Andy Paquette, Total Election Control |582|

[Wormwood]

Same experience here.

Don't know anyone in my personal or professional spheres that has had any notable known reaction.

I work as a Chiropractor and see anywher

Same experience here.

Don't know anyone in my personal or professional spheres that has had any notable known reaction.

I work as a Chiropractor and see roughly 20-40 patients per day. So I talk to a TON of new and repeat people/patients everyday and all sorts of conversations come up during treatments, similar to a barber in a barbershop I suppose, but the topics are frequently health related. I can’t begin to put a number on the amount of patients I’ve talked to who have received the vaccine or talked about the vaccine in general with regards to them receiving it or members of their family receiving it. I haven’t had a single person telling me that somebody that they know, family or friend, who has died from the vaccine. Nor do I know anybody on a personal level, despite essentially my entire family being vaccinated. This isn’t a pro vaccine post. And I certainly am not making the claim that the vaccine has not killed people. And I did personally get the vaccine, if I had to redo all of this, I probably would decline the vaccine this time. But that’s another story. My point is, the 1-3 percent fatality rate for the Covid vaccine seems like an absurdly high estimation.

According to the CDC “Feb 28, 2023 — As of February 23, 2023, around 81.2 percent of the U.S. population had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccination.”

If this statistic is accurate, and I have no idea how accurate it is, (and the 1 to 3 percent fatality rate for the vaccine statistic is accurate) then that would mean that the vaccine should have killed 2.6 to 7.8 million people in the USA thus far.

If the statistic of the number of total vaccinated is inaccurate, and say the number is only 40 percent of the US population (half of what is claimed by the CDC) then the vaccine should have killed 1.3 to 3.9 million people thus far in the US. Seems a bit difficult to believe. Especially considering the idea that something like 2.5 to 3 million people die in TOTAL in this country each year. The math absolutely does not add up

 

[Andrew Paquette]

If the statistic of the number of total vaccinated is inaccurate, and say the number is only 40 percent of the US population (half of what is claimed by the CDC) then the vaccine should have killed 1.3 to 3.9 million people thus far in the US. Seems a bit difficult to believe. Especially considering the idea that something like 2.5 to 3 million people die in TOTAL in this country each year. The math absolutely does not add up

My understanding is that the estimated death rate is between 1:2000-1:3000. I remember saying "1%-3%" recently but that was an error.

 

[Andrew Paquette]

Hey Alex! I just remembered that you wrote something in the dream thread that I wanted to respond to here. It had to do with a listener who took issue with the election podcast. I was curious what the problem was. Without any details from you, it seemed to me it is either, 1) disputing the presence of the Spiral algorithm in New York's rolls, or 2) disputing the possibility that the algorithm is designed to conceal nefarious activity. Is it one of these or something else?

For the record:
1) "Is the algorithm really present in the database?"

Yes it is. This has now been confirmed by dozens of people who have seen the database. One person from North Carolina obtained her own copy of the database after seeing one of my videos by filing a FOIL request. She then looked over one county (I think it was Schenectady) and found it for herself. Note that most of these confirmations occurred during presentations I made to law enforcement. I have also made a number of presentations to programmers, some with database experience, who agree with me that the algorithm is unquestionably present in the database and very well hidden.

2) "Is the algorithm designed to conceal nefarious activity?"

I'm not sure of this myself. I do think it is a strong possibility for a variety of reasons.
First is that the algorithm is dependent on partitioning of the number space used by the DB for SBOEID numbers. Those partitions neatly segregate areas where known fictitious records are present in large numbers from areas where they are far less common. The algorithm-dependent partitioning should not correlate so strongly with known malfeasance unless there is a relationship between the two.
Second, there is a very strong (nearly one-to-one) correlation between January 1st registration dates and a type of SBOEID number that is critical to the algorithm's structure. It is most striking in the 5 counties that comprise New York City. In these counties, January 1st registration dates account for about 15% of all registrations. Those registrations are consistently given SBOEID numbers that belong in the algorithmically-designated "10 column". This means that the numbers are separated by groups of 9 numbers in the "1 column". The 10 column is integral to the structure of the algorithm. Without it, the algorithm falls apart. If the numbers were granted on January 1st (an impossibility according to a county commissioner I spoke with), why were they given those specific numbers? According to different commissioners, the numbers are assigned either "randomly" or "sequentially". Neither is true in this case, and we'talking about hundreds of thousands of numbers assigned over decades that always land in exactly the same position relative to other numbers. It's like looking at half a million arrows launched into the air randomly, then all of them hitting bulls-eyes on half a million different targets, also arranged randomly.
Third, The algorithm is designed to conceal something. What that something is can be debated but everything the algorithm does obfuscates information under around a dozen layers of number transformations.
Fourth, the algorithm does not conceal or mask the relationship between SBOEID numbers and names, addresses, and other PII contained in the record. Therefore, it cannot serve as any kind of privacy shield. Related to that is the fact that the records are public. Therefore, their disclosure cannot be prevented.
Fifth, the algorithm restructures the numbers in a clandestine manner. This can be used to create a hidden attribute, known only to whomever made the algorithm. That in itself could be illegal because it violates the principle of public disclosure laws. It cannot qualify as "publicly available" if any of the data is encrypted or hidden to prevent disclosure.

 

[Alex]

... a listener who took issue with the election podcast. I was curious what the problem was...
For the record:
1) "Is the algorithm really present in the database?"

Yes it is. This has now been confirmed by dozens of people who have seen the database. One person from North Carolina obtained her own copy of the database after seeing one of my videos by filing a FOIL request. She then looked over one county (I think it was Schenectady) and found it for herself. Note that most of these confirmations occurred during presentations I made to law enforcement. I have also made a number of presentations to programmers, some with database experience, who agree with me that the algorithm is unquestionably present in the database and very well hidden.

Nice. Thanks for sharing this. and this is exactly what I told the person who wrote The Forum post... i.e. you don't have to take Andy's word for it you can file your own f o i l request get the database and see for yourself!!!

===

BTW this is what I think is so remarkable about what you've done... and at the same time pretty freaking hard to wrap one's head around... i.e. you've proven widespread systematic election fraud beyond the level of all those televised hearings.

So, I think this is what really throws people for a loop... and I think it's why the Forum poster responded the way that he did. I mean, despite everything that has gone on over the last few years, none of us really want to believe this kind of stuff is really happening... but apparently it is.

 

[Andrew Paquette]

Not sure if this belongs here or in the dream thread...
I had a second algorithm-related dream a week ago. I wasn't able to look into it right away but started work on it a few days ago. Today, the final piece of the puzzle fell into place. The key, as with the first dream, was simple. It showed me that I had to find the right "start" value for the string of SBOEID numbers. In that context, it showed an entire county's numbers changing when I enter the number "1" in a cell.
By showing the number 1, it made me think it wasn't an SBOEID or CID number, a date, or anything else. I decided to make my own search for a "first" value and then made my own fields to record it. The first field was for every group of ten records, which cycled through the numbers 1-10. The other field was a unique number for every group of ten numbers ("blocks"). Because of the dream, I set it up so that all of the block ID numbers were based on each other. With that done, changing a single number updated the entire list of thousands of numbers.https://zarkfiles.substack.com/
This might not seem like a big deal but keep in mind how scrambled the lists of numbers are. I started with Ulster County, then went to Allegany, and then to Jefferson. I finally solved it on Jefferson, and it all came down to picking the right start point for the records.
I'll be writing a SubStack on it later today. When it's done, you'll see it here.

 

[Alex]

Not sure if this belongs here or in the dream thread...
I had a second algorithm-related dream a week ago. I wasn't able to look into it right away but started work on it a few days ago. Today, the final piece of the puzzle fell into place. The key, as with the first dream, was simple. It showed me that I had to find the right "start" value for the string of SBOEID numbers. In that context, it showed an entire county's numbers changing when I enter the number "1" in a cell.
By showing the number 1, it made me think it wasn't an SBOEID or CID number, a date, or anything else. I decided to make my own search for a "first" value and then made my own fields to record it. The first field was for every group of ten records, which cycled through the numbers 1-10. The other field was a unique number for every group of ten numbers ("blocks"). Because of the dream, I set it up so that all of the block ID numbers were based on each other. With that done, changing a single number updated the entire list of thousands of numbers.https://zarkfiles.substack.com/
This might not seem like a big deal but keep in mind how scrambled the lists of numbers are. I started with Ulster County, then went to Allegany, and then to Jefferson. I finally solved it on Jefferson, and it all came down to picking the right start point for the records.
I'll be writing a SubStack on it later today. When it's done, you'll see it here.

facinating.

also found this Zark tidbit interesting:
New York State’s current clone champion, Mr. M, had just beaten his state record of 22 fake registrations in 22 different counties by three. Now, we know he has 25 fake registrations in 25 different counties