Boriquagato

This parallels an article that someone I follow wrote a couple of weeks ago. His way of describing this is the "second world effect". The article is better than I could write (link below). But basically, the "third world" is a low-trust society and everyone understands that and behaves in a defensive way. The "first world" is a high-trust society where things work. There is a discontinuous jump from third to first world once the culture has enough high-trust built in. But if the first world devolves back to low-trust, it doesn't go back to third world, it transitions to "second world" where things look like the first world, but nothing works any more because it's low-trust, but the society hasn't really recognized that. https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/the-second-world

Bad Cattitude. https://boriquagato.substack.com/ Dead Man Talking. https://metatron.substack.com/ PANDA Uncut. https://pandauncut.substack.com/ Some data driven sanity in the last 3 years.

If you dig into the actual data cited in the paper, the assertion that recovery was demonstrated at T3 is dodgy at best. The study authors may have put some reassuring language in their commentary to get past political roadblocks to publication. I would not have added the quotes myself, but they're not necessarily misplaced. https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/pfizer-vaccine-effects-on-total-mot…

El Gato Malo, was banned from twitter for what was an innocuous post, probably for being 2 years ahead on the COVID narrative and used public data sources to refute the consensus on lockdowns. https://boriquagato.substack.com/

For viral diseases, especially coronavirises. Source for the explanation of the myth/urban legend? Immune system escape can occur, usually in adults, but generally not in children because their immune systems are young and not 'trained' so do a great general response effort. Vaccines force a targeting of the immune system (e.g. particular spike proteins) that specifically leads to escape, as we're seeing with the vaccines being not only mostly useless, but potentially worse for Omicron. Per capita not wrong, just not everywhere yet. Example: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/new-data-on-vaccine-efficacy-from

I was once like you. When I first learned about negative effectiveness I thought that was crazy. That's not possible surely? Hah. I was such a child. It can happen, has happened in the past with other vaccines and has now happened in a big way with COVID vaccines. The biological mechanisms are well known by immunologists for many years, look for "OAS" and imprinting. Or heck read the fine article we're discussing on this thread, which is about the body making the wrong sort of antibodies due to over-exposure (which makes it easier to become infected). You don't have to believe me. Maybe you'll believe Dr Fauci: https://youtu.be/uagsb4wii3E?t=3401 so when you have that many people in a trial 56:41 not only are you looking to see if it works but you're constantly keeping your eye 56:47 on safety to make sure that a vaccine actually doesn't enhance disease He says they have to watch to make sure vaccines don't enhance disease, because negative effectiveness is a problem that's occurred in the past especially with HIV vaccines. So now we established that my comment doesn't reek of BS, here's data on covid vaxx negative efficacy: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/theres-something-antigenic-in-denma… https://dailysceptic.org/tag/negative-efficacy/ Follow the white rabbit but don't use search engines. Searching the obvious queries on both google and duckduckgo gives back CDC propaganda and none of the results actually discuss negative efficacy. The extent of…

"There are ton of garbage science around. That makes me even less confident about things that are not even science." Your argument, or world view, is that you can determine what's true by looking at who scientists trust and the peer reviews of these scientists. I've just named a man who is by universal academic consensus a scientist, but who - as you're aware - produces garbage science without any pushback. In fact, as far as epidemiology is concerned, ICL are the bees knees. One of their worst most obviously garbage papers has over 1300 citations! And so your answer is that scientists don't spend time rebutting it (and never have) because it's so obviously bad they don't need to? Why do they keep citing it then? Where are the initial takedowns that established so strongly this guy was a fraud that scientists don't feel a need to write any more, and why do no governments seem to be aware of this? Put another way, how can you determine which scientists are doing good work vs bad if all the available evidence, like citation counts, suggests they don't care and confuse bad work for good all the time? Remember that scientists are always "selling", which is why they complain about the grant application process so much. They are selling interesting claims to governments, not exactly known for being discerning buyers. "It took even more years of solid journalistic investigation to show how much of a fraud he was." Yes, it was hard work. Do you think current mainstream…

Fertility rate dropped because its long trend, at least in EU. Ukraine is not a problem (if you dont read news), inflation cause worries for families much more. https://www.humanfertility.org/Data/STFF Also, something else caused overall fertility drop rate in 2022, but that is another topic. https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/more-natality-data-from-other-count…

Yeah I wonder for how many seconds it was there, since you can't even count it in hours, but "UFO" is still there as the biggest news in world as you can see in my screenshot and also by visiting the page. For instance if I would not be BANNED from posting links on HN I'd post also this which I find more interesting news affecting everyone than some dumb made up baloons which are on par with Iraqi WMD https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/more-natality-data-from-other-count… But aparently I'm ALWAYS posting too fast only when it comes to posts, but have no such problems with comments, it's sad how low can go HN in shadowbanning users without transparently communicating why is one banned from something.

https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/dramatic-decrease-in-births-in-germa… https://igorchudov.substack.com/archive?sort=search&search=fertili… https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/swedish-birth-rate-data-what-does https://alexberenson.substack.com/?sort=search&search=fertility

Here's some data that shows the strongest predictor of long covid is whether or not your parents are claiming long covid: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/social-contagion-is-long-covid-ofte… It's especially interesting because that predictor is stronger than whether or not anyone involved has ever tested positive for covid.

Well, I'm not a doctor, just someone doing stats for doctors...but I think we're going to start seeing it as we're reaching the 9-month mark from the big push for child-bearing-age vaccination. It's starting to show up in Sweden and (I think) Taiwan, but it's not something I'm really studying. https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/sweden-birthrate-update-may-data

Part 2 here: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/are-we-pfinding-pfizer-pfraud-part-…

> For example, if you don't understand the scientific method well enough to believe that Covid exists, Lots of people are completely immune to the SARS-CoV-2: they're exposed to the virus, but their bodies shut down replication without even having to mount an immune response. Adequate Vitamin D is one factor that's gotten a wee little bit of coverage. > you probably aren't going to like my policies for mitigating it. Many Italians don't like their government's policies for mitigation: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/protest-in-trieste-we-the-people

Other ideas https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/the-vaccinated-superspread-hypothes… It is all much more opaque than the "get your vacc and your old live comes back" evangelists want you too believe. Corona will stay.

Fine, here are sources. The devil is in the details. That's a graph of deaths that are COVID positive at or shortly before death. I said "fatality rates" without that qualification. Hopefully we both agree that vaccines are useless if they just change cause of death without reducing actual mortality rates. It's usually better to use UK data than US. US/CDC data is rather useless and corrupted (e.g. they like to classify someone as unvaccinated if the hospital couldn't quickly find proof they are vaccinated, which isn't at all the same thing). No country has quality data and the UK's has its own problems, but in general the UK statistical releases provide more data and more accurate data. Same biology everywhere so that shouldn't be an issue. https://bartram.substack.com/p/update-on-the-failure-of-the-vaccines "It appears that things have got somewhat worse since last week’s report, with the hospitalisation and death rates in the double vaccinated (not boosted) exceeding that seen in the unvaccinated for all aged over 70, and with a higher death rate in those aged over 60 as well. What’s more, there now appears to be practically no benefit of vaccination with two doses of vaccine for those aged under 60, in terms of the remaining protection against hospitalisation and death." Another analysis on the UK data (lots of graphs etc) https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/all-cause-deaths-and-vaccination Analyzing US data is harder. But you can see an attempt to control for…

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/bangladesh-mask-study-do-not-believ… https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article "At present there is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 (75). A large randomized community-based trial in which 4862 healthy participants were divided into a group wearing medical/surgical masks and a control group found no difference in infection with SARS-CoV-2 (76). A recent systematic review found nine trials (of which eight were cluster-randomized controlled trials in which clusters of people, versus individuals, were randomized) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness. Two trials were with healthcare workers and seven in the community. The review concluded that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the prevention of influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.18) or laboratory confirmed illness (LCI) (RR 0.91, 95%CI 0.66-1.26) (44); the certainty of the evidence was low for ILI, moderate for LCI." https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/337199/WHO-2019-nCov-… https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7546829/