Recent Comments

1. over 3 years ago on The Norm 4.0

   “The citywide nucleic acid screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Wuhan recruited nearly 10 million people, and found no newly confirmed cases with COVID-19. The detection rate of asymptomatic positive cases was very low, and there was no evidence of transmission from asymptomatic positive persons to traced close contacts. There were no asymptomatic positive cases in 96.4% of the residential communities.”

   “In the present study, virus culture was carried out on samples from asymptomatic positive cases, and found no viable SARS-CoV-2 virus. All close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases tested negative, indicating that the asymptomatic positive cases detected in this study were unlikely to be infectious.”

   “Results of virus culturing and contract tracing found no evidence that repositive cases in recovered COVID-19 patients were infectious, which is consistent with evidence from other sources.”

   “…the detection rate of asymptomatic positive cases in the post-lockdown Wuhan was very low (0.303/10,000), and there was no evidence that the identified asymptomatic positive cases were infectious."

   https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w

2. over 3 years ago on Chip Bok

   Cases don’t equal infections. The PRC test should only be run 25 cycles. They are running them at 35-40 cycles. Torture the data long enough, and you can get the result you’re looking for, i.e., false positives and an excuse to extend unconstitutional lockdowns.

   Lockdowns have never worked to contain a pandemic. Until the current insanity, doctors knew they do not work. There were flu pandemics during 1957-58 and 1969-1970, that killed (adjusted for population) about as many people as this one. But people have forgotten science, forgotten history, forgotten common sense. I bet few people alive then even remember — or even knew! — a pandemic was occurring during Woodstock…

   Lockdowns, masks, social distancing (I’m sick of that phrase…), hand scrubbing, scrubbing down surfaces…none of them have worked to contain coronavirus. Until we achieve collective immunity—which just means the virus becomes ENdemic rather than pandemic—this will continue. (And the common cold is a coronavirus. Millions of people have partial or full immunity to coronavirus because they had common colds in the past.) Coronaviruses return every year. Cyclical.

   And for a disease that is 99.9+% survivable, the millions of excess lives LOST due to lockdowns is unconscionable. (Up to 130 million people in poor countries are at risk of starvation due to downturns in the world economy. Not to mention the increases in cancer deaths, suicides, domestic abuse, postponed surgical and other medical procedures that harm or kill people, millions of people losing their jobs, hundreds of thousands of businesses permanently gone, on and on and on.) Anyone who has a steady income or who can sit comfortably and work from home, needs to keep their nonsense to themselves.

   And, did I mention? They’re unconstitutional:

   https://www.scribd.com/document/476017344/Judge-Stickman-s-order-in-Butler-County-v-Wolf?fbclid=IwAR2Np1c9nWwFHhdDr0hsIxFuewSvMLUydAbJr7yEgC-_PC-Db-MPTH6Tmqk

3. over 3 years ago on Pluggers

   COVID-19 INFECTION SURVIVAL RATES (per CDC)

   Ages 0-19:    99.997%Ages 20-49:  99.98%Ages 50-69:  99.5%Ages 70+:     94.6%

   Seasonal Flu Infection Survival Rate (for population as a whole): 99.9%

   99.99% of people have NOT died from coronavirus.

   More people have and will die from the negative effects of unconstitutional lockdowns than from coronavirus.

   Lockdowns don’t work. Collective immunity ends pandemics.

   Quarantine sick people, not healthy people.

   Masks don’t work against viruses.

   http://www.russellmadden.com/Coronavirus_and_Masks_links_only.pdf

4. over 3 years ago on Over the Hedge

   COVID-19 INFECTION SURVIVAL RATES (per CDC)

   Ages 0-19:    99.997%Ages 20-49:  99.98%Ages 50-69:  99.5%Ages 70+:     94.6%

   Seasonal Flu Infection Survival Rate (for population as a whole): 99.9%

   99.99% of people have NOT died from coronavirus.

   More people have and will die from the negative effects of unconstitutional lockdowns than from coronavirus.

   Lockdowns don’t work. Collective immunity ends pandemics.

   Quarantine sick people, not healthy people.

   Masks don’t work against viruses.

5. over 4 years ago on The Grizzwells

   It’s not up to you or anyone else to determine whether I need X or not. To call someone crazy because they think they need X while you don’t is insulting, wrong, and nothing more than an ad hominem fallacy.

   As for the shooting, okay, I misremembered: he was leaving. Maybe to shoot other people. But a guy with an AR15 STOPPED him: https://www.ammoland.com/2017/11/hero-ends-church-shooting-texas/#axzz63CafeHLc

   Which doesn’t alter the fact that there are other cases where people have legitimately used — NEEDED — an AR 15 to stop criminals from harming or murdering them.

   Smugness is a telling characteristic of those who prefer condescension to morality, rights, and the truth.

   I’ll stop there before I say what I really think about people such as the above…

6. over 4 years ago on The Grizzwells

   MILLIONS of people own AR-15. So they’re all crazy? The people who have used AR-15s to defend their own lives and the lives of others (remember the church shooting where the killer was scared off by a man with an AR-15) are CRAZY?

   Try this BS with the First Amendment: If you think you NEED books/religion/newspapers/etc., then you’re probably too crazy to own them.

   Our rights as detailed in the Constitution are not there to list what we NEED but what we have a RIGHT to own/do WITHOUT anyone else’s — including the government’s — permission. It’s a Bill of RIGHTS, not a Bill of NEEDS.

   Another cartoon like this, and I’m done with this strip. I hear enough of this crap in the news and life, in general.

7. almost 6 years ago on Frazz

   More facts, not emotion: https://cei.org/blog/five-reasons-banning-plastics-may-harm-environment-and-consumers

8. almost 6 years ago on Frazz

   No. Sorry. https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/12/starbucks-straw-ban-will-see-the-company?utm_medium=email

9. almost 6 years ago on Frazz

   Fake statistic, based on “research” a guy did when he was NINE years old. Never confirmed. Just accepted because it fits the eco “narrative.”