Because that’s not what impartial means. Impartial doesn’t mean dispassionate, hardly any judge sits a bench and not feel something about at least ten percent of their cases.

Impartial means not allowing that emotion to be the main driver. Judges and juries are not robots and the Court system takes this facet into account in appeals.

V.92 Screeching "GET OFF THE PHONE!"

Generally Overt Projection at it again.

The GPU featured an AGP interface (an ancient competitor to PCIe)

AAAHHH!! Right in my lower back! mumble, mumble get off my lawn.

What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.

— Hon. Billings Learned Hand

When we have devolved to "tit for tat" when we're no longer looking for liberty and justice. There is nothing our Constitution can do, there isn't some magic arrangement of words written by long dead men that saves us, that saves our notions of liberty and justice.

It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.

— James Madison (Federalist 48)

James Madison is talking about power-grabs here. He's stating that, there's never going to be some magic law written down on paper that's going to stop power-grabs. People, the people we put into to power, the people who have the trust of the public. People That's it. That's all there is. That's the only thing that stops it. And when the people aren't there to stop it…

You cannot.

This is why this kind of talk is dangerous. This is why making it personal and not looking to protect the public is bad. Because, like it or not, people like DeSantis, if they're not defending this nation, if they are simply looking to "tit for tat" to make some sort of point. They hold a mighty amount of trust and they're using it to be on the look out for retribution rather justice.

There aren't any magic words in the Constitution, it's inside our heads that matters. This is the stuff that starts getting sobering.

It does apply to the President. Colorado's judge erred here because they did not have access to Federal documents.

We have the minutes from the 39th Congress that literally indicates that it applies to the President.

Why did you omit to exclude them [The office of the President and Vice President]?

— Sen. Reverdy Johnson (D-MD)

Let me call the Senator's attention to the words 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States'

— Sen. Lot Morrill (R-MA)

It was a very specific question that was answered by the Senate while they were discussing it. So Judge Wallace's determination is incorrect on the merits. Judges can be wrong sometimes, that's why we have appeals.

Oh and just for everyone to remember. The 39th Congress was the one that wrote the 14th Amendment. We weren't some weeks old nation by that point and we literally have the minutes from that Congress discussing the 14th Amendment.

It's not some open question as to "does 14A S3 apply to the President"?

Why did you omit to exclude them [The office of the President and Vice President]?

— Sen. Reverdy Johnson (D-MD)

Let me call the Senator's attention to the words 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States'

— Sen. Lot Morrill (R-MA)

Or does this apply to this instance or just the Civil War.

This is to go into our Constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present; and I should like to have that point definitely understood.

— Sen. Peter G. Van Winkle (R-WV)

It's not some "well what did they mean by such-and-such? Oh we have no record of that." No, no. We literally have the transcript for this one.

The only open question is "does Colorado get to determine if Trump committed an act to disqualify him or not". We literally have the answer for all the other stuff straight from the mouths of those who framed the 14th Amendment.

In conclusion

Okay I lied. This.

In an exploratory analysis, we constructed dose response curves by plotting (Figure 8) the mass of DNA for spike (red) and plasmid ori (blue) found in Pfizer (upper panel) and Moderna (lower panel) vials against the SAE reporting ratio (SRR).

SAE means Serious Adverse Effect and this comes from VAERS data. The same database that had someone turning into the incredible Hulk from a flu vaccine.

Accordingly, for our exploratory dose response analysis we only used VAERS data originating outside the USA to reduce this confounding. Additionally, we have noted some discrepancies in data obtained through the downloaded version of the VAERS dataset

I mean. Fuck these people and their bullshit. They are literally indicating that "yeah what we're saying is bullshit" in technical terms but then get on Twitter and say "make a logical argument!" You basis for trend data on SAEs is shit. If qPCR in lab shows nothing (values underneath the threshold by the FDA), taking SAEs and saying "Oh well SOMEONE died according to the VAERS therefore there must be a multiple effect that if we take the base value we have found in lab and multiply by that, then it's got to be a gazillion fold increase in DNA fragments!!"

It's all fucking bullshit logic and it's a fucking preprint from October! No one is picking this up except the nuts because anyone with half a brain can see this is bullshit from start to finish. If you look at figure 7 and figure 8 in that preprint, we're about to get algebra here, figure 7 shows a linear curve for both Pfizer and Moderna and Moderna is so clean, it goes off the graph when kept to the same scale which is why it has a red box around it. Then look at figure 8 where he adds in his SAEs, it's a graph that just fucking flies upward geometrically.

How anyone can sit there and present these two graphs and say "yeah I stand behind this extrapolation" is ... I've run out of words, but it's stupid! It's literally this. What a fucking fraud. I cannot believe that this is the fucking world we are living in. This even being a thing people are citing is just quite literally the antithesis of science. And the ultimate conclusion of the preprint.

Our exploratory analysis of the relationship between the residual DNA content and SAEs reported to VAERS is preliminary and limited in sample size but warrants confirmation by examining many more lots and vials

NO. Absolutely NOT. Pulling an R2 out your ass and saying, "Oh this warrants us to get more free vials!" is some bullshit logic. To be clear, so the person tested in lab that concentration and found all the vials to be mostly clean (detectable DNA but under the FDA's guidelines). And then took the Lot IDs of those and looked up how many SAE reports came up. Then took some Lot IDs that had a lot of SAEs and based on the information they had came up with a number of how much DNA would have been in those lots.

So say you buy yogurt and find out 2 people got sick off the yogurt for Lot ID A and found that Lot ID A had 1% bad stuff in your lab. Where recall for the yogurt only happens at 5% bad stuff. Then you look up reports that Lot ID R had 23 people report being sick, so you go, "Oh well 23 is 11 and some change times worse, so Lot ID R must of had 12% bad stuff in it! I have no proof that Lot ID R had 12% bad stuff in it, but it must of have that much to get that many people sick!"

THAT'S NOT LOGICAL!!

Now granted the person indicates that they took some things into consideration and what not, but none of that matters. You're just pulling numbers out of your ass. If you haven't actually tested Lot ID R, you cannot say anything about it, especially using a database that people routinely lie to. And admitting that "oh there are some problems" doesn't mean those problems disappear.

I hate myself that I read that bullshit. I cannot believe this is the conversation. Florida is seriously fucked and it's going to hurt people who don't support this bullshit.

(continued)

The preprint mentions this:

Using fluorometry all vaccines exceed the guidelines for residual DNA set by FDA and WHO of 10 ng/dose by 188 – 509 fold

Which is correct. The random DNA is considered a contaminant. But not because "oh no! It's going to enter your DNA!!" but because of that first point I just mentioned.

One, the DNA isn't loaded up into the NLCs…until a random white blood cell sees it and says "this doesn't belong here" and then nom-nom

That contaminant will elicit an immune response to clean up the trash. That immune response can be your arm being super sore, you getting a bit feverish, and so on. You know, that shit they tell you about when you get the shot. 99.(a whole lot of nines thereafter)% of the trash will get picked up this way. But your immune response isn't super big because it's just trash clean up, your body knows the difference between that and infectious agent. The latter is what kicks in that tiredness and feeling really icky that comes with a vaccine, which that's the mRNA's doing.

Which by the by the preprint mentions.

However, qPCR residual DNA content in all vaccines were below these guidelines … with qPCR and SAEs warrant confirmation and further investigation

This is because the preprint measured DNA via one method and got that 509 fold measure and then did it with a different way to measure and found < 10ng/does (that would be value the preprint is indicated in folds).

And the thing is when these two values are so different, that is typically called BULLSHIT. Which is why on the way out they indicate "warrant confirmation and further investigation". Basically, "I know my numbers are bullshit, but still...... We should be on the watch!"

And guess that's the short version of this really long comment. The preprint admits, it's fucking bullshit. And that Ladapo is resting on this bullshit for an argument is even higher piled bullshit.

Okay that's all I'm writing about this.

Okay let's talk about what Ladapo is pointing to. It's this preprint from October of 2023 from the Center for Open Science (COS). Now preface, COS is an open place and there's quality there, but it's open, so there's also bullshit. So approaching anything within COS should be taken with massive grains of salt. Additionally, you should take what I have to say as such too. In fairness, I'm relaying information from a person I know who works on infectious diseases.

Alright let's move on. What's this preprint saying? Here is a breakdown, remember this is just a breakdown glossing over the finer points here.

Making the mRNA requires scientists starting with circular pieces of DNA called plasmids. The plasmids contain the genetic code for the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. (slight aside here) The spike protein is how the virus enters your cells so that it can be copied, producing more virus that then subsequently infect even more cells. The idea of a vaccine is to have an antibody already within you that can attach itself to the spike. When an antibody is attached to the spike, the spike cannot attach to one of your cells, because the anitbody is quite literally in the way.

(okay back to the main part) The plasmids are reproduced billion fold via bacteria. A chemical is added to the bacteria that makes them release the plasmids they've created. An enzyme causes our target spike DNA to be cut out of the plasmid and then another enzyme causes that DNA to be made into mRNA. A final series of enzymes then takes the DNA and slices it into nonsense, think paper shredder for DNA. The mRNA is extracted and that's added to a nanostructured lipid carrier (NLC).

(okay another aside) NLCs are made up of a few parts:

• A surfactant which is a chemical that has surface tension. Here's a cute example of water doing it
• A lot of solid lipid nanoparticles. Think of it as really, really tiny blocks of lard. That fill the inside of the surfactant.
• The actual mRNA also inside.
• A liquid lipid basically a watery like oil that fills the rest.

There's other parts to keep it fresh and what not, but that's the main points. All of these are easily broken down by your body since they're all basically fat, oil, or somewhere in between those two (lard-ish like). The way they deliver their mRNA to your cell is by getting close to your cell's wall and kind of "bubble popping" because the surfactant is made to do that when it's touched by things like your cell wall. Sort of how a soapy hand doesn't pop a bubble but a dry one will. It's a bit more complex, but that's roughly how it works-ish.

(back to what I was saying) So we have the NLCs loaded up, but obviously during this whole process, some DNA fragments from the DNA shredder gets into the final product. This plasmid DNA is what Ladapo and the preprint are talking about.

Okay so we now know where the DNA they speak about is coming from. Does it actually pose a problem? No.

One, the DNA isn't loaded up into the NLCs, so the odds that it'll make it to a cell wall in the first place is really low. Remember the inside of your body is a torrent of flow, if your payload isn't in a ship (NLC) it'll get carried away by the flow. The DNA is likely to run into all kinds of random things inside your body, slowly damaging it until a random white blood cell sees it and says "this doesn't belong here" and then nom-nom.

Two, your cells have walls. And neat thing, it was a whole todo that lead us to the technology to convince a cell to take in a random lipid we gave it. TL;DR - It was really fucking complicated!! Cells don't like random shit getting inside them. Go figure.

Three, yes there is an even smaller chance that a fragment might actually cross the cell wall. Once inside there's a whole dizzying city in there with all kinds of organelles doing shit. Odds are any one of those things is going to catch the fragment just floating around in there. And when caught is sent to the recycler.

Four, your actual cell's DNA is inside the nucleus. Which has it's own complex wall and security system. The odds that any one fragment makes it pass that barrier are unfathomably impossible. But even still.

Five, if it gets pass that. It can't get integrated into your DNA. That requires a sequence of specific enzymes to signal to the cell to begin that process. Which random DNA fragment floating around wouldn't trigger. The odds that, that function is on-going AND a fragment has made the long journey bypassing literally every security system in your body. Even with the preprint's 5,100 ng/dose contamination, you have better odds of finding a specific grain of sand on this planet (1 in 7.5 sextillion), than that happening.

(continued)

Well we could debate taking the driver's license for people involved in a DUI about the same as this topic in the vein of "is this the right play?" The notion is that folks who are apt to take the mechanisms of Government and use them as such to violate an oath they took to defend the Constitution, are likely folks we don't want to hand back control of those mechanisms so they can get another crack at it. Sort of how we don't give folks in a DUI back their license until there's been a clear "rehabilitation" or if we want to be pure cynical "a debt to society paid". The point of not giving them their license right away is because they could potentially do a lot of harm with it being just handed back to them.

And you've indicated that it seems desperate. And yeah, the whole mechanism of disqualification and the whole fact that treason is one of the very few things in criminality that's laid out by the Constitution, is such because nobody wanted people to just randomly start firing off disqualifications. It's made to be a really, really, really, really last resort kind of thing. It's supposed to be something that we try all these other hundreds of things first before using. So if it feels desperate in the sense that the word is defined as Having lost all hope; despairing it's because there isn't a lot of hope that the GOP has pulled itself together enough to prevent someone who incited people to storm the capitol and attempt to upend an election from taking the nomination again.

None of this developed in a vacuum. Trump has done and said things that few other Presidents have said and done and all the mechanisms before have in one way or another nixed the person from returning. Those functions have stopped working and that's getting more into a complex topic about why and it's a long history. But I can tell you there was a transformation of the GOP and how they conducted themselves pre/post Haley Barbour and it especially came to a head with Reince Priebus and you can get even deeper on how our forcing of a two party system has led to this.

But in summary, the GOP as a political apparatus has a great deal of control ceded to them via codification in various State laws. They are absolutely not just some group of folks coming together, lots of States have laws, rules, or regulations that basically establish them that say 3rd parties don't get to enjoy. But the GOP has lost a lot of internal control and regulation of their own apparatus, I mean look how shit show the 2016 GOP primary was. Look at the 2024 GOP primary and how the person leading the nomination isn't even in the apparatus ran debates. There's zero control mechanisms working within that political group. That's problematic because the GOP gets a free pass to get on the ballot in pretty much every State, by default they show up there.

So you've got a group that gets to be in the election without the normal State level checks and balances but that group has lost complete control over their political machine. That's so many red flags that it is a red flag factory. So with all of those controls failing within that party, yeah, we've got to pull the emergency brake here. It is a big deal.

It’s giving him even more credibility

Well I'll say this. Trump makes the point that the political elites run the show and what not. And yeah, as far as the two party system goes being forced down us, yeah, no disagreement there. But he advocates "none" for political apparatus control and that's too far the other direction. And that's actually a worse direction. Ideally I'd like something in the middle, but if we're making it binary, I'll keep the two party system as it is (just a personal taste).

And I think that really sums up what we saw in 2020 and what we are looking at for a 2024 run. You've got two really bad options here. One is obscenely bad and the other is just bad in the business as usual kind of way. So with all that said, as far as granting him "credibility" yeah, it highlights something wrong with what we got. But holy shit, there's no part of what Trump is offering that we want to replace what we got with.

You know here in Tennessee I've heard a saying that came about with Governor Ray Blanton. "If you think the professional politicians are bad, just you wait till the amateurs show up." I get what Trump is spitting here, but best I can do is buy about 10% of it because the other 90% is pure madness. So he, in my book, doesn't get points for saying something that surface level is correct but deep dive into is a sea of authoritarianism horror.