90 Miles From Tyranny

Wednesday, December 21, 2022

Quick Hits Of Wisdom, Knowledge And Snark #848

Quick Hits Of Wisdom, Knowledge And Snark #846

38 percent of students at US liberal arts colleges identify as LGBTQ

The data indicated that the student population of several liberal arts colleges could actually be majority LGBTQ.

A recent study conducted by the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology has revealed that 38 percent of students attending liberal arts colleges in the United States identify as LGBTQ.

The data, CSPI suggested, indicate that the student population of several liberal arts colleges could actually be majority LGBTQ.

According to the study, of the over 150 schools surveyed, the twenty-three liberal arts colleges showed the highest proportion of LGBTQ-identifying students, with Ivy League institutions coming in second with 27 percent.

Three schools in particular, Oberlin, Wellesley, and Smith College, were estimated to have the highest proportion of LGBTQ students at 51, 61, and 70 percent, respectively.

CSPI argued that the overrepresentation of LGBTQ students at liberal arts colleges was "linked to the strongly liberal ideology at these colleges," pointing out that 37 percent of "very liberal" students identified as LGBTQ compared to just 5 percent of their "very conservative" counterparts.

It was also suggested that gender played a role; 56 percent of students at liberal arts colleges are female, and females are more likely to identify as LGBTQ.

According to the study, 28 percent of all female respondents said they identified as LGBTQ compared to just 16 percent of males.

Illustrating this point further is the fact that the school with the highest proportion of LGBTQ students, Smith College, is a private liberal arts women's college in Massachusetts.

While many conservative and Christian institutions, such as Brigham Young University in Utah, showed a considerably lower than average share of LGBTQ students, it was noted that at no school did they make up less than 10 percent of the student population.

As CSPI reports, the share of LGBTQ students has risen dramatically in recent years, due in large part to the fact that the incoming students, largely Gen Z, are far more likely to identify as something other than heterosexual and cisgender.

They point out that such students "appear to be self-selecting into elite higher education institutions in somewhat larger numbers compared to...

A former Australian health official who initially promoted the COVID “vaccines” emerged this week as the country’s most prominent public health figure to raise the alarm about the risks associated with the mRNA shots.

In a bombshell submission to the Australian Parliament’s Long COVID inquiry, Dr Kerryn Phelps, the former president of the Australian Medical Association, went public with the “devastating” injuries she and her wife suffered after receiving the shots, and argued that the true rate of adverse events is far higher than believed due to underreporting and “threats” from medical regulators.

“This is an issue that I have witnessed first-hand with my wife who suffered a severe neurological reaction to her first Pfizer vaccine within minutes, including burning face and gums, paraesethesiae, and numb hands and feet, while under observation by myself, another doctor and a registered nurse at the time of immunization,” the 65-year-old said in the 18-page statement.

Paraesethesiae is defined as a tingling or prickling, “pins-and-needles” sensation that often occurs in the arms, hands, legs, or feet.

Phelps said her wife, Jackie Stricker-Phelps, continues to suffer “devastating” adverse effects a year and a half later, “with the addition of fatigue and additional neurological symptoms including nerve pains, altered sense of smell, visual disturbance and musculoskeletal inflammation. The diagnosis and causation has been confirmed by several specialists who have told me that they have seen ‘a lot’ of patients in a similar situation.”

“We did a lot of homework before having the vaccine, particularly about choice of vaccine at the time. In asking about adverse side effects, we were told that ‘the worst thing that could happen would be anaphylaxis’ and that severe reactions such as myocarditis and pericarditis were ‘rare,’” she said.

Dr. Phelps also went public with the vaccine injury she suffered after her second dose of Pfizer in July 2021, “with the diagnosis and causation confirmed by specialist colleagues.”

“I have had CT pulmonary angiogram, ECG, blood tests, cardiac echogram, transthoracic cardiac stress echo, Holter monitor, blood pressure monitoring and autonomic testing,” she said.

“In my case the injury resulted in dysautonomia [autonomic nervous system disorder] with intermittent fevers and cardiovascular implications including breathlessness, inappropriate sinus tachycardia [irregular heartbeat] and blood pressure fluctuations,” she added.

Dr. Phelps said she reported their vaccine injuries to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) but it “never followed up.”

Dr. Phelps joins Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a British cardiologist, and Professor Angus Dalgeish, a British oncologist, both of whom became vaccine critics after initially supporting the mRNA shots.

The respected doctors’ past advocacy for the COVID jabs make their current conclusions difficult to dismiss.

Dr. Phelps—initially a vocal supporter of Australia’s draconian lockdown, mask and vaccination mandates—was still recommending the jabs as late as March of 2022.

In January of 2022, Dr. Phelps recommended that children be barred from attending in-person school unless they were vaccinated.

In her submission, Dr. Phelps also revealed that she had spoken with other doctors “who have themselves experienced a serious and persistent adverse event” but that “vaccine injury is a subject that few in the medical profession have wanted to talk about.”

“Regulators of the medical profession have censored public discussion about adverse events following immunization, with threats to doctors not to make any public statements about anything that ‘might undermine the government’s vaccine rollout’ or risk suspension or loss of...

Visage à trois #666

Three Videos For Your Viewing Pleasure:

FOUR Additional Bonus Videos:

Quick Hits Of Wisdom, Knowledge And Snark #844

A real vax lot anomaly?

There's a vax lot with higher association with anaphylaxis... and it's not 041L20A.

Update: I was prompted to look at the reporting location of the vax lots for the anaphylaxis reports based on the anomaly reported herein, and it turns out that the off chance under reporting thing I mentioned as a reason for the anomaly is very likely the reason for it. The vax lot EP9605 was only administered in France and the reports came from there. All but 2 of them: one was reported in Georgia and one had no location listed. I would guess, that the reporting rates of adverse events are simply better in France and this would explain the anomaly.

I was prompted to look into this following reading a Substack from Vinu Arumugham the other day. He made an interesting point about the ratios of two adverse events being different between vax lots. I decided I would reproduce what he was showing and to take it further. I didn’t take it as far as I will, but this is a good start.

Before I start, I am more in the camp that believes that most of the variation perceived between vax lots (in VAERS) can be attributed to differences in distribution and administration. However, check this out.

So what this bar plot shows are the ratios of the total number of reports of anaphylaxis to total number of reports of death, per vax lot. Now, it is important to understand how examining the ratios removes any deceptiveness that might be included with regard to vax lot size. Picture this: You have 100 reports of anaphylaxis and n doses in a particular vax lot. So you have 100/n reports of anaphylaxis. You also have 10 reports of death and n doses once again, since it is the same vax lot. So you have 10/n reports of death. Thus, you have a ratio of 100:10 (10:1) reports of anaphylaxis for vax lot ‘A’ that includes n doses of product. If you calculated this ratio for a number of vax lots and found anomalies between these ratios, ie: if the ratio was inverted for example in a particular vax lot, then this would not be explainable by vax lot size variation.

An inversion is precisely what was found by Vinu and confirmed here for the vax lot EP9605. It is very anomalous, in fact.

What could explain this anomaly?

The only explanation besides the off chance that underreporting is playing a role, is that this particular vax lot EP9605 has properties that makes it induce more anaphylactic reactions than all the other 29 vax lots that I used for this example.

Perhaps this vax lot was manufactured poorly and the PEG manifested in higher concentrations. Or maybe the LNPs were larger. I don’t know.

I am going to go deeper on this and look into far more adverse event types and...