anyone currently shocked by the fact that the politicians in power recant and reverse the views they held when they were in opposition (and vice versa) has simply not paid any attention to history.

that's 100% to be expected.

where you stand depends up where you sit.

always.

this latest biden refusal to commit to a view on packing SCOTUS until after the election is just this same phenomenon.

if he wins, he's for packing it. if he loses, he'll be against it.

this is because almost none of these people stand on any principles.

they just seek power.
this is why it's so hard to trust any of them.

and why shouldn't they act this way?

it's what we reward. we all accept their lies even when we KNOW they are lies. we elect them anyway.

we accept that all we ever get is the lesser of evils.

will biden pay any price? nope.
it's behavioralism 101

the fault lies not w/ these narcissistic liars & sociopaths, it lies with us

we're the ones electing them & putting up with monstrous & dishonest behavior because "it's not as bad as what the other guy would do."

those are the railroad tracks to tyranny.
it demands a question:

if the outcome of an election is so impactful that it can make or ruin your life or save or lose the republic (as many claim it is) is that not proof positive that the government is FAR too powerful?

do you really want to gamble for such stakes?
you know the game is rigged by two increasing nasty and power hungry parties neither of whom respects your rights.

most agree it's always a choice between the lesser of evils.

yet we keep giving the government more power and rewarding liars and tyrants.
this is like protecting your home from fire by surrounding it with dry hay bales and filling the basement w/ gasoline soaked rags

the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results

so how else are we to diagnose this?

#DemandBetter

More from el gato malo

for those looking for a compendium of mask studies this set from swiss policy research looks useful and has some good links and discussion.

also attaching 2 past debunkings of widely disseminated US studies that health officials have attempted to

first, the kansas study spread by CDC and so many "twitterdocs" and politicians.

it's a master class in cherry picking and misusing data through truncation.

the data proving it was false was widely available at the time it was


also the mass general study, a classic of the "sun-dance" variant: use no control group and then presume that any action undertaken was the result of some thing you did.

ignore the fact that the whole rest of (unmasked) massachusetts got the same


the fact that CDC has been spreading studies like these and using them alongside flimsy lab bench experiments with no clinical outcomes or even real world measurement speaks poorly of both CDC & the evidence for masks

the good studies do not support use



and lab bench droplet projection studies are meaningless.

it's one tiny aspect of a large system and may actually be counterproductive if masks are nebulizing droplets and making virus more aerosol in spread and more deeply
global health policy in 2020 has centered around NPI's (non-pharmaceutical interventions) like distancing, masks, school closures

these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.

this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.

let's look.


above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.

we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.

this is devastating to the case for NPI.


clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.

barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.

this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.

there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.

this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.

everyone got the same R
from the "make orwell fiction again" files:

google has memory holed the great barrington declaration

not only have they wiped it from the top results, they have salted it with false claims about "climate denial"

it's pure, simple propaganda

here's bing (who plays it straight)


simple, right? here's the declaration, here's the wiki page.

you can see the authors, kulldorf, gupta, bhattacharya's names and know this this was written by medical professors at harvard, stanford, and oxford.

there's no slant, not editorializing, it's primary source info.

now let's have a look at google.

pretty different looking results, huh? not only do they not lead with the declaration itself or its authors, they lead with dishonest hit pieces.

they try to tie it to climate denial and fake science.

um, no. this is "fake search."


the google results for "great barrington declaration" are simply not search results at all.

it's a propagandistic hit piece ducking the science, ignoring the credentials of the authors, failing to show the declaration, and spinning it as some kind of fringe cabal of "deniers."


it's staggeringly blatant once you see it, but will anyone?

or will they be fooled by this because it's subtle and you think google is a search engine, not a radicalized editorial column.

and it's now EVERYWHERE.

reddit will not allow users to see

More from Politics

You May Also Like

MASTER THREAD on Short Strangles.

Curated the best tweets from the best traders who are exceptional at managing strangles.

• Positional Strangles
• Intraday Strangles
• Position Sizing
• How to do Adjustments
• Plenty of Examples
• When to avoid
• Exit Criteria

How to sell Strangles in weekly expiry as explained by boss himself. @Mitesh_Engr

• When to sell
• How to do Adjustments
• Exit


Beautiful explanation on positional option selling by @Mitesh_Engr
Sir on how to sell low premium strangles yourself without paying anyone. This is a free mini course in


1st Live example of managing a strangle by Mitesh Sir. @Mitesh_Engr

• Sold Strangles 20% cap used
• Added 20% cap more when in profit
• Booked profitable leg and rolled up
• Kept rolling up profitable leg
• Booked loss in calls
• Sold only


2nd example by @Mitesh_Engr Sir on converting a directional trade into strangles. Option Sellers can use this for consistent profit.

• Identified a reversal and sold puts

• Puts decayed a lot

• When achieved 2% profit through puts then sold