Sotomayor or Breyer would say something ridiculous, and they'd ask Keller if he agreed, and time after time he wouldn't challenge the premise of the question - and that premise was built on mass media reporting. Usually courts don't take judicial notice of such reports, Keller shouldn't have let those slide by him, so he lost a lot of points right there. It was a pitiful, pathetic performance. "Surely you acknowledge X" shouldn't be answered by "Of course, but", but "No, your Honor, I don't acknowledge that at all... because X is mischaracterized/false/without scientific basis/something about which there is legitimate scientific controversy..."
"Americans have lived and worked with viral outbreaks entirely comparable to this one; and our non-viral diseases, fueled by lifestyle and pollution, are of an order of magnitude more deadly than any of those (and many deaths listing “Covid 19” are of course merely deaths from those other diseases)."
Absolutely. And yet our health agencies are busy pushing pharmaceutical solutions to everything, heavily emphasizing vaccines. *Expensive* pharmaceutical solutions.
Whereas lifestyle changes, even incremental or simple ones, would cost very little and be much more effective. I can't imagine why that may be… /s
The nefarious, predatory element is out in the open. On the other hand, if we keep asking medicine to bring us health - which it cannot do - what do we expect? Visit the hammer, don't be surprised to be treated like a nail.
I don't find the idea that Kagan and Sot.'s alarmism was directed at the other side of the bench convincing. But my perception, listening to the arguments, was colored by recent personal argument with a brainwashed family member about to get the booster, plus a shopping trip in CA. This is a cult, more now than ever. What I heard from the bench was cult speak. I extrapolated from there to Kavanaugh and Barrett not based on their remarks yesterday but their previous "neutral" denials of preliminary injunctions for Maine and NY workers that they are in the cult as well, they just don't say the cult speak out loud.
Hopefully this instinctual leap was wrong. We'll know shortly.
That one is more reassuring RE Kavanaugh, Barrett, and the stay. I still worry that it's a set up to the two of them writing "while we see several potential challenges, it's not clear on the merits"... I probably shouldn't have listened until this week's major black-pilling wore off!
Brian I am changing subject. What do you think about the theory that this virus is a deattenuating LAV and it can 'evolutionary' can climb back to a more deadly point of evolution ??
I have, and offered a few thoughts on the Igor Chudov thread that was prompted by the follow-up post. But I took the opportunity just now to re-read the post.
In my view a single passage through a human likely "deattenuates" any live vaccine, in any meaningful sense. As the Sirotkins' say, the genes for overcoming immune challenge do not disappear from the swarm - they just receded into the 10^-4 to -6 level, perhaps. Well, this actually isn't very different from bacteria - the "swarm" in this case consisting of a super-minority of phage-enhanced cells that don't dominate until the environment becomes unfavorable. Hit a colony with an antibiotic and the phage-enhanced strains survive. Reintroducing coronavirus to humans is the same. A bottleneck that selects for the immune-evading genes to become the "consensus" genome again.
OPV results in seasonal, detectable polio in sewage everywhere it used, year after year - essentially restoring polio to its normal niche. "VDPV" just refers to a fairly arbitrary benchmark of mutations to the consensus genome vs the Sabin strain; this is only deattenuation in the sense that rigging the game in favor of the Sabin strain makes the full spectrum of phenotypes harder to spot in the wild, but they can reveal themselves in a non-OPV-vaccinated infection (sewage cultures are naturally even "lower resolution" than in-cell/host -derived cultures). I'm not totally done with either my polio or my flu research so I'm on the back foot as far as totally rejecting their argument, but it really seems to lean heavily into the widespread unawareness of how OPV recipients were spreading polio virus for decades, and everyone was fine (because the OPV *does* generate durable immunity, whereas the younger generation is probably screwed as soon as a critical mass of circulating virus is achieved in the West).
Lastly, what does this have to do with the lethality of SC2? Likely nothing. All these scary-sounding cellular entry and (intracellular) immune evasion traits are likely just part of the core competence of coronaviruses. They're a brilliant creature. Whereas the severe illness caused by SC2 seems to be a facet of pro-inflammatory "add-on" residues (that might correspond to previously-primed immune responses... https://vinuarumugham.substack.com/p/covid-19-severity-is-a-result-of )
Doesn't this example of a possible allergic reaction also show that one is hardly able to really trace a problem back to its origin without any gaps? More and more loose threads, a few of which fit together, but the more one tries to include other threads, the more knots are formed. What remains? To confine oneself more and more to the basics. To bio-logical context. In the meantime, a mountain of data has been accumulated and because of this it becomes easier and easier to change entire context mountains ...
Let me explain my point of view a little further. You can look at genes, cells and viruses and do a lot of tests and measurements, you can look through microscopes and you can tackle the interplay mathematically. You can ask why some people get sicker and if your genes are the problem:
But aren't there a myriad of possible ingredients that change the development of an illness and its string of symptoms? The more so the more artificial EMFs we produce. EMFs, all of which affect co-evolution, but whose effects we do not give the time necessary for us to bio-logically adapt to these changes. Instead of collecting more and more data, how about focusing more and more on context? Looking more at the context rather than creating more and more fragments. Why can't it be enough to accept diversity in every respect as the most important bio-logical characteristic and to live accordingly. Thereby we could release energy and use it in a life worthy way instead of needing more and more energy by more and more accumulations of data and fragments. Somewhat off-topic, sorry, but I hope you can get my drift, which LIFE PHICTION will explore more deeply.
OSHA is incredibly broad - it explicitly declares all economic activity to be interstate commerce. Hence why it is the natural conduit for a national mandate. Until SCOTUS overturns OSHA, that isn't going to change. (But it's for "safety" and "health," so who could be against that? The founders probably just forgot how good "safety" and "health" are when they were writing Article I.)
If SCOTUS fails to grant the stay, it will be a game of chicken between the states and the admin. I think chances are good the admin will let out steam with perpetual enforcement delays, retreat after a SCOTUS win will leave the admin with the higher ground anyway.
"it explicitly declares all economic activity to be interstate commerce" ... "Impressed with a conviction that this constitution is calculated to restrain the influence and power of the LOWER CLASS -- to draw that discrimination we have so long sought after; to secure to our friends privileges and offices, which were not to be ... [obtained] under the former government, because they were in common; to take the burden of legislation and attendance on public business off the commonalty, who will be much better able thereby to prosecute with effect their private business; to destroy that political thirteen headed monster, the state sovereignties; to check the licentiousness of the people by making it dangerous to speak or publish daring or tumultuary sentiments; to enforce obedience to laws by a strong executive, aided by military pensioners; and finally to promote the public and private interests of the better kind of people -- we submit it to your judgment to take such measures for its adoption as you in your wisdom may think fit." http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/09.htm
OSHA oversees safety in the workplace. Unlike a hardhat or safety goggles, you cannot remove your vaccine at the end of the workday and go home. Even if SCOTUS allows the mandates to remain in place, this is far from over.
There is an extraordinary irony in that all justices and attorneys are fully vaxxed and boosted, yet Sotomayor prefers to attend remotely, 7 justices are wearing masks, and 2 attorneys are also remote, having tested positive. So what are these mandates about again? It is completely absurd. Mont Python comes to mind.
I think the next step will be a rewrite, "version 2," to incorporate my still-vague thoughts on "cells as a platform," which leads to the intuitive overlap that everything a viral gene "wants" to do with a cell - like encourage division, in the case of an HPV-like virus or a gall-promoting plant virus - is things a host gene also wants to do, or maybe another type of parasite/symbiot, so there is no such thing as a purely viral gene. And then probably repeat that again in a few months.
Great news. Have you ever looked at the relationship between cells, genes and viruses from an energy perspective? Isn't the interaction an expression of efficient energy management? Efficient not from the point of view of time, but from the point of view of preservation of coherence under all possibilities and unpredictable events arising at any time. Are viruses, as spreaders of antifragility, not an expression of true intelligence? While the progressive human being spreads more and more decoherence and becomes more fragile as a population?
So, viruses are just the library of "cell functions" that all kingdoms of life can pull from. A bit more leaning toward a static / gene storage theory and away from the innovation bit
But a library goes too much in a static direction and thus moves away from antifragility and coherence. Are you sure that this static view does justice to co-evolution? For me life is energy that strives for an equilibrium but to not (!) reach this equilibrium. Or not to reach it for as long as possible. Because the longer this is possible, the larger the life span of a living being. If the equilibrium is reached, it means death.
The virome of life, it is not a library in the sense of our libraries, where volumes gather dust in heaps and eke out their existence. The virome is fluid, adaptable at any time, including all consequences it has for living beings, death included. But co-evolution ''thinks'' differently about death than humans do this. Hence our striving to escape co-evolution faster and faster. Which should seal our fate as a biological life form.
Oh - There was another bit that will be added, contra the library model - it was very striking and obvious after letting Mouse Party sink in for a few days. Viruses allow proteins to be cross-evolved in host cells that favor different mutation motifs. So, if the next ideal evolution of a protein isn't favored by the motifs in the host genome, viruses will go farm that protein around other species and when one produces a coherent new form, it will eventually cross back over. This is a plausible model for the origin of the syncytin-1 incorporation.
Right, I'm only envisioning a small correction, not a total reversal. But a library model still implies coevolution - no organism/genome moves through time in a static roll to its environment. All genes that are parasitic/altruistic but incorporated into the genome (everything that is beyond the "bare essentials" that the cell would revert to in a fully symbiotic roll, as endosymbiotic bacteria do) is akin to an organism in a biome itself. The genome of multicellular organisms is merely an ecosystem of parasitic and altruistic genes, i.e. endogenous viruses.
There were two justices, Kagan and Sotomayor, who went along with the government's argument of unprecedented. The others seemed neutral or skeptical. Of course, the government's attorney lied about everything. I think you are confusing the lack of argument coming from the justices as their acceptance of her arguments of an unprecedented pandemic.
Right, I missed a bit of the pushback on Prelogar - including on her "unprecedented" line at one point. However, nothing encouraging from Kavanaugh or Ford as far as I can tell - and they tanked the Maine and NY state mandate cases already.
Thanks for the commentary. Axios seems to have heard things differently and says SCOTUS ready to curtail. Everyone seems to agree Sotomayor is off her rocker.
Sotomayor or Breyer would say something ridiculous, and they'd ask Keller if he agreed, and time after time he wouldn't challenge the premise of the question - and that premise was built on mass media reporting. Usually courts don't take judicial notice of such reports, Keller shouldn't have let those slide by him, so he lost a lot of points right there. It was a pitiful, pathetic performance. "Surely you acknowledge X" shouldn't be answered by "Of course, but", but "No, your Honor, I don't acknowledge that at all... because X is mischaracterized/false/without scientific basis/something about which there is legitimate scientific controversy..."
"Americans have lived and worked with viral outbreaks entirely comparable to this one; and our non-viral diseases, fueled by lifestyle and pollution, are of an order of magnitude more deadly than any of those (and many deaths listing “Covid 19” are of course merely deaths from those other diseases)."
Absolutely. And yet our health agencies are busy pushing pharmaceutical solutions to everything, heavily emphasizing vaccines. *Expensive* pharmaceutical solutions.
Whereas lifestyle changes, even incremental or simple ones, would cost very little and be much more effective. I can't imagine why that may be… /s
The nefarious, predatory element is out in the open. On the other hand, if we keep asking medicine to bring us health - which it cannot do - what do we expect? Visit the hammer, don't be surprised to be treated like a nail.
Civil War
Interesting comments from Karl Denninger, the Ticker Guy at https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=244739
I don't find the idea that Kagan and Sot.'s alarmism was directed at the other side of the bench convincing. But my perception, listening to the arguments, was colored by recent personal argument with a brainwashed family member about to get the booster, plus a shopping trip in CA. This is a cult, more now than ever. What I heard from the bench was cult speak. I extrapolated from there to Kavanaugh and Barrett not based on their remarks yesterday but their previous "neutral" denials of preliminary injunctions for Maine and NY workers that they are in the cult as well, they just don't say the cult speak out loud.
Hopefully this instinctual leap was wrong. We'll know shortly.
Good commentary from https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/-coffee-and-covid-saturday-january-2be -- they also predict the mandates will be stayed. As you say, we'll know soon
That one is more reassuring RE Kavanaugh, Barrett, and the stay. I still worry that it's a set up to the two of them writing "while we see several potential challenges, it's not clear on the merits"... I probably shouldn't have listened until this week's major black-pilling wore off!
Brian I am changing subject. What do you think about the theory that this virus is a deattenuating LAV and it can 'evolutionary' can climb back to a more deadly point of evolution ??
Have you seen this ?? https://harvard2thebighouse.substack.com/p/a-grin-without-a-cat
I have, and offered a few thoughts on the Igor Chudov thread that was prompted by the follow-up post. But I took the opportunity just now to re-read the post.
In my view a single passage through a human likely "deattenuates" any live vaccine, in any meaningful sense. As the Sirotkins' say, the genes for overcoming immune challenge do not disappear from the swarm - they just receded into the 10^-4 to -6 level, perhaps. Well, this actually isn't very different from bacteria - the "swarm" in this case consisting of a super-minority of phage-enhanced cells that don't dominate until the environment becomes unfavorable. Hit a colony with an antibiotic and the phage-enhanced strains survive. Reintroducing coronavirus to humans is the same. A bottleneck that selects for the immune-evading genes to become the "consensus" genome again.
OPV results in seasonal, detectable polio in sewage everywhere it used, year after year - essentially restoring polio to its normal niche. "VDPV" just refers to a fairly arbitrary benchmark of mutations to the consensus genome vs the Sabin strain; this is only deattenuation in the sense that rigging the game in favor of the Sabin strain makes the full spectrum of phenotypes harder to spot in the wild, but they can reveal themselves in a non-OPV-vaccinated infection (sewage cultures are naturally even "lower resolution" than in-cell/host -derived cultures). I'm not totally done with either my polio or my flu research so I'm on the back foot as far as totally rejecting their argument, but it really seems to lean heavily into the widespread unawareness of how OPV recipients were spreading polio virus for decades, and everyone was fine (because the OPV *does* generate durable immunity, whereas the younger generation is probably screwed as soon as a critical mass of circulating virus is achieved in the West).
Lastly, what does this have to do with the lethality of SC2? Likely nothing. All these scary-sounding cellular entry and (intracellular) immune evasion traits are likely just part of the core competence of coronaviruses. They're a brilliant creature. Whereas the severe illness caused by SC2 seems to be a facet of pro-inflammatory "add-on" residues (that might correspond to previously-primed immune responses... https://vinuarumugham.substack.com/p/covid-19-severity-is-a-result-of )
Doesn't this example of a possible allergic reaction also show that one is hardly able to really trace a problem back to its origin without any gaps? More and more loose threads, a few of which fit together, but the more one tries to include other threads, the more knots are formed. What remains? To confine oneself more and more to the basics. To bio-logical context. In the meantime, a mountain of data has been accumulated and because of this it becomes easier and easier to change entire context mountains ...
Let me explain my point of view a little further. You can look at genes, cells and viruses and do a lot of tests and measurements, you can look through microscopes and you can tackle the interplay mathematically. You can ask why some people get sicker and if your genes are the problem:
https://dailysceptic.org/do-your-genes-determine-how-sick-you-get-from-covid-19/
But aren't there a myriad of possible ingredients that change the development of an illness and its string of symptoms? The more so the more artificial EMFs we produce. EMFs, all of which affect co-evolution, but whose effects we do not give the time necessary for us to bio-logically adapt to these changes. Instead of collecting more and more data, how about focusing more and more on context? Looking more at the context rather than creating more and more fragments. Why can't it be enough to accept diversity in every respect as the most important bio-logical characteristic and to live accordingly. Thereby we could release energy and use it in a life worthy way instead of needing more and more energy by more and more accumulations of data and fragments. Somewhat off-topic, sorry, but I hope you can get my drift, which LIFE PHICTION will explore more deeply.
Here's a good overview of the evidence that Omicron has dropped a lot of the "add-on" (not enhancing of transmission) virulence of SC2 https://nutritionmatters.substack.com/p/omicrons-generally-less-harmful-mechanisms
What happened to state's rights? Federal government shouldn't have the power to impose Jab Crow on everyone.
The POTUS himself said last week that there is no federal solution and it gets solved at state level. Your Honors - I rest my case.
OSHA is incredibly broad - it explicitly declares all economic activity to be interstate commerce. Hence why it is the natural conduit for a national mandate. Until SCOTUS overturns OSHA, that isn't going to change. (But it's for "safety" and "health," so who could be against that? The founders probably just forgot how good "safety" and "health" are when they were writing Article I.)
If SCOTUS fails to grant the stay, it will be a game of chicken between the states and the admin. I think chances are good the admin will let out steam with perpetual enforcement delays, retreat after a SCOTUS win will leave the admin with the higher ground anyway.
"it explicitly declares all economic activity to be interstate commerce" ... "Impressed with a conviction that this constitution is calculated to restrain the influence and power of the LOWER CLASS -- to draw that discrimination we have so long sought after; to secure to our friends privileges and offices, which were not to be ... [obtained] under the former government, because they were in common; to take the burden of legislation and attendance on public business off the commonalty, who will be much better able thereby to prosecute with effect their private business; to destroy that political thirteen headed monster, the state sovereignties; to check the licentiousness of the people by making it dangerous to speak or publish daring or tumultuary sentiments; to enforce obedience to laws by a strong executive, aided by military pensioners; and finally to promote the public and private interests of the better kind of people -- we submit it to your judgment to take such measures for its adoption as you in your wisdom may think fit." http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/09.htm
No great surprise here, none at all...
OSHA oversees safety in the workplace. Unlike a hardhat or safety goggles, you cannot remove your vaccine at the end of the workday and go home. Even if SCOTUS allows the mandates to remain in place, this is far from over.
Right, even today's debacle didn't give me reason to think it would win a full case. Just that the consensus will whiff on the stay
And kick the covid can down the road.....
There is an extraordinary irony in that all justices and attorneys are fully vaxxed and boosted, yet Sotomayor prefers to attend remotely, 7 justices are wearing masks, and 2 attorneys are also remote, having tested positive. So what are these mandates about again? It is completely absurd. Mont Python comes to mind.
Except Monty Python was very funny. These morons are revolting.
Allowing the old, frail, obsessive compulsive hypochondriacs to determine the health conditions of our country is true insanity.
To think I had high hopes for Barrett. What a waste.
Amy Coney island?
Surely u jest
I wish I were. I was an idiot about Coney Island. 😫
We all make errors
SCOTUS hears arguments on Emergency Virgin Sacrifice Mandate...
"This “pandemic” is merely a catastrophized version of regular life"
Two years summarized with 10 words without losing the bio-logical context. Not bad.
By the way, what about your immune equilibrium project? Any extensions in the pipeline?
I think the next step will be a rewrite, "version 2," to incorporate my still-vague thoughts on "cells as a platform," which leads to the intuitive overlap that everything a viral gene "wants" to do with a cell - like encourage division, in the case of an HPV-like virus or a gall-promoting plant virus - is things a host gene also wants to do, or maybe another type of parasite/symbiot, so there is no such thing as a purely viral gene. And then probably repeat that again in a few months.
Great news. Have you ever looked at the relationship between cells, genes and viruses from an energy perspective? Isn't the interaction an expression of efficient energy management? Efficient not from the point of view of time, but from the point of view of preservation of coherence under all possibilities and unpredictable events arising at any time. Are viruses, as spreaders of antifragility, not an expression of true intelligence? While the progressive human being spreads more and more decoherence and becomes more fragile as a population?
https://lifephiction.substack.com/p/higher-and-higher
Right, viruses demonstrate will and discernment, and all multicellular coherence depends on this talent, is how I see it.
So, viruses are just the library of "cell functions" that all kingdoms of life can pull from. A bit more leaning toward a static / gene storage theory and away from the innovation bit
But a library goes too much in a static direction and thus moves away from antifragility and coherence. Are you sure that this static view does justice to co-evolution? For me life is energy that strives for an equilibrium but to not (!) reach this equilibrium. Or not to reach it for as long as possible. Because the longer this is possible, the larger the life span of a living being. If the equilibrium is reached, it means death.
The virome of life, it is not a library in the sense of our libraries, where volumes gather dust in heaps and eke out their existence. The virome is fluid, adaptable at any time, including all consequences it has for living beings, death included. But co-evolution ''thinks'' differently about death than humans do this. Hence our striving to escape co-evolution faster and faster. Which should seal our fate as a biological life form.
Oh - There was another bit that will be added, contra the library model - it was very striking and obvious after letting Mouse Party sink in for a few days. Viruses allow proteins to be cross-evolved in host cells that favor different mutation motifs. So, if the next ideal evolution of a protein isn't favored by the motifs in the host genome, viruses will go farm that protein around other species and when one produces a coherent new form, it will eventually cross back over. This is a plausible model for the origin of the syncytin-1 incorporation.
Regarding proteins, the next catastrophe of bio-illogical manipulation on the part of us humans is already in the offing:
https://www.labroots.com/trending/cell-and-molecular-biology/21847/using-deep-learning-hallucinate-proteins
If humans don't understand how life works, what can we expect from artificial intelligence?
Thanks for the explanations.
Right, I'm only envisioning a small correction, not a total reversal. But a library model still implies coevolution - no organism/genome moves through time in a static roll to its environment. All genes that are parasitic/altruistic but incorporated into the genome (everything that is beyond the "bare essentials" that the cell would revert to in a fully symbiotic roll, as endosymbiotic bacteria do) is akin to an organism in a biome itself. The genome of multicellular organisms is merely an ecosystem of parasitic and altruistic genes, i.e. endogenous viruses.
I've added an edit about Gorsuch's pushback - thanks for the comments challenging my over-broad portrayal of the support for the mandate
I guess we prepare for a really bad year now at it's beginning.
There were two justices, Kagan and Sotomayor, who went along with the government's argument of unprecedented. The others seemed neutral or skeptical. Of course, the government's attorney lied about everything. I think you are confusing the lack of argument coming from the justices as their acceptance of her arguments of an unprecedented pandemic.
Agreed, just because the justices aren't asking questions doesn't mean they agree.
Right, I missed a bit of the pushback on Prelogar - including on her "unprecedented" line at one point. However, nothing encouraging from Kavanaugh or Ford as far as I can tell - and they tanked the Maine and NY state mandate cases already.
I mean Barrett, ha
ha
Thanks for the commentary. Axios seems to have heard things differently and says SCOTUS ready to curtail. Everyone seems to agree Sotomayor is off her rocker.
Sotomayor or Kagan (who is off HER rocker) or both? I only heard Kagan
Judgements can be made in so far as the questions reveal their (mis) perception of reality, and the emotional state attached to that perception.