Canadian Covid Tribunals: Recommendations not Laws

A few days ago I wrote "FDA: Liar, Liar Pants On Fire".

The gist of this is that the FDA claims its position on Ivermectin was only a "recommendation" and therefore the FDA is not liable for any lawsuits as a result of actions taken on behalf of these "recommendations".

Perhaps, I thought, this is just one lawsuit, one instance.  So perhaps I was mistaken.

Unfortunately for those impacted, there is now foreign confirmation of this.

I watched a portion of the live stream identified by https://substack.com/inbox/post/86378102. (Thanks to the Unconditional Jessica blog on substack for sharing the video link!)

"This Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 9:00 am (Eastern Standard Time), there will be a tribunal hearing in the case of Drs. Phillips, Trozzi, and Luchkiw. In my expert opinion, the overwhelming weight of the peer-reviewed scientific literature shows that these are doctors that had incredible foresight and courage at a time when their views were considered unpopular by less critically thinking physicians. Their abilities to practice medicine have been restricted by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Personally, I am keen to observe if this will be a COVID-19-related legal decision that is made based on the weight of the scientific evidence. If so, it will be a conspicuously rare occurrence in Canada where COVID-19-related legal decisions have been made based on anything but the evidence. In this country, legal proceedings can be overseen by the public" [underline mine].

Below is a live feed from Ontario - not sure how long it will be on, or if there will be a recorded video after the hearing is over.

So what's important about this video?

The key takeaway here is that, in Canada, the defense of these doctors by their lawyer is that the Canadian health authorities (the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario above) did not and do not have the authority to enforce anything but the law.

And, as it turns out, the only thing the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for Covid did was to make "recommendations."  Recommendations on how to treat Covid.

Thus, according to their lawyer, there is simply no case against these doctors because going against a "recommendation" is not illegal.  The lawyer made a persuasive case all the way up to the Canadian Supreme Court doctors have the freedom to treat patients as they see fit so long as they do not violate the law.

Therefore actions taken against the doctors to interfere with their practice of medicine are in fact the crimes.

I do not know when the "results" of these hearings will be made public but I hope it will be soon.

So, to my original post.

Indeed, the defense of the FDA and CDC will be they must made recommendations.

On the other hand, private and public agencies that interfered doctors treating patients (as well, I believe, private and public agencies interfering with business operations, food preparation and delivery, etc. etc.) are going to end up being liable for damages to these doctors, individuals and business.

Twitter: Bathroom Stall Wall of the World

As a young child born middle end of the twentieth century I vividly recall visits to public restrooms.

Malodorous, un-flushed remains, empty and vandalized toilet paper dispensers, runs of toilet paper strewn across the floor and into the urinals, horrifying uncleanliness, smashed and broken porcelain.  Something to be avoided at almost all costs...

But there was, almost always, a singularly interesting and even inspiring aspect: the messaging (or perhaps artwork) on the walls of the stalls.

"For a good time call Jennifer 999-9999" (No area code needed in those days.) 

Messages about bodily functions, broken heartedness, art, poetry and so on.

The most important aspect of this, with regard to Twitter, is of course, the "anonymous" aspect of it all.

Who was it, exactly, that had (perhaps biblical) knowledge of "Jennifier"?

Of course, you could never know.  

Sure, you might suspect someone, perhaps even a dear, close friend, of having the courage to deface your favorite stall by observing stall use and wall changes day to day.  But really, you never knew for sure who had written what or why they had written it.

Like the modern Twitter you were exposed to a variety of artwork, poems and other "free" content foisted upon you by legions of unknown "benefactors".

On day one of Twitter's creation I marveled at the shear genius of

• Limiting text to a mere 140 characters (just like the limit your Bic pen imposed if you tilted your pen from a seated position to write on the stall wall).  
  
  
• The cleverness of ensuring no one really knew who was writing what.  
  
  
• The implicit deniability associated with the fact that your phone or computer was never totally under you full control 24 x 7 365.  
  
  
• The obvious uses for clandestine messaging.
  
  
• And all without the danger of actual, physical excrement being in play at any point during the communication.

Indeed, the brilliance with which Twitter was able to capture the true essence of bathroom stall wall communications was unparalleled.

But, unlike the stall walls of old, Twitter, through clever use of computers created a virtual infinity mirror effect providing limitless stall walls for everyone in the world to see and use.

Today the history of bathroom stall communications (back even to Roman times) and Twitter pale in the light of what many "moderns" think about Twitter.

Now let's consider "Verified’ anti-vax accounts proliferate as Twitter struggles to police content".  This sad tome tells the woeful tale of how, without Twitter's crack (no pun intended) staff content moderators Twitter users will be exposed to "health misinformation".  They particularly lament the fact that your $7.99 USD "verified account" gives you absolute power over the minds of endless lemmings gathered to lap up content at the shores of the Twitter misinformation information sea.

From the link: “There’s a sense of legitimacy that comes with it [the $7.99 account],” said Barry. “By verifying this anti-vaccine account, they’re kind of verifying all of the misinformation it shares … it makes people think, ‘Oh, well, this is a verified account. This must be true.’”

Seriously?

"I saw it on the internets - must be true..."

No, dear Twitterati, no one but you, apparently, actually believes Twitter to be more than a clever simulation of a bathroom stall.

The article goes on and one about how "anti-vaccine" and "anti-science" posts, including, of course, those from the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and other scientific publications.  See this BMJ link, as an example, covering "Myocarditis and pericarditis risk after covid-19 vaccination."  Indeed, the authors, Jing Luo, assistant professor and  Walid F Gellad, professor, seem to have not gotten the "misinformation" memo as they conclude "... a large body of reviewed studies continues to suggest that mRNA covid-19 vaccines are associated with a rare but heightened risk of acute myocarditis and pericarditis. These risks are highest in young males shortly after the second dose. ..."

Perhaps their Twitter accounts were suspended?

And did I find this article on Twitter?  No, of course not!

It came via "MedPage Today" - a popular medical rag that writes constantly about woes and misery of billion dollar corporations and government agencies and their failure to control everyone's thoughts, lives and health.

God forbid Eli Lilly's stock drops because someone thinks they now have a conscience or Robert F Kennedy Jr speak freely...

Certainly Elon Musk has his work cut out for him.

The only way Twitter can make its way out of the bathroom and on to some at least minimal legitimacy is to require actual verification of its users: driver license or other id. (Of course, it's easy enough to verify yourself the source or author of information, but I suppose this is beyond the reach of the average lemming.)

If you want true, verified content, demand actual links to sources, CVs, resume's, etc. turn on "child mode" and you'll be safe.

Just like you would expect from an actual, may they rest in peace, news organization.

If you want me to live in your "child mode" you can forget it...

There are far too many other "sources of truth" at this point to really care one way or the other about Twitter.  And that's the real problem Musk faces...

Perhaps Musk, like a modern Hercules, can flush out the modern Augean Stables of Twitter.

Only time will tell.

FDA: Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!

Back in June, 2022 three US doctors (Robert L. Apter, M.D., FACEP, Mary Talley Bowden, M.D. and Paul E. Marik, MBBCh, M.MED, FCCM, FCCP) sued the FDA.  These doctors were disciplined over their use of Ivermectin to treat the Covid.  (Lawsuit here.)

According to these doctors the FDA said, at the time of the disciplining and still says on their web site as of this writing, that (see horse image right/below as well):

• The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. Ivermectin is approved for human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea.
  
  
• Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. Clinical trials assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing.
  
  
• Taking large doses of ivermectin is dangerous.
  
  
• If your health care provider writes you an ivermectin prescription, fill it through a legitimate source such as a pharmacy, and take it exactly as prescribed. 
  
  
• Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous. 

The FDA, according to the suit, also said a number of other similar things.

According to the doctor's lawyer on Epoch Times (link here):

From the linked FDA web page.

“The FDA has made public statements on ivermectin that have been misleading and have raised unwarranted concern over a critical drug in preventing and treating COVID-19,” Marik told The Epoch Times. “To do this is to ignore both statutory limits on the FDA’s authority and the significant body of scientific evidence from peer-reviewed research.”

Fast forward to today.  We are in Federal court.  Here's what the FDA attorney's have to say (source here):

“The cited statements were not directives. They were not mandatory. They were recommendations [underline mine]. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin,” Isaac Belfer, one of the FDA.

Just a "recommendation" - right...  What you "should do".  That's a directive, not a request, especially when you are the biggest bully on the block...

How about this Mr. FDA for "consequences" of your "recommendations" (just a few of many):

https://www.abc27.com/news/top-stories/doctor-accused-of-mass-prescribing-ivermectin-hydroxychloroquine-fired-by-pa-hospital/

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/04/us/pennsylvania-doctor-ivermectin-fired.html

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/26/us/covid-ivermectin-arkansas-doctor/index.html

(Note on the last one - it mentions the "FDA Warning" - hmmm - see how some interpret "should do" - I wonder what that exact warning was?)

Funny how, when under oath, things become a bit different clearer.

(Remember, we are following the science here...)

Jared Kelson, the plaintiffs attorney, told the court that informal claim “doesn’t explain the language they actually used: ‘Stop it. Stop it with the ivermectin.'”

The FDA’s posts, comments, and actions “clearly convey that this is not an acceptable way to treat these patients,” Kelson argued.

We also know the government, including the FDA, were in cahoots with Facebook and other big tech social media companies (see my post on this here).

Words and actions have consequences, Mr. FDA.

Today we also know, from situations like Honduras about which I reported here, that Ivermectin works in this context.

From this more recent Epoch Times article:

“Plaintiffs have also not shown that any of their claimed injuries are fairly traceable to defendants’ statements because their injuries were caused by independent third-party conduct that was not a predictable response to those statements,” Belfer, an FDA lawyer, said in response to Kelson.

Belfer noted that the FDA’s pages say people can use ivermectin if their health care provider prescribes it, argued the statements “did not bind the public or FDA, did not interpret any substantive rules, and did not set agency policy,” and said the FDA’s position could change in the future if new data become available.

“They also do not have legal consequences for anyone but simply provide nonbinding recommendations to consumers,” he said.

Just take a look at the FDA vaping media (see https://www.fda.gov/media/159410/download) and its consequences.  No more vaping, period.  Sure, the FDA is just "making a recommendation"... Destroying entire industries and increasing use of combustion tobacco - but no matter...

Attorney Kelson disagreed: “If the government is going to label ivermectin a horse medicine or a horse dewormer and promulgate the idea that it is only for animals, then the natural correlation is that doctors who prescribe it are horse doctors or quack doctors, which has played out,” he said. “That is enough of a harm to get into court,” or have the motion to dismiss rejected, he said.

“The government engaged in a singularly effective campaign here to malign a common drug that has been used for a very long time and has been dispensed in billions of doses. It’s one of the most famously safe drugs in the history of human medicine. And when people did exactly what the FDA said to ‘Stop it. Stop it with the ivermectin,’ I don’t understand how that would not be traceable back to the FDA,” Kelson said.

It will be interesting to see what the judge rules...

星漢燦爛•月升滄海, Deadwind, Dehli Crime and all that...

If you are like me then very likely you are disgusted and/or bored by the nonsense spewed by Hollywood.

There are, however, many good things to watch created in foreign countries (so long as you can tolerate subtitles).

What's so interesting to me is how each country addresses story telling.  Outside the US things are quite traditional - at least as far as what I am interested in watching.  Law and order in most other countries depends on honor.  You don't see trials nor do you see people weaseling out of their responsibilities.  Honor is important outside the US, and if these shows are any indication, it won't be going away anytime soon.

Here's a list of a few:

Love Like the Galaxy (星漢燦爛•月升滄海)

(Available on Viki. Viki is something like an Asian Netflix.  An annual subscription is around $100 USD.  Wikipedia link.)

This is more or less a romance in ancient China with elements of war and strategy.  There are some excellent action scenes as well.  This is every bit as good as something like Game of Thrones without all the gratuitous sex and violence.  Yes, there is some war related blood but it's not the be-all end-all of the movie.

What you'll see: thoughtful dialog, excellent plot and screenplay, over all very good film/production quality, excellent acting.

What you won't see: Woke nonsense, naked bodies, sexual situations, famous stars.

Deadwind

(Wikipedia link.)

This is a Finnish crime drama that follows a female detective (Karppi) and mother of two through the ins and outs of drug and other Finnish crime.  What's interesting here is the plot - a lot of twists and turns and unexpected sequences of events.

What you'll see: thoughtful dialog, some story-appropriate violence, excellent plot, over all very good film/production quality, excellent acting.

What you won't see: Woke nonsense, naked bodies, sexual situations, famous stars, flashy production.

Dehli Crime

(Wikipedia link.)

This is a hard core crime series (I prefer Season 2 but Season 1 is also quite good - but a bit more graphic).  It's an excellent portrayal of what the city of Dehli is like.  Again, the justice model is very interesting compared to the US.  

What you'll see: thoughtful dialog, some story-appropriate violence, excellent plot, over all very good film/production quality, excellent acting.

What you won't see: Woke nonsense, naked bodies, sexual situations, famous stars, flashy production.

C++: STL Climate Destruction Line by Line

I wrote this dumb little C++ test program to compare the use of simple STL vector stuff with a plain old C-style character array:

//
//  main.cpp
//  testtest
//
#ifdef BEST
#include <stdio.h>
void foo(char * x, size_t& ptr) {
    *(x + ptr++) = 23;
}
#define bar(a, b, c) *(a + b++) = c
void test()
{
      char a[100];
      size_t ptr = 0;
      foo(a, ptr);
      bar(a, ptr, 23);
}
#endif // BEST

#ifdef MIDDLE
// Type your code here, or load an example.                                         
#include <iostream>

#include <vector>

using namespace std;

void foo(vector<int>& x, size_t& ptr) {
    x.push_back(23);
    ptr++;
}

void test()
{
    vector<int> a{ 1, 3, 5};
    size_t ptr = 0;

    foo(a, ptr);
}
#endif // MIDDLE

#ifdef WORST
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>

using namespace std;

vector<int>foo(void) {
    vector<int> somev;
    somev.push_back(23);

    return somev;
}

void test()
{
    vector<int> a{ 1, 3, 5};
    vector<int> data = foo();

    a.insert(a.end(), data.begin(), data.end());
}
#endif // WORST                                                                                                            
int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) {
    for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
        test();
    }
}

If I run this code on a Mac M1 I get (using stock clang, etc.):

% clang -DBEST -std=c++14 -O2 testtest_all.cpp -o testtest_all -lstdc++

% time ./testtest_all                                               

./testtest_all  0.00s user 0.00s system 1% cpu 0.231 total

% time ./testtest_all

./testtest_all  0.00s user 0.00s system 45% cpu 0.005 total

 % time ./testtest_all

./testtest_all  0.00s user 0.00s system 54% cpu 0.005 total

% time ./testtest_all

./testtest_all  0.00s user 0.00s system 45% cpu 0.006 total

% clang -DWORST -std=c++14 -O2 testtest_worst.cpp -o testtest_worst -lstdc++

% time ./testtest_worst                                             

./testtest_worst  0.09s user 0.00s system 30% cpu 0.290 total

% time ./testtest_worst

./testtest_worst  0.08s user 0.00s system 94% cpu 0.089 total

% time ./testtest_worst

./testtest_worst  0.08s user 0.00s system 97% cpu 0.086 total

% time ./testtest_worst

./testtest_worst  0.08s user 0.00s system 97% cpu 0.085 total

Feel free to plug the above C++ code into https://godbolt.org/ to see the gory details (some output shown above).  (Note too that the initial slow speed may be some JIT thing running on the M1 - so ignore that for the purposes here.)

This results are quite interesting: I am paying a 10x performance hit for the convenience of memory "safety" - that is - I don't run off the end of an array or something like that.

I am not worrying about cache lines or other esoteric stuff here.  Just running a dumb, simple-minded performance test.

It surely seems like we are using 10x the number of processors just so we can "write better code."

According to Quora (which is a dubious source but a source non-the-less) I would estimate there are between a half to a trillion processors running todays world.

According to this (https://www.electricrate.com/what-is-a-terawatt/) all humans use perhaps 17 terra watts (17 TW) of power.

Wikipedia thinks that about 10% of all human power is used for computers (see this).

Let's estimate 2-3 watts, on average, per processor (most are small, many are not, so we guess).  

I am sure this is not very precise but it gives you the big picture idea of how much computing costs in terms of global energy output.

Now let's imagine that we use inefficient coding systems (C++/STL) to write code for these systems.

Fixing the code to be more efficient, i.e., removing STL as we saw in the tests above, we might be able to spend 1% of humanities power on computers instead of 10%.

That's 10% of the heat and corresponding power output by the entire world.

Seems like a steep price to pay for mere code-writing convenience.

C++ and STL seem like they are costing humanity a lot, just to nobody has to learn how to prevent memory leaks or create some better language.

That means your "code base" of millions of lines is destroying the planet.

Some FORTH

Here's some history - an Atmel power controller driven by Forth.

https://lwgat.blogspot.com/2014/03/primusz-powered-by-grx-10.html

And some Forth:

https://www.inspectionmagic.com/forth/timer4_new.frt

More Horsing Around with Cookie...

 

Another visit to Rebel and Opy...

New Big Dog Walks and Bonus Horse Time...

I've been busy so here's a bunch of videos taken over the last week or so...  Check out any I missed on the youtube channel.

Cookie and the horses:

 

Walk Videos:

C++ : Half Oyster, Half Carrot (Part 2)

A few days ago I was watching this video ("Principia Mathematica - The Foundations of Arithmetic in C++ - Lisa Lippincott - CppCon 2022"):

The gist of which is the formalization of C++ arithmetic operations with type theory.  So, for example, she talks about "add with carry" (@ 1:06:35):

My experience with "add with carry" goes back to the 74181 ALU chip from the 1970's.  From Ken Shirriff's blog (https://www.righto.com/2017/03/inside-vintage-74181-alu-chip-how-it.html) the gates of a 74181 look like this:

"Add with carry" and the 74181 in computers shows up on the DEC PDP 11/20 computer in the early 1970's (https://t-lcarchive.org/digital-pdp11-20/).  The real gist of the addition concept can be see here (https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/combination/comb_7.html):

The point of this post is this: How have things programmers have to do on a daily basis gone so far astray from reality?  (Note: I am not here to beat up Lisa Lippincott or her presentation, to say her analysis is incorrect or wrong, or anything like that.)

I am writing to question how something as simple as a few gates that perform a simple, repeatable boolean operation gets exponentially magnified into an ultra complex "type theory" system and why that is needed when the theory is clearly so much more complex than the operations it describes.

In my view "types" as implemented in C++, particularly the features added over the last decade or so, are the downfall of C++.  C and C++ operations were originally derived from the PDP 11/20 so the notion of the C type "int" is really just a PDP 11/20 16-bit register.  The operation of add, for example, is a 2's complement addition using a 74181 ALU.

During this time other computers, such as the UNIVAC 1108, used, instead of 2's complement, 1's complement arithmetic (which means instead of an extra positive value you have a negative zero and symmetric positive and negative values).

As an impressionable youth with a knowledge of 7400 series logic the function of the PDP 11 arithmetic unit was fairly obvious (the full set of PDP 11/20 instructions is here): 

1. You were given a full set of 2's complement 16-bit values.
   
   
2. Choosing any two 16-bit input values from that set and applying addition, subtraction or other arithmetic operations gives you a 16-bit output value from that set (note: there was no multiply instruction hence multiplication is not in the set of arithmetic operations).  Hence the operations are closed over this set.
   
   
3. Additional signals for overflow, carry, zero, positive and negative reflect side effects (recorded as logical bits).

Learning integer type operations in C (which carry exactly into C++ basic types) was simple:  

1. Learn the above rules.
   
   
2. Learn that shifting an int left or right may, depending on computer architecture, shift in a bit value you didn't expect.
   
   
3. Learn that the obvious and valuable hardware knowledge of overflow and carry were not available in C.

This last point is important and, from my perspective, a key item which makes C a "bogus" language.

Other languages of the era, for example PL/I, would trigger faults if a program generated an overflow with, say, and addition operation.

Hence, from the dawn of "C" time overflow and carry were the programmers responsibility, as was what bit value gets shifted in from left or right.

However, in the 1970's and 1980's, this mattered a lot more than it does today.  Today Intel and ARM are by far the dominant hardware forms and these details have been smoothed over by decades of language fiddling.

Given this, what's the point?

The point is simple - during the last almost 50 years the six points above have served to address exactly what an int does in C and C++.  Not just the 16 bit form but all the forms of int.

Why?

Because that's what the hardware did for 70-ish years and till does.

So a mental hardware model is the correct model because it accurately models reality.

It's also far, far simpler that the complex "type theory" model of addition.  Further, the basic binary operations of addition are unlikely to change much at this point.

I find it fascinating how far programming language have gotten from the devices they generate code for.  Unfortunately, the more "abstraction" you apply the harder the code is to understand.

Think about it: Type theory is complex and difficult.  Hardware adders are relatively simple, at least compared to type theory.

And, unfortunately, the wrong kinds of abstraction are applied.  It's one thing to create a set of routines, an interface, a simple LALR language, etc. to capture an abstraction and quite another to push the abstractions into places where they can't be seen.

What do I mean by this?

Routines that do a specific task are "visible" - a programmer can look at a library, use the debugger, etc. to gain understanding of what's happening.

But as more and more is "abstracted" either into the language itself or into "overloads" on operators in the language things become less and less clear.

Somehow a simple macro is more dangerous than a templated lambda...?

Billy and Catholics and Pharma, Oh My!

There's an old Billy Joel song, from his "The Stranger" album, called "Only the Good Die Young".  I was listening to it the other day when this lyric popped into my ear.  The singer, Joel, trying to get in the pants of "Virginia" - a Catholic girl - says:

"Well, they showed you a statue, told you to pray
...
Aw, but they never told you the price that you pay"

And, as I was vacuuming, I thought to myself: "Indeed, as a recovering Catholic that's exactly how it was done.  Right along with the accompanying fire, brimstone and hell..." 

There you were, sitting in the church pew, clutching your new rosary in your sweaty, pudgy little nine year old hand chanting your "Hail Mary's" right after confessing to the voice behind the curtain that you tried to look up little Julie's skirt - all so you wouldn't be "damned" and goto hell forever.

(And don't forget that collection plate every Sunday...)

After a bit more reflection I thought:  How is this not like the modern 'church' of covid?

First let's think about how the Catholic church controlled the masses from ancient times to today:

1. Frighten the common folk (remember the average IQ is around 100) with stories of an all powerful force, God and the Pope in this case, that can provide ultimate glory (eternal Heaven) or ultimate defeat (eternal Hell).  Play up the "fire and brimstone" to ensure compliance, after all, you don't want you or your children to go to Hell...
   
   
2. Define your own set of rules to impose on the "folk" so the "folk" know exactly how to get to Heaven (see the dangling carrot).
   
   
3. Require the "folk" to constantly be aware of their status relative to these rules and provide a simple, reliable means to get the "folk" to show up on a regular basis to make controlling them simple: weekly mass and confession.

This is the Catholic church in a nutshell: control, not the actual message of Christ.

And this model worked for thousand of years, right?

Until us moderns "threw off" the yoke of "religious oppression" by calling out the pedophiles, pointing out the hypocrisy, etc. etc. to the point where, today, being Catholic or religious is like being a leper, or worse.

Feminism, the woman's movement, wokeness, big tech, all of these things supposedly freed us from this horrific religious oppression... right? Right...?

Certainly all of these things have dealt a mighty blow to the Catholic church.

But have they really stopped the dark forces behind the Catholic church?

Or have they simply replaced one dark force with another...?

Let's think about Covid today:

1. Frighten the common folk an all powerful force, God Covid and the Pope Fauci in this case, that can provide ultimate glory (Heaven safe from Covid) and ultimate defeat (Hell death).  Play up the "fire and brimstone" masking and vaccines to ensure compliance, after all, you don't want you or your children to go to Hell die...
   
   
2. Define your own set of rules to impose on the "folk" so the "folk" know how to get to Heaven (masks, social distancing, no Thanksgiving - where's my hair shirt...)
   
   
3. Require the "folk" to constantly be aware of their status relative to these rules and provide a simple, reliable means to get the "folk" to show up on a regular basis to make controlling them simple: weekly mass and confession vaccines and "boosters".

Are we really "free" of the evils of the Catholic church and Pope?

Or has a new dark force simply upgraded the old one to feed on a different set of fears?

Indeed, this new force is at least as powerful as the Catholic church of old.  It affects your day-to-day "safety", the "safety" of your, your children, your old, decrepit mother or mother-in-law.

The effects of this new dark force can be seen today:

The most devote acolytes today driving around alone or in pairs in their cars wearing masks.

Rejection of the "heresy" of myocarditis, vaccine side effects, and VAERS.

The shunning of facts and actual science by the "modern media."

Sacrificing your child's education for the safety of others.

So who runs this new dark force?  Certainly not the Pope.

No, today we have new "leaders" like the FDA, CDC, Fauci and Biden.  Like the leaders of old that preach pedophilia is bad, who made sure you don't do it or even think about it without confessing it all to them.

All the while engaging in the exact behavior they preached was bad with your children (after all, if you thought about looking up little Julie's skirt maybe they out to investigate that themselves...)

Today, instead of "going to hell" you'll kill grandma or you "won't be thinking of others" if you take your mask off, don't social distance or don't get the vaccine.

The most ironic thing is that those who preach the loudest about the "evils of religion" are in fact the most devoted to the church of 'Covid'.

Big Sky Big Dog - Walk #541

Another beautiful day!  Just as we crest the second hill and stop for Cho a squirrel runs past almost taking me for a surf...

Big Sky Big Dog - Horses!

Took Cookie, Red, Charity and Hope to see the horses...  The horses saw Cookie and headed over so we went to look.  Didn't have the camera so after the visit I went home, grapped Red and the camera and went back to see if I could get video.  This is where the above video starts.

Big Sky Big Dog - Walk #540

 Got behind on posting videos.  Up to date as of this post.  Another gorgeous day!

Big Dog Big - Walk #539

 

Big Sky Big Dog - Walk #538

Beautiful fall weather...

 

Big Sky Big Dog - Walk #537

 Cold and a bit rainy...  Good day for walking...

Big Sky Big Dog - Walk #536

Some more naughtiness from Hope - cut off at the pass...

Nicer thumbnail.

Big Sky Big Dog - Walk #535

Big cold wind this morning.  Gas truck beat us up the hill and back - good thing because unless we are at a spot with a trail or flat area its hard to get six dogs around the truck...

 

Big Sky Big Dog - Walk #534

We find an empty birds nest...

 

Big Sky Big Dog - Walk #533

Beautiful Saturday! Nice walk before the Pyr Party.

 

Big Sky Big Dog - Walk #532

A nice chill fall morning today, beautiful colors...  On return there was a stunned (or perhaps dead) bird laying inside the cyclone gate.   The dogs all seemed to have ignored it until I brought it to their attention.

Big Sky Big Dog - Walk #531

Had to dodge rain drops today.  Everybody was wound up because we had to wait a couple hours for a window of decent walking weather.

Nice fall colors!

Looks like Youtube screwed up the video preview... 

Big Sky Big Dog - Walk #530

Dogs were somewhat distracted today.  Lots of extra sniffing and shuffling around...

Not sure why.

Hospital Fascism in Philadelphia (Part 1)

Today I am writing about my personal experience with hospital in Philadelphia that often treats young people.

This will be offered in several parts...

I have waited many years to write this in order to protect the lives impacted by the fascist polices and procedures of this evil place.

Specifically we are going to talk about a disease where your body creates too much insulin.

The victims: a family with a newborn a few days old, brought to this hospital under auspices of a standard "well baby" type of situation.  (Basically new babies are provided whatever care is needed.)

In this case the infant had need of sun light, or more specifically 460nm blue light, typical of plant lights you buy on Amazon.  (Yes, this is probably best according to pubmed.)

460nm Blue Light in an Expensive Tube

New mom lacked experience and, though the infant was not struggling, decided to go to this hospital for this service (as opposed to using the blue light found in sunlight, for example).

So far so good.

Sit under the blue sunlight for a day or two and viola', problem solved!

Things progressed and the need for the blue lights steadily diminished.

Just about time to take the baby home...

Just about out the door until some ER noob/trainee decided the infant needed to be tested for blood sugar.  Why is unclear.  "Protocol" no doubt.

Now, at this time (years ago and perhaps still today), exactly what an infant's blood sugar level range should be at this point in his life was unclear, particularly right after birth.  Normal adult-ish "blood sugar" is pegged at roughly 80mg/dL (plus or minus when you eat, exactly how old you are, yada, yada, yada).  (You can google this all you like - one thing you will notice is that web sites don't generally provide a level for newborns because A) it fluctuates and B) the birth process can significantly impact the fluctuation particularly until the baby is able to nurse adequately.

The klaxon's went off.

Red lights flashed.

The blood sugar level obtained from this single test was 70mg/dL (more on this to come).  Yes, modern science - take one test (like a Covid PCR test) and done!

Clearly, at least according to the best medical knowledge in all of western civilization, this child absolutely, positively must have genetic hyperinsulinism (a 1 in 20,000 to 50,000 case). No doubt positive!

Team gestapo sugar police were roused from their slumber in the hospital basement and mother and child were swept away, against their will, and imprisoned by the hospital.

Mrs. Wolf, an experienced woman and mother, has four children, nine grand children, participated in difficult births of humans and non-humans alike, perhaps I don't know, 34 or 40 briths all told (only one puppy didn't make it), has seen it all (or at least seen many things) in the birthing process, Motel 6 with a nurse (hold that baby in there - don't worry if it can't breath), resuscitation, doctors with feet braced wrenching (or trying to) inards out of mothers, early births, pretty much the whole gamut (enough so that the vet surgeon differs to her skill and expertise with regard to puppy birth).  And further, has dealt with the fall out of such decisions over the decades.

Mrs. Wolf is one tough, smart cookie.

Upon hearing this: A few quick taps of the phone screen to call on all of humanities medical knowledge over the last few decades, a few calls to experienced and trusted advisors, and Mrs. Wolf steps back, winds up, and does a hard thrown down of the "Bullshit" card because:

A) It's a newborn a few days old.

B) You've just kept it from being fed for many hours while it was being irradiated with your expensive blue light.

C) You have no family history of this child.

D) New mom's never had the experience of child birth before and is now in way over her head.

E) It's just one sugar test.

F) You are compounding stress on the newborn as well as mom.

G) There are zero other symptoms of anything.

(This is not some faulty, ballooning aorta just about ready to pop unless we get on the surgery table fast...)

Alas, it's too late.

New mom has been captured!

And by "captured" I mean the child kept against the parents will using the threat the child will be taken by social services and the police called if you question our diagnosis and/or don't subject the child to treatment.

Big Sky Big Dog - Walk #529

 Nice peaceful walk.  Slight grumbling at the very end...

Doctor Doesn't Know Best... The Government Does

Just an example...

I saw this article recently: "We must challenge 'doctor knows best' attitude, bereaved mother says"

This gist of this is that the doctor killed this woman's thirteen year old daughter.

According to the article: "Martha had sustained a rare pancreatic trauma after falling off a bike on a family holiday, and spent weeks in a specialist unit where she developed sepsis. ...

Ms Mills said her daughter would be alive today if doctors had not kept information from the parents about her condition, because they would have demanded a second opinion.

She added that doctors' attitudes "reeked of misogyny", citing a moment when her "anxiety" was used as an argument to not send critical care to Martha."

True, doctors are often idiots. 

Twenty years ago my daughter was nearly killed in a similar situation.  She had pneumonia but the idiot in charge was convinced that her body was destroying her lungs for some reason.  No second opinions were allowed.  Fortunately we were able to physically remove her and place her in another hospital.  Within hours receiving standard "pneumonia treatment" she had significantly recovered.

But the real issue here is that this position taken by Ms. Mills will be used by the WHO (World Health Organization) to not allow your doctor to direct your treatment.

Currently Fauci, Collins et all have worked hard against groups like FLCCC Alliance or The Great Barrington Declaration (see this) to prevent your doctor from treating your Covid with whatever he or she thinks is best.

Medical errors could account for over 250,000 deaths in the USA each year (see this NIH article).

By controlling the media bureaucrats like a Fauci or Collins will simply not have deaths reported (or mis-reported) as necessary to direct "blame" elsewhere.

Removing your doctor for directing your care is a critical globalist concept.  Without a doctor impeding their agenda treatments that add millions to a government hack like Fauci can be forced on you (like remdesivir/VEKLURY) simply and painlessly (for them).

The death of Ms. Mills daughter is very sad, especially for me having had the experience I did with my daughter.

However, what's the alternative?

After all, doctors are always "practicing" medicine...

I predict more like Ms. Mills will be used to "bureaucracize" your medical care.  In fact, with Covid, it's already started...

Big Sky Big Dog - Walk #528

 Nice day.  No out-of-control "events..."

Big Sky Big Dog - Walk #527 (cat and scuffles)

After studying a lot of post elsewhere about negative interactions between dogs I wanted to post this video and provide some explanation in hopes it will help folks understand these dogs better.

I walk 5 GPs every day. Sometimes unexpected things occur: in this case a cat. Cookie, the 3 yr old spayed mother (Cho is the father), is first to see it (the others must have seen it as well as they are able to go to where it went into the bushes). But Cookie alerts first. Note: "alert" here is "dog parlance" means Cookie is calling out a threat. You can see how the other dogs react.

They pull me toward the spot where the cat was. In this process Hope and Charity (sisters, spayed, 2 yrs) briefly scuffle. In this case Hope, dominant over Charity, gets bumped by Charity. Hope retaliates because, I believe, this breaks Hope's concentration on the "event."

These dogs, in situations like this, become intensely focused on whatever they perceive to be the "threat."

Cho comes over from the to left (outside) to flank the females and prepare to defend. A bit later Cho 3 yrs and Red 2 yrs (Red is the dominant dog, both are intact) get into a scuffle on the right. The second scuffle is caused, I think, by Red telling Cookie to listen to me - he briefly jumps on her and then onto Cho.

Red is dominant over all the dogs but he is very easy going usually. The only time he asserts his dominance is in a situation like this.

I want to emphasize that these "scuffles" are NOT fights.

Our GPs have a tendency where something unexpected occurs to have initial "scuffles." I have seen it on numerous occasions. I believe it's the result of the dominant dogs positioning themselves to defend and/or control the other dogs and/or be prepared to attack the threat/protect the others.

There are also scuffles when a dominant dog believes a dog they are dominant over is not listening to me (Red in this case). The dominant dogs expect all their subordinates to listen and obey (myself and my wife are the alphas). I see this time and time again. Even the King Cavalier participates in what we call the "beat down" when they perceive someone to be disobedient. Usually just a snarl but it can be more depending on the level of the perceived infraction.

The Cavalier is 7 yrs, spayed. But she will go after all the dogs but Red to impose order if she thinks it's necessary. I would say she does not dominate the other dogs but they have a "respect" for her because she was here before them (helped to raise the puppies).

GPs, when presented with a novel situation like this, go into a "closed ears" mode - I see it all the time. The quickly think up what they intend to do and then do it - they don't listen well until they come out of it or its over.

When Red jumps on Cho the entire scuffle lasts about 25 seconds. During this time I holler at Red and work to get his attention. I fail for the most part but as soon as the scuffle ends Red and Cho go on as if nothing has happened. In this case I think the scuffle ends because Red decides Cho isn't causing any problems.

This is how these dogs are. It is in their nature to defend and control subordinates - after all they are bred for it.

In these specific situations the only "danger" I face is getting wrapped up in leashes.

So what's my point?

1. Dogs operate in a hierarchy so you, the owner, MUST be the dominant alpha. If you are not a dominant dog will become the alpha and control you. A lot of what I see posted here falls into this category. Since I am dominant these dogs in this video are listening (to the extent they listen in a situation like like) to me and they expect me to control things (which I do).

2. These dogs are smart and are fully capable of planning a defense against a threat. They are also curious and clever. In this case they are behaving as expected - there is no need for me to be upset. Nor is Charity or Cho upset by the scuffle outcome. They know what they are doing, where they fit into the hierarchy and why. Hope and Cho go on as if they are bosom buddies within a few seconds after the scuffle with their supposed "oppressors" because this is just normal behavior for them.

Ask yourself why? If it was a fight this would not be the case. This is an example of dogs working out their issues correctly and expediently on their own.

Punishing them, in this case, is wrong. So is, in my opinion, fixing them. Fixing won't change these behaviors and, as you can see here, fixed dogs engage in the same behaviors.

3. These dogs have a "triggered" mode when something unexpected occurs - like a "battle" mode. Their minds close to outside stimulation until they think the threat is addressed. I think this is part of the breeding and what makes them capable of tending a flock on their own.

Bottom Line:

Control comes from your dominance only. Otherwise you are the livestock to be managed.

Hierarchy requires a control, e.g., scuffles, to maintain.

You have to work with their intelligence, not against it.

Big Sky Big Dog - Walk #526

Busy day clearing the wood pile we pass each day.  

Pyr Party later today! 

 

Big Sky Big Dog - Walk #525 (Cookie Counts Crows...)

On the way up the second hill a murder of crows flies by.  Cookie love's birds.

I have been reading a lot about how "modern" people handle dogs... It's very sad.

If the dog so much as nips or jumps, off with his balls!  Spay her!

I think this is very unfair and wrong.  Most people with Great Pyrenees (or any other large breed) seem, well, stupid ignorant. 

It's a large predator - they have 1" long fangs - their skin is very tough unlike ours - they run and jump on each other for fun.

Just because you have brought this animal into your home as "your baby" does not change its nature.

In terms of controlling dog this old post says it all:

https://lwgat.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-parable-of-dog.html

Big Sky Big Dog - Walk #523

Gorgeous Wednesday morning.  Today Tulie decided to stay at home (no idea why she does this but she does).  Usually after a day or two of abstaining she suddenly shows up again ready to walk.

Mr. Wolf has discovered a large bitter hickory nut grove.  She's angling to collect the nuts for oil.  The hickory trees are on the right when reaching the bottom of the large hill right before the dogs stop for their "dirty water" drinking.

Big Sky Big Dog - Walk #522

Found a red truck on the driveway at the end of the walk...

Shortened up the leashes so I would die.

Gorgeous morning. 

 

Big Sky Big Dog Walk #521 (truck mayhem, a new path)

The gas man cometh - what excitement...

To avert death I chose a different path today.

 

Newsom and Orwell's "Consensus Science"

When we "follow the science" we often lose sight of scientific fact, evidence and statistics.

Our dear friends in California have made "following the science" a law.  According to this "California Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation on Friday that gives the state some ammunition against physicians who spread lies about COVID in the context of direct patient care ...  Such [ lies ] misinformation -- when it is "contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care," and delivered with "malicious intent or an intent to mislead" -- now can be defined as "unprofessional conduct."

Let's juxtapose the FDA's approval of Vioxx, for example, against The Great Barrington Declaration (GBD). 

The Great Barrington Declaration, as of today signed by close to a million physicians world wide, basically said in October of 2020 (underline mine) "... Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden..."

As of October, 2022, we find numerous indications of "excess mortality".

For example: (http://sdg.iisd.org/news/world-population-data-sheet-2022-highlights-excess-deaths-due-to-covid-19/) "World Population Data Sheet 2022 Highlights Excess Deaths Due to COVID-19 ...

• Nearly 15 million excess deaths occurred globally in 2020-2021.
• At 300 deaths per 100,000, Eastern Europe saw the highest rate of average annual excess deaths due to the pandemic in 2020-2021.
• Between 2019 and 2021, life expectancy in the US declined from 78 years to 76 years. Global life expectancy at birth is 75 years for women and 70 years for men.

..."

Clearly "excess mortality" has, to a large degree come true.  Are lockdowns, as described in the the GBD, the cause?

Fifteen million people's families want to know...

Yet the NIH (see https://www.statnews.com/2021/12/23/at-a-time-when-the-u-s-needed-covid-19-dialogue-between-scientists-francis-collins-moved-to-shut-it-down/) along with Fauci worked to create "a quick and devastating published take down" of the GBD.

Then we have the FDA and Vioxx.  A nice history from NPR, written in 2007, is provided here (underline mine) (https://www.npr.org/2007/11/10/5470430/timeline-the-rise-and-fall-of-vioxx) "Timeline: The Rise and Fall of Vioxx

...September 2004: Merck withdraws Vioxx after a colon-polyp prevention study, called APPROVe, shows that the drug raises the risk of heart attacks after 18 months. By the time Vioxx is withdrawn from market, an estimated 20 million Americans have taken the drug.

Research later published in the medical journal Lancet estimates that 88,000 Americans had heart attacks from taking Vioxx, and 38,000 of them died. ..."

I can hear the crying now: "The FDA and the HIH do God's work, it's SCIENCE" the little mice cry...

Yet a little digging shows how unsuccessful "FDA drug approval" really is (see https://www.maylightfootlaw.com/blogs/fda-drug-recall-statistics/)

On average, what, a thousand recall's per year?

The approval rate is far lower than the application rate.

Many of these recalls must be for older drugs or drugs already on the market.

(See the FDA's own data here: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/drug-recalls).

Regardless, "drug safety" is hard to fathom given these confusing facts.

If we parse "contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care," we see that "consensus" is the rule.  

What about my last post on this subject ("WaPo: Shots affect Periods and More...") - clearly direct evidence that the "consensus" was wrong.

WHO's consensus? (pun intended)

What if the actual "facts" contradict the "consensus?"

Newsom is merely advancing an Orwellian agenda on his citizens.  

More tools to silence nay-sayers. 

The article says it's sad that the punishments do not extend to "social media" expressions.

Fortunately the courts are coming down on the side of actual science and actual facts.

The GBD goes to court soon - hopefully to silence the Fauci's and NIH Collins of the world.

Big Sky Big Dog - Walk #520 (Shenanigans Curtailed, Squirrel)

I have been posting dog videos for a week now.

We've been walking as a group since the puppies (Hope, Charity and Red) were about four months old.

Prior to that Cho, Cookie and Tulie would walk but once Cookie delivered the nine puppies we took a four month break.

I have been wanting to shoot videos of the walks for a while but, due to a variety of plandemic and work issues there hasn't been enough time.

What you see now in these videos is the result of a consorted training effort going back to April of 2021. (Probably about 200 hours of walks in total up to now). By the time the puppies were about four months they were able to start walking the distance (probably a little over 1/2 mile).  But the walk was not very organized and they literally ran in circles.

I would get "maypoled" as they would circle the leashes on opposite directions around my legs.  More than once I tied them off to the gas piping and stormed off to show them my displeasure.

As time passed it became apparent that Red was the new leader (Cookie was before him but now she moved relinquished that position).  Red is very easy to handle and he listens to commands so I attach him directly to me with a custom harness.  Tulie, who is about seven years old, used to run loose but she developed a habit if running over to the road so she is now attached via the orange string.

The remainder are attached to standard retractable leashes which I manage (like a puppet master) during the walks.

Leaving anybody loose (of the Great Pyrenees) always leads to trouble so I don't try it anymore.  The road is close by and cars travel fast there.

I shoot the videos on an iPhone 13 using ShiftCam lenses (https://shiftcam.com/collections/prolens-series).

I am pretty happy with the 230° FishEye lens though I have tried the others.  I also use their mounting solution (seen at https://shiftcam.com/collections/lens-mounting).

Today's video:

As a bonus I have added my "Tulie Editing" video here - it was deemed unacceptable on Facebook.  Perhaps it will be allowed here:

Behind the Scenes: Tulie Edits Video

Wow... This post is banned from Facebook!

Isn't AI reliable!

Big Sky Big Dog #519 (Shenanigans Curtailed)

 Shot this with an anamorphic lens - super wide format...

Music of the Dogs #1

 

Pleasant dog walking with music...

Big Sky Big Dog Walk #518 (Shenanigans)

 

Big Sky Big Dog - Walk #517

 

WaPo: Shots affect Periods and More...

From the Washington Post (September 27, 2022):

Women said coronavirus shots affect periods. New study shows they’re right.

A coronavirus vaccination can change the timing of when you get your period, according to research. For most people, the effect was temporary.

The article begins (underline my own): "Not long after the rollout of coronavirus vaccines last year, women around the country began posting on social media about what they believed was a strange side effect: changes to their periods.

Now, new research shows that many of the complaints were valid."

The linked study from the British Medical Journal via the US NIH:

Study confirms link between COVID-19 vaccination and temporary increase in menstrual cycle length

Large NIH-funded study included participants in North America and Europe.

Which points to

Menstrual changes after covid-19 vaccination

BMJ 2021; 374 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2211 (Published 16 September 2021)

Cite this as: BMJ 2021;374:n2211

Which says "... Changes to periods and unexpected vaginal bleeding are not listed, but primary care clinicians and those working in reproductive health are increasingly approached by people who have experienced these events shortly after vaccination. More than 30 000 reports of these events had been made to MHRA’s yellow card surveillance scheme..."

And then there's this: 

Research Letter September 26, 2022

Detection of Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Human Breast Milk

"... the initial messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine clinical trials excluded several vulnerable groups, including young children and lactating individuals ... The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends offering the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to breastfeeding individuals, although the possible passage of vaccine mRNAs in breast milk resulting in infants’ exposure at younger than 6 months was not investigated ..."

and this:

COVID-19 Vaccines

Last Revision: September 19, 2022.

" ... breastfed infants may experience sleepiness, increased fussiness, fever, rash or self-limiting diarrhea, but no serious adverse effects have been reported "

and

"Only a small percentage of milk samples from women who received an mRNA vaccine contained trace amounts of mRNA."

and this:

Yet during the the pandemic we saw (from FOIA requests to the CDC and FDA) this:

BIDEN ADMINISTRATION

How the CDC Coordinated With Big Tech To Censor Americans

and a portion of an email where women's problems are actively dismissed as "misinformation" and links to related discussion groups taken down:

Notice the email date: May of 2021.

The CDC and FDA had no knowledge what so ever whether what they were censoring as "misinformation" was true or false.

In fact, according to this "Breast-feeding mothers, infants and pregnant women were in the exclusion criteria list for the phase III clinical trials of both Pfizer[3] and Moderna[4]."

They simply made it up as they went along.

You have a Constitutional right to treat yourself medically as I wrote in "The 'Right not to Smoke'"