# Jay's pet peeve
## Misrepresenting the Pfizer Study
*Alleges that CDC director Walensky has made admission of malpractice*
- Pfizer vaccine trials endpoint was symptomatic infection @ 3-4mo
- Endpoint was not infection, disease transmission or mortality
- Forced vaccination based on "optimism" for outcomes that were unknown, unproven and unobserved
- When learning that they do not stop transmission, they pushed for boosters
-

# Sustaining What or Whom

Do yuo believe yourself to be sustainable? Or is it a belief that you would be able and willing to make the necessary adjustments should you be asked to? A belief that if the projects you desire are to be funded, the consequent research and calculations done to ascertain the precise steps to be made are ones you would not only agree with on principle, but that you would be more than able to make them.

Why is it that you would be able? Because you operate at a space and with a means such that you have every expectation that you are well-situated to enjoy some of the very best life has to offer. If a recommendation were such taht it would destroy you, it would surely destroy all those whom admire you and aore. Surely the culture would not be seeking suicide, for even the most ideologically-diven are still driven by the same ideas as I, thus one must wonder as to why they would dedicate time and money for something which improves the world.

# Demonize the things
So, then, who deserves to be demonized? Does anyone know for sure who is to blame? It would seem that many would claim to know, but how could there possibly be a normalized process by which to reliably calculate such a thing? I think the reason we suspect we know is because we can imagine ourselves achieving a frame of mind which demands the very thing we decry and refuse.

We think it must be so simple that either everything works and is presented at face value with an accurate representation of structure and intent, or it is all a thoroughly planned and elaborately coordintaed ploy orchestrated to fool you and take your precious freedom, to no one's benefit in particular.

Is that not hte perspective of a delusional mind? Why must these be the options? Surely any reasonable mind would agree that there are advantages sought, and that this affects what is presented and how it appears. The problem is that the mind wants to keep all the bargining chips it has available when it's playing a bluffing game. No mind knows all the answers, and when matters are contentious, it is only natural to omit anything which might weaken one' sposition, so if you aren't both concerned abou tthe same type of corruption of the same people, chances are the general perception thta an authority is credible is more fitting to as a default, and unchanged position until such time that scrutizing, deconstructing and demonizing begins.

But again, no conspiracy is necessary for illegal or unethical choices to be made.