A debt is a debt. Yes, we wanted the IP law changes we bought THAT much.

What about the ACA? Big portions of the ACA are disallowed. Please read NICH SKALA"S PAPER "THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATION’S GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TRADE IN
SERVICES ON HEALTH SYSTEM REFORM AND
REGULATION IN THE UNITED STATES"

I quote: (this is an open access paper so its okay)

"is way and to rule against them where they inhibit commerce.
What are the potential implications of the relevant WTO rules and juris-
prudence for the U.S. health sector? I turn to this in the next section (see Table 2)).
SHUTTING THE DOOR ON SOLUTIONS: THE GATS AND
SINGLE-PAYER NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE
The United States has the highest per capita health spending of any nation in the
world. Yet, while other industrialized countries manage to provide universal
health insurance for their citizens and achieve superior health outcomes at a far
lower price, 47 million Americans lack insurance, more than one-third of insured
Americans go without needed care due to cost, and medical bankruptcy leaves
even the insured in financial ruin (10–13).
Many academics and legislators, most physicians, and the majority of
Americans support the adoption of a publicly financed, privately delivered,
single-payer system of national health insurance (14, 15). Such a system would
eliminate private insurance companies and streamline health care financing
through a single public payer, potentially producing administrative savings of
more than $300 billion per year—enough to cover every American without
additional spending (projections based on 16). The sustainability of benefits
would be ensured through effective cost-control mechanisms, such as global
budgeting of hospitals, negotiated bulk purchasing of drugs and durable medical
supplies, and rational planning of health capital allocation. Investor ownership
of health delivery facilities such as hospitals, dialysis centers, and nursing
homes—which has been shown to raise costs and worsen care—would be
prohibited. The U.S. Government Accountability Office, Congressional Budget
Office, and independent financial consulting firms such as the Lewin Group
and Mathematica have confirmed the viability of a single-payer system for the
United States.

Skala
Table 2
Health system reforms and potential GATS violations
Health system reform/regulation GATS provisions potentially violated
Implementation of a single-payer
national health insurance system Art/ VIII:4 (establishment of “new monopolies”)
Art. XVI:2(a) (numerical limits)
Art. XVI:2(e) (legal form of supplier)
Market-based coverage
expansions through subsidies
and insurance firm regulation Art. VI:5(a)(i) (more burdensome than necessary)
Art. XVI:2(a) (numerical limits)
Art. XVI:2(b) (total value of transaction)
Art. XVII:1 (national treatment of foreign firms)
Art. XVII:3 (modifies conditions of competition)
Reforming the privatization
of Medicare Art. VIII:4 (establishment of “new monopolies”)
Art. XVI:2(a) (numerical limits)
Specialty hospital regulation Art. XVI:2(a) (numerical limits)
Art. XVI:2(b) (total value of transaction)
Art. XVI:2(e) (legal form of supplier)
Art. XVII:1 (national treatment of foreign firms)
Catastrophic reinsurance Art. XVII:1 (national treatment of foreign firms)
Disease management regulation Art. XVI:2(e) (legal form of supplier)
Medical-loss ratios Art. XVI:2(b) (total value of transaction)
Nonprofit hospital taxes Art. XVII:1 (national treatment of foreign firms)

Single-payer is both proven and popular, but constitutes exactly the kind
of threat to transnational investor interests that GATS rules are designed to
neutralize. The GATS treaty is structured to award the home nations of multi-
national investors compensation for domestic policies that adversely affect
their investments, such that the implementation of far-reaching social service
programs would become extremely difficult. If single-payer legislation such as
Representative John Conyers’s United States National Health Insurance Act
(HR 676) were to be implemented, foreign-owned hospitals, drug companies,
disease management programs, and other service companies could (through their
home states) claim a violation of GATS rules in a WTO tribunal. A WTO dispute
resolution panel would first determine whether the single-payer program was in
conflict with the United States’ existing GATS commitments. First, the statutory
establishment of a single-payer system of health insurance that barred the pro-
vision of private health insurance that duplicated the benefits of the single-payer
may be claimed to be a new “monopoly right” and hence a violation of the GATS
prohibition on new monopolies. In addition, under the interpretations advanced
in U.S.-Gambling, any outright ban on the provision of a service (i.e., private
health insurance, for-profit hospitals, or disease management programs) may
constitute an impermissible “zero quota” on the provision of the service and
may hence be claimed to be a GATS violation. Finally, regulations prohibiting
investor ownership of health delivery facilities are potentially banned by GATS
market access rules, which forbid limitations on the type of legal entity a service
supplier may assume.
Should the WTO tribunal find a single-payer system to violate any of these
rules, it would first ask the United States to bring the system “into conformity with
the covered agreements” (3, Art. 22(1)). This would be the same as asking the
United States to dismantle the system. If the United States refused, it would
be obligated to negotiate compensation equivalent to the level of expected harm
to international investors, and if it failed to do so, equivalent trade sanctions
could be authorized. Medical Facilities Corporation, a Canadian firm that owns
a controlling interest in a multistate U.S. specialty hospital chain, reported
$169 million in revenue in 2007 alone (17). The cost of claims against the United
States for implementation of a single-payer national health insurance system
could be in the billions of dollars under current GATS commitments, and if
further liberalization is undertaken, as is currently planned, the costs could be
astronomical. The ability of the United States to implement a popular and effective
single-payer national health program hence faces potentially severe constraints
under existing GATS rules and commitments.

THE GATS AND HEALTH INSURANCE EXPANSION (written in 2009)
Over the past decade, American policymakers have run low on ideas for
expanding health insurance coverage to the rising numbers of uninsured.
Escalating costs have swelled the ranks of the uninsured and rendered private
insurance subsidies and public coverage expansions unsustainable. Unwilling
to challenge insurance and pharmaceutical companies by proposing a single-
payer national health insurance system, legislators of both parties have con-
gregated around a narrow set of reforms that share a near-identical set of features:
(a) private health insurance offered through a public “exchange” or “connector,”
an entity that serves simultaneously as a public regulator of and broker for
commercial insurers; (b) a mandated minimum benefit package and other criteria
for participating insurers; and (c) subsidies provided for the uninsured to pur-
chase coverage through the “exchange.” In some versions, a public program
competes with commercial insurers in the “exchange.” Variants of this model were
enacted in Massachusetts and proposed in California and Illinois. The three
leading Democratic presidential candidates all offered variations on this theme
during the 2008 primaries. Hence, it is likely that these features will figure
prominently in the coming health reform debate. But even these more market-
oriented reforms may run afoul of GATS rules.
Any new public health insurance program created at the state or federal level
will be fully subject to all GATS rules. The United States committed health
insurance services to the GATS without a reservation in its schedule to protect
public insurance programs from GATS rules. Because the GATS defines health
insurance to be a “financial service,” the special rules of the Annex on Financial
Services and the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services apply
to public health insurance programs. And because, under these proposals, a public
program would compete with commercial insurers, it cannot be protected as a
government entity.
Any such program is likely to attract those individuals that the private insurance
industry currently finds it unprofitable to enroll (i.e., the sick). As state and
national reformers promise generous benefits packages and low premiums, the
program is likely to lose financial stability rapidly as health costs increase and
the program suffers adverse selection. Massachusetts’s Commonwealth Care, a
state-subsidized “connector” arrangement similar to that proposed by presidential
candidate Barack Obama, is being forced to consider raising co-payments or
premiums, decreasing subsidy levels, or increasing taxes after the program came
in $147 million over budget in 2007 due to high enrollment (18). Maintaining
coverage for the sick and low-income while simultaneously keeping premiums
low is certain to require significant public subsidies. The subsidization required
to sustain such a plan may run afoul of GATS National Treatment rules, which
require nations to give identical “national treatment” to foreign and domestic
insurers. Hence, if a foreign financial services provider were to enter the U.S.
health insurance market (e.g., by purchasing or merging with a large U.S.
insurance company), it could potentially lodge a WTO complaint claiming that
GATS rules entitle it to the same subsidies the public insurance plan receives.
The government would then be faced with two unattractive choices: repeal the
subsidy and consign the public program to collapse, or accept trade sanctions
from the foreign insurer’s home country.
It is conceivable that legislators could seek to have new limitations on market
access and national treatment provisions inscribed in future negotiations of its
schedule that would allow for the new public program. But modification of
scheduled commitments requires the modifying member to negotiate compen-
sation with members whose investors are adversely affected. In addition, such an
attempt may violate the Understanding’s “Standstill” provision, which specif-
ically requires that any “conditions, limitations, and qualifications” to commit-
ments in the Understanding be limited to those on the date the nation committed
to the Understanding, February 26, 1998 (5).

Even without a participating public program, an “exchange” or “connector”
itself potentially violates existing GATS law.
Public insurance programs inherently have lower administrative expenses than
for-profit insurers and, in theory, should be able to offer lower premiums if they
enroll a comparably healthy population. When placed in a competitive environ-
ment with a public health insurer, the traditional behavior of commercial insurance
companies has been to attempt to “cherry-pick” the healthy and profitable patients,
either by offering skimpier—and hence cheaper—plans that are disproportionately
attractive to the healthy, or by more creative means such as selective advertising.
Reformers presumably aim to reduce cherry-picking behavior by limiting sub-
sidies to those plans that are approved by the “exchange” and conditioning
approval on various factors designed to favor an even risk pool among insurers
(Obama specifically mentioned setting minimum benefits, requiring guarantee-
issue coverage, and regulating premiums). This arrangement potentially violates
the GATS in a number of ways. If a numerical limit is placed on the number of
insurers that may participate in the exchange, this may violate market access
rules as a “limitation on the number of service suppliers.” But even if the exchange
were open to all insurers who met the qualifications, a foreign insurer might
argue that under GATS rules the exchange’s prohibition on offering a skimpier
(and hence cheaper) benefit package than the public program constitutes a “limita-
tion on the total value of service transactions,” or unfairly alters the conditions
of competition in favor of the public program. Alternatively, a firm might argue
that participation standards imposed by the exchange are “licensing standards”
that violate GATS Article VI rules by imposing requirements “more burdensome
[i.e., ‘trade restrictive’] than necessary to ensure the quality of the service.”
The more expansive rules of the Understanding on Commitments in Financial
Services might be invoked as well. Specifically, regulations that set a floor on
benefit packages that may be offered through the exchange potentially violate
the Understanding’s market access provision, which requires nations to allow
foreign insurers to offer “any new financial service” in their territory. 1 A foreign
insurance firm may argue that different, skimpier, benefit packages are “new
financial services,” or that the benefit regulations prohibit the introduction of
exotic health-financial hybrid products such as health savings accounts. Given
the WTO Appellate Body’s demonstrated willingness to take a surprisingly
expansive view of GATS rules, the wide variety of possible implications should
be cause for concern.

There is much more, please read the original paper

Its possible that the politicians have been provided with disinformation and fell for it.

Its easy to see how and why they might have been deceived under the circumstances. Wishful thinking and a desire for a proven vote getter to be true, when it wasnt. Important: This is a reliable source, a peer reviewed paper in the International Journal of Health Services, Volume 39, Number 2, Pages 363–387, 2009 The attorney who the late Mr. Skala relied upon for his legal interpretation of the Understanding (the most controversial part) is given in the paper, he's a professor of law. Please read the rest of Skala's paper its about the privatization of Medicare.

So good. https://t.co/0mGbHy2y93

— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) February 9, 2022

You can't have ivermectin but you can get a crack pipe

— Truckistan Amb. Poso (@JackPosobiec) February 9, 2022

Of course you will still get arrested if found smoking crack, but….oh hell even I can’t make sense of this!