COVID-19 Vaccines Likened to ‘Software Updates’ for Your Body
However, despite being a recognized form of gene therapy since its inception, vaccine makers are now frantically trying to deny that this mRNA technology is gene therapy. One reason for this, suggested by David Martin, Ph.D.,
1 might be because as long as they’re considered “vaccines,” they will be shielded from liability.
Experimental gene therapies do not have financial liability shielding from the government, but pandemic vaccines do, even in the experimental stage, as long as the emergency use authorization is in effect. Another reason might be because they fear people won’t line up for experimental gene therapy. It has a very different connotation in people’s minds (as it should).
Impending Doom, Indeed!
We will not mince words. America is indeed suffering from a dangerous plague – a plague of misanthropic fear-mongering from the likes of Dr. Fauci, the Scarf Lady and the Biden’s new CDC director, among countless others of the self-designated Virus Patrol.
All three took to the mainstream media in recent days, with new CDC director Rochelle Walensky getting positively teary-eyed as she allegedly veered off-script to sound yet another Covid Alarm:
“I’m going to reflect on the recurring feeling I have of
impending doom,” Walensky said, appearing to hold back tears.
“We do not have the luxury of inaction. For the health of our country, we must work together now to prevent a fourth surge.”
Today’s political landscape is looking more and more like the classic Monty Python ‘Dead Parrot’ sketch.
You know the one, John Cleese walks into the shop to complain about the parrot he’d just been sold was dead and he wants his money back. The shopkeeper, Michael Palin, insists it isn’t.
Hilarity ensues.
The Dead Parrot sketch is one of the high points of Python’s particular blend of absurdism and social commentary that transcends its time.
Everywhere I look I see Michael Palins doing their best to convince us of the most absurd lies to hide the rank incompetence at every level of our society’s power structure.
When Is Short Selling Fraudulent?
Amid the controversy over GameStop, many cynics argued that something sinister was clearly afoot because the hedge funds had shorted 138 percent of the outstanding shares. In this article I’ll review that particular claim, as well as another seemingly dubious practice, so-called naked short selling. My conclusion is that shorting more than the total outstanding shares isn’t perverse or fraudulent, whereas naked short selling depending on the context might be.
A Review of Short Selling
Before diving into the specific variants, let me first explain the basics of short selling and why it can be a healthy activity in a free market. (In this section I reproduce material I published in an earlier mises.org article.)