So I got myself a permission to teach in a clear facial shield. My students can see my face, for which they are very grateful. Imagine not being able to see the teacher’s face in a material-heavy course taught in a foreign language.

But do you know how many students I managed to convince to accept the free facial shields I provided and use them?

Zero. Not a single one in a year of teaching. Not in one-on-one meetings, not in class, not in my office, not at any point. I don’t know why. I obviously don’t debate this with students. I provided the option and explained that it’s allowed. I respect their decision.

As we have heard many times by now, racism is a major threat to public health.

If it’s OK to put things into your body against your will to benefit public health, why isn’t it OK to put things into your mind to benefit public health?

If it’s OK to persecute “anti-vaxxers”, why isn’t it OK to persecute “racists”? With the definition of “racist” provided by Ibram Kendi and co?

Forcing you to read or say something – or not to read or say something else – is, by every measure, less radical than forcing you to put something inside your body. What is the framework within which you can be for Pfizer mandates and against coerced speech or political censorship?

If you support me being kept out of a restaurant or an airplane because I didn’t put something I don’t want inside my body, how will you prevent yourself being excluded tomorrow on the basis of your online history or book purchase history? Seriously, what is the argument you are going to make? That racism kills fewer people than COVID? Good luck with that. Racist.

What do you think the purpose of these endless proclamations that “racism is a public health threat” is? Why were BLM protests declared the only mass public gathering that wasn’t spreading COVID?

And one last thought. People who call for coercive measures to be deployed against others are always very stunned when coercion is deployed against them next. Always very, very stunned.

It’s because people can’t be assed to find out how meds actually work that these kind of headlines appear:

The Hill later changed the insane headline after getting massively mocked online.

COVID is endemic, folks. Everybody is going to catch it or already did. One can take Pfizer and Moderna therapeutics to lessen the severity of the potential symptoms once one catches it. Or one can rely on one’s immune system to fight it and develop natural immunity.

It makes quite a bit of sense for at-risk people – the elderly, the overweight, the immunocompromised – to take the therapeutic. I personally still wouldn’t because I’m very cautious with medications and have taken only about 5% of all prescriptions I’ve been given in my life.

For now, the situation in the US is actually quite good. In spite of the wave of infections in the Sunbelt and the looming wave in the Northeast, deaths are down. The therapeutic (aka “COVID vaccine”) is working! Serious cases are down, even if hospitalizations are trending upwards in some places. Unfortunately, countries that vaccinated earlier and more aggressively demonstrate that the therapeutic’s effectiveness wanes in 4-6 months. The at-risk people will have to take booster shots. But the risk of serious illness or death for them is much lower than before the “vaccine.” (Of course, the numbers are skewed by the fact that people who were the most likely to die of COVID already did but still, the trend holds). Yay! Great! The only reason we are not celebrating is because we have been duped into believing that this virus can be eliminated. It can’t.

The recipe now remains the same as always – lose weight, take vitamin D, go outside, exercise outside in fresh air. And in the meantime, if you are at risk, totally consider the therapeutic. If you are vaccinated and you catch it, please remember that this doesn’t mean the vaccine doesn’t work. It’s working as intended by dramatically lessening the severity of your symptoms. Again, that’s good news.

There’s a lot of unnecessary hysteria going around when the situation is actually good. Unless you have completely unrealistic expectations of what is possible to achieve – zero infections, zero sickness, zero deaths – you should be content with where things are going in terms of the actual disease.

Where the reaction to the disease is going is a different story.

Once again somebody rolled out the seatbelt argument at me today, and I’m kind of stunned that people don’t see the utter speciousness of this argument. You know the one: “the government is making us wear seat belts to protect us, so why can’t it make us get the Pfizer shot?”

Folks, come on. The government isn’t making you eat the seatbelt, is it? There is a fundamental difference between breaching the bodily integrity of another person and not breaching it. I can take the seat belt off. In fact, I spend most of my time not wearing it. Once a therapeutic goes inside the body, you can’t remove it. If you can’t control the inside of your body, what can you control?

Should the government – or anybody – be able to force us to take statins to improve our health? Antibiotics? Painkillers? Should we be fired or denied entrance into restaurants if we refuse a statin prescription? My doctor gave me one. I threw it in the trash and improved my cholesterol naturally. Should I have been coerced to take it? Since most of us will die of cardiovascular disease and not of respiratory viruses, how does it make sense not to aggressively enforce heart health? Where’s the logic?

I know there are no completely uneducated people here on the blog but just in case: nobody claims or ever claimed that “COVID vaccines” eliminate infection or spread. What they do is reduce the severity of symptoms once you do get infected, and they seem to do it well, at least for several months.

So why are there no “passports” for cholesterol meds? Why aren’t we trying aggressively to enforce sobriety? Why are the only symptoms we are trying to spare people those of this one respiratory virus? These are not rhetorical questions. I believe that these are completely reasonable questions to ask. And since nobody is trying to answer them, I don’t know how one can avoid thinking that this isn’t about health at all.

We have all seen ads for class action suits on medications that proved to be deadly. How does anybody know that these “vaccines” aren’t going to be in those ads 10 years from now? How can anybody guarantee that? We have all seen what happened with Oxycodone. It was promoted aggressively as non-addictive. It all ended up in courts and with thousands of corpses. Knowing all this, how can anybody have the incredible, out of this world hubris to make other people put these meds – or absolutely anything else – inside their bodies against their will? Decide for yourself, absolutely. But how can you force others? And for what? For what?

Why does Hunter Biden film himself naked so much? I swear, there’s not a single recording of me naked anywhere because. . . why would I want to make it? I can see myself naked any time I want, so what’s so important to record?

Is this normal behavior for a middle-aged person with a very non-spectacular, flabby body? Do people normally record themselves naked and then, what?, sit there and watch? I enjoy looking at myself more than most but I wouldn’t just sit there watching videos of trivial conversations I had, naked or dressed. It would be very boring.

Also, I don’t in any way seek Hunter Biden news but I’m starting to get a feeling that, after my husband, Hunter is the guy I’ve seen naked the most. And I could have really done without it.