Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

Restoring Healthy Relationships at the Dinner Table

December's Open Thread

Nonetheless, the division I saw sown beginning in 2016 was completely different from anything I’d seen before and escalated further during COVID-19, resulting in many longstanding friendships and family bonds being split apart over political disagreements. In tandem, a lot of it was so shameless, many still haven’t forgotten it (e.g., consider the gift cards, lotteries, KFC, donuts [which CNN repeatedly promoted] alcohol, illicit drugs and brothel sessions were given away as incentives to get the vaccine).

Likewise, one horrendous tactic the vaccine industry had pioneered with pertussis vaccine suddenly went into full throttle.

In theory, if a vaccine “works” you should be protected from individuals who are infected, including those who never vaccinated. Unfortunately, this is not good for vaccine sales as that doesn’t win over people who don’t want to vaccinate, particularly since a non-vaccinated cohort can serve as a control group that shows the dangers of the vaccine (e.g., the industry has done everything it can to stonewall trials of unvaccinated children, but when conducted, those studies consistently show vaccinated children have 3-10 times as many chronic illnesses).

To solve this, three sales pitches were developed:

1) Eliminating an infectious disease is only possible if a sufficient amount of the population is vaccinated (thereby creating herd immunity). This essentially has never worked (discussed further here), so as the years have gone by (and sometimes even within a vaccine campaign) once the populace can be made to accept the premise of “herd immunity,” the percentage of people who need to be vaccinated is steadily increased, and harsher and harsher penalties are leveraged against those who still refuse to vaccinate (as harsher penalties become more politically viable once they target a smaller and smaller minority).
Note: the two major exceptions to what I just stated about a disease being eliminated were smallpox (which was eliminated primarily because the limited transmission of the disease made it possible to quarantine it into extinction) and polio (because the environmental causes of it were eliminated and the remaining cases reclassified). Additionally, high vaccination rates are necessary for pseudo-herd immunity to measles (a vaccine that does “work”), but that situation is a result of our natural herd immunity to measles being replaced with a temporary vaccine herd immunity which results in measles rapidly spreading in communities the moment vaccination rates dip (or vaccine immunity wanes) and measles is introduced to the community.

2) Stating that even if you are vaccinated, it is not safe to be around someone who is unvaccinated (which is absurd as that effectively constitutes an admission the vaccine doesn’t work). This ploy was refined with the pertussis vaccine and I’ve lost count of how many distraught grandparents I know who were told they could not see their grandchildren because the child’s pediatrician said unvaccinated relatives would endanger the child. In turn, once this pitch proved itself, it was then weaponized against anyone who did not want to get the COVID vaccine, and I now know dozens of people who did not want to but did so they could “safely” be around vulnerable members of society (e.g., clients or relatives) and then developed serious complications from the vaccine.

3) Using similar logic to the previous two, argue that you had a duty to vaccinate so those who could not (e.g., the immunosuppressed) would be protected.

Likewise, Biden’s illegal workplace mandates were justified under the rationale that OSHA had a statutory obligation to protect workers from dangers in the workspace. Therefore, it was necessary to force workers to vaccinate so their vaccinated coworkers could have a safe workspace (which is quite remarkable given that OSHA was created to prevent workers from being poisoned and killed by their employers but instead mandated the greatest workplace hazard in history).

Note: what is particularly grotesque about this is that both the COVID and the pertussis vaccine do not prevent transmission (as they only reduce symptoms—which if anything makes individuals, unaware that they are infected, more likely to spread the disease). Sadly this unproven (and highly divisive) theory has long been promoted by the medical authorities, but fortunately, ICAN suits successfully ended GSK’s divisive pertussis advertising campaign and ACIP vice-chair Robert Malone recently shared that the new HHS will no longer promote “protecting” children by advocating for banning unvaccinated relatives from visiting them .

BREAKING STUDY: Infant Vaccination Increases Death Risk by Up to 112% vs Unvaccinated

Louisiana Department of Health death records reveal that infants vaccinated at 2 months are far more likely to die in the following month than unvaccinated infants.

A new study by Drs. Karl Jablonowski and Brian Hooker of Children’s Health Defense titled, Increased Mortality Associated with 2-Month Old Infant Vaccinations, analyzed linked Louisiana Department of Health immunization and death registry data to evaluate whether routine 2-month infant vaccinations (administered at 60–90 days of life) are associated with mortality in the subsequent month (90–120 days).

Using individual-level records from 1,225 infants who later died before age three, investigators compared infants vaccinated in the 2-month window with those unvaccinated during the same period, while holding age-at-death constant.

Infants vaccinated at 2 months showed consistently higher odds of death in the following month, with statistically significant risk increases spanning individual vaccines, cumulative exposure, sex, race, and combination products.

Most alarming, infants who received all six recommended 2-month vaccines had a 68% higher odds of death overall (OR = 1.68; p = 0.0043), with the risk surging to +68% in Black infants and +112% in female infants (OR = 2.12; p = 0.0083).

How Long Has Industry Captured Vaccine Regulation?

By Jeffrey A. Tucker, republished by request of the author

Among the many incredible revelations over the past five years is the extent of the power of the pharmaceutical companies. Through advertising, they have shaped media content. That in turn has affected digital content companies, which responded from 2020 onward by taking down posts that questioned the safety and efficacy of Covid vaccines.

They have captured universities and medical journals with donations and other forms of financial control. Finally, they are far more decisive in driving the agenda of governments than we ever knew. Just for example, we found out in 2023 that the NIH shared thousands of patents with pharma, with a market value approaching $1-2 billion. This was all made possible by the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which was pushed as a form of privatization but only ended up entrenching the worst corporatist corruptions.

The Bizarro-World of the Forever Maskers

The Telegraph has a story about the ‘Zero Covid’ zealots refusing to re-enter society. Not only that, but these forever maskers want everyone else masked up in perpetuity too. It’s a remarkable instance of the emergence of a new form of cult based on a surreal new ritual. And just for good measure, it seems that those leaning Left are most likely to be on board:

The claims of links to Covid circulating online amid the deadly chaos were not always proved beyond doubt, but in this climate of fear and confusion, a determined ‘Zero Covid’ community emerged. Co-opting a phrase that was originally an official public health policy, the ‘Zero Coviders’ believed they were watching a massacre in real time, and the maskless – especially those who were unvaccinated – were to blame. As governments relaxed the restrictions, they felt they needed to step up.

“I was like, ‘Okay, this is not right. This is f—–,'” says [Alyson] Hardwick, a second-year university student who does not have any underlying health conditions. The last time she ate indoors at a restaurant was in October 2022 for her 31st birthday. “I felt sketched out [uneasy],” she recalls. “I was leaving every place I was going inside without a mask, wondering, ‘Did I get it?’”

Hardwick began wearing a respirator mask – specialised, disposable facepieces called N95s or N99s which offer more comprehensive protection than a surgical mask – and spending most of her time alone.

She’s ostracised herself from other people and posts thousands of clips online and argues that it’s everyone else, not her, who is living in fear. “Denial is a fear response,” she insists.

Hardwick’s stance exemplifies the increasingly fraught Zero Covid movement – a citizen-led campaign across the Western world to keep the air clean. She is just one of thousands of geographically disparate people, many of whom are not immunocompromised, who are still living in their own self-imposed lockdowns, fearful of becoming one of the millions to suffer with serious long Covid symptoms, or anxious about transmitting the virus to someone less fortunate. Zero Covid has adherents across North America and Europe, including some in the UK, but followers from the US and Canada are the most visible online.

The charged movement to end ‘pandemic denialism’ has some high-profile advocates, including Left-wing US journalist Taylor Lorenz. “If ur [sic] not masking ur absolutely facilitating eugenics,” Lorenz posted to her 350,000 followers on X on December 6th.

“Refusing to mask during an ongoing pandemic is absolutely violent and it’s undeniably participating in social murder,” she said in another recent post, as well as calling out Leftist “super spreader” events. “You are actively *killing* and maiming people around you by intentionally spreading airborne disease during an active pandemic.” (Separately, she pilloried non-maskers for “raw-dogging the air and spewing ur disease laden breath all over ur elderly neighbours”.)

By 2022, the pandemic and the panicked measures were retreating into the past:

But the cautious, despite getting vaccinated and then boosted, couldn’t move on. Online communities became lifelines as in-person social circles frayed. Campaigners pushed ‘clean air’ as the next public-health frontier, and offered seatbelt analogies for masking: mildly inconvenient, obviously protective.

Masking was increasingly framed as an act of love, and it was overwhelmingly Left-wing groups which encouraged – even mandated – their continued use. Stevie Nicks of Fleetwood Mac encouraged continued mask wearing. “I f—— hate the masks, but I wear them,” she said. “People give you dirty looks. I dare anybody to give me a dirty look. I would just say, ‘Hey, you know what? I’m Stevie Nicks.'”

That would presumably be the same Stevie Nicks who reportedly blew a hole through her nose from snorting cocaine. By 2023 mask use was largely discredited, but the Telegraph quotes a Mayo Clinic source:

“People who rebuilt their entire lives and recast their identities around reducing the risk of catching Covid to zero couldn’t deal with this,” one former ardent Zero Covider recalls, speaking to me on condition of anonymity. “The movement devolved into a massive online circle-jerk where members blindly validate each other on taking disproportionate precautions.

One ardent proponent of masking says that’s the way he’ll spend the rest of his life:

“I don’t just, like, go out the way I used to,” says Evan Sachs, who is in his early 30s and lives in New York with his three cats. He always wears a mask outdoors.

“Sometimes it’s a bummer.” Not because masking is keeping him from living his life, he adds, “but because other people [selfishly] aren’t doing the ‘wearing your pants’ levels of easy things” to keep everyone safe. He runs a ‘bloc’ in the Washington Heights area of New York which distributes personal protective equipment (PPE) to less well-off communities. “I do not have Long Covid, thank goodness,” Sachs adds. “I am very, very lucky on that front.”

He doesn’t want to get it either. “I honestly think I would [mask forever],” he says.’

An Austrian doctor called Spela Salomon has no time for non-maskers:

Outside work, she does not spend time with people who do not take equal precautions. “I just don’t feel like I get anything out of hanging around the maskless masses,” she says. “It’s sad and isolating.” In an article published by the World Health Network earlier this year, Salomon predicted that a rising toll of Covid complications would lead to a societal shift in which air quality is recognised as an essential public health priority like potable water. “It is those who persist in denial who are truly living in fear,” she wrote, echoing Hardwick’s sentiment in her social media video.

It appears that the forever maskers have become so dedicated to the cause that they are even fetishizing masks:

US college student Bela waxes lyrical about her powered air-purifying respirator, certified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. “It blows air out so that no outside air can get in through the edges from a poor fit or seal,” she told campaign group MaskTogetherAmerica.

Meanwhile, Alyson Hardwick is increasingly focused on her “new passion for Covid”:

Getting a booster jab at least every six months is, for her, a necessary response to what she calls a “mass disability event in slow motion” that has completely transformed her life. “I’m rarely ever sharing air with people,” she says. If she does meet up with anyone, it will be other Covid-safe people, outdoors. “I feel safe around them, because they’re also masking everywhere.”

Worth reading in full if only to explore the infinite capacity of human beings to turn any cause into a cult, however bizarre the rituals and customs devised to pursue their beliefs.

Offit Lied to CNN About ACIP Meeting, Hepatitis B Data. CNN Didn’t Fact-Check Him

Dr. Paul Offit told CNN that the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices didn’t invite him to speak at their meeting last week. However, internal documents show the CDC contacted him by email and phone, and sent him a speaker-request form. Offit also falsely claimed that “50% of people in this country” are chronically infected with hepatitis B without knowing it.

When Dr. Paul Offit appeared on CNN on Dec. 5 to discuss the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) contentious hepatitis B meeting, he spoke with the certainty that has made him one of legacy media’s go-to commentators on vaccines.

Offit told viewers he had not been invited to speak at the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting that was unfolding in Atlanta that very day.

That claim was false.

CDC officials had contacted him repeatedly — via emails, phone calls and a speaker-request form — inviting him to present at the upcoming meeting.

Offit acknowledged receiving a request, but then told the audience he was not invited to attend.

From there, the misinformation only escalated.

He warned viewers that “millions” of Americans were silently carrying hepatitis B, claimed that “50% of people in this country” were chronically infected without knowing it and suggested newborns were at risk through everyday contact with nannies, daycare workers and family members.

None of those claims was true.

But the CNN host did not challenge him. No fact-checker intervened. And once again, a highly amplified “expert” delivered a series of false statements that left the public with a distorted picture of the facts.

Flu Vaccines Contain RNA That Trigger Positive PCR Test Results: 'Journal of Medical Microbiology'

Is the "chilling" rise in flu cases nationwide attributable to PCR tests detecting vaccine RNA, not wild virus?

Mainstream news outlets are broadcasting that there is a “chilling” rise in flu cases, with Colorado, Louisiana, and New York experiencing the “fastest increases in influenza cases.”

However, the rise in cases follows flu vaccination campaigns in those states, which raises questions about vaccine efficacy.

But it also raises questions about whether the vaccinations themselves are contributing to the increasing case numbers.

For example, the New Orleans Health Department (NOHD) launched a flu vaccination campaign in early October.

NYC Health Department similarly launched an October push urging all residents 6 months and older to get flu shots.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s (CDPHE) influenza webpage was updated the same month to promote flu vaccination.

These campaigns are meant to increase flu vaccine uptake.

Now there’s a rise in influenza cases, which are counted using positive PCR test results.

Stanford led study: at least 20,000 global deaths from COVID jabs

New COVID Vax Paper Breaks with the Narrative

In a high-profile analysis published in JAMA Health Forum, a team from Stanford University, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore and the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS led by John P. A. Ioannidis set out to answer one of the most contested questions of the pandemic era: How many lives did COVID-19 vaccination actually save worldwide? The study estimates that COVID-19 vaccination averted approximately 2.5 million deaths globally between 2020 and 2024, with a wide uncertainty range of 1.4 to 4.0 million, and saved about 15 million life-years, though results depend heavily on modeling assumptions. Nearly 90% of deaths averted occurred in adults aged 60 years and older, while children, adolescents, and young adults contributed a negligible share of the total benefit. Compared with earlier pandemic models, these findings suggest a far more limited, age-concentrated mortality benefit, particularly during the Omicron period and among those vaccinated before first infection.

A Quiet but Explosive Admission
Dr. Ioannidis and colleagues make an unusually candid concession for a high-profile vaccine-benefit paper: they do not separate deaths averted by vaccine effectiveness from deaths caused by vaccine-related harms. In fact they explicitly acknowledge that randomized trial data are insufficient to quantify vaccine-associated mortality and that estimates derived from registries and observational sources carry “substantial uncertainty.”

This is not a minor caveat—it is a structural limitation of the analysis. The authors further note that, depending on ethical framing and risk aversion, a death caused by an intervention may not be considered equivalent to a death averted by it, particularly when harms cluster in specific subpopulations.

To put bounds around this uncertainty, the authors turn to eAppendix 2 (Supplement 1), where they restrict analysis to widely recognized and accepted fatal adverse events: thrombosis with thrombocytopenia after adenovirus-vector vaccines, myocarditis following mRNA vaccines (primarily in younger males), and deaths temporally associated with vaccination in highly debilitated nursing-home residents.

Using global administration data (~13.64 billion doses) and conservative risk assumptions, they estimate roughly 20,000 vaccine-associated deaths worldwide, while an independent extrapolation from Qatar’s national mortality review suggests a broader range of approximately 16,000 to 48,000 deaths.

Compared with the study’s central estimate of ~2.5 million lives saved, this supports the authors’ statement that vaccine-related deaths were “probably” about two orders of magnitude lower than benefits at the population level.

The critical word is “probably.” The authors explicitly state that these adverse-event death estimates carry “very large uncertainty” and emphasize that the margin between benefit and harm may be substantially smaller—or even reversed—in specific subgroups where risks are concentrated and benefits are limited, such as younger males or frail elderly residents.

In effect, the paper concedes that while COVID-19 vaccination likely reduced mortality overall, net benefit was neither uniform nor guaranteed across populations. A bombshell acknowledgment—confined to the supplement rather than the abstract—directly challenges any absolutist claim that vaccine harms were negligible or irrelevant and represents a rare moment of methodological and ethical candor in the COVID-19 vaccine literature.

USDA’s Bird Flu Test Matches Bird and Cow DNA, Not Just Viral DNA: BLAST Data

Are we spiraling toward a false pandemic because PCR tests are detecting host DNA instead of virus?

The genetic sequence of the forward primer in the PCR test used by the government to detect bird flu matches sequences in cow and bird genomes, raising questions about how many reported “positives” reflect true viral detection or nonspecific amplification of host DNA.

The revelation comes after the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently gave bird flu permanent emergency status.

Dairy cattle and poultry remain the primary animals at the center of the ongoing H5N1 avian influenza (HPAI) situation.

Positive PCR test results are used to justify how many bird flu cases are reported, which in turn drives public health responses, trade restrictions, and emergency policy decisions—like declaring pandemics.

But if the PCR test is detecting bird and cow host DNA, not just viral genetics, how many reported bird flu cases are actually false positives and therefore shouldn’t be counted?

We plugged the PCR forward primer sequence into the U.S. government’s BLAST (Basic Local Alignment Search Tool) software.

All 12 Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Studies Found the Same Thing: Unvaccinated Children Are Far Healthier

Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher on The HighWire

I joined Del Bigtree in studio on The HighWire to discuss what the data now make unavoidable: the CDC’s 81-dose hyper-vaccination schedule is driving the modern epidemics of chronic disease and autism.

This was not a philosophical debate or a clash of opinions. We walked through irrefutable, peer-reviewed evidence showing that whenever vaccinated and unvaccinated children are compared directly, the unvaccinated group is far healthier—every single time.

They Can't Tell If Measles Infection Is Caused by Wild Virus or Vaccine Virus

'BMC Infectious Diseases' journal publication confirms measles vaccine does cause measles infection—but most of the time, even genetic analysis can't determine where the infection came from.

In this video, we walk through a newly published BMC Infectious Diseases study showing that public health authorities often cannot determine whether measles-like illness in vaccinated infants is caused by a wild measles virus or the live virus contained in the measles vaccine itself

This raises questions about vaccine recommendations.

If genetic analysis can’t tell us whether a virus or a vaccine causes measles, why are we recommending vaccines?