The Complexity of Jabbing Chrome

There were many reasons people refused to take the jab.  

I had my own which I am going to describe here.  I've been thinking a long time about how to describe the folly of the jab.  This is the best explanation I can come up with...

We can imagine that a human has some 3-4 billion base pairs in their DNA.  (All of this is simply google AI estimates - the exact details don't matter.) These base pairs make up 23 chromosomes with 50 to 100 million base pairs each.  Your DNA creates between 20,000 and 100,000 unique proteins.  All of this data (half from each parent) is combined by your conception and from the moment your are conceived this data (and perhaps other factors see: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41576-021-004385#:~:text=Epigenetic%20change%20can%20arise%20in,arose%20is%20termed%20'intergenerational') governs your "assembly" - which is spatial, electrical, quantum (for consciousness), chemical, mechanical, and much more.

An "assembled you" consists of a 3D structure comprised of 30 to 100 trillion unique cells.  A living organism that takes up .06 to .1 cubic meters (60 to 100 liters) of volume most of which is water which, as 3D machinery goes, doesn't do much.  The "assembling" takes perhaps 12 to 18 or so years and leaves your with a brain with perhaps 100 trillion neuron connections.

If we multiply out all the possible "arrangements" of the things which make up a human at any given moment in time: physical structures like mitochondria, neuron signals, fluid dynamics, physical locations of everything we end up and an incalculably large number: perhaps 10^24 pieces of information (I don't really know, no one does, but its a guess that probably matters little - just a lot of work for the Star Trek transporter to sortout I suppose).

Of course this is the amount of data representing things at one moment and ignores the outside environment (heat, light, bacteria, viruses if you believe, noise, gravity, etc.).  To simulate this human (and only the human) we must recalculate every what, 10ns, 100ns, 1ns, 1ps, again who knows.  So add more digits to the exponent.

One might say "infinitely complex" (of course ignoring any quantum activity in the microtubules).

Enter the DNA of Covid-19 (see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1798174254).  A measly 29,000 plus (or so) base pairs depending on the variant and time of day.  (Some clever 3D modeling here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/structure/?term=sars-cov-2.###).

To correctly characterize Covid-19 we have to understand that it is inserted into the larger human construct - it's not part of the human per se but instead "lives" in the 10^24 ever changing and evolving human structure (whatever "lives" means in this context).

It bounces around inside you "doing things" to your internals - whatever those things might actually be - but again, it really doesn't matter.  More infinite complexity - and lots of it.  Then add in millions or billions of the Covid-19 viruses (or viri if you prefer).

All this represents a staggering level of complexity.  Far beyond what a human mind can grasp.

And how do we know this?  Let's compare and imagine you are looking at the code of your google Chrome browser - all 32 million (or so) lines of it.  Even if you could read it all you'd still have a hard time grasping the full context of this technology.

And a small javascript program, like Covid-19, might "live" inside the browser - causing subterfuge, bugs or other problems.  Maybe it's a React program to calculate probabilities, or trajectories, or sexual genders.  Who knows...  But let's imagine it's about 29k bytes (or lines of code).  The details don't matter.

So let's generously say the "computational" complexity of "Chrome" (including all the GPU, spy-ware, etc., source code, java programs) is on the order of 10^5 (for comparison to humans) just to make up the number.

Chrome represents linear computations - multiple threads of 1D linear computations.  Not 2D drawings, and certainly not a 3D construct.  Yes it does run on a "computer" but the computational model is linear and "simple".  Yes it draws on a 2D screen.  But it's not human.

If you want 2D then you also have to think about what Chrome draws and the data it draws upon from the outside world (maybe).

Certainly a significant technical achievement...

But now consider the concept of the "jab".

The "jab" is essentially a small "program" that is designed to intercede between the Covid-19 "things" and the humans.  I am not sure even how to characterize the complexity involved.

Surely we "know" about a lot of biology, chemistry, physics and so on. But that's not the same thing as understanding the "complexity" involved.  And certainly not the same as accounting for it correctly doing some complex "edit".

I can perhaps figure out a "zero day" chrome bug to exploit in JavaScript.  But the jab isn't that.  It's more like another JavaScript program that inserts itself into Chrome and mitigates what the original program does in some useful way.  Of course, to really be similar one would have to not have access to the source of Chrome when writing this code.

As far as I know this is mostly beyond what technology can do today.  And even if we could do it's only 1.5D and ten orders of magnitude less complex that what the jab is supposed to do.

(Yes I understand the notion that there are millions or billions of man years of study of human biology but still we cannot cure the "common cold" so...)

So from my perspective the metric here is given some amount of unknown information in a given system you have to estimate how close you are to knowing whether or not you have enough knowledge to correctly anticipate what a change will do when inserted into that system.  This, of course, being much less than knowing what dynamic change might require in order to actually successfully do this.

I believe that this is simply modeled by the following: Given an arbitrary Turing machine (rules and tape, amount of data) how much of the rules, data and tape can remain unknown while still allowing you to make predictable  changes to what you can see (the known part).  

This is key.

If I have a simple Conway (Game of Life) blinker on a 10 x 10 grid and I can only see once cell how much can I figure out (correctly) about the effect of a blind change to the "code", i.e., can I somehow "read into" the code (say in this case the cells I can or cannot see) and make a change with predictable results.

Let's call this kind of a "Level 1^1" Complexity Matrix.  So by "matrix" let's pretend we make some kind of mathematical n x m matrix of numbers that, when we apply some function f to the matrix accurately represents the evolution of the system in question.  Mind you we don't know f nor do we know all the numeric cells in the matrix but we still have to do it anyway.

This is sort of the "puzzle fun" you get with brain teasers, etc.

This metric is how you think about this kind of complexity.  What's the chance that I actually know enough about what I am doing to pull this off...

If we apply this to Chrome the function f and the matrix become unimaginably large.  If I can debug Chrome than to some extent I can master the Chrome level (call it "Level 1^2") of complexity.

Again to make up numbers, I would say that all of the machines and computers on earth are typically represented in something like a "Level 1^5" Complexity Matrix and below.

So where does the complexity of a human fall?  I'd say in the range of a "Level 10^24".  Like the concept of infinity in mathematics there are different kinds of infinities and different kinds of complexities.

Injecting a "Covid-19" requires the "virus" to reliably and correctly and dynamically alter the matrix and f. 

Recently I completed a complex autonomous flight project which worked correctly at the customer site on the first day we brought it there (there was some miscommunication and details that had to be sorted out first but it worked).

This was, I don't know, 25k plus lines of code, a drone, various hardware, assumptions, lidar, etc.  Far different than Chrome/JavaScript work in the sense that it involves physical reality as well as multiple 1D program threads: accounting for 3D spatial activity, thrust, velocity, wind, batteries, motors, mechanical stuff, electronics, lidar noise, etc.

I would say this was more like a "Level 1^5" not because it's more code or more complicated than Chrome, but because it involves the "external physical world" which requires the code to account for physical reality - albeit Newtonian physics and not quantum physics like a protein molecule.  Chrome doesn't have to account for random particles from space altering its structure while running.

All this said my view of the jab was simple: There was no fucking way in hell anyone or anything could hope to account for the level of understanding, complexity, etc. etc. etc. required to make the jab work by at least 19 or 20 orders of magnitude. Especially not the first time our of the box.  

The jab only works if you don't understand complexity.

(Mind you triggering the bodies immune response is far more believable - if indeed it's actually doing what people imagine - than the concept of a piece of RNA clever enough to alter the effects of yet more RNA in an "infinitely complex" system.)

Sure we can do marvelous things.  But do we really understand the true consequences?

How may people working on fixing a Chrome but get that fix right the first time?  How long to get to the level of understanding to be able to do that?

These are the true "unanswered" questions about the jab.  

We must create a notion of "Complexity" that parallels "Infinity" in mathematics.  Just like the rationals and irrationals are different "levels" of infinity diddling up some random edit program for humans is the difference between the rationals and orders more infinite "Complexity" than the irrationals.

We are simply too arrogant to understand.

And finally it seems right to start asking why nobody saw this before?

Ivermedic Pasty Horse

Don't be fooled by knock-offs on Amazon.

We are approaching 1,000,000 views!

This blog has been around for almost twenty years at this point.  It's hard to believe.  It's been through sinuses, iodine, various health issues, vaping, Covid, technology, and everything in between.

Along the way Google took away it's ability to generate revenue, not that there ever was much, $80.00 US or so after seventeen years - at least something like that.  Probably because I wrote that banning gas stoves was nonsense.

There is much news on the health front - too much to cover in one post.

While the various processes I documented here for stopping sinus infections have worked flawlessly for both me and Mrs. Wolf I was never able to eliminate the on-going between-infection sinus pain.  It seemed like stuff was clogged up in my sinuses continuously.

About November of last year I finally bit the bullet and succumbed to the paste band wagon.  We've had chickens and dogs for some time and as the lady in the "Chicken Forum" stated "If you have dogs and chickens you have parasites."

Nothing could be truer.

Following numerous sources of information I decided on a "once a day pencil eraser sized" horse paste dose.  Using the 6.08g standard paste at 1.87% there is approximately 114mg per tube.  The "eraser sized" dose is probably 2-3mg.

Wonder of wonders within a week or so a number of changes occurred:

• Sinus problems completely vanished.  No more pain, no more infections requiring flushing, nada.
  
  
• Significant urinary improvements.
  
  
• Significant bowel improvements.
  
  
• Significant change in how my body handles cold.  In past years I had to wear heated gloves when walking dogs in temps below 20°F.  This year -8°F using standard gloves was no problem.

I personally did not notice any direct evidence of parasites.  However, Mrs. Wolf did.

Recently of Facebook - of all places - a variety of "forums" related to cancer treatment and parasites have popped up - as well as a number of other informational sources.  I will talk about this in the future.

Back to horse paste.

One of the dogs, Cookie, was diagnosed with an on-going case of anaplasmosis. Anaplasmosis is caused by Anaplasma phagocytophilum, and babesiosis - something similar - is caused by Babesia microti. There is no canine test (at least not cheap "at the vet" test) for babesiosis but there is for anaplasmosis. Cookie weighs about 45kg and ended up with a doxycycline dose of 400mg/day.  This dose should have been enough for either disease.

Cookie was somewhat "draggy" (taking careful steps) when walking - not running ahead, pooping out before the end of walk - more "quiet" than usual and we were suspicious, having lost another dog last year to what we believe was either anaplasmosis or babesiosis, that Cookie's lethargy was taking her down the same path.

One of the key takeaways in my view is the way the dogs walk, as in how they place their feet.  An "ill" dog will do what I call "taking careful steps" with their head down.  Almost as if they are looking for the best place to place their next foot or they are in pain (which may be the case) and they are attempting to pick the least painful place to step.  You have to watch this over time because on a daily walk of 1/2 mile or so on a steep 20° grade not everyone is 100% spunky the whole way every day.

We walk multiple dogs at once so the "lagginess" becomes somewhat apparent.  But again, all of them can lag from time to time so it's only important over a period of time, like weeks.

Cookie was also diagnosed two years in a row with anaplasmosis.

The diagnosis in and of itself is close to meaningless without other data.  We have a number of other dogs also with multiple years of diagnosis of both Lyme and anaplasmosis.  They seem totally unaffected.

In any case after a little less than a week in on the doxy Cookie was only "weakly" getting better.  Better but not as much as she should have been.

So six days in I added 10mg/day of Ivermectin to the doxycycline (both doxy and paste split into an AM and PM dose).

After three days Cookie is a new dog.  Within a day she perked up significantly.  Eyes were more alert, less lethargic (this is hard to tell on the way down - dogs kind of "slow" down very slowing in this situation - so much so that you barely notice the changes).  Cookie again leads the walk. She does slow  down still on the way back but then again Charity, her daughter, is laggy up the hill (Charity is a much heavier dog so she's always needed a "warm up").

Ivermectin is not a standard anaplasmosis treatment - so I suspect Cookie also has babesiosis which does react to ivermectin.

With out extensive, expensive tests its very hard to say exactly what was wrong or what we "fixed" in Cookies case.  

Regardless the Wolf family is now far better off health-wise than it was.

The revelation of what Ivermectin does and could do is well beyond one post.

More to come...

Fixing AI Stooopid

From the IEEE article

I have not posted for a long time for several reasons... Busy with life, etc.

This post from IEEE: "AI Mistakes Are Very Different Than Human Mistakes We need new security systems designed to deal with their weirdness" is simply beyond belief.

There have been numerous research articles, like "Apple’s latest study proves that AI can’t even solve basic grade-school math problems" (paper here), showing that if you train you AI with a bunch of kid stories, .e.g., "Little Johnny has $1.00 and Suzy is selling eggs for $.25..." you can ask questions about little Johnny and little Suzy but you can't ask the AI to infer what happens if the names change.

So the AI is just essentially doing a JPEG-style compression on the billions of parameters and making them into a google-like search environment.  No reasoning at all.

Consider the IEEE article in this context.

Of course the AI will make mistakes - it can't distinguish between Johnny and Frank - because it can't think and only mimics the input data weakly.

Either fix the AI or don't use it, but don't add another stupid layer of useless software on top of it to "fix it."

If you can just "fix it" why bother using the AI at all...?

Dog Hip Dysplasia and Nutrition

Found an interesting post here: (https://open.substack.com/pub/lonewolfblog/p/dog-hip-dysplasia-and-nutrition?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web) - check out substack for more posts!

Miss Information: Girl Dinner and Malnutrition

From the Telegraph article linked below.

Miss information is back!

Today we are again going to make much deserved fun of MedPageToday.  As you may or may not know MedPageToday is a "top" site for true, clear, concise "medical" information - they never, never, ever publish "misinformation".  In fact, they despise all purveyors of "misinformation" - especially people like Meryl Nass (not, see: https://substack.com/@merylnass and https://merylnass.substack.com/p/paxlovid-given-license-inappropriately).

You can see MedPageToday's recent thoughts "misinformation" via this link: https://www.medpagetoday.com/search?q=misinformation.  They also despise lawyers taking their misinformation hating pals like Pfizer to court: https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/105484 (https://vsrf.ticketleap.com/covid-litigation-conference/). 

Now let's look at this fabulous case of "Tik Tok" misinformation at MedPageToday: "What's Wrong With Girl Dinner — Experts say the trend highlights the best and worst of social media's messaging on healthy eating" - https://www.medpagetoday.com/popmedicine/cultureclinic/105684?xid=nl_popmed_2023-08-04&eun=g1720904d0r

For some reason the words "misinformation" do not appear in this article?

I wonder why that might be?

So an example of a "Girl Dinner" is a "Tik Tok" influencer telling young, impressionable women that a great breakfast is "bread, cheese, grapes, and pickles".  MedPage "experts" deride this because "...these posts may promote unhealthy lifestyle and dietary choices."

But this apparently doesn't meet the criteria, whatever that might be, for "misinformation."

How interesting.

The article goes on to suggest a "social media" aspect: "It's not unreasonable today for primary care doctors to say, tell me what your habits are in terms of your use of social media," Fornari said. "I think that physicians need to be aware of the trend".

This is why the government needs access to your social media accounts - you might not be controlling things sufficiently for them.

And a "mental health" aspect: "'Girl Dinner' and Mental Health These posts would likely not have a negative effect on healthy people, but those who are more vulnerable to messages about body image issues might be influenced, Fornari noted. "Adolescent girls are more vulnerable to this because they're often feeling a sense of inadequacy and striving for perfection, which of course doesn't exist," he said. "So that's a population that I think is more at risk."

Again, manipulating impressionable young girls does not fall to the level of "misinformation..."

Hmmn...

So remember, at least as far as MedPageToday is concerned this is all perhaps a bit troubling but still, apparently, does not reach a level to be called "misinformation."

What does meet that level?

Let's take a look at what Vinay Prasad (see: https://substack.com/@vinayprasadmdmph) has to say (his background: @VINAYPRASADMDMPH at SubStack, THOUSANDS OF PAID SUBSCRIBER, Hematology Oncology Medicine Health Policy Epidemiology Professor).  He's also on youtube.

Here's one example: "The Cochrane Review on Masks is Damning - Masks have no good data to support them| - It is a religion, not a science" https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/the-cochrane-review-on-masks-is-damning

Another: "Randomized trials are the BEST way to test masking & other NPIs - Anyone who says otherwise is wrong" https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/randomized-trials-are-the-best-way

Old Vinay goes on quite a bit regarding the lack of randomized control studies.  Studies where one can gather unequivocal evidence as to whether something actually has an effect.

I wonder why no one at MedPageToday wants to hear from poor Vinay...?

Vinay, of course, is not alone (see my related article here: https://lwgat.blogspot.com/2023/08/my-old-friend-scurvy.html as well as google folks like Dr. Peter McCullough in McKinney Texas).

Then there's this recent vegan genius: "Influencer who promoted virtues of fruit-only diet dies aged 39 'of malnutrition' - Zhanna Samsonova, a Russian blogger, was described as a ‘walking skeleton’ as she embraced increasingly restrictive regimen" (see: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/08/01/zhanna-samsonova-tiktok-instagram-vegan-diet-dies/).

Well, MedPageToday, "veganism" sure is a "thing" today...

But, apparently, no worries about sending Zhanna Samsonova's message to teen age girls.  No, no, that's not "misinformation."

No consistency problem here...

I hate to tell you, MedPageToday, that there is only "information" - the term "misinformation" is itself "misinformation".

When you have a society largely composed of idiots who cannot think for themselves for whatever reason, you need to make up terms like "misinformation" to control them.

In reality, it is up to the consumer of any "information" to decide on it's quality and value.

Only dictators try to force their ideas of what information should be consumed on others...

It seems like MedPageToday thinks that only government and big-pharma-blessed social media and talking points constitute "information" where as actual science does not.

How interesting...

My Old Friend Scurvy...

Discovering the "cure" for scurvy

About thirteen years ago I wrote about scurvy (see: http://just-got-lucky.blogspot.com/2010/11/ruinous-health-capital-spending.html).  I indicated that, due to the research of my Mrs. Wolf, I knew that large animals such as humans do not make enough vitamin C on their own (if at all) hence proper diet or supplementation is required.  But part of the story was not told...

Scurvy is a deficiency of vitamin C - if you don't know what it is you can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scurvy).

A long time ago (decades before the article) I had noticed two things: occasional bleeding gums and plaque on my teeth.  In those days these things were not uncommon.  The bleeding gums were always, at least at that time, attributed to a lack of trips to the dentist.  Ditto for plaque.  I figured I was healthy - I ran and exercised, at what was considered "good food" at the time.  What could be wrong...?

These symptoms would come and go for no reason or pattern I could see.

Over the years Mrs. Wolf's research came into play and I realized what was wrong: subclinical scurvy (see this JAMA article from 1934: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/247759).

Supplements solved the problem - I've been taking 2g per day for about fifteen years at this point.  (This amount has nothing to do with the US RDA which is completely wrong, inadequate and dangerous - 65mg/day - just enough so that the symptoms of scurvy don't show...)

What's interesting is, that in today's modern times, everyone should be "healthy" - at least in regards to nutrition and vitamin C - right...?  All the vegans eating great, nutritious, healthy food - no one should have this deficiency, should they?

Recently this MedPageToday article caught my eye: Fatigue and Pain Sent Her to the ED: Medical Mystery Solved — YouTuber and physician Siobhan Deshauer, MD, delves into the case (https://www.medpagetoday.com/popmedicine/popmedicine/105459).  From the article: "Meet Jennifer. She is a healthy, active 54-year-old woman, who is currently training for a 5 km run. Over the past few months she has been having increasing fatigue and some knee pain, but she figured it was from all the extra running she has been doing."

Like me... interesting.

Now let's go through the doctor's thought process and the steps taken in this situation (in order from the article).  Feel free to google the costs yourselves:

1. "swelling in legs" - Action: MRI of both legs - Cost $400-$12,000 - Side Effects: negligible
2. "the team ordered a CT scan of her chest, abdomen, and pelvis, which didn't show any signs of cancer" - CT Scan - Cost: $300-$3,280 - Side Effects: (see: https://lwgat.blogspot.com/2012/06/ct-scans-known-cancer-cause-in-children.html)
3. "EMG [electromyography], which is the test that measures the electrical activity produced by a muscle" - Action: EMG Scan - Cost: $50-$500 per extremity - Side Effects: Unknown but probably negligible.
4. "low red cell blood count" - Action: reticulocyte count - Cost: $4-$59 - Side Effects: N/A
5. "skin biopsy" - planned but since the results would take days or weeks and Jennifer would need a blood transfusion before that this was not done.
6. "they noticed that Jennifer left a lot of food on her tray and she wasn't touching it" 

At point #6 (Jennifer is in the hospital, of course, so figure two days @ $2,800/day) Jennifer "explained that over the last 2 years she has been worried about allergies and intolerances to foods, so slowly she's been restricting her diet and cutting out foods that she suspected were causing her issues. At this point, she stopped eating all fruits and most vegetables without taking any new supplements".

(For those keeping score we are probably two days into it, adding a 1% chance of cancer from the CT scan, have spent about $7,500 - $22,000 depending on location and insurance.)

Little wonder it took so much money and time to figure this out given https://lwgat.blogspot.com/2012/07/md-no-knowledge-of-nutrition.html - yes, that's right, doctors don't learn about nutrition.  Perhaps there have been some changes since 2012 but I doubt it.

Mrs. Wolf, reading a $60 book on dog health and John Gault discussing it with her: Cost $60 w/no side effects.  Walmart vitamin C supplements (and others) $30/year.

Scurvy is not new.  "Limey's" - an American slang for British seamen was coined because the Brit's used limes and lemons to ward off scurvy during the British sea faring days (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limey).

What's new is ignorance.

Ignorance of health and what causes it.

(Image credit: https://www.thearmorylife.com/forum/threads/finding-the-cure-for-scurvy.6340/)

Lithium Doomsday Dreams...

Lithium Mining in South America

I remember standing at the gas pump around 1973 filling the family Pacer.  The newspapers reporting that the "end of oil" is a mere twenty years away.  Today, man is attempting to terminate societies use of the unlimited shale gas (recoverable U.S. [shale] gas from “traditional” resources, which include shale, conventional, tight sand and carbonate, jumped from 2016 by 21% to 3,218 Tcf [ trillion cubic feet]).

Marcellus shale alone "contains about 84 Tcf of undiscovered, technically recoverable natural gas. Undiscovered resources are estimated using geologic knowledge, while technically recoverable resources may be produced using currently available technology"

So an error on perhaps an six or seven orders of magnitude in supply.

Oops...

It takes twenty two hundred metric tons of water to make one metric ton of lithium (see this).  Worldwide lithium demand is estimated at 900,000 Mt according to this.  So perhaps two trillion liters of fresh water per year.  Much of this mining occurs in South America and China.

I wonder how this lithium gets to the US?

I wonder what technology powers this shipment?

The US uses approximately 100 trillion liters of fresh water per year (see this).

By 2030 lithium demand is expected to reach (from this) 2,500,000 Mt.

Looks like the mining folks will be cutting substantially into the fresh water supply.

Where exactly the "waste water" goes from all this is unclear.  Much is presumably evaporated - though what non-water components does this evaporation carry with it into the sky...?

Rushing headlong into the lithium doomsday surely makes everyone feel good though.