Jon Letendre

The context of that leaked and "assumably" 'off the record' comment was clearly a comment on how some people react to those deemed 'above' them in fame or wealth. In the context of rap culture , they were relating and in a surprising manner how far 'liberties' extend to personal space if someone believes they can somehow benefit for granting the space. Bitches be gold diggers , not necessarily prey as the picture was trying to be painted.

Reflecting on all the facets of the covid pandemic tyranny, there is much to think about - even if to most people, it's like a nightmare better to be forgotten, or even if, to a few others, it's like a comedy gone stale and no longer amusing.
What's more to look at? The murky reality of "SARS-CoV-2" and "Covid-19" raises doubts in the minds of independent thinkers about the objective existence and identification of a distinct, "novel" virus causing a new respiratory disease, deadly enough to justify a pandemic tyranny. But why then have so many people, the overwhelming majority, including most Objectivists, believe in covid?
Consider this: For thousands of years, nearly everyone believed in some God/gods. Even today, in our enlightened, scientific age, according to surveys, 85% of the world population reportedly believe in a God, over 6 billion people – including 2.4 billion Christian (1.4B Catholic), 2 billion Islamic, and1.1 billion Hindu – all preaching and practicing selfless service to God and the needs of others.
Why do these mystical beliefs in unproved, non-existent beings and irrational concepts endure and persist? What's similar, and what's different, between belief in God/Christ and belief in covid?

https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/cultural-marxism-and-the-corruption-of-common-law-5587345?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge

Being in 'the great outdoors' with 'fresh air abound' will by volume of air reduce the concentration of free floating particulates as opposed to a relatively closed environment of a structure that 'turns over' the volume of air within via the natural restrictions of  venting.
That coupled with the reduced ability of the body to produce and utilize vit D in winter months because the angle of the rays of the sun are not conducive to the process. Not exactly rocket science and yet on the whole basic logic was jettisoned.

I appreciate and am grateful that, in response to this challenge, each one of you have given it attention and posted your replies. I have learned and am encouraged that there are Objectivists here who are curious and caring about the truth of covid. My will was good, and I've received goodwill in return.

The "massive amounts of health care workers", or any number of believers or partial believers, don't need to be "lying", they don't need to be"involved in a huge conspiracy". They don't even need to know the truth; they just need to believe, trust in the "experts" and authorities, do their jobs, keep their head and eyes down, and just do as they're told.
The "list" of "evidence" are all downstream and derivative, contingent for validity on the primary evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has been proven to exist definitively and distinctly, by its having been isolated and purified. Verified documentation is yet to be found for this proof. Continued attempts to use "deaths", "vaccines", and consensus as "evidence from reality" are really just circular reasoning and begging the question, along with appeals to popularity, authority, and ignorance.
My "overall purpose" on this topic is to expose the truth by challenging believers in "SARS-CoV-2" and "Covid-19" to check their premises, think for themselves, and hold reason as absolute. I myself did that, and have been pointing to what I and others have found. Am I mistaken? Lying? Deluded? Ill-willed? What else have I posted, here or elsewhere?
 

To claim that covid vaccine research is "direct proof" of SARS-CoV-2's existence and identity, is the same circular reasoning as the claim that covid deaths are also proofs. They both assume that which is yet to be proven (proven with a definite, not probabilistic identity).
Even if 99% of the FOI request were administrative exclusions (which they're not, as shown by Christine Massey's notarized documents), why aren't there the 1% of records (research papers) of SARS-CoV-2 having been isolated and purified?
Moreover, a sampling of papers, including the first one from Wuhan, show no isolation and purification were done. Authors of some of those papers, when contacted, confirmed that they did not do isolation and purification. 
Even more revealing, apologists have insisted that current microbiology neither practice nor require virus isolation, and that virus identification is in percentages of probability.
(See earlier posts on all this.)

Where is the "massive amount of evidence"? Do you know of one paper clearly showing that SARS-CoV-2 was isolated and purified?. Investigators have searched and have yet to find or receive one.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, the claim that SARS-CoV-2 has not been proven, by isolation and purification, to exist with a distinct and definite identity, is not the same claim as that it doesn't exist.
It's not a "conspiracy theory" to not accept a claim without proof. The burden of proof is on they who assert, not on the non-believer to disprove the assertion.
It's a credit to Objectivism, on this topic, that its epistemology (and ethics) are applied and Ayn Rand's advice is followed, to "check your premises", think for oneself, with "reason as one's only absolute". "Nothing to do with Miss Rand's philosophy in any manner"?

Yes, the asserting side ultimately says: no definitive proof is available or required, just percentages of probability of existence and identity. That's sufficient to justify tyranny. Have trust in the goodwill of governments and their medical expert authorities.

Good point - but not for all cases. Some of the anti-pandemic measures may have reduced the spread and reported cases of some respiratory diseases due to microbes, but not those from other causes like asthma, malnutrition, or air pollution (in heavily polluted cities like Wuhan, Beijing, and Mumbai).
And, like Tad asked, why did the anti-pandemic measures not also reduced the covid cases in the same way?
Moreover, the funding and group-thinking factors would have biased diagnoses in favor of covid rather than other diseases, especially when misdiagnosed by the unreliable and inaccurate PCR/PCR-derived tests yielding significant false positives of covid due to over-amplification (assuming SARS-CoV-2 has been definitively identified).

Except covid ? Masking, distancing, and curtailing social engagement had an effect on respiratory disease transmission but did not limit the spread of covid ? The mitigation efforts stop somethings but not that one?
Are you proposing the transmission mechanism of covid was different than the mechanisms operational in the other diseases? I'm having a hard time understanding your logical cause and effect argument here.

Yes, a conflict of interest. And yes, "interesting", in the Spock's sense. "Fascinating" is how so many so easily suspended their own judgement and gave away their trust.

Covid-19, Excess Deaths?
A baker's dozen or more ways to find the truth of something like "Covid-19 Pandemic". It's as easy as pie, a piece of cake, the proof is in the pudding. Whether or not, or in whichever way, that SARS-CoV-2 has been proven to exist, just check the pre-2019 records (regional or global) for the numbers of respiratory illnesses/deaths from all causes (microbial and non-microbial).
Compare those numbers with 2020, 2021, 2022 & 2023 numbers, taking into account the usual changes in demographics. The cases of "Covid-19" illnesses/deaths, if any, would be the new, excess cases, occurring in addition to the numbers trending from the previous years or even for 2023.
Since it's hard to fake deaths on a massive scale needed for the pandemic, it's easier to re-label other pre-existing respiratory deaths as due to "covid" (covid, "because" there's a covid pandemic happening). Have there been excess deaths caused by covid? Or, do the numbers show that covid may be a cure for the common cold and other respiratory diseases?

Tucker interviews Truemed founder Calley Means about the diabetes and obesity crises, the criminal pharma companies, the healthcare system incentives that are skewed against our health and wellbeing, and more:
Big Pharma Is Fooling You Again, and You Don't Even Know It (rumble.com)

Provide evidence for/prove a negative? 
Oh, now you know of its positive existence through undeniable direct sensory evidence?
You are a clown.
"Yet you still have no personal evidence to support your position, it is entirely based on believing the claims of other people."
No, clown. You know where the burden lies.
We're not believing anyone's claims, and we don't have to produce shit in this debate, which you well understand.

Economic Freedom – Haley!
Vote for Haley in the Primary in your State! Anti-intellectualism is one reason, which, joined with others, Rand condemned the Presidential candidate of '68 George Wallace and his movement as proto-fascist. Trump should be condemned just as Wallace and for those same reasons and more. Wallace was not the nominee of either Party. Still, he won seven Southern states and a million votes. Had he gotten the Democratic nomination, as earlier in that century he could have, he could have won the presidency. Support for our constitutional democratic form of government is actually pretty weak, I gather, among the anti-intellectual portion of the citizens. Mr. Trump stirs that weak portion for support. Plenty of shallow sloganeering all around, of course, as ever.
I gather Haley will be in this at least through Super Tuesday, with her bloc-dollars from Mr. Koch and pals, with at least that money source. Her turn to raising the issue of economic freedom, I notice, coincides with the unwavering support of that by Koch across the decades. 

Yet you still have no personal evidence to support your position, it is entirely based on believing the claims of other people. That would be fine, if those other people are shown to be credible and trustworthy. I have no reason to believe that Massey is trustworthy, and based on my reading of her FOI-related posts, I conclude that she is not trustworthy w.r.t. this particular issue (which is whether covid exists). You on the other hand, apparently have faith in her belief, and use her postion as the basis for your own argument. Your challenge to the covid-existence is ineffective, because you have not provided any evidence that supports the claim that covid does not exist, which is necessary to overcome the direct evidence of the senses, which cannot be rationally denied, that covid does exist.
You might imaginably argue that there has been a specific misidentification, for example you could claim that covid is a bacterium, not a virus, or you could argue with the specific scientific classification of covid, but you have not done that. Your argument also seems to depend on an invalid package deal, a mixed wall of scientific and political claims. All of the political issues such as lockdowns and mask mandates are red herrings w.r.t. the scientific question of the existence of covid. Every known Objectivist, as far as I have been able to discern, holds that it is not the proper role of government to show down businesses, mandate a suspension of property rights, force vaccinations and mask-wearing etc. irrespective of their scientific beliefs about the nature of the disease. Feel free to challenge improper governmental action, but don’t lump in nihilistic unscientific claims there covid doesn’t even exist.
As I mentioned before, “SARS-CoV-2 Production, Purification Methods and UV Inactivation for Proteomics and Structural Studies” provides prima facie scientific evidence, of the type that you demanded, for isolation, purification and distinct identification of the virus. Scientists have shouldered the burden of proof, now the burden rests on those who deny that proof. You claim, in broad terms that many such studies “on closer examination, have not actually done so”, but you do not provide any evidence in support of that assertion. The subsequent sentence “Numerous FOI requests worldwide for records of isolation have resulted in "no records found" (any administrative exclusions notwithstanding)” is irrelevant as I explained above (FOI requests provide evidence of government records, not scientific results).
My main point here is that science is a specialized kind of knowledge, not the same as philosophy, and making any scientific claim requires the integration of massive amounts of existing knowledge. At best, you can reasonable declare that you are personally not persuaded that covid exists, just as you could reasonable declare that you are personally not persuaded that the Earth is a sphere since you have not directly seen any evidence supporting that claim and you do not accept the claims of myriad others who claim that the Earth is a sphere.
I do not actually accept your premise that “isolation, purification and distinct identification” is a logical requirement for an existential proof of an existent, but I have acceded to the demand and provided one reference, in the hopes that you would engage the science and abandon the irrelevant political rhetoric.

During the Scamdemic, Ivermectin, a powerful, out-of-patent and cheap anti-parasitic whose discoverer won a Nobel Prize for Medicine for said discovery, was poo-pooed by every tentacle of the system. It was called 'horse dewormer" as though that's all it is. Ivermectin has eliminated river blindness in whole swathes of Africa, it has been nothing short of a miracle drug. It is also a powerful anti-viral. Doctors around the world prescribed it for covid and as a prophylactic against covid, flu, colds and other viral pathogens. Doctors around the world were ridiculed by the whole system for prescribing Ivermectin. Doctors around the world were prevented from prescribing it, with the licenses they feed their families with explicitly threatened. Pharmacies around the world refused to fill legitimate prescriptions for Ivermectin by medical doctors. The FDA ran misinformation social media campaigns saying "You're not a horse. Seriously, stop it."
Why all that effort?
Because the Emergency Use Authorization, which our overlords used to justify coercing an experimental treatment on billions of people, requires that no other drugs exist for fighting the relevant pathogen.
So they systematically attacked Ivermectin until after they got their way on forcing mystery cocktails on the masses.
Now they're quietly admitting Ivermectin is also a powerful anti-cancer agent.
"Ivermectin can suppress almost completely the growth of various human cancers"
Anti-parasite drug ivermectin can suppress ovarian cancer by regulating lncRNA-EIF4A3-mRNA axes - PMC (nih.gov)
 
Full-disclosure sidenote:
As a two-decade user of Humira I may be immunosuppressed and therefore have been using Ivermectin twice weekly, prophylactically, for the last three years, following the FLCCC Alliance recommendations.
I used to get 6-8 colds per year, no exceptions, my whole life. I have had no colds since starting IVM. I have taken no tests or coerced shots, why would I?
I obtain the medicine at Tractor Supply Co. The first time I went in I was asked by a nice young lady if I needed help to find something. I asked if they carried Ivermectin.
"Of course! It's one of our best sellers! Follow me."
I followed her to the "Equine" section.
"All you need to know is these over here contain only Ivermectin, but these contain Ivermectin and also [some other compound] and that stuff really is only for horses. Come find me if you have any questions."
And she walked away.
Do your own work, of course, but you will find that the per pound of patient instructions on the packaging are equal to per pound human patient dosing, 50 lbs per click.) So, if you weigh about 150 lbs, eject three clicks onto a cracker. If you weigh about 200 pounds, eject four clicks onto a cracker and enjoy. Costs about $2 per dose. Keeps you out of the hospital where they will pretend you need a ventilator and then murder you with one.

Jon, if you are on a jury, that thinking is against your logical and legal responsibility. I can believe that Mr. Trump never earned an honest dollar in his life. But if I am on a jury in a case against him, that is not pertinent to any case that might be brought against him in the law. All that rightly matters for the juror is whether the evidence allowed for consideration in the proceeding and credence in the presentation thereof suffice to show the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or (in civil suit) more likely to have done the proscribed deed than not have done the deed.

One side has made an assertion, the other side is still waiting for proof.
Simple. No crisis.

You don't choose between competing positions as though they are somehow starting out equal, where in the world did you get that?
You assess whether the assertion that it exists has been proven.
It has not been.
Let go of your pearls, there is no "epistemological crisis," here.

No, David, your paraphrasing is not correct. It's not "an act of faith" on my part, as an Objectivist, to challenge the government-medical-academic-media propagated and imposed belief held by "99.99% of people on the planet": the belief that "SARS-CoV-2" has been isolated and proven to exist, that it caused millions of new and excess respiratory illnesses and deaths worldwide, and that the spread of this "Covid-19 pandemic" must be stopped by testing, distancing, masking, lockdowns, and vaccination. Empowered morally and politically by altruism and collectivism, the consequent, even greater tyranny caused untold loss and suffering, in varying degrees and various ways, on believers and non-believers alike, and for decades to come. I am among those who challenge all this.
Following the law of Identity, the principles of Onus of Proof, and other basic reasoning, the challenges by the unbelievers, (who include microbiologists, epidemiologists, and other medical specialists marginalized and muzzled by the ruling establishments) were directed at one or more claims of the "Covid-19 pandemic" -- the most fundamental challenge being that SARS-CoV-2 has not been shown to be isolated, purified, and distinctly identified.
Many papers claiming or appearing to have done the isolation, on closer examination, have not actually done so. Numerous FOI requests worldwide for records of isolation have resulted in "no records found" (any administrative exclusions notwithstanding). Over the years, I, myself, have read a few of the papers, including the first, "progenitive" one from China ("A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019") and found that, among other flaws and biases, it did not report actual isolation and purification. Here are other examples of non-isolation, as confirmed by the authors themselves of those papers (quoted here from the book Virus Mania)
---
Sharon R. Lewin et al. Isolation and rapid sharing of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) from the first patient diagnosed with COVID -19 In Australia, The Medical Journal of Australia, June 2020, pp. 459-462     
Jason A. Roberts and Julian Druce            "The nucleic acid extraction was performed on isolate material recovered from infected cells. This material was not centrifuged, so was not purified through sucrose gradient to have a density band as such. The EM images were obtained directly from cell culture material."           October 5, 2020
Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health, Nature Medicine, March 2020       Malik Peiris        "The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus."     May 12, 2020
Myung-Guk Han et al. Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19, Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, February 2020           Myung-Guk Han       "We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells."    May 6, 2020
Wan Beom Park et al. Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 In Korea, Journal of Korean Medical Science, February 24, 2020           Wan Beom Park "We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification."              March 19, 2020
Na Zhu et al. A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019, New England Journal of Medicine, February 20, 2020           Wenjie Tan         "(We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones."             March 18, 2020
---
So, on this basic challenge, the believers just have to present one paper that actually, unequivocally, definitively, shows that SAR-CoV-2 was isolated. (Excuses that current microbiology doesn't require or practice virus isolation is no excuse, professionally, scientifically, or philosophically.) If such a paper is presented and verified (unlikely because of the flawed progenitor study from China to which all subsequent studies reference for the purported original genetic sequence), then this basic challenge will be met, even if the other challenges still remain.

In what form are they(?) "quietly admitting Ivermectin is also a powerful anti-cancer agent"? By publishing that article on the nlm.nih.gov site?
This site has the following disclaimer: "As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health".
If not on nlm.nih.gov, then where are they(?) "quietly admitting etc."?

It's fucking hilarious that you think I said anything even vaguely implying that any form of speech is illegal. You should learn to read more carefully.

Trump urging election fraud in Georgia 
I know people who supported Trump in 2016, but after such public displays of his illegal attempts to change vote counts (under a subjective faith, or at least a sales-front, "I won by a landslide"), they were not supporting him again. (That is not to say they are going to vote Democratic!) They told me that even before his indictment for illegal acts attempting to invert the results of the election. Naturally, I couldn't help but wonder why such a voter did not perceive salesman Trump back in 2016 as I thought obvious (and posted): a blowhard and con man.
But there were other supporters, some parading themselves as Objectivists, who proved to be not such innocent supporters of Mr. Trump for President in 2016 and subsequently. These are the ones who relish his subjectivism and bold lies, which they repeat. Not simply falsehoods, but repeat as lies. I've not known them in person, but One of them I thought I knew a fair bit from online talk. As the Trump term in office unfolded, it turned out that there was nothing against the free market that Trump might do which One would not rationalize away. Then, it turned out (I learned from a long-time in-person friend) that One was in fact himself, of himself, the most deceitful online companion I'd happened into.
Not that those depraved Trump ones are 100% in agreement with everything Trump says in public. They have some independent judgment on when an old lie should have been retold instead of Trump giving his honest commonsense take on something involving elections. When Trump gave a sensible look as to why Republicans did not pick up more seats in the Congress than they did in the 2022 election, these cohorts in viciousness and subjectivism would have none of it; rather, if their side lost some, it should be proclaimed as due to election fraud.
Still, there is no indication yet of a bloc of voters willing to support candidates of such proclaimed autocratic ambitions as Trump's, but are candidates who are not connecting themselves personally to Trump. Because there are not fast principles or public-affairs policies distinctive to Mr. Trump (i.e., not just Republican principles and policies had without Trump), a lot of that depravity-faction will crawl back under the rocks as the personal Madoff-sunset is repeated for Mr. Trump. Should he win re-election this year, I remain confident that the judiciary upholding the continuance of our constitutional democratic republic and the substantial continued public support for that will block the maneuvers from Trump proto-fascism to fascism. (And between you and me and the fence post, I'd expect his first interest in winning presidential power this time is to try trumping any possible criminal convictions of him in judicial process.)