Reader’s Links for March 01, 2022

Each day at just after midnight Eastern, a post like this one is created for contributors and readers of this site to upload news links and video links on the issues that concern this site. Most notably, Islam and its effects on Classical Civilization, and various forms of leftism from Soviet era communism, to postmodernism and all the flavours of galloping statism and totalitarianism such as Nazism and Fascism which are increasingly snuffing out the classical liberalism which created our near, miraculous civilization the West has been building since the time of Socrates.

This document was written around the time this site was created, for those who wish to understand what this site is about. And while our understanding of the world and events has grown since then, the basic ideas remain sound and true to the purpose.

So please post all links, thoughts and ideas that you feel will benefit the readers of this site to the comments under this post each day. And thank you all for your contributions.

This is the new Samizdat. We must use it while we can.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

23 Replies to “Reader’s Links for March 01, 2022”

  1. “Africans fleeing the Russian invasion of Ukraine are suffering racism, it has been claimed, with black refugees blocked from public transport and threatened at gunpoint by marauding militiamen. ”

    “Ms Sky, mother of a nine-month-old baby, told The Independent she had been threatened at gunpoint due to the colour of her skin by local armed men as she tried to make her escape from the rapidly escalating conflict”

    “Meanwhile, Osarumen, a father-of-three and a Nigerian national, said he and his family were asked to give up their seat on a cross-border bus out of Ukraine, with the driver and military officers using the phrase ‘no blacks’ as justification.”

    “Osarumen told The Independent: ‘In all of my years as an activist, I have never seen anything like this.”

    “He said: ‘This isn’t just happening to black people – even Indians, Arabs and Syrians,’ he added, ‘and that shouldn’t be the case.”

    The sentiment might be opposite.

    The Ukrainians are fighting for existence. The Communists are taking over. And then they notice that Diversity Is Our Strength, is leaving. There are those who fight for freedom everywhere they go, and those who fight for representation everywhere they go.

    The racists, those that came to enjoy their country, leave.

      • ‘Putin within a day can take over Canada’

        ‘Trudeau should watch his step’.

        When Lord Haw Haw told the British that Hitler was all-wise, and only protecting what belonged to him, they listened for entertainment.

        When Russia won World War 2 and took over Eastern Europe, including East Germany, do they deserve to take the independent countries back? Should Germany be removed from NATO? I would understand this unique mind of Putin only if East Germany was taken over. To be the first to cry “racist” if Germans prevented ethnic peoples from leaving. Russia invading to liberate Russian-Speaking peoples and rightfully reclaim their oil pipelines.

        To build a wall not to keep evil people out but good people in again.

        Are Canadians buying into this propaganda, Johnnyu?

  2. Watch Live | Zelensky speaks before EU – 2:56:57
    by Kane – March 1, 2022

    “I asked an old friend what he thought, and he said it’s “two sick dogs fighting over a bone, and when it’s over you have to make one your pet.”
    ~ Party Farty

    Ukraine: Unraveling the Planned Chaos
    by William F. Jasper – April 7, 2014

    The other WHO:
    Meet the new boss
    Same as the old boss
    We won’t get fooled again?

  3. You should know your country is in terrible trouble when the Public Safety Minister, a reckless, irresponsible individual states with absolutely NO evidence:
    “There were Ottawans who where subjected to intimidation, harassment’s, threats of rape”
    “Truckers were potential rapists”.

    When questioned about his hysterical comments, he had no evidence.

    He is not fit for office.

  4. sky news australia –Megyn Kelly: It will be ‘absolutely devastating’ for Democrats come November

    Megyn Kelly, says she thinks it will be “absolutely devastating” for Democrats come November when the midterm elections are held.

    In an exclusive interview with Sky News Australia, Ms Kelly spoke about current issues facing the United States and pandemic policies being “pushed” by the Democrats.

    “The hangover will remain – the voters are too angry,” Ms Kelly said.

    “I don’t think people will forget and I think it’s going to absolutely devastating for them come November.”

  5. Ukraine – Odessa – MAY 02 2014 – Masks of the Revolution

    French documentary – ( Eng subs) ( 55 min )

    … broadcast on the French TV channel Canal +.

    Ukrainian Embassy in Paris asked for this documentary to be taken off air.

  6. “British ‘Lads Army’ volunteers eager to take on Vladimir Putin’s Russian forces could be prosecuted under UK terror laws if they go out to fight in Ukraine, Boris Johnson today hinted.

    Groups of men have gathered outside the Ukrainian embassy in west London to answer Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky call to arms for foreign fighters to join his country’s defence against Russia.

    Yesterday Foreign Secretary Liz Truss appeared to encourage Britons saying she would ‘absolutely support’ those who wished to sign up to fight as part of the Ukrainian armed forces.

    But lawyers have warned that Britons who fight in Ukraine could be prosecuted under UK terror laws – much like those who took arms for Kurdish militia forces against ISIS in Syria”

    Remember Americans, when you gave 1 million guns to Britain to defend against Hitler, you were terrorists.

    Never give to Socialists. This is them all grown up Cucks.

  7. twitter @Medscape

    Antibodies derived from natural COVID infection are more abundant and at least 10x more potent than immunity generated by vaccination alone.

    That’s not something we should ignore, scientists say.


    Medscape UK – COVID-19: Why Are We Ignoring Infection-Acquired Immunity?

    Antibodies derived from natural infection with COVID-19 are more abundant and more potent – at least 10 times more potent – than immunity generated by vaccination alone, according to a study from Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) in Portland, US, published on January 25.

    Three days later, the US Centres for Disease Control (CDC) reported in an MMWR Early Release that before Delta became the predominant variant in June 2021, case rates were higher among people who survived a previous infection than among people who were vaccinated alone. However by early October, those who had been previously infected had lower case rates than those who were vaccinated alone.

    These studies focus renewed attention on the ongoing debate about the importance of infection-acquired immunity and the extent to which it should be taken into account in public health policy.

    While many authorities do accept documented recovery from COVID-19 as a temporary ‘get out of jail free’ card, the allowance is generally short-lived and those who have been infected are still urged to get vaccinated.

    Yet, although the OHSU study was used to conclude that the combination of vaccine with natural infection (hybrid immunity) induces a sort of ‘super-immunity’, irrespective of whether infection or vaccination comes first, there is increasing evidence that immunity derived from natural infection with COVID-19 gives powerful protection on its own. Natural immunity has been shown to be both highly protective and long lasting, and to safeguard against both re-infection and severe disease.

    For example, a study in Geneva, Switzerland, of people infected in the first wave showed a 15.5% infection rate in seronegative individuals compared with just 1% in seropositives, giving overall protection attributable to infection of 94% – comparable with that in the original Pfizer vaccine trial.

    Another study from India showed that seropositivity protected against both infection and severe disease, and suggested “strong plausibility that development of antibody following natural infection not only protects against re-infection by the virus to a great extent, but also safeguards against progression to severe COVID-19 disease”.

    Natural infection also protects against the different variants that have arisen progressively since the start of the pandemic. A national database study including almost 22,000 people in Qatar published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that previous infection was “robust” – approximately 90% – in preventing reinfection with the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants of SARS-CoV-2, and approximately 60% “but still considerable” against Omicron. None of the re-infections progressed to critical or fatal outcomes and the effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was estimated to be 69.4% against Alpha, 88.0% against Beta, 100% against Delta, and 87.8% against Omicron variants.

    Long-Lasting Protection

    Protection from natural immunity also seems to be durable. People infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and early 2021 had around 72% to 86% protection against reinfection with the virus for at least 6 months, according to a study of US SpaceX employees partly funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and published earlier this month in PLOS Biology.

    A multicentre, prospective cohort of NHS workers published in the Lancet showed an 84% lower risk after natural infection lasting at least 7 months. A report from Dublin published in January this year reviewed 11 large cohort studies and found natural immunity lasted at least 10 months.

    “Re-infection was an uncommon event (absolute rate 0% to 1.1%), with no study reporting an increase in the risk of re-infection over time,” the authors said.

    Another study following up first wave infections in Lombardy, Italy, before the emergence of variants, also showed that re-infections were rare and protection from infection lasted at least one year. In a further Italian study of 36 patients with documented COVID-19 infection in March 2020, who were followed to Sept 2021, the 17 individuals who remained unvaccinated demonstrated persistence of IgG antibodies to at least 18 months, according to a preprint study published last month.

    And most recently, a study published online in JAMA on February 3 showed antibody levels sustained up to 20 months following a positive COVID-19 test.

    Broadly-speaking then, natural immunity, so far, seems generally to last for at least as long as the studies assessing it, and to offer robust protection against both re-infection and, on the rare occasions re-infection has occurred, against severe outcomes.

    Comparisons With Vaccine-induced Immunity

    Furthermore, a study of over 30,000 Cleveland clinic employees followed for 4 months from the start of an mRNA vaccine roll out in December 2020 found cumulative infection rates did not differ between previously infected people who were or were not subsequently vaccinated, or those uninfected who received the vaccine. Researchers concluded that those previously infected “are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before”.

    This accords with the general pre-COVID view that natural infection offers superior and lasting protection from disease compared with vaccination. It is increasingly acknowledged that while COVID vaccines protect against severe disease, they do not prevent infection per se, and it is now clear that they do not stop transmission, as even the Prime Minister has acknowledged.

    Moreover, vaccine-induced protection wanes quite quickly, particularly since the advent of Delta and subsequent variants. Protection from infection by 6 months was reduced to just 29% from two doses of Pfizer and 59% from two doses of Moderna, with no detectable effectiveness at all from the AstraZeneca jab from 4 months onwards, according to a large nationwide study in Sweden also published this month.

    A pre-publication study from Israel to be presented at this year’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases in Lisbon in April compared previously infected-unvaccinated people with double-vaccinated-never infected individuals. Results showed that, although over time the number of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies falls in both previously-infected and vaccinated patients, the performance of antibodies improves only after previous infection, and not after vaccination.

    “This difference could explain why previously-infected patients appear to be better protected against a new infection than those who have only been vaccinated,” the researchers concluded.

    Commenting on the study, Dr Julian Tang, a clinical virologist at the University of Leicester, said: “Generally, natural infection generates a broader and longer-lasting set of immune responses to all the viral antigens – so this is not really surprising. After all, our immune systems have evolved over several million years to deal with all types of pathogens – so I would expect natural immunity to outperform any vaccine-induced immunity over the longer term.”

    Caution Over Boosters

    Declining protection from what were originally billed as ‘full courses’ of vaccines, resulting in increasing so-called ‘breakthrough’ infections even in the fully-vaccinated, have led to growing recommendations for booster shots. However the latest study, published this month from the CDC, showed waning immunity against severe disease just 4 months after a third dose of an mRNA vaccine, similar to the drop in effectiveness after a second dose.

    Vaccine protection waned during both Delta and Omicron waves, and has been lower overall during the Omicron period. Even vaccine manufacturers now admit the likely need for annual jabs to maintain protection. However the effectiveness of boosters has been questioned, and repeated boosters may impart unexpected dangers: last month the head of the European Medicines Agency acknowledged the potential risk of immune system overload after multiple shots.

    In addition, evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 may experience higher rates of side effects after vaccination, possibly due to existing levels of antibodies interacting with a subsequent vaccine to create immune complex deposition, has also been largely ignored. A comparison using data from the ZOE symptom app found that both local and systemic side-effects were more common among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection than among those without known past infection (systemic side-effects 2.9 times more common after the first dose of Pfizer and 1.6 times after the first dose of the Astra vaccine).

    Public Health Policy

    Yet, even where authorities allow documented recovery from COVID-19 as a temporary alternative for certification purposes or for exemption from vaccine mandates, the allowance is generally limited in scope or short-lived – in Austria and in the UK to just 6 months after a positive PCR test, even though protection has been shown to last far longer. In Germany, infection is now recognised for only 3 months (down from 6 months previously), whereas in Switzerland it confers ‘honorary vaccinated’ status for a full 12 months.

    In Canada, recovery is not recognised at all.

    Similarly in the US at national level, there is no recognition of natural immunity under CDC policy. It has been admitted that this is partly for logistic reasons – it was viewed as too complicated to test people first: “It’s a lot easier to put a shot in their arm,” according to Alfred Sommer, dean emeritus of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. It is also partly political.

    The message that even if someone has had COVID-19 it’s still better to get vaccinated “is not based on data. There’s something political going on around that”, according to Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease specialist at University of California San Francisco.

    Comparative studies of natural infection and vaccination are also illuminative. A study in Israel showed that protection from reinfection decreased with time since previous infection, but was still higher than that conferred by two-dose vaccination at a similar time since the last immunity-conferring event.

    Another Israeli study demonstrated that natural immunity conferred longer-lasting and stronger protection against re-infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalisation caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 compared with two-dose Pfizer/BNT vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

    In the US, a pooled analysis of seven clinical studies showed “no statistical advantage to vaccination in the COVID-naive, compared with natural immunity in the COVID-recovered”. In addition: “Vaccination in the COVID-recovered may provide some incremental protective benefit, but the size of this benefit is marginal.”

    The authors concluded: “COVID-recovered individuals should be considered to have at least equal protection to their vaccinated COVID-naïve counterparts… National policy should reflect the need for clinical equipoise and restraint in the decision to vaccinate these individuals by mandate.”

    Back in January 2021, the CDC instructed everyone, regardless of previous infection, to get fully vaccinated as soon as they were eligible, stating on its website that natural immunity “varies from person to person” and “experts do not yet know how long someone is protected”.

    Despite acknowledging some of these studies, the advice has not materially changed and still states that COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all eligible persons, including those who have been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.

    Yet length of protection after natural infection has now proven highly durable, and more so than that of vaccines absent multiple boosters. There is an increasingly strong argument that at the very least the protection afforded by natural infection might be acknowledged by allowing just one vaccine dose in the previously-infected. “This would also spare individuals from unnecessary pain when getting the second dose and it would free up additional vaccine doses,” according to virologist Florian Krammer of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

    Such a policy is supported by a study part-funded by the US National Institutes of Health showing that whereas previously uninfected people reach peak immunity after a second vaccine dose, those who have recovered from previous infection reach peak immunity after the first dose. “A second dose… may be not necessary in individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2,” the authors concluded.

    This is the approach taken in the EU, where the digital COVID certificate can be issued after a single dose of an mRNA vaccine to people who have had a positive test result within the previous 6 months, although again the concession is time-limited.

    NHS Staff Opposed to Mandates

    However, such dispensations may not sway those healthcare workers prepared to lose their jobs rather than be vaccinated at all – one example of the unintended consequences of vaccine mandates. After 40,000 care workers were fired in November for refusing the jab, the potential loss of more crucial personnel at a time when there are already staff shortages provoked considerable concern and outright opposition from many national bodies, before Health Secretary Sajid Javid’s 11th hour row back on the NHS vax mandate.

    Despite current attempts to woo back staff who resigned over the mandate, there are continuing pressures. Mr Javid – who had already asked professional regulators to conduct “urgent” reviews of their guidance on vaccination against occupational diseases, including COVID – immediately switched to urging the GMC to remind doctors of their duty to be vaccinated. A joint statement in response from the GMC and the Academy of the Medical Royal Colleges continued to urge doctors to get vaccinated, but stopped short of threatening disciplinary procedures. However senior NHS managers have been writing to staff telling them it is their “professional responsibility” to be vaccinated, and the NHS England medical director has warned that staff who remain unvaccinated against coronavirus could have this used against them in fitness-to-practise cases.

    Many NHS staff worked with COVID patients all the way through the first wave – at personal risk and often with inadequate PPE – and thereby contracted infection in significant numbers. This underpinned at least some of the resistance to the mandate. Steve James, the ICU consultant whose on-camera encounter with Savid Javid attracted widespread media attention, told Mr Javid: “I’ve got antibodies, and I’ve been working on COVID ICU since the beginning… The protection I’ve got from transmission is probably equivalent to someone who’s vaccinated.”

    Similarly, Dr Simon Fox, an NHS consultant in infectious diseases, has also spoken publicly about his unwillingness to be vaccinated. “Given I’ve had the infection and worked with patients with COVID for two years, I can hand-on-heart say I’m as immune as anyone else can claim to be,” Dr Fox told TalkRADIO at the end of January.

    Both doctors, and others like them who feel the same way, have had extensive experience of treating the most serious COVID cases. They might reasonably expect that their professional assessment at least merits consideration. Moreover, like almost all those working in the health service, they will likely have been vaccinated against hepatitis B (although notably this is not a legal ruling), and have had, and advocated, most other vaccines. They are not ‘anti-vaxxers’.

    Ethics and Science

    Yet, the protection afforded by natural immunity is still not acknowledged in policy responses, and NHS staff opposing the mandate have described its dismissal as “irrational”.

    It also raises ethical questions over and above those of mandates and certifications generally. Is it justified to pressure people with pre-existing infection-acquired immunity to take a vaccine they neither want nor need? How can such individuals give proper informed consent, especially when they may be also at a higher than average risk of side-effects? Is it equitable to give unnecessary doses when vaccines have yet to be equally shared on a global level?

    Moreover, the Government has repeatedly invoked ‘the science’ to reinforce coronavirus measures. Is inconvenient scientific evidence now being side-lined? Marty Makary, professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University told the BMJ in an interview last September: “Public health officials… talk about the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. If we want to be scientific, we should talk about the immune and the non-immune.”

    So, should we at least give recognition to the equivalent and possibly superior status of natural immunity by giving those who have been infected an exemption from vaccine requirements? And if not, why not?

  8. national post – Alberta to ban Edmonton and any other municipalities from keeping mask mandate or any COVID restrictions

    The move, once introduced as a bill and passed, would put the province in a position to overrule Edmonton’s mask bylaw, which remains in effect locally

    EDMONTON — The Alberta government has vowed to ban municipalities from enacting their own COVID-19-related public-health rules, preventing them from contradicting the direction of the provincial government, which has dropped nearly all pandemic restrictions.

    The move, announced Tuesday, once introduced as a bill and passed, would put the province in a position to overrule Edmonton’s mask bylaw, which remains in effect locally. The reforms would limit the powers a municipality has to enact public-health-related bylaws.

    “It was a bit odd coming in here not wearing a mask, but it was also pretty awesome,” Premier Jason Kenney said in Red Deer.

    Edmonton appears to be the only municipality in Alberta to retain a mask bylaw, and certainly the largest city to have one; Calgary dropped its municipal mask bylaw alongside the provincial mandate on Tuesday. (Under the provincial rules, masking remains in effect on transit and in health-care settings.)

    Kenney said a patchwork of public-health policy will only feed confusion and division in the province, and eliminating municipal discretion would prevent “virtue signalling” from local councillors.

    “We need to move forward together. There has been too much division over the COVID era in our society,” said Kenney. “We certainly shouldn’t allow political science to be a substitute for public-health science.”

    Edmonton Mayor Amarjeet Sohi, speaking Tuesday afternoon, condemned the provincial announcement as “overreach” and warned it could have effects well beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting the province could use similar moves to interfere in decisions like development plans or smoking bylaws.

    “It is about time that provinces recognize us as an equal order of government and do not meddle into the affairs where we can make our own decisions,” said Sohi.

    Duane Bratt, a political scientist at Mount Royal University, described Edmonton’s mask policy as “all politics.”

    “It’s not all politics by the Kenney government, right? I mean, the city councils of Calgary and Edmonton are playing their own political games,” said Bratt. “Now, maybe not so much when they first imposed it, but keeping it up is a way of showing opposition to the Kenney government…. So, when you talk about politics, there’s the politics of COVID and then there’s the overall politics where the big cities see themselves as a separate sphere, as a counteracting power to the provincial government. And we’ve seen that for a very long time in this province.”

    While cities in Canada are “creatures” of provincial governments, Alberta’s Municipal Government Act, seemingly, gives local government wide latitude to pass bylaws regarding “the safety, health and welfare of people and the protection of people and property.”

    Lorian Hardcastle, a health law expert at the University of Calgary, said the provincial government does have the authority to adjust the powers of municipalities, but argued it sets a “negative precedent” for the province to intervene when it doesn’t like what a municipality is doing.

    “Public health is the purview of all levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal. And municipalities do a ton of important work in the area of public health. They deal with water fluoridation, they pass safety bylaws related to things like bike helmets, they pass bylaws dealing with cannabis and tobacco consumption,” Hardcastle said. Joe Ceci, the New Democrat critic for municipal affairs, said Kenney’s announcement is a “dramatic reversal from when the UCP not only allowed but forced local governments to make public health decisions.” Kenney’s announcement, which comes roughly one month after he hinted at such legislation in a Facebook Live, represents a complete shift from July 2020. At the time, when asked about why there was no province-wide mask mandate, Kenney said Alberta was too large and diverse for one-size-fits-all policy.

    “We think these decisions are better taken locally,” Kenney said, at the time.

    Now, he said, the argument his government is making is that public health is the province’s responsibility not a municipality’s, and that cities “improvising” health-care policy is “unhelpful and divisive.”

    “We appreciate the care and concern of people in municipal government about these issues, and we’re always willing to listen to their views about public-health policy but we think as we go into this phase, getting our lives back to normal, it’s important that there be unity, clarity, consistency,” Kenney said.

    Sohi argued that the cities have stepped in when the provincial government had dropped the ball during the pandemic, and that while health care is indeed a provincial responsibility, “protecting the well-being of Edmontonians is also a municipal responsibility.

    “This is not about grandstanding. This is not about political support. This is about making good decisions based on the needs of local communities and listening to our health experts,” Sohi said.

    Kenney’s announcement may be more or less moot, though, because it will take time to introduce and pass legislation modifying the Municipal Government Act, and Edmonton’s city bylaw will be reviewed by council on March 8. At that point, it may be revoked.

    “The vast majority of Alberta’s municipalities have aligned with provincial public health policy,” said Scott Johnston, press secretary Municipal Affairs.

    “Other Canadian provinces generally approach municipal bylaws in a similar way to Alberta. Municipalities are provided with broad authority to implement bylaws, with certain limitations. These limitations vary province to province; however, in all instances, provincial legislation trumps municipal bylaws.”

    Provincial statistics show there are roughly 9,000 active cases across the province, with 1,224 in hospital and 83 people in intensive-care units; 3,912 Albertans have died from the virus.

  9. breaking 911 – SEE IT! Never Before Seen Footage From 9/11 Has Just Appeared Online Showing Chilling New Angle

    A never before seen video showing the second plane hitting the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 has just been uploaded online and it provides a new angle of the devastating attack that many have been yet to witness. The uploader, Kevin Westley, says he actually posted this video first in the 2000’s, but accidently left it private for until now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *