Job

🌍

[Job @cryptojob14]

@icecube We with you cube.

[Balaji @balajis]

When the head of BIS says “central banks will have absolute control” over all uses of money, that’s not democracy.

That’s when Keynesianism finally drops the mask and becomes flat out communism: total centralized control of all resources by unelected bureaucrats.

Listen:

[Bill Ackman @BillAckman]

I tweeted that @RobertKennedyJr raised some important questions about vaccine safety and now I am being labeled a Qanon conspiracist by some and a member of the alt-right by others.

I have long believed that incentives drive all human behavior. This gives me reason to be open to the potential risks and conflicts as more and more vaccines are prescribed for our children.

Developing a successful drug is expensive, typically about $1 to $2 billion, and it takes an average of 10-15 years to bring a drug to market. Most drugs have a limited market, that is, those who have the targeted disease or condition who can afford to pay for the cost of the drug.

Even when a successful drug is brought to market, the drug company remains liable for any potential damages from those who are harmed by the drug.

The above reasons are why getting profitable drugs approved is challenging and risky.

Imagine, however, if:

(1) you could create a drug in a much shorter period of time, a year or two, rather than 10-15 years, and the total cost to get it approved and marketed to patients was a fraction of the cost of a typical drug.

(2) the new drug is prescribed for everyone, regardless of their health, and therefore the market for the drug is every newborn or potentially everyone on the planet.

(3) the drug is prescribed for everyone regardless of their age or consent and they need to take it in order to attend school or keep their job, and the gov’t pays for it.

(4) the patients who are prescribed the drug are of an age where they are incapable of assessing the risk versus the reward for taking the drug.

(5) the drug needs to be taken every year regardless of the health of the individual who takes it.

(6) the drug companies who manufacture these new drugs are exempt from liability for these drugs even if they cause serious harm or death.

and

(7) drug companies are: (a) permitted to advertise on TV and on other media and are one of the largest sources of revenues for the news media who are responsible for educating the public about risks to public health and safety, and (b) the drug companies are also major lobbyists to the government and funders of the FDA.

If (1) - (7) were true:

and you were a drug company, you would seek to obtain approval for as many of the above drugs as possible, as the above drugs would have the lowest R&D costs, the fastest time to market, the lowest marketing costs, the largest addressable market, and no liability.

You would be crazy not to develop as many of the above drugs as possible and do everything possible to convince the government to make them standard of care, and motivate the public to take them.

If you were a citizen, however, you would want the above drugs to receive the highest scrutiny for safety and efficacy, and you would want longitudinal studies to understand the long-term effects and the potential cumulative effects of these drugs, in particular, on children.

Now, if the number of doses of these drugs taken by children increased from 3 to 72 in the last 30 or so years, and over the same period there was a massive unexplained increase in the percentage of kids that suffered from debilitating diseases like autism and other less debilitating, but concerning issues, like allergies and eczema, you would look deeper until you understood what was causing the massive increase in these issues.

Now, of course, I am talking about vaccines. But instead of going deeper to understand what is going on, the media and others attack anyone who dares to raise these concerns.

This is not how we get to the truth.

We need to think about vaccines the same way we think about other drugs, particularly when we are deciding whether or not to inject a one-day-old infant or three-year-old child.

We need to assess what is the benefit to the child in protecting them from a disease versus the potential risk from the side effects from each vaccine.

[Job @cryptojob14]

@TeamsterSOB 952 ready to go!

[Job @cryptojob14]

@CredibleCrypto Getting my coffee be back

[cryptograffiti @cryptograffiti]

Say no to Central Bank Digital Currency

Times Square, NYC

#NoCBDC 🚫🏦

[Tucker Carlson @TuckerCarlson]

Ep. 6 Bobby Kennedy is winning

[Job @cryptojob14]

@PeterHotez @voxdotcom We don't trust you.

[The Bitcoin Comedy @bitcoinzay]

I watch this documentary at least once a year.

End times are here for the US and we are on borrowed time at this point

The @maxkeiser cameo makes it even better ✊🏾

Four Horsemen Documentary

https://t.co/tyKF2wnm29

[Job @cryptojob14]

@ElonMuskAOC He's got my vote

[Dave Smith @ComicDaveSmith]

I feel so bad for these pro vax scientists who are getting bullied. Us anti lockdown, unvaccinated people never had to go through anything like that.

[An0maly @LegendaryEnergy]

I didn’t even realize this is the “vaccine expert” Peter Hotez in this clip where Joe Rogan asks him why he looks so incredibly unhealthy if he’s an expert on health

[Bill Ackman @BillAckman]

A world where public health officials are mistrusted is a more dangerous world. We need to restore this trust. Trust emerges from transparency, accountability, and ultimately from positive outcomes from the policies implemented.

In the fog of the Covid war, many mistakes were made by our government and our public health officials. That is to be expected and needs to be acknowledged.

But if we are to regain faith in our public health system, we need to understand what mistakes were made, and hold accountable any conflicted bad actors who caused harm.

Vaccines have saved millions of lives. A world without polio, small pox, and tetanus is a healthier, happier, and safer world. This does not mean, however, that multiple Covid vaccines should have been administered to every human being regardless of their age or condition during the crisis.

We also need to be particularly careful about assessing the risk and reward of the vaccines we give minors, particularly young children and infants as they cannot provide informed consent.

Had we listened to the skeptics of our government’s approach to vaccination or extended lockdowns for all, rather than censoring them — for example, those who suggested that the vaccine be principally given to the aged and those with co-morbidities and not to healthy children, or had we followed the recommendations of the Great Barrington Declaration — many lives may have been saved with reduced negative long-term effects on the economy, the education of our children, and our citizens’ mental health.

The opportunity for learning from our mistakes begins with transparency and accountability. Providing an open forum for the most aggressive and vocal critics of our government’s vaccine and other Covid policies to share their views and to be responded to by our most credible experts to address their concerns would be a big step forward in advancing the discussion and enabling learnings from our past mistakes.

I was, however, mistaken in encouraging a debate between @RobertKennedyJr and @PeterHotez as based on my further research Hotez does not appear to be a credible advocate for vaccine policy in light of the repeated inaccuracies of his public statements during the crisis and potential conflicts he may have.

What about RFK you might ask? RFK is not a scientist, but he has assumed the mantle as one of the most aggressive critics of vaccine policy, and he is extremely articulate and has a highly visible public profile as a presidential candidate. These are all qualities which make him a excellent choice for an antagonist in the vaccine discussion.

We can find better experts than Hotez who can help advance the discussion and address any of RFK’s potentially mistaken claims or reasoning.

And it should be a discussion rather than a debate. The goal should not be to determine who won or lost, but rather to advance knowledge and understanding.

Let’s not censor, dismiss, or run from responding to those who challenge authority, conventional wisdom or even our current scientific understanding, as doing so only serves to destroy confidence in our system, our government and our nation.

[Bill Ackman @BillAckman]

This is why many have lost confidence in our public health experts.

[The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast @JBPpod]

Rekindling the Spirit of the Classic Democrat | @RobertKennedyJr | Ep.363

[Preston Pysh @PrestonPysh]

A must watch speech (w/ slides) by ⁦⁦@saylor in Prague⁩!
#Bitcoin https://t.co/8UP92q009R

[Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog]

This is actually a very powerful video. A woman tries to become a man but then discovers the profound isolation that many men in modern society experience. But because she’s really a woman, and therefore more relational and empathetic by nature, she is not equipped to cope with the loneliness. Yet she’s stuck in this pseudo-male identity, unable to recapture the femininity that she destroyed. Truly a tragic tale, but so much is revealed about our culture. None of it good.

[Job @cryptojob14]

@jakeshieldsajj I jumped ship in 2020 when they were pushing all the mandates opened everything up for me.

[ZUBY: @ZubyMusic]

A day will come when a massive personal tragedy will strike you. In fact, you are guaranteed several of these during your lifetime.

Until that time comes, it's stupid to not be happy.

[Tucker Carlson @TuckerCarlson]

Ep. 1