Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Winfastorlose who wrote (1317309)	9/2/2021 3:19:31 AM
From: Maple MAGA	2 Recommendations Recommended By Mick Mørmøny Winfastorlose Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583403

Kama Sutra Harris slept her way to the bottom.

To: Winfastorlose who wrote (1317309)	9/2/2021 2:23:25 PM
From: FJB	2 Recommendations Recommended By Mick Mørmøny Winfastorlose Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583403

‘You have 15 minutes to take a picture of your face and text the Government’… - AUSTRALIA! Never would have guessed Australia as dystopian nightmarehttps://t.co/vPGRKaFkla pic.twitter.com/OypJU6ny5K — Elad Gil (@eladgil) September 2, 2021

To: Winfastorlose who wrote (1317309)	9/2/2021 2:29:31 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By Winfastorlose Respond to of 1583403

Why Is Pfizer – the Leakiest Vaccine – Enjoying the Most Approval From Government? August was a remarkable month. In the face of all the bad reactions to the vaccines, we learned that after all that pain, the vaccines aren't even lasting. Concurrently, cases and deaths are skyrocketing more than before anyone had a vaccine. Yet precisely at the time when the shots are wearing off, the FDA not only quasi- approved the vaccine, but picked the leakiest of all to greenlight and also authorized emergency use of a third shot ... of the same failed substance. Even the most unflinching supporters of the COVID vaccines who deny any risks whatsoever should be asking the following salient question: Why is it the Pfizer vaccine that is getting the first full approval, the first booster approval, and the first emergency use for children, given that Moderna clearly works better? Any intellectually honest person at this point would have to admit that Moderna has won the battle of vaccine champions vs. Pfizer. According to a Mayo Clinic study, as of July, Americans were twice as likely to experience breakthrough infections after having had the Pfizer shot compared to Moderna. "In Florida, which is currently experiencing its largest COVID-19 surge to date, the risk of infection in July after full vaccination with mRNA-1273 (the Moderna shot) was about 60% lower than after full vaccination with BNT162b2 (Pfizer)," the researchers said. Overall, the Mayo Clinic researchers pegged Pfizer's efficacy at 42% vs. 76% for Moderna. Israel, a country where almost the entire adult population got the Pfizer shot, found just 39% efficacy in the Pfizer shot from data that is now two months old. And evidence is mounting that the efficacy wanes with every increasing month. Given these numbers, and the known risks of leaky viruses creating stronger, more durable viral immune escape, isn't anyone interested in researching whether Pfizer's leakiness is the possible culprit for both the U.S. and Israel seemingly experiencing a worse surge than ever before? The fact that Pfizer is leaking with antibodies waning much quicker is not surprising. A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that Moderna recipients had twice the antibody levels of those who received the Pfizer shots after a similar follow-up period after the second shot. "Pfizer is the lowest dose of mRNA, at 30 micrograms per shot, and it's therefore obvious that Pfizer has the lowest estimated vaccine efficacy," said Dr. Peter McCullough, a world-renowned cardiologist who has raised serious questions about the mass vaccination strategy. McCollough said that the differential vaccine efficacy is not merely about academic intrigue but has real-life consequences. "A common question I'm asked by my patients is which vaccine is the best and how can it be safely given," he said. Based on the government's stronger and quicker approval of Pfizer, the public perception is that Pfizer is the best bet, and Pfizer is winning the market share and almost completely owns the teen demographic. However, how can "the experts" ask Americans now to take a risk on a booster from Pfizer, in itself an indictment of Pfizer's existing efficacy, with the same failed formula without giving proper informed consent about the efficacy of each vaccine? Israeli researchers came out with a new study concluding that "elderly individuals (60+) who received their second dose (of Pfizer) in March 2021 were 1.6 (CI: [1.3, 2]) times more protected against infection and 1.7 (CI: [1.0, 2.7]) times more protected against severe COVID-19 compared to those who received their second dose in January 2021." They found similar results across all age groups; it's just that most of the seniors were vaccinated earlier, so they are experiencing waning immunity quicker. There are so many unanswered questions based on the existing science. Why should Pfizer be the first to be rewarded with a third shot if its product failed quicker than anyone else's? And how will another dose of the same formula with an ever-evolving virus work even as long as last time? Shouldn't we first study why the vaccine is so leaky and whether the leakiness is the culprit for this bizarre viral enhancement we seem to be experiencing, which is so unnatural? Typically, a virus that is more transmissible becomes less virulent, not more virulent. Here's another question: With the current vaccines leaking to various degrees, why does the FDA continue to slow-walk Novavax, which is closer to a traditional vaccine? With a rapidly deteriorating situation in America, wouldn't we be desperate for a new solution rather than doubling down on the most failed vaccine? By now, the wheels in your brain should begin to churn and come to the realization that, to borrow a line from Orwell, not all animals are created equal. Clearly, some companies have more pull than others. Nobody can deny that the tendentious treatment of Pfizer in the face of contrary scientific evidence demonstrates that politics and money supersede science. Pfizer is an exponentially larger company than Moderna, with an entrenched lobbying arm dating back decades. So just maybe – maybe – our entire approach to this virus, from the use of remdesivir and vaccines over early, cheap therapeutics to the failed capacity restrictions and masking are also rooted in political science rather than natural science?

To: Winfastorlose who wrote (1317309)	9/2/2021 2:32:02 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By Winfastorlose Respond to of 1583403

Chase Bank Unveils New “Reputation Risk” Campaign, Targeting Loyal Customers For Their Political Beliefs EXCERPT: On Tuesday Chase confirmed that the cancellation was real and aimed at Flynn’s wife, Lori. The company then tried to walk back the cancellation, claiming that it was all “mistake.” If there was any “mistake” in targeting Flynn’s family, it was in misjudging the PR backlash that would ensue from such an egregious display of political persecution. Chase’s “mistaken” letter to General Flynn’s wife wasn’t the first time an organization has used “reputational risk” as a pretext for political censorship. In fact, weaponizing claims of “reputational risk” has become a favored tactic for the institutional left to deny its enemies the right to organize or even live normal day-to-day lives. Long before Gen. Flynn became a target, none other than disgraced New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo tried to use “reputational risk” as a means to topple the National Rifle Association. The State of New York enjoys regulatory power over all banks and insurers chartered or registered in the state — a considerable power when one takes Wall Street into account. In the spring of 2018, Governor Cuomo invoked this regulatory authority in a thuggish attempt to make it impossible for the NRA to publicly campaign for gun rights. It is typical for shared-interest groups, from the Habitat for Humanity to the New York Bar Association to the NRA, to partner with insurance companies to offer insurance policies to its members. The NRA insurance, known as Carry Guard, reimbursed policyholders for attorney fees and other legal expenses in the event that they used legally-owned guns in self-defense. The NRA’s program was entirely legal, and used routine insurance templates and market practices. However, Cuomo’s administration decided to target the Carry Guard program — and no other affinity-based insurance offerings — for supposed insurance-regulatory infirmities. The objective was simple: Cut off a stream of revenue for the NRA, and increase the risk of financial ruin for future George Zimmermans who legally used guns in self-defense. Soon, Cuomo’s investigations turned into a broad-based offensive to deny the NRA access to basic services. Acting on Cuomo’s orders, New York’s bank regulatory authority sent a letter to all banks and insurers operating within the state with demands that can only be described as mafia-like in nature: The tragic devastation caused by gun violence that we have regrettably been increasingly witnessing is a public safety and health issue that should no longer be tolerated by the public and there will undoubtedly be increasing public backlash against the NRA and like organizations. Our insurers are key players in maintaining and improving public health and safety in the communities they serve. They are also in the business of managing risks, including their own reputational risks, by making risk management decisions on a regular basis regarding if and how they will do business with certain sectors or entities. In light of the above, and subject to compliance with applicable laws, the Department encourages its insurers to continue evaluating and managing their risks, including reputational risks, that may arise from their dealings with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations, if any, as well as continued assessment of compliance with their own codes of social responsibility. The Department encourages regulated institutions to review any relationships they have with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations, and to take prompt actions to managing these risks and promote public health and safety. The whole episode reads like a scene out of The Godfather. “The NRA is just bad and awful, the way they campaign against gun control. It’d be really terrible if any company suffered damage to their reputation by providing them banking or insurance services. New York would hate to see that happen.”

To: Winfastorlose who wrote (1317309)	9/2/2021 2:35:12 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By Winfastorlose Respond to of 1583403

America's Gaslighting DHS: White Americans Support the Taliban And Are Poised to Carry Out Terror Attacks at Any Moment Homeland Security head Alejandro Mayorkas together with his underling John Cohen and the propagandists at the Anti-Defamation League went to CNN on Wednesday to drop a new blood libel smearing White Americans as "domestic violent extremists" in line with the Taliban who are poised to start committing terrorist attacks at any moment. All the same tactics our globalist overlords used to smear all Muslims as terrorists in order to launch the War on Terror in the Middle East are now being used against the American people to launch a new domestic War on Terror here at home. Despite hyping the phony threat of "white extremists" every day without pause, the ADL's own inflated numbers showed 2020 had the lowest number of "domestic extremist-related killings" in over a decade. FBI Informant Ran 'Neo-Nazi Terrorist Group' Atomwaffen Division, Got 'Paid Handsomely' to Radicalize Troubled Youthhttps://t.co/fxz5U7mrOd — Chris Menahan 🇺🇸 (@infolibnews) August 23, 2021 There's so little "domestic terrorism" from "white extremists" that the FBI has had to manufacture fake terror plots and fund Satanic "neo-nazi terrorist" death cults in a desperate bid to create the false perception it's America's "greatest threat." CONT...

To: Winfastorlose who wrote (1317309)	9/2/2021 3:25:12 PM
From: FJB	2 Recommendations Recommended By maceng2 Winfastorlose Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583403

Trying to discredit ivermectin as "horse medicine" is overwhelmingly racist and Western-centric. It has saved millions of brown and black lives outside of the West. Everyone calling it "horse paste" perpetuates racism and colonialist mindsets and oppression. Trying to discredit ivermectin as "horse medicine" is overwhelmingly racist and Western-centric. It has saved millions of brown and black lives outside of the West. Everyone calling it "horse paste" perpetuates racism and colonialist mindsets and oppression. — James Lindsay, went off on TV (@ConceptualJames) September 2, 2021