26 Comments
User's avatar
Paul Youngs's avatar

I note the usefulness of the term 'Asymptomatic':

Asymptomatic Covid

Asymptomatic Climate Change

Asymptomatic Democracy

Expand full comment
Lance's avatar

I wish I could pay asymptomatic taxes.

"Warning: actual currency may not be included"

Expand full comment
Jamie Andrews's avatar

Lolololol

Expand full comment
Paul Youngs's avatar

🤣🤣🤣

Expand full comment
Thomas Kenworthy's avatar

For democracracy its literal meaning is "rule of the people" but it has become synonym with "parlamentarism".

Term "democracy" (meaning parlamentarism) has been propped up by tons of propaganda since WWI.

Qustioning the equation of parlamentarism and democracracy is a big stone to turn.

Expand full comment
Amaterasu Solar's avatar

Demo(n)cracy is ghastly. Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Far better is solutocracy.

Solutocracy – A Way to Govern (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/solutocracy-a-way-to-govern

Expand full comment
Rider's avatar

Democracy today and for generations has meant: The imposition of left wing tyranny by whatever methods are found to be necessary. Recall the long list of nation-states in the twentieth century that adopted Demoncratic" in their graniose labeling: The Peoples Democratic Republic of Albania (or whatever...there were 20 of those).

Expand full comment
Adam Antium's avatar

When you're right, you're right!

Expand full comment
matt. j.a.o.b's avatar

I tried to do the annual sub to give support but it just brings up a big picture of the link but won't process it when clicking. You are being suppressed , possibly.

A stack I have been a paid sub to for 2 years was recently cut off as my bank defaulted the payment even though there was plenty of $ to cover it.

Yours is the first where the paid sub button won't work. It could be me possibly being suppressed at my end though - not sure.

Keep up the good works ,

Thanks, m.

Expand full comment
Frances Leader's avatar

You were trying to suppress a button within an image of the button. Use the "subscribe" button at the top right hand of the page and all will be well.

Expand full comment
matt. j.a.o.b's avatar

I am an old luddite sometimes. Thanks. Just managed to do it after also trying to gift myself a sub.

Expand full comment
Jamie Andrews's avatar

Thank you for trying Matt... yes I am being heavily suppressed on here now thinking that I was moving away from all the shit on Twitter. Not sure what to suggest.

Expand full comment
Jo Scraba's avatar

This article made me laugh so hard, I upgraded to a paid subscription.

What amazes me is how ingrained behavior has become around germ theory. People will listen to arguments against infectious anything, agree that the failure of research to ever accomplish human to human transmission (including COVID) despite >200 attempts, they immediately revert to being afraid of “catching” something from an ill friend. We think we know far more than we actually know, and the dogma is dug in, so to speak. While faith in “health care” professionals took a hit over the COVID nonsense, people I talk to still have strong belief in their own doctors, none of which have looked at a research article since graduating medical school. Ah well. Thanks for what you do — I appreciate your articles greatly!

Expand full comment
Jamie Andrews's avatar

Thank you Jo for your support. I couldn't/wouldn't do it without you. I think you have to laugh at the absurdity of it all... yes the Contagion studies are THE area of truely understanding the fraud of germ theory.

Expand full comment
Proton Magic's avatar

This seems to me like a ginned up fake outbreak to see how people would react and how much they would believe in a pcr. Here in fig six

https://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/Vaccines.html

you can see deaths from Pertussis. The vax introduced in 1949 there were only 2 deaths per 100,000 down from a high of about 12/100,000 in 1900. The vax did jack shit and the article saying it helped 80% of persons is a mistaken statement to say the least.

Expand full comment
Jamie Andrews's avatar

Interesting thanks

Expand full comment
Thomas Kenworthy's avatar

This New York Times article & the "Corman Drosten Review" together with learning that the efficiency of the "vaccines was tested using PCR was the final nail in coffin me deciding late 2020 NOT taking the "vaccine".

No way I was taking a vaccine verified with the totally crappy PCR test.

Expand full comment
Adam Antium's avatar

Awesome brother!! Congrats! Truth speaks for itself...

Expand full comment
Jamie Andrews's avatar

Cheers mate 👍

Expand full comment
ClearMiddle's avatar

Provide beneficial bacteria with the _wrong_ environment and they just might turn "pathogenic". But that doesn't support the fraud very well. It would be looking at causes instead.

There is lots of coughing going on here, myself included. Out-of-season allergies are one possibility, but then the seasons themselves don't seem to be working quite right any more. We're growing some of our own food out back, and strange stuff is happening with that.

Expand full comment
Jamie Andrews's avatar

Yes our summer here in France has been all over the place. 40 degrees some weeks. Grey and in the 20s the next. The plants are getting a good watering however, but yes some oddities. One thing that is always an interesting observation with this is the insects. We get one group of insects every year which seem to hit their ecological niche and just explode. One year daddy long legs, the next ladybirds, last year it was stink beetles. One can only imagine this is happening on the micro as well as macro scale.

Expand full comment
richardw's avatar

Your assertion was that the participants in the up the nose with a rubber hose study were required to be vaccinated. I’m not sure that’s the case. It said in the part you displayed that “…vaccinated no less than 5 years before”. So, if vaccinated 4 years ago you don’t qualify. Is this a requirement that they be vaccinated or that if they were it had time to wear off as it were? I don’t know, but since the vaccine doesn’t work anyway would it matter, or as anti vaxxers did they put this red herring in to get it past the censor? Another point is the keystone cops aspect of the Dartmouth outbreak. So they immediately administer vaccines AND antibiotics to everyone to stop a bacterial disease. This seems like a shotgun approach except some pellets go forward and others go backwards. Basic vaccine theory is that you can’t vaccinate your way out of a pandemic, too late (I know, I know). Plus wouldn’t the antibiotic cancel the vaccine? Maybe it’s like the scissors-rock-paper game. Finally a personal anecdote, back in the ‘60s we had what was called ‘whooping cough’ run through my family. Supposedly all my 7 siblings living at home at the time got it except me. I was maybe 7 or so at the time and perhaps I had survivor guilt or something but I thought I should have it too, so I forced myself to cough and hack and my mother told me that I didn’t have it. We were a poor family and never went to the doctor although my dad worked at the hospital. I never even got a tetanus shot when I stepped on a rusty roofing nail, just soaked it in epsom salts. The first vax I ever got was so I could enter college. For that matter I never went to a dentist until I was 24 and then got the full complement of mercury fillings.

Expand full comment
Jamie Andrews's avatar

Hi Richard... yes the absurdity of just firing drugs at people the moment they get a slight sniffle seems to be the medical establishment approach to "health" in general. You could be right on the vax front.. it is certainly a strange way of writing it. Is no "less" assuming that the vaccine is wearing off, so all people must have been vaccinated more recently than 5 years? Or as you say, grammatically it reads that they would omit people vaccinated less than 5 years ago.... interested if others want to pitch in on their interpretation.

Expand full comment
Rider's avatar

The cases in the whooping cough study you mentioned that exhibited some degree of coughing after unnatural exposure to the bacterium, those cases were not taken as whooping infections because they were not characteristic of the "whooping cough symptoms"? Or was this another study in which vague general symptoms qualify for evidence of transmissibility of whooping cough infection because that's what the study designers wanted to find?

Probably, if there were study subjects included who had been vaccinated for whooping cough earlier, any whooping cough symtomswould necessarily be attributed to some other disease, because WC vaccination protects against WC. As they do with measles, chicken pox etc.

I should read the study but other matters come first., thank you.

Expand full comment
Jamie Andrews's avatar

They registered ~30% coughs in one group. This was in a group with a medium dose. At the highest dose of bacteria there was no coughing this suggests that the “coughing” was not persistent and does not correlate with being caused by the bacterial dose

Expand full comment
Frances Leader's avatar

Whooping for Joy. Thanks for the permission! 🤣😂The local cats now believe that a wolf lives in this house.... Great! Maybe they will stop sneaking in my windows to nick scraps! I will keep a look out for your orange ticky fing! It was quite a thrill when I got mine, I admit! xx

Expand full comment