A sea change is underway. Ten years ago, it was heresy to propose that a ketogenic (a.k.a low carb high fat) diet was in any way healthier than the low fat high carb diet supported by public health authorities. It was branded a “gimmick” diet. In some places, doctors who prescribed it to their patients risked having their medical licenses revoked.
The German physicist Max Planck is often misquoted as having said that “science advances one funeral at a time”. Well, the man who gave birth to the low fat high carb dogma, Ancel Keys, died in 2004. His first generation of acolytes have now joined him in oblivion. The men (they were with very few exceptions all men) who created the current dietary guidelines back in the late 70’s and early 80’s are also gone, after having presided over a massive explosion in the number of people suffering from obesity and type 2 diabetes.
The newer generations of nutrition researchers do not appear to be as wedded to the old dogma. This is visible in the increasing number of studies being published on a ketogenic diet. Some of these are even appearing in the most prestigious and conservative nutrition journals.
One such study was recently published in Advances in Nutrition, a journal owned by the American Society for Nutrition. It was a systematic review looking at randomized trials of a ketogenic diet as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, which is the most common cause of dementia. We’re going to get to that study in a minute, but first, a little detour.
There is some evidence to support the notion that dementia can in part be caused by a high carbohydrate diet. An observational study was published back in 2012 in The Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease in which 937 elderly people were followed for four years. The median age at the start of the study was 80 years, and at the beginning, all the participants were asked to fill in a diet questionnaire and were also evaluated for cognitive function. Four years later, 200 of the 937 participants had developed some level of cognitive impairment.
When the researchers correlated this with dietary carbohydrate intake, they found that the quartile with the highest intake had an 89% increased relative risk of developing cognitive impairment during the four years of follow-up, as compared to the group with the lowest intake. And that’s after adjusting for known confounders like gender, BMI, co-morbidities, and APOE4 status (APOE4 is a gene variant that is strongly associated with increased risk of Alzheimer disease). The difference was statistically significant (p-value 0.004).
The quartile with the highest fat intake, on the other hand, had a 56% decreased relative risk of cognitive impairment as compared to the quartile with the lowest fat intake (p-value 0.03).
Interestingly, the differences between the quartiles in terms of carbohydrate and fat consumption weren’t actually that big. The highest quartile in terms of carbohydrate consumption was getting more than 58% of calories from carbohydrates, while the lowest quartile was getting less than 47%. Not a huge difference. The same was true for fat intake. The quartile with the highest fat intake was getting more than 35% of calories from fat, while the quartile with the lowest fat intake was getting les than 27%. This would seem to suggest that even relatively modest differences in consumption of carbohydrates and fats can have big effects on cognitive function over time, and that an even bigger reduction in relative carbohydrate intake might have achieved an even bigger reduction in risk of cognitive impairment.
Of course, this was an observational study, and although the results are suggestive, it can’t prove the existence of a cause and effect relationship between carbohydrate/fat intake and dementia. The results could have been caused by residual confounders that the researchers were not able to adjust for. For proof of a cause-effect relationship you need randomized controlled trials. Which is where the recent systematic review published in Advances in Nutrition comes in. As mentioned earlier, it was looking at the randomized trials that exist of a ketogenic diet as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment.
Ten trials were identified, with a total of only 456 participants, which really shows how under-researched this area is. And things get worse. Only three of the trials, with a total of only 47 participants, were actually testing a ketogenic diet (i.e. a diet in which carbohydrates are restricted to the point where the body significantly increases production of ketone bodies). The rest were testing supplements containing medium chain triglycerides (MCT’s), which the body preferentially converts to ketones. From my perspective, these are two very different interventions. A ketogenic diet has many different effects on our metabolism, and I am inclined to believe that the beneficial effects come primarily from the reduction in carbohydrates and insulin, not from the increase in ketones.
Taking an MCT containing supplement is obviously not the same thing as following a ketogenic diet. The seven studies of ketogenic supplements were, with only one exception, either funded by companies that sell supplements, or they failed to disclose their funding (which means they were probably funded by companies that sell supplements). Most of these studies were never registered at clinicaltrials.gov, and of the ones that were, this was done after the trials were already underway, which is highly suspect behaviour, because it means the researchers could know wether the trials were going well or not before they let the world know about them. In other words, it’s possible they were simultaneously running other trials that weren’t going so well, and that were therefore never posted on clinicaltrials.gov, which could lead to massive publication bias.
The three small studies of a ketogenic diet compared it with the traditionally recommended low fat high carb diet. One of the three ran for twelve weeks, while the other two ran for six weeks, so these were short term interventions. In terms of outcomes, there were improvements in some of the cognitive functions tested, but not in others. Overall, the results really don’t tell us anything useful, as you would expect from tiny trials run for short periods of time.
The seven studies of MCT supplements appeared to show some benefit in terms of cognitive function in Alzheimer patients, although the fact that these were mostly industry funded studies, that weren’t pre-registered at clinicaltrials.gov, makes the results hard to trust. Strangely, the systematic review only reports whether there was a “benefit” or not, but not what the size of the benefit was, or whether it was statistically or clinically significant. This feels like a rather weird omission in a systematic review. So I decided to look up the two biggest trials, with 152 and 131 participants respectively. According to the systematic review, the first showed an “improvement” in ADAS-Cog (a test of cognitive function used in Alzheimer’s disease) and MMSE (a test for dementia), while the second showed an “improvement” in ADAS-Cog .
When we look at the first of these trials, we find that the difference between the group getting MCT and the placebo group at 104 days (the longest follow-up) was less than one point on the 70 point ADAS-Cog scale. One point on a 70 point scale is not a noticeable difference. Additionally, the difference wasn’t statistically significant. In other words, there was no clinically meaningful or statistically significant difference between the groups on ADAS-Cog. If we move on to MMSE, we find no difference whatsoever between the groups. Yet this study is reported as being “positive” in the systematic review. Odd.
When I moved on and looked at the second of these trials, I immediately realized that it was just a duplicate report of the same study, with a few new analyzes of the same data set. Researchers often do this, to maximize the number of publications they can get out of one data set (since career success in research is largely determined by number of publications). How the authors of the systematic review didn’t realize this is beyond me.
So basically, one negative study was reported as two positive studies in the systematic review. And these were the two “big” studies, supposedly representing 62% of the participants in the systematic review. All the other studies were much smaller.
This weirdness really makes me wonder about the motives of the authors of the systematic review. No conflicts of interest were reported, and they reported receiving no specific funding to carry out the review. But seriously, they went through all this data in detail and didn’t realize that they were looking at the same data set twice! And then, to top it off, Advances in Nutrition, the fourth highest ranked nutrition journal, went ahead and published it, no questions asked!
This really speaks to the poor state of nutrition research more than anything else, and to the low added value provided by the process of peer review. If peer review was the rigorous process that the general public thinks it is, this nonsense would have been noticed and called out, and the article wouldn’t have been published.
What can we conclude?
Athough I am a strong proponent of a ketogenic diet as an effective therapy for metabolic syndrome, obesity and type 2 diabetes, and therefore think it’s likely that it also has beneficial effects in terms of preventing or delaying dementia (which is far more common in people suffering from these diseases), the evidence that exists today cannot prove that that is the case. Nor does the current evidence support the use of MCT supplements as a way to treat or prevent dementia.
Joining me today is Dr. Hodkinson, here to discuss the dangers of the COVID-19 vaccines, the possibility of infertility, and the very real concerns about the vaccine-induced spike proteins and what new scientific research is clearly suggesting about their risks to your health.
Vaccines could cause “mass male infertility”, Anthony Fauci is a “dead man walking” and the inquest into the pandemic will leave “blood in the gutter” with reputations torn to shreds for their sheer “idiocy”.
“When the history of this madness is written, reputations will be slaughtered and there will be blood in the gutter“
Dr Roger Hodkinson says there is “sufficient evidence in the literature” to show the spike protein expresses in the placenta and the testes – and could kill unborn babies in current pregnancies and permanently stop men having children.
He also said no one should listen to the likes of Prince Harry advocating the jab because he has “nothing between his ears”.
Dr Hodkinson is a pathologist by training, with a wealth of knowledge in infectious disease, virology and evidence-based medicine, who was educated at Cambridge University and University College Hospital Medical School in London, before moving to Canada in 1970 and training at the University of British Columbia.
He came to notoriety for his speech to the Edmonton City Council on November 13 last year regarding their vote on extending mandatory mask orders, saying the response to Covid was “the biggest hoax perpetrated on an unsuspecting public”.
And now, despite describing the vaccines as “incredibly smart theories”, Dr Hodkinson has issued another impassioned plea, calling for a halt to the rollout in order to carry out further investigations.
He said:
“I’m a serious evidence-based career pathologist who has done everything in pathology at national and provincial levels and I take evidence-based science very, very seriously. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, I’m not an anti-vaxxer, I’m none of the above. But when I see certain things in the literature that could – underlined – have serious potential long-term sequelae, I think it’s my duty to stand up and blow the whistle and say ‘hey, stop the train, have you seen this? It needs to be looked at. I hope it’s wrong but show me the data’.
The data I’m talking about is well-described in the literature, that of the significant expression of the ACE 2 receptor in both the placenta and the testes. And more importantly, in the testes it’s the cells that actually produce the spermatozoa, the precursors, called spermatogonia. Clearly there is an excess of spike protein circulating as a result of an unexpected surge in some people who get the vaccine.
And that circulation takes the spike protein everywhere, including the placenta of women who happen to be pregnant at the time, which is a one-time hit for that particular pregnancy, probably not for subsequent ones. But there is also potential for a hit on the testes, which of course is not a one-time hit, it could be a permanent hit.
In a world where we know that sperm counts have dropped 40 per cent over the last 10 or 20 years – a massive unexplained drop in sperm counts – we don’t need some additional hits on male fertility.
There have been disturbing reports, to be verified, of increased miscarriages following vaccination. I’m concerned about that for sure but I’m more concerned of the potential of male infertility which could be permanent. A lot of this is could, maybe etc, etc, it’s merely appropriate caution given the scientific literature.
You cannot test for fertility in a trial that lasts six months. Last time I checked, pregnancy lasts nine months. And in order to test for sequential pregnancies and the need for longer-term fertility studies, it cannot be done outside of a two-to-four years window, which is the normal time frame for a new vaccine trial.”
Over the past few days, Health Secretary Matt Hancock has described as “great news” the fact that all aged 32 and over can now book their Covid vaccine, repeating the mantra that it is both safe and effective. And the call to vaccinate children is growing louder, with Hancock saying last week: “I’ve been closely following the results from the clinical studies from Pfizer that show that the vaccine is safe and effective among children between the ages of 12 and 18.”
Dr Hodkinson said:
“It is absolutely outrageous. Look, children are not dying of this condition, at least in my own province, there have been no deaths under 19 recorded at all. It is the same internationally.
Children are not dying of this condition first of all, they are not even suffering from this condition. The vast majority just brush it off without even knowing they’ve got it. So it’s not a problem for children. And if it’s therefore not any more of a problem than a trivial cold for children, then why in God’s name are we subjecting them to an untested vaccine? It is not an emergency, it is not needed and it has potential complications on fertility and therefore it’s utterly reckless.
It could be described as the single event in medical malpractice in medical history, because there is no informed consent. For them to say a single word with four letters without any qualifiers at all, to say that this is safe is a massive distortion of not just the English language but makes you extremely culpable in court, if they weren’t protected by statute for being sued as bureaucrats and politicians. Any individual physician who did that would be hauled before his college before he could spit for failure of informed consent.
Vaccinating children is absolutely obscene – obscene. They are not at threat and you are putting them at risk.”
The level of coercion, however, is also on the increase. The NHS app has now morphed into a Vaccine Passport and there are discussions taking place this week – including with football’s Premier League – to introduce them at domestic level. Royal Ascot could be used as a pilot for the scheme.
Nevertheless, Prince Harry, who moved to America for more privacy but who has bathed in the limelight ever since, appeared at a Vax Live event calling for people to get the jab.
Dr Hodkinson said:
“If he had anything between the ears he might be worth listening to. Who cares what film stars and royalty say about this? They are all congenital idiots in my opinion.”
“Let me just paint the big picture here for the contrast between vaccinations and other forms of therapies. If in fact this is an emergency as they claim, which I contest, but let’s take their word for it, they are using it to vaccinate people without an appropriately tested vaccine. If you accept that a potentially dangerous vaccine, for which there is growing evidence of danger, contrast that with the prohibition of physicians to prescribe ivermectin, or vitamin D for that matter.
Here we have individual physicians relating to their individual patients who are traditionally expected to give a judgment for the patient to decide in full consent. But ivermectin has, on paper, enormous evidence of effectiveness, while at the same time, in contrast to the vaccine, shown to be incredibly safe, billions of doses over many years of use.
So here we have an agent that, OK it may not be effective, we accept that, it’s still an uncertainty to a certain degree, but it may work and it is safe. So you can’t have it both ways. If you’re saying you’re vaccinating people because it’s an emergency, you should take the dogs off physicians to allow them to decide individually if an agent is potentially effective and should be used because it is safe. You can’t have it both ways.”
Dr Hodkinson does not believe many of the theories out there and says what is happening is nothing more than politicians refusing to admit that they are wrong. He said:
“They are constantly trapped in a mistake of their own making in which they cannot admit they were wrong and therefore they double down on it. It’s nothing more than that and they can’t fess up. And so they want to wrestle this to the ground – zero Covid and all that idiocy that from a scientific perspective is ludicrous. It cannot conceivably happen.
This virus is everywhere. It’s in an aerosol in every aisle in every foodstore whether you are walking past someone or not. It’s the roulette game of life, you may get it, you may not. And if you get it and you’re under 65 and you’re otherwise well, it’s going to be nothing more than the regular flu, except for a small number of people who sadly are going to get a severe infection and some of them will die. It is really tragic and I’m not being callous saying this but it happens every single year with the flu. In fact children die of the flu every year.
There is a greater risk of a teacher driving to school and dying of a head-on collision than there is of a teacher dying of Covid that she thinks she might have caught in the school. So do we take cars off the road? No we don’t do we. We live with the risk of a head-on collision every time we pass a car on the road. It’s part of the risk of everyday life. These Governments want to control every single risk of life. And this is merely one example.
I do not think this is some big internationally coordinated conspiracy by the great resetters, not at all. Are they taking huge advantage of it? Unquestionably. And despicably so. But as to why it is being maintained, I think you have to look at a number of factors. The first way it is being maintained is because of asymptomatic testing showing a huge number of false positives, certainly when you start getting up to cycle thresholds above 35, the vast majority, 90 per cent, are false positives.
That drives a graph in the morning paper that supports the hysteria in the population because they haven’t got any information to counter what’s going on. And the politicians use those graphs to double down on the idiocy that’s already underway.
It’s now morphed from lockdowns into vaccines and then it will morph again into vaccine passports, all in lockstep. But the second reason the hysteria in continuing is the ruthlessly efficient international censorship of the three usual sources of information for the general public outside of Government and that is individual politicians, who have been kicked out of their party, at least in Canada, for daring to speak up, the journalists, mainstream media is corrupt internationally, at least in Canada, they have been bribed into silence by money being chucked at them by the bucketload – you don’t bite the hand that feeds you. But more importantly physicians, who are the most respected and best source for the general public for anything that is relevant to this issue.
Listen, I’m in the game here and you cannot imagine how petrified – I’m using that word advisedly – how petrified physicians are in this country of their regulatory bodies, so-called colleges of physicians and surgeons. They have the ability to take away your livelihood by a click of the finger.
It’s like the star chamber of the middle ages, you’re guilty until proven innocent, you have to fund your own defence and they have a history of winning or bankrupting you along the way. So the typical physician shuts up.
It’s not just the colleges who may censor you, it’s the institutions in which you work who can deny you privileges. At least with the college there is the chance to contest the decision. With institutions that award you privileges to operate for example, they have a hotline directly to the ministries and it wouldn’t be recorded, it would just be “get this guy” click. And you’re done. You’re done. You don’t operate any more.
But this is the classic situation of politicians honouring that most important principle in politics – never apologise, you simply morph it into something else and you move on. They got themselves into this hole immediately because of that idiot at Imperial College London, Neil Ferguson, who’s not a physician or an epidemiologist, he is a theoretical physicist, he was notoriously wrong by an order of magnitude in his predictions from previous epidemics and no one internationally did due diligence on his latest idiocy based upon largely the things that were going on with the elderly in Milan.
They all assumed it was Armageddon coming. With the speed of modern communication the media picked that up, the media gorges on crises and that basically landed on every premier and prime ministers desk the next morning with the demand of their No2 that something must be done that is visible that I’m doing something because Armageddon is coming.
So they did all this stupid stuff for which there is no evidence in the medical literature whatsoever for effectiveness and when it was shown not to be working they simply doubled down on it, again and again. It’s the classic situation as I said of politics playing medicine, which is an extraordinarily dangerous game.
But I don’t think it [the virus] was an intentional leak by the lab in Wuhan, it’s certainly a consequence of Gain of Function research that Anthony Fauci directly funded. It’s a made-in-USA virus. So they dug themselves into this hole and rather than admitting it and apologising and getting back to normal like they are in Florida quite effectively, most jurisdictions are simply doubling down on the idiocy and hoping it will go away because it always does in the summer when the sun comes up and we all start making vitamin D again.
But they will claim they rattled it to the ground because the cases were dropping. The classic fallacy trap is of course that just because B follows A doesn’t mean that A caused B and they will claim credit for the disappearance over the summer.
That is why we are in this ongoing mess is because they didn’t put their big pants on and say ‘I was wrong’ and just doubled down on it.
Look at Fauci, if one mask doesn’t work, well maybe two or three or perhaps 10. If you wear 10 I guarantee you will not get Covid because you will actually be dead of hypoxia. Let me tell you explicitly: masks don’t work. Period. Period. Nothing works. Nothing could work. Nothing did work. And nothing will work. It should be life as normal with personal responsibility used to control it in the usual way.“
The Government has admitted for the first time that Sellafield ‘is a source of plutonium contamination’ across the country. Public Health Minister Melanie Johnson has revealed that a study funded by the Department of Health discovered that the closer a child lived to Sellafield, the higher the levels of plutonium found in their teeth.
Johnson said: ‘Analysis indicated that concentrations of plutonium… decreased with increasing distance from the west Cumbrian coast and its Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing plant – suggesting this plant is a source of plutonium contamination in the wider population.’ Johnson claimed the levels of plutonium are so minute that there is no health risk to the public. But this is disputed by scientists, MPs and environmental campaigners who have called for an immediate inquiry into how one of the world’s most dangerous materials has been allowed to continue to contaminate children’s teeth. There have long been claims of clusters of childhood leukaemia around Sellafield.
In the late 1990s researchers collected more than 3,000 molars extracted from young teenagers across the country during dental treatment and analysed them. To their surprise they found traces of plutonium in all the teeth including those from children in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Alarmingly, they discovered that those living closer to Sellafield had more than twice the amount of those living 140 miles away.
Plutonium is a man-made radioactive material and the only source of it in Britain is from Sellafield. The plant, which reprocesses nuclear fuel from reactors, still discharges plutonium into the Irish Sea.
The original research was carried out in 1997 by Professor Nick Priest who was working for the UK Atomic Energy Authority. At the time the conclusions of the research received little attention because the study concluded that the contamination levels were so minuscule they were thought to pose an ‘insignificant’ health risk.
But earlier this year the Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters, looking at health risks posed by radioactive materials, examined Priest’s study. Some of the committee’s members have now cast doubt on the conclusions that plutonium in children’s teeth posed no health risk. Professor Eric Wright, of Dundee University Medical School, is one of the country’s leading experts on blood disorders and a member of the committee. He believes that the tiny specks of plutonium in children’s teeth caused by Sellafield radioactive pollution might lead to some people falling ill with cancer.
He said: ‘There are genuine concerns that the risks from internal emitters of radiation are more hazardous [than previously thought]. The real question is by how much. Is it two or three times more risky… or more than a hundred?’
Wright believes that, while the plutonium contamination is unlikely to pose a health risk to much of the British population, it might be a problem for some individuals.
He said: ‘If somebody has a bad collection of genes which means their body cannot deal with small levels of internal radioactive material, then there could be an issue.’
Wright’s comments, coming on top of the admission from the Health Minister, have led to calls for an independent inquiry. Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Norman Baker said: ‘[This] stinks of a cover-up. They have known for six years that Sellafield has contaminated the population with plutonium but done nothing. Yet the plant continues to discharge plutonium into the Irish Sea. It shows the wanton disregard the nuclear industry has for public health and there needs to be an independent inquiry.’
Janine Allis-Smith of the campaign group Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment said: ‘There is no safe amount of plutonium. The plant must be closed down immediately.’
More than 60 years ago, American military chiefs were closer than previously known to dropping atomic bombs on China over a relatively minor crisis with the renegade territory of Taiwan. The new revelations came from veteran whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg who worked as a nuclear weapons strategist at the Rand Corporation and at the Pentagon during the 1950s and 60s.
Ellsberg was the source of the famous Pentagon Papers which he leaked 50 years ago exposing the official U.S. lies about its criminal involvement in the Vietnam War during the 1960s and 70s.
Now at the age of 90, Daniel Ellsberg has dropped another media bombshell – that the Pentagon was ready to attack China and its major cities with nuclear weapons in 1958. The details were published by the New York Times. But it is perturbing that the shocking revelations barely caused a ripple in the U.S. media. There were no editorials condemning the plan which indicates a complacency among the U.S. media bordering on acquiescence towards such criminal action. This complacency is deeply alarming given the present dangers of war stemming from Washington’s provocations towards China and Russia.
It seems incredible that such a monstrous crime in 1958 was being considered fresh from the memory of the horror perpetrated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese cities razed by two U.S. atomic bombs in August 1945 causing the deaths of at least 200,000 mainly civilians. If the Americans had gone ahead with the plan some 13 years later to attack China the death toll would have been in the millions.
Ellsberg, who could face prosecution under the U.S. Espionage Act similar to contemporary whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, said he was motivated to make his latest revelations because of the imminent risk of war from escalating tensions between China and the United States over Taiwan and other issues. Six decades on, it is notable how the same tensions exist. This is because Washington continues to meddle in China’s internal sovereign affairs, making Taiwan a pawn in its imperialist game. It is the U.S. that is stoking the hostility by reneging on its One China policy which has up to now nominally recognized Beijing’s territorial claim to Taiwan.
In 1958, before the One China policy was adopted in 1979, the U.S. sided with Taiwan in China’s civil war between the Communists and Nationalists led by Chiang kai-shek whose forces fled to the island after their defeat on the mainland in 1949. Rather than accepting the outcome of the civil war, the U.S. continued to support Chiang and his Kuomintang regime. Taiwan became a renegade island territory which has existed in large part due to American military support. This is part of the “strategic ambiguity” adopted by Washington even though since 1979 the United States officially recognizes Beijing’s authority over Taiwan. “Strategic duplicity” would be a more accurate term.
Successive American administrations under Obama, Trump and now Biden have moved significantly to undermine the One China policy and to show increasing support for Taiwan’s would-be declaration of independence. If such a move were to take place, China has vowed to use military force to assert control over the territory. That would no doubt lead to war with the United States. Pentagon chiefs have already said in recent months that a war could happen within five years. And from the way relations are rapidly deteriorating between Washington and Beijing – the latest provocation due to Biden’s insinuation this week that the Covid-19 pandemic may have originated from a Chinese virology laboratory in Wuhan – it is not hard to envisage how tensions could erupt into a full-blown war.
Ellsberg’s concern is that the willingness by Washington to use nuclear weapons in 1958 against China is still extant today. That should be a concern for the whole world. Unlike in 1958, China is now a formidable nuclear power and there is no doubt it would retaliate leading to a nuclear conflagration. Nevertheless, there is a delusion among some American planners that they can win from a pre-emptive strike. The United States is alone among major nuclear powers in not explicitly renounced a first-strike policy.
What is also perplexing is the United States is the only county to have used nuclear weapons of mass destruction in war yet it continues to officially justify that blatant crime as a necessary means to end the Pacific War against Japan. The sense of entitlement and impunity is appalling.
Furthermore, the willingness in 1958 to use nuclear weapons against China was not the only time such an abominable plan was drawn up. There have been several occasions, including:
In 1949, Washington formulated Operation Dropshot which planned to drop 300 atomic weapons on 100 cities and towns across the Soviet Union. This was rationalized as a response in the event that the Soviet Union expanded its allegiance among Western European and Asian nations.
In 1950 and 1953, the administrations of Harry Truman and Ike Eisenhower warned of using nuclear weapons against China over the latter’s support for North Korea in the civil war against American-backed South Korea.
In 1961, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff advocated a pre-emptive nuclear attack against the Soviet Union, but they were stood down by President John F Kennedy who abhorred the idea. Kennedy went on to implement a landmark arms control treaty with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev which many researchers believe led to his assassination by the CIA in 1963.
The propensity by the United States for the use of nuclear weapons can be seen as a form of blackmail and state terrorism against the rest of the world. It has used such weapons without apology, it has explicitly threatened to use such weapons on several occasions, and it continues to tacitly threaten to use these weapons at any time of its choosing. That, in short, is state terrorism.
It no doubt gives the American rulers some pause for thought that China or Russia could retaliate with devastating force. But what is reprehensible and uniquely criminal is the reckless way in which American rulers continue to push the dynamics for war despite their sanctimonious lecturing about upholding “the rules-based international order”.
This week, the Biden administration announced it was not rejoining the Open Skies Treaty which the previous Trump administration walked away from. That is at least the third arms-control treaty that the U.S. has unilaterally ditched – the ABM, the INF and now the OST. Again, the United States is gravely undermining global security based on provocative and baseless claims against Russia and China.
When Biden meets President Putin next month in Geneva, the former is said by U.S. media to be going to raise several concerns with the Russian leader. Such conceited reporting implies a grossly misplaced sense of moral authority. The reality is, however, that Putin will have a lot more genuine and urgent concerns to raise about the American side and its assault on global security.
The fact is the United States is a serial nuclear aggressor whose veneer of supposed virtue is a thin and increasingly transparent disguise for moral bankruptcy. It is the preeminent threat to world peace.
Virtually all accusations by Washington and its complicit partners against Russia and other nations free from US control lack evidence supporting them because none exists.
Yet they surface time and again, supported by Western press agent media.
On Friday, the Russophobic NYT was at it again, falsely accusing Moscow of hacking USAID.
In response to an earlier phony US accusation of Russian hacking last year, its US embassy said the following:
“We paid attention to another unfounded attempt of the US media to blame Russia for hacker attacks on US governmental bodies.”
“We declare responsibly: malicious activities in the information space contradicts the principles of the Russian foreign policy, national interests and our understanding of interstate relations.”
“Russia does not conduct offensive operations in the cyber domain.”
“What is more, the Russian Federation actively promotes bilateral and multilateral cyber security agreements.”
“In this regard, we would like to remind (the US regime) of the initiative put forward by President Vladimir Putin on September 25 on a comprehensive program of measures to restore Russian-US cooperation in the field of international information security.”
“We have received no reply from Washington.”
“Many our other suggestions to start constructive and equal dialogue with the US remain unanswered.”
Hacking and countless other crimes are how the US-dominated West and Israel operate.
In sharp contrast, Russia fully complies with its international obligations, according to the rule of law.
Yet once again, NYT fake news falsely claimed the following:
“Hackers linked to Russia’s main intelligence agency surreptitiously seized an email system used by (USAID) to burrow into the computer networks of human rights groups and other organizations of the sort that have been critical of President Vladimir V. Putin, Microsoft Corporation disclosed on Thursday (sic).”
When accusations are unsupported by independently verified evidence, they’re baseless.
None exists to support accusations against Russia under Vladimir Putin.
Will the latest phony one be used as a pretext to cancel a scheduled mid-June summit between Putin and Biden’s impersonator — because he can only recite lines scripted for him.
If held, the summit will be farcical — a know-nothing imposter engaging with a world leader of Putin’s stature.
Perhaps the latest phony accusation against Russia will be used to cancel it — to avoid US embarrassment if they meet face-to-face.
No Russian hack of USAID occurred, no evidence suggesting it.
What the Times indicated as the aim of the phony claim fell flat like earlier baseless accusations against Russia.
An invented scenario by the Times reads like a rejected grade B Hollywood script.
Corporate predator Microsoft is complicit with wars by hot and/or other means on invented US enemies.
So are the Times and other establishment media — operating as mouthpieces for US imperial interests on all things geopolitical, notably against Russia, China, and nations victimized by US aggression.
No phony NYT claim of Russian “malicious activity (or) appetite for disruption” against the US or other countries exists, no evidence suggesting it.
An unnamed DHS official falsely claimed that the agency was “aware of the potential compromise” at USAID (sic) and is “working with the FBI and (the State Department’s agency) to better understand the extent of the compromise (sic) and assist potential victims (sic).”
No Russian SolarWinds hack occurred earlier or other hacking it was falsely accused of earlier.
Yet Microsoft and the Times falsely claimed a Nobelium group in Russia hacked SolarWinds and USAID despite no verifiable evidence because there is none.
Time and again, Times reports don’t pass the smell test.
Its daily editions feature managed news misinformation, disinformation and fake news on major domestic and geopolitical issues — far removed from all the news it claims to be fit to print.
A Final Comment
Undemocratic Dem war goddess Samantha Power heads USAID.
Like other interventionist extremists, she never met a nation free from US control she didn’t want smashed.
She once called US foreign policy “a tool box” with a range of options to advance the nation’s hegemonic aims.
Civil rights lawyer Chase Madar earlier called her hellish agenda “a richly instructive example of the weaponization of human rights.”
Like other US hostile to the rule of law officials, she falsely blames others for its high crimes of war and against humanity.
Chances are she was behind the latest false accusation of Russian hacking, enlisting Microsoft to make the phony claim.
Her maliciously destructive worldview is polar opposite values just societies cherish.
A mass grave containing the remains of 215 indigenous children has been found at the site of a former residential school for indigenous children in Canada, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau describing the discovery as heartbreaking.
The grim discovery took place at Kamloops Indian residential school near the town of Kamloops, British Columbia, on Friday.
The bodies belonged to the students, some as young as three years old, of the indigenous Tk’emlúps te Secwepemc group and the authorities said investigation into the cause and exact timing of their deaths was underway.
“We had a knowing in our community that we were able to verify. To our knowledge, these missing children are undocumented deaths,” said Rosanne Casimir, chief of the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc, in a statement. “At this time we have more questions than answers.”
In a statement, British Columbia Assembly of First Nations Regional Chief Terry Teegee also called finding such gravesites “urgent work” that “refreshes the grief and loss for all First Nations in British Columbia.”
The Kamloops Indian residential school was established in 1890 under the leadership of the Roman Catholic church, and closed in 1978.
The educational facility was part of a cross-Canada network of residential schools created to forcibly assimilate indigenous children by removing them from their homes and communities, and forbidding them from speaking their native languages or performing cultural practices.
A 2015 investigation into Canada’s residential school system concluded that the system, typically run by Christian churches on behalf of Ottawa, constituted “cultural genocide,” with reports documenting physical abuse, rape, malnutrition and other atrocities against the school children.
The same investigation said that the students were exposed to outbreaks of measles, tuberculosis, influenza and other contagious diseases.
It also found that more than 4,000 of 15,000 children died while attending these schools.
In 2008, the Canadian government formally apologized for the system.
This independent delegation was assembled to witness the May 26, 2021 presidential election in Syria and to investigate on-the-ground conditions of Syrian life in the current period. Activists and journalists from Palestine, Syria, South Africa, France, Canada, and the United States joined this delegation on the invitation of the Syria Solidarity Movement and Arab Americans 4 Syria. This joint statement summarizes our findings on the election and what it means for Syrians.
On election day, our delegation traveled to neighborhoods that had been outside of government control when the last presidential elections took place in 2014. Notably, we visited polling places in the towns of Arbeen and Douma, in the hard-hit Eastern Ghouta region southeast of Damascus where residents are returning and beginning to rebuild their homes, some after years of seeking refuge elsewhere. We witnessed Syrians cast secret ballots in polling places where monitors from opposition parties were present alongside election officials, in accordance with the Constitution of the Syrian Arab Republic. We saw nothing to indicate unfairness or coercion in the casting of ballots.
We also conducted extensive interviews with members of the Syrian general public. We were not inhibited in any way from conducting these interviews, and could freely do so outside the presence of government officials.
We overwhelmingly found that Syrian people place tremendous significance on this election. During and after the election we observed huge enthusiasm. It appeared genuine and widespread. For many Syrians, the election represents the imminent ending of the war, the defeat of foreign plots, and hope for the future. For young people, it encapsulates the first period of relative stability they have experienced in their living memory. Many expressed that they were not simply casting votes for their preferred candidate, but for a sovereign, unified Syria, free from imperialist interference. For them, the presidential election was a referendum on the right of the Syrian people to determine their own future.
It is the unanimous conclusion of the undersigned representatives of the International Delegation to the 2021 Syrian Presidential Election that the re-election of President Bashar al-Assad, of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party and the National Progressive Front, is the legitimate, democratic expression of the Syrian people.
Ted Kelly International Action Center
Co-Editor, Tear Down the Walls!
Wyatt Miller MN Anti-War Committee, USA
Kobi Guillory Co-chair, Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression
Amal Wahdan Coordinator, One Democratic State Assembly
Steering Committee, Syria Solidarity Movement
Ramallah, Palestine
Mpho Masemola Secretary General, Ex Political Prisoner’s Veterans Association of South Africa (EPPA)
Member, Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), African National Congress military wing
Johnny Achi, E.E. Co-founder, Arab Americans for Syria
Daniel Kovalik Adjunct Professor of International Human Rights, University of Pittsburgh School Of Law
Alain Corvez Adviser in international strategy, France
Rick Sterling Journalist, USA
Paul Larudee Retired Academic and Unretired NGO Administrator & Piano Technician
At least 10 people were killed and 23 others were hospitalised during a day of protests in the city of Cali in southwestern Colombia, Security Minister Carlos Alberto Rojas Cruz said on Saturday.
“Yesterday, 10 people were killed in Cali, and in some areas in the south of the city, confrontations turned into a real urban war”, Rojas said live on the Caracol radio station.
According to him, many demonstrators sustained injuries during the rallies, with at least 23 of them admitted to the city’s hospitals.
“However, we know that there are many more of them”, the minister noted.
Local media and social networks voiced dismay over the recent series of videos showing people wearing civilian clothes shooting at protesters, and moving together with police officers. Activists demanded that the authorities explain these incidents.
“The presence of armed civilians on the streets of the city is unacceptable, it turns it into a field of military operations… The revealed facts require a quick and thorough investigation involving all law enforcement agencies”, Rojas said.
The city of Cali has been the epicentre of protests against tax hikes, rocking Colombia since late April even after the authorities discarded the initiative. Labour and student organisations demand social and health care reforms, demilitarisation of cities, and dissolution of Mobile Anti-Disturbance Squadron forces.
Rallies in Cali involve violent clashes between protesters and law enforcement troops. In the wake of the poor security situation, local authorities announced a night curfew. In addition, on Friday Colombian President Ivan Duque arrived in the province of Valle del Cauca, of which Cali is the capital, to hold a security council session and discuss the unrest with the regional government. He pledged to deploy more military personnel to the area.
Protest leaders publicly reject all forms of violence and declare them as peaceful marches, but numerous radical activists join the marches, vandalise properties and attack the police.
The Ministry of Defence of Colombia blames armed rebel groups, such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and the Army of National Liberation, for the violence during the demonstrations, claiming they seek to destabilise certain regions of the country for their purposes.
Mainstream media, now embarrassingly forced to follow President Biden’s policy and abruptly reverse course on the Wuhan lab leak theory – after branding and ridiculing it as a conspiracy theory for months – are working to downplay the importance of censorship around the topic that was enforced until just a few days ago.
One would think it would be hard to find a single person who has been through more than a year of lockdowns and myriads of restrictions who would not be interested to learn what the virus is and where it came from – but apparently, such people exist, in media outlets like The Verge.
An article that could easily be described as a distraction in its own right from the topic of why the lab leak theory was suppressed and censored so vigorously, now claims that the origin of coronavirus doesn’t really matter and suggests that it should be swept under the rug as a distraction from truly important topics.
While briefly paying lip service to the importance of discovering the origin of the virus, the article’s real goal is to convince its readers to change the topic. Forced to eat their own words, this class of media are no longer calling the Wuhan theory a fringe conspiracy, but “an extraordinary claim” that is “technically possible.”
But discussing the topic is discouraged as no less than “a distraction from the rest of the urgent work governments and health agencies around the world need to do in order to end this pandemic and prepare for the next one” – while at the same time calling for vaccination efforts to be doubled.
And as scientists who have tried to study the origin of coronavirus, including the possibility that it was artificially created, are finally getting a chance to speak after being censored and ostracized for a long time – mainstream media are scrambling to adjust to the new reality around the topic.
The New York Times has already done its U-turn, reporting on Friday that US intelligence agencies have a large amount of evidence concerning the Wuhan lab – but one of its reporters, Apoorva Mandavilli, didn’t get the memo immediately.
On the same day President Biden announced an investigation, Mandavilli tweeted, “Someday we will stop talking about the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots. But alas, that day is not yet here” – only to quickly delete the post after receiving backlash for making the claim that it was “racist” to consider the possibility that the virus was engineered by humans.
Latest analysis shows yet again – yet again – what we already knew from 40 years of published research. And also empirically from simply glancing over the past year’s real-world data. Masks don’t work!
Our main finding is that mask mandates and use are not associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 spread among US states. 80% of US states mandated masks during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mandates inducedgreater mask compliance but did not predict lower growth rates when community spread was low (minima) or high (maxima). We infer that mandates likely did not affect COVID-19 case growth [15], asgrowth rates were similar on all days between actual or modeled issuance dates and 6 March 2021. Highermask use (rather than mandates per se) has been argued to decrease COVID-19 growth rates [11].
While compliance varies by location and time, IHME estimates are robust (derived from multiple sources [17]) and densely sampled (day-level precision). Higher mask use did not predict lower maximum growth rates, smaller surges, or less Fall-Winter growth among continental states.
Mask-growth rate correlation wasonly evident at minima. This may be an artifact of faster growth at fewer normalized cases, as well asregional differences in case prevalence early in the pandemic. States in the high mask quintile grew atsimilar rates as states in the low mask quintile after maxima (when interstate total case differences weresmaller than before minima).
In addition, mask use did not predict normalized cases at minima, and low mask growth curves trailed those of high mask (particularly Northeast) states before minima. Growthmaxima and Fall-Winter surges did not differ between Northeast and other states. Northeast statesexhibited the highest seroprevalence up to at least July 2020 [24] and constituted 80% of the top quintileof mask use, which may explain their comparatively lower Summer growth.
Overall, mask use appears tobe an intra-state lagging indicator of case growth. There is inferential but not demonstrable evidence that masks reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Animalmodels [25], small case studies [6], and growth curves for mandate-only states [16] suggest that maskefficacy increases with mask use [11]. However, we did not observe lower growth rates over a range ofcompliance at maximum Fall-Winter growth (45-83% between South Dakota and Massachusetts duringmaxima) [17] when growth rates were high.
This complements a Danish RCT from 3 April to 2 June 2020, when growth rates were low, which found no association between mask use and lower COVID-19 rates either for all participants in the masked arm (47% strong compliance) or for strongly compliant participants only [8].
Masks have generally not protected against other respiratory viruses. Higher self-reported mask use protected against SARS-CoV-1 in Beijing residents [26], but RCTs found no differences in PCR confirmed influenza among Hong Kong households assigned to hand hygiene with or without masks (mask use 31% and 49%, respectively) [27].
Medical and cloth masks did not reduce viral respiratory infections among clinicians in Vietnam [9] or China [10], and rhinovirus transmission increased among universally masked Hong Kong students and teachers in 2020 compared with prior years [28].
These findings are consistent with a 2020 CDC meta-analysis [29] and a 2020 Cochrane review update [30].
Our study has implications for respiratory virus mitigation. Public health measures should ethically promote behaviors that prevent communicable diseases. The sudden onset of COVID-19 compelled adoption of mask mandates before efficacy could be evaluated.
Our findings do not support thehypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 transmission rates decrease with greater public mask use.
As masks are required in public in many US states, it is prudent to weigh potential benefits with harms. Masks may promote social cohesion as rallying symbols during a pandemic [31], but risk compensation can also occur [32]. Prolonged mask use (>4 hours per day) promotes facial alkalinization and inadvertently encourages dehydration, which in turn can enhance barrier breakdown and bacterial infection risk [33].
British clinicians have reported masks to increase headaches and sweating and decrease cognitive precision [34]. Survey bias notwithstanding, these sequelae are associated with medical errors [35]. By obscuring nonverbal communication, masks interfere with social learning in children [36]. Likewise, masks can distort verbal speech and remove visual cues to the detriment of individuals with hearing loss; clear face-shields improve visual integration, but there is a corresponding loss of sound quality [37, 38].
Future research is necessary to better understand the risks of long-term daily mask use [30]. Conversely, it is appropriate to emphasize interventions with demonstrated or probable efficacy against COVID-19 such as vaccination [39] and Vitamin D repletion [40]. In summary, mask mandates and use were poor predictors of COVID-19 spread in US states. Case growth was independent of mandates at low and high rates of community spread, and mask use did not predict case growth during the Summer or Fall-Winter waves.
Strengths of our study include using two mask metrics to evaluate association with COVID-19 growth rates; measuring normalized case growth in mandate and non-mandate states at comparable times to quantify the likely effect of mandates; and deconvolving the effect of mask use by examining case growth in states with variable mask use. Our study also has key limitations. We did not assess counties or localities, which may trend independently of state averages.
While dense sampling promotes convergence, IHME masking estimates are subject to survey bias. We only assessed one biological quantity (confirmed and probable COVID-19 infections), but the ongoing pandemic warrants assessment of other factors such as hospitalizations and mortality. Future work is necessary to elucidate better predictors of COVID-19 spread. A recent study found that at typical respiratory fluence rates, medical masks decrease airway deposition of 10-20μm SARS-CoV-2 particles but not 1-5μm SARS-CoV-2 aerosols [41].
Aerosol expulsion increases with COVID-19 disease severity in non-human primates, as well as with age and BMI in humans without COVID-19 [42]. Aerosol treatment by enhanced ventilation and air purification could help reduce the size of COVID-19 outbreaks.
One country that has had remarkable success in the war against the COVID pandemic, but has received little to no global media coverage, is Mexico. Like the rest of the world, COVID cases in Mexico exploded in April 2020, the first hot spots flaring up along the northern border with the United States, in Mexico City and Quintana Roo, a popular tourist destination in the Caribbean. At the beginning of the pandemic, Mexico took recommendations and followed protocol set forth by the World Health Organization (WHO) and watched the virus spread from state to state, engulfing the entire country.
First COVID Outbreak in Mexico
On June 10, the Spanish-speaking media began reporting on the success that Peru was having in controlling the virus using ivermectin as a treatment. Mexico was in the middle of its worst peak of cases and deaths with records breaking daily, and interest in the drug – as well as sales – rose dramatically.
On June 20, the pan-American WHO (OPS/OMS) issued a statement strongly opposing the use of ivermectin. Additionally, other media sources started publishing anti-ivermectin articles all over Mexico. And as the number of deaths slowly decreased, interest in ivermectin subsequently died down.
Google trends. Google seaches in Mexico about iveremctin
In October 2020, cases in Mexico began spiking again; the outbreak this time started in Chihuahua, the state on the border of Texas. Texas was also experiencing an outbreak at this time, so it’s likely that the cases in Mexico were sparked in the US. From Chihuahua, cases spread south and into Mexico City igniting the worst outbreak yet. Mexico City was an inferno of COVID cases and death, and health workers rushed to the capital city from all over the country to help.
Determined to stop the spread at any cost, Mexico City officials held a meeting at the end of December, 2020, and invited the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS) among other groups of doctors. Together, they decided to begin distribution of ivermectin kits in Mexico City and Mexico State to anyone who tested positive for COVID and wanted to take the drug, and to closely monitor hospitalizations to keep tabs on ivermectin’s efficacy. The kits distributed included ivermectin, aspirin and paracetamol. Between the end of November 2020 and the end of January 2021, more than 200,000 people tested positive for COVID, and of these, nearly 80,000 used the ivermectin kits. Results showed up to 76% reduction in hospitalization in the group that was taking ivermectin.
On January 22, 2021, the mayor of Mexico City, Claudia Scheinbaum, held a live televised press conference where she talked about the positive results from the ivermectin distribution from December. Following the press release, the kits were made available for everyone in the whole of Mexico, and nation-wide results of ivermectin use were monitored. Amazingly, after mass distribution of ivermectin, every single COVID indicator in Mexico improved. Over the course of 18 weeks, COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths continuously dropped, and on May 14, the mayor held another televised press conference sharing the positive results of the months’-long campaign.
What is astonishing, however, is that the media outlets in Mexico have not reported on this astounding result. They continued to report on the number of excess deaths from before the ivermectin intervention – and not one has covered the current situation of declining cases and deaths due to wide-spread ivermectin intervention.
My little boy with autism is back at school, for three days in the week. His support teacher is at last unmasked. On the seventh day of his return, there was an unheralded change. Instead of Joseph being accompanied by his support teacher at pick-up time so that she and I might have a quick chat, he was sent out alone along with his classmates. Inside his bag was a new small notebook, with “Communication Log” written on the cover, in which there were phrases describing aspects of Joseph’s day.
Joseph’s communication is profoundly restricted. He is unable to report any aspect of his physical experience; he cannot tell of anything that has happened to him, no matter how recently. A short exchange, before and after school, with the person responsible for him during the day is essential.
At drop-off time the following morning, Joseph’s support teacher watched helplessly from behind the classroom’s glass door while I held Joseph’s hand at the gate – another of the pathetic scenes that have been a feature of our Covid incarceration. “Mummy’s going to drop you here”, said one of Joseph’s year’s teachers, to me via him. When I objected, she told me, in a rush of what seemed like resentment, that the ‘Communication Log’ was to substitute for the morning and evening chats.
It did not take much representation to the school’s Head to have the chats reinstated; the arguments in their favour were so obviously reasonable. But that the arguments against them were so paltry reveals something concerning, I think.
Even according to ‘The Science’, there could be no conceivable added risk of infection by a respiratory virus in ending a day of up-close support of Joseph by standing in the open air and talking for a few minutes to his mum – to his credit, the Head did not attempt to suggest that there could be.
But if there was nothing actually harmful about these chats, even on the highly-sensitive Covid safety-scale, why were they ruled out so summarily?
Joseph’s support teacher is a woman of great humour; chatting with her is inevitably a lively affair no matter how mundane the topic. But there is something indistinctly offensive now about liveliness of any kind, something excessive, disrespectful.
On our uncertain return to normality there is dawning a new morality, according to which lively human interaction is unseemly simply by virtue of being… well, lively.
This may explain why persecution of the public house continues unabated – insofar as the pub encourages informal and vibrant association, it is the den of a new iniquity: the spontaneous overflow of the human spirit.
At the supermarket checkout the other day, the man in front of me observed through his mask to the woman working the till, how good it is that we have our freedoms back. So long as we use them sensibly, he added.
We have been prodded this year by the devilish theme of safety, which has dramatically altered the contour of our lives. But now the colour of our lives may be changing too, as we are encouraged from all sides not only to stay safe but to be sensible.
On May 15th, the FA Cup final was attended by twenty-two thousand supporters. The fans were back. Football was back. And certainly, the real crowd did foreground how anaemic has been its virtual equivalent. But when Leicester scored the goal that won them the cup, their cheering fans were faced down by a line of officials, caped in plastic over their high-visibility jackets and fanning their outstretched gloved hands, palms downwards, in a calming gesture – Let’s be sensible, folks.
Two days later, May 17th, brought the return of hugging for anyone who had been observing the ban. But it is not a rush-into-the-arms hugging, not a big hugging, not a tight hugging, all of which have about them this new taint of excess. It is sensible hugging: faces turned in opposite directions and got over with as quickly as possible.
There is a new kind of puritanism abroad – casting its pall over our lives, already so out of shape. Those moments when life is brimming over, when we act on impulse, when our sides split with laughter, when we cry with anger or with joy, when we cannot let go our embrace or when we could talk and talk for hours: all have about them a new hue of poor taste. The palate of human life has been dimmed; Let’s be sensible, folks.
In a short blog post from April 16th, the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben prepared us for a change of this kind.
Differently from other animals, Agamben wrote, we humans have always the task of deciding what it is that makes us human, and not merely animal.
Homo sapiens is the being that knows itself, the only being on earth that must determine its own essence.
This unique duty – that we decide the kind of being that we are – is what makes us humans so culturally rich and almost infinitely adaptable. But it is also what makes us vulnerable, as no other animal is, to being transformed, profoundly, from the ground up.
Nothing absolute stands in the way of our knowing ourselves differently and knowing ourselves differently changes us utterly.
Is such a change occurring now, as we get back to our new future? Are we in the process of deciding all over again what it is that makes us human?
This would certainly explain the newly muted tones of the life that we are now to live, in which the chatting, the cheering, the hugging that still come naturally to some of us seem suddenly and strangely out of step, not really done, a bit much – Let’s be sensible, folks.
According to Agamben, a society’s decision about what it is that makes us human is reflected in what that society identifies as ‘mere existence’ – bare life. In this space are established the terms on which we claw back from our animal natures whatever it is that is judged to make us human.
We opponents of governments’ Covid policies have traded heavily on this concept of ‘mere existence’, criticising the lockdowns for having reduced our human life to its bare bones.
But in doing so, have we unwittingly lent our voices to a new Covid-era version of ‘mere existence’ and, consequently, to a new Covid-era decision about what it is that makes us human?
Still when I was growing up, references to ‘mere existence’ had mostly to do with work; bare life was the life absorbed by a low-paid unsatisfying job with long hours, or (depressingly) by unwaged care of other people.
If you lived this mere existence, this bare life, you were perilously close to losing that which distinguished you as human – you were said to work like a dog, to have a dog’s life.
If you managed to rise above this mere existence to something better, something more human, you did so also in terms of work. Because a bare life was a life of unwaged drudgery, a full life was a life of satisfying and rewarding employment, and a good life was industrious and purposeful, filled with hobbies and sports at which you were as hardworking as you were at your job.
But since the advent of Covid, when we have bemoaned the reduction of our lives to mere existence, we have referred not to dull work without wages but to quarantine without symptoms. Bare life is no longer the life of unrewarding toil, but of isolation from other people, faces covered and hands sheathed.
The theme of bare life is no longer work but health, where ‘health’ refers, not to a personal equilibrium, but to public safety from invisible attack.
As we have lived this bare life during the past 15 months or so, and tried to reassert our humanness so as to rise above it, it is not the dog’s life against which we have had to define ourselves but the life of the herd animal whose individual hopes and needs are submitted to the advantage of the group: I isolate for everyone, I mask for everyone, I vaccinate for everyone.
Herd immunity has always been a feature of human life. It is a well-established phenomenon in epidemiology. But never before 2020 was it brought before us so unrelentingly that we were simultaneously compelled to reject it as beneath our human status and submitted to the version of it engineered and imposed by governments and their science advisers.
On the new terrain of bare-life-as-isolation-from-and-for-the-herd, we have had to battle all over again to reestablish what makes us human. Human life, we have objected, is more than isolation for the sake of public health. Human life, we have protested, is anathema to distance and to masks.
But we should be careful. Because, if we are beginning to win the battle against the reduction of our lives to mere-existence-as-quarantine, we are likely to be winning it on the terms set up by mere-existence-as-quarantine, that is, on the terms of health-as-safety.
If the society of work is coming to an end, the society of health may be just getting going. In this society, a full life will be the life of optimal protection from identified threats to public safety; and a good life will be the life of due respect for this enterprise, the careful life, the sensible life, in which our human bodies, now branded as traitors, will not be suffered to stretch their limbs too far, nor shout too loud, nor laugh too much, nor hug too tight.
The devil used to make work for idle hands – hence the old morality of working hard. Now the devil makes sickness for loose tongues, and all other body-parts that are brought to bear with gleeful abandon – hence the new morality of being sensible.
What is it that effects a transformation of this magnitude, from a life defined by work and lived industriously to a life defined by health and lived sensibly? How can such changes come about so suddenly and completely? According to Agamben, all it needs is a powerful enough device.
For the society of work, this device was the slave, an idea (rooted in reality, of course) profound enough to capture and recast a whole culture as woven around the theme of work and as haunted by the near-animality of work without reward.
For our society of health, the device is the asymptomatic, an idea (not rooted in reality, it turns out) so powerful that it has captured and recast our world as revolving around the theme of health-as-safety and as haunted by the prospect of disease at the level of the pack.
The device of the asymptomatic sick person has reset the horizons of our lives: the bare life is the life lived apart from the herd for the good of the herd; the full life is the life that is constantly proven to be without sickness itself and protected from the sickness of others: and the good life is the life that abstains from the joyful excess that so irresponsibly forgets that the absence of symptoms does not imply safety.
One of the Internet phenomena of our Covid era has been the film of a flash mob rendition of ‘Danser Encore’ in the Gard du Nord on March 4th.
It has inspired many repeat performances in towns and cities around the world, each one of them a joyful affair.
When I first saw the original video, its effect was profound. To see the sudden eruption, as if from nowhere, of… well, a mob, a glut of people, in the midst of the faceless bedraggle at the station – to see the masks carelessly pulled down or discarded, the random weaving in and out of the crowd, arms linked to the music, to hear singing at the top of fine unmuffled voices. Such a glorious upturning of safety.
But what strikes me now when I watch it is the ludicrousness of the performance, an assemblage of this and that: the tap dancer on her makeshift floor; the circus performer in his Breton top, making upside-down frog-legs; the amateur country dancers; the woman in the mask (around her eyes, not her mouth and nose!) creeping stealthily through the scene… random, heedless, a propos of nothing, not at all sensible.
If we are to unwind the Covid decision about what it is that makes us human – if we are to defuse the device of the asymptomatic spreader and refuse the life of safety to which it consigns us, then we might do worse than begin here, with the players in the Gard du Nord : and dance again and hug again and cheer again and chat again with the lively abandon that spares not a thought for the hidden health-status of ourselves or anyone else.
Dr Sinead Murphy is Associate Researcher in Philosophy at Newcastle University.
Israel has authorised the use of electronic tracking devices on Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, formalising real-time surveillance of civilians who have not been charged, tried or convicted of any crime, according to a new directive issued by the Israeli army.
The order allows Israeli authorities to compel Palestinians placed under administrative movement restrictions to wear or carry electronic monitoring devices and criminalises any attempt to tamper with them. The measure embeds electronic tagging within Israel’s system of military rule over the occupied territory, further expanding the regime of surveillance imposed on the Palestinian civilian population.
Significantly in another example of the Israel’s apartheid rule, defence minister, Israel Katz, has explicitly excluded illegal Jewish settlers in the West Bank from the directive, underscoring the discriminatory nature of the policy and its application along ethnic and national lines. The order was issued following coordination between the Israel Defense Forces, the Israel Security Agency, Israel Police, the Ministry of Justice and the military’s legal authorities responsible for the occupied West Bank.
Human rights observers note that the policy applies to civilians subjected to Israel’s system of administrative control, a framework that routinely denies Palestinians due process and relies on secret evidence. Palestinians placed under such measures often face severe movement restrictions, prolonged surveillance and the constant threat of detention without trial.
The new directive reflects what journalist and filmmaker Antony Loewenstein has described as Israel’s “Palestine Laboratory”, a system in which Palestinians are used as testing grounds for advanced military and surveillance technologies later exported abroad. In his work, Loewenstein argues that Israel exports not only weapons but a comprehensive model for controlling what it labels “difficult populations”, combining military force, mass surveillance and spatial domination.
This model is explored in Al Jazeera’s latest documentary How Israel tests military tech on Palestinians, part of The Palestine Laboratory series. The film documents how Israeli checkpoints function as experimental sites for so-called “frictionless” technologies, including AI-enabled remotely operated weapons that fire stun grenades, tear gas and sponge-tipped bullets. These systems are deployed at checkpoints where Palestinians are routinely subjected to intrusive searches and data collection. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 