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

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
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
this simple, counter narrative fact keeps cropping up all over the world.

hospital and ICU utilization has been and remains low this year.

it's terribly curious that so few of these monitoring tools provide historical baselines.

getting them is like pulling teeth.


we might think of this as an oversight until you see stuff like this:

this woman was arrested for filming and sharing the fact that their are empty hospitals in the UK.

that's full blown soviet. what possible honest purpose does that

this is the action of a police state and a propaganda ministry, not a well intentioned government and a public heath agency.

"we cannot let people see the truth for fear they might base their actions on real facts" is not much of a mantra for just governance.


90% full ICU sounds scary until you realize that 90-100% full is normal in flu season.

staffed ICU beds are expensive to leave empty. it's like flying with 15% of the plane empty. hospitals don't do that.

and all US hospitals are mandated to be able to flex to 120% ICU.

the US is currently at historically low ICU utilization for this time of year.

61% is "you're all going to go out of business" territory as is 66% full hospital use.

can you blame them for mining CARES act money? they'll die without it.

More from Politics

1/ Imagine that as soon as the referendum result the EU announced that it was looking forward to the end of free movement of UK citizens in the EU


2/ Imagine if the EU said finally all those retired Brits in the EU27 could go home

3/ Imagine if the EU said finally all those Brits in the EU could stop driving down wages, taking jobs and stop sending benefits back to the UK

4/ Imagine if the EU said it was looking to use UK citizens as “bargaining chips” to get a better trade deal

5/ Imagine if the EU told UK citizens in the EU27 that they could no longer rely on established legal rights and they would have to apply for a new status which they have to pay for for less rights

You May Also Like

“We don’t negotiate salaries” is a negotiation tactic.

Always. No, your company is not an exception.

A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.

Listen to Aditya


And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.

I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.

You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.

Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]
1. Project 1742 (EcoHealth/DTRA)
Risks of bat-borne zoonotic diseases in Western Asia

Duration: 24/10/2018-23 /10/2019

Funding: $71,500
@dgaytandzhieva
https://t.co/680CdD8uug


2. Bat Virus Database
Access to the database is limited only to those scientists participating in our ‘Bats and Coronaviruses’ project
Our intention is to eventually open up this database to the larger scientific community
https://t.co/mPn7b9HM48


3. EcoHealth Alliance & DTRA Asking for Trouble
One Health research project focused on characterizing bat diversity, bat coronavirus diversity and the risk of bat-borne zoonotic disease emergence in the region.
https://t.co/u6aUeWBGEN


4. Phelps, Olival, Epstein, Karesh - EcoHealth/DTRA


5, Methods and Expected Outcomes
(Unexpected Outcome = New Coronavirus Pandemic)