The Biden administration just issued an edict that will spur endless pointless conflicts for Americans seeking to peacefully enjoy hundreds of national parks. On Groundhog Day, the National Park Service (NPS) mandated wearing face masks on all National Park Service lands “when physical distancing cannot be maintained, including “narrow or busy trails, overlooks and historic homes.”
Probably 95% of the Park Service’s 800+ million acres is uncrowded 95% of the time. But the new mandate is an entitlement program for anyone who wants to harass anyone on federal land who is not wearing a mask, regardless of social distancing, wide open spaces, or trails wide enough for 18-wheel trucks.
As the Idaho Statesman noted, “It’s unclear how park officials will enforce Biden’s federal mask mandate.” The Outdoor Society hailed the new regulation: “It is straight forward and very simple to follow, helping to keep everyone safe.” That organization insisted that the policy “is not going to be invasive” but told readers: “If you see violations of the mask requirement: Find the closest ranger or volunteer in the area and let them know.”
Captain Sara Newman, NPS director of Office of Public Health declared, “Getting outside and enjoying our public lands is essential to improving mental and physical health, but we all need to work together to recreate responsibly.” But the latest mask rule will empower legions of zealots to accost, harass, and possibly assault people for failing to obey the latest Pandemic Security Theater mandate.
Mask controversies have already spurred plenty of idiocy in National Parks and other parks:
*At Acadia National Park in Maine, a family complained that a stranger “who may be from Massachusetts intentionally coughed on them for not wearing masks while they were socially distancing during a quaint wedding.”
* In a state park in Massachusetts, at the Hudson Overlook on the Midstate Trail (Ashburnham?), a man spit at two female hikers who were not wearing masks. Police reported: “He explained to them that it was the ‘law’ and that they were selfish. He aggressively turned towards them and stated, ‘I have Covid’ and began spitting at the young females.”
I lead hikes most weekends, usually on the C & O Canal Towpath in Maryland. I tell attendees that masks are optional but kvetching about other hikers wearing or not wearing masks is prohibited. The Towpath – formerly used by mules dragging along barges – is at least 10 feet wide in most places.
Since the hikes are in the Washington area, there is no shortage of people outraged when anyone fails to comply with any government recommendation – even though the trail isn’t narrow. Many zealots follow a simple standard for maskless hikers: “If you see them, scream at them.”
Recently as our hiking group neared a wooden bridge, a 50ish guy coming from the other direction suddenly stopped and looked as horrified as a vampire who had spotted a crucifix.
He lifted his shirt up over his face to provide double protection along with his facial covering, and shouted, “YOU’RE NOT WEARING MASKS!”
“We’re outside. It’s sunny. The wind is blowing,” I replied. The dude was perhaps unaware that Covid transmission hinges on “viral load,” which wasn’t happening on that hike.
“You’re violating the rules!” he proclaimed.
We just kept walking past him.
He turned and shouted at me: “So what—is your beard supposed to be your mask!?!”
I kept going.
And then he hollered: “Your beard is ugly!”
Damn! Me and Rodney Dangerfield – no respect. This learned gentleman was apparently unfamiliar with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidance warning that beards make tight masks ineffective. Bummed that the dude didn’t offer me a free razor.
Things got worse after Biden issued an executive order on January 20 that people had to wear masks any time they were on federal property. The edict had an unwritten exemption for Great Leaders – when Biden went to the Lincoln Memorial a few hours after signing the order, he posed by the statue of Abraham Lincoln; neither Lincoln nor Biden were wearing a mask. At a daily press briefing, Biden spokeswoman Jen Psaki scoffed at a reporter’s concern over the apparent crime: “He was celebrating a historic day in our country…. We have bigger things to worry about.”
Regardless, Biden’s order is inflaming legions of junior Stasi across the land. Leading a hike ten days later (and shortly before the NPS mandate), we exited the Towpath and crossed under a bridge where two middle-aged women were standing on an embankment 25 feet away. One of them began shouting and waving her arms.
I looked at her but had no idea what she was saying.
She screamed louder and became even more distraught.
“I can’t understand you,” I hollered at her.
She waved her arms up and down.
I shrugged.
She pulled down her mask: “You’re not wearing masks!”
“We’re outside, it’s windy,” I replied.
“It’s the law! You have to wear a mask on federal property!” she proclaimed.
“It’s an executive order, it’s not a law,” I replied. “Biden didn’t obey it himself.”
When she repeated her denunciation, I refrained from pointing out that she was violating the order because she lowered her mask to berate us.
She tried to buttonhole two other hikers who were bringing up the rear.
“Group? What group? We’re not with a group,” a laggard hiker wisely responded.
Maybe the same woman will be ready with multiple surveillance cameras and a couple of drones to capture video from different angles in case she sees our group again.
Maybe it’s too bad policies for hiking trails on federal land aren’t being set by Rachel Levine, Biden’s designee to be Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services and the first openly transgender federal official to be nominated. Levine made waves when the Pennsylvania Department of Health she headed offered “best practices” advice to people who “attend a large gathering where youmight end up having sex.” Unfortunately, the new NPS rules for hikers are much more restrictive than what Levine recommended for Pennsylvania orgies.
The new mask mandate is sanctified with the usual invocations. NPS Deputy Director Shawn Benge declared, “Working with public health officials and following the latest science and guidance, we can make national parks safer for employees, visitors and partners.” But NPS has no data on how many hikers have contracted Covid from passing within shouting distance of other people. If Covid was so contagious that momentary exposure from passing individuals could spread the virus, then almost all the nation’s grocery store clerks would have been struck down early in the pandemic.
But the only “evidence” necessary for this mandate is that many Biden supporters are frightened when they see anyone outside not wearing a mask. The new regulation encourages viewing people not wearing masks as physical assailants who pose an immediate deadly peril to anyone within eyesight. One Twitter user responded to my article on hysterical Covid complaints by warning: “If you approach me without a mask, I’m free to do whatever I need to do in self defense.” That dude had nothing to fear since I go out of my way to avoid frenzied people.
Where does the mask mania mindset lead? Last month, in Glendale, California, a 38-year-old shirtless jogger was arrested for “spitting on random people outdoors, primarily for not wearing a face mask…. Victims of his assaults ranged in age from 13 to 78 years old. In some incidents, the suspect taunted and used racial slurs towards the victims during the assault,” a police statement said. He was charged with “battery, elder abuse and committing a hate crime.”
If Biden has a right to compel everyone to wear a mask in the National Park Service, he would also have the right to dictate that people wear two masks – a policy endorsed by Covid Czar Anthony Fauci on Tuesdays and Thursdays but not on other days of the week. And if Biden has the right to mandate multiple masks, then would he also have the right to dictate that no one can enter a national park unless they prove they have received a Covid vaccine?
A more likely policy is that national parks could simply be shut down as part of a future lockdown strategy. Parking lots at the C & O Towpath were blocked early in the pandemic and there is no reason to presume that could not happen again. What if the Biden administration chooses to “go big” with a nationwide dictate modeled after the Los Angeles edict that banned almost all walking and bicycling in the city, ordering four million people to “to remain in their homes?” That utterly failed to stop the increase in local Covid cases but the media still cheers dramatic gestures, sort of like how the Italian press treated Mussolini.
Americans hiking in national parks and elsewhere should strive to be courteous and stay as far away as possible from people tormented by Covid dread. There are unseen perils when federal policy seeks to placate mass fears rather than protect public safety. Plenty of Americans need to heed the warning a British publication gave to its readers: “Is constantly monitoring COVID rulebreakers wrecking your mental health?”
As the spirit of patriotism and belief in scientific and technological progress was slowly suffocated throughout the Cold War, the governing class that Russell represented sunk its talons into civilization ever more deeply.
In it, the philosopher and sometimes imperial grand strategist made the point that society has become far too complex to be left to democratic institutions. In the modern age of advanced warfare, only a scientific dictatorship could be trusted to lead society, while the thoughtless masses of human cattle should be given the illusion of democracy and freedom. Sovereign nation states must be superseded by world government and thus two parallel cultures, two educations and two moralities must be shaped.
Russell laid out his grim worldview of a master/slave dominated order in the following terms:
“The scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless and contented. Of these qualities, probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researchers of psycho-analysis, behaviorism and biochemistry will be brought into play… all the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called “cooperative” i.e.: to do exactly what every body else is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished will be scientifically trained out of them.”
For the elites in Russell’s dystopic world, a different role was envisioned:
“Except for the one matter of loyalty to the world state and to their own order, members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous, and full of initiative. It will be recognized that it is their business to improve scientific techniques and to keep the manual workers contented by means of continual new amusements”.
Twenty three years after writing this, Russell creepily updated his work in the form of a book called The Impact of Science on Society (1953). It was here that the celebrated mathematician and philosopher looked upon the wonderful advances in mass entertainment, psychotropic drugs, and behaviorism saying:
“It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment… This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship. Anaxagoras maintained that snow is black, but no one believed him. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray.”
The challenge faced by Russell and his co-thinkers was not so much found in the realm of ivory tower theorizing, but rather in the practical world. For how would it be possible to induce a society to accept such conditions when their targets had only recently sacrificed so much to stop global fascism and eugenics during WWII?
The Post-War Takeover
As the spirit of patriotism and belief in scientific and technological progress was slowly suffocated throughout the long night of nuclear terror that was the Cold War, the governing class that Russell represented sunk its talons into civilization ever more deeply.
The target? Sovereign nation states and the cultural dynamics that brought these pesky new institutions into being after the 14th Century dark age which enshrined both the general welfare and the sacredness of the individual into statecraft and law. It was this movement that drove the explosion of new discoveries (and population growth) after the 15th century golden renaissance, leading up to the 1648 Peace of Westphalia and later American Revolution. This was a fire that kept oligarchs up at night and which no amount of water could permanently destroy… and they tried.
During the early decades of the post-WWII age, there was resistance of course. Leaders resistant to the renewed emergence of imperialism stood in defense of humanity’s right to access the Four Freedoms made famous by Franklin Roosevelt.
Dag Hammarskjöld, Enrico Mattei, John Kennedy, MLK, Bobby Kennedy and many other moral leaders were quickly snuffed out as the engines of industrial progress were converted into factories for never-ending wars and cheap consumer goods. Large scale infrastructure and programs of scientific exploration into space and the properties of the atom increasingly fell out of practice as society was compelled to adapt to a new paradigm in the early 1970s.
While Russell spoke well of science, it was never the sort of science that would end poverty or war to which he referred, but rather sciences of entertainment, population control, and behaviorism.
The Post-Industrial Technetronic Age: Brzezinski and Holdren
Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote a book in 1970 entitled Between Two Ages which served as a manifesto for the new Trilateral Commission which was created in 1973 under his lead. In this book, Brzezinski restated Russell’s vision in his own words:
“The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”
At this time, a new social order was unleashed as the dollar was floated on the speculative markets killing the gold-reserve industrial era of Bretton Woods in 1971, tying the U.S. dollar to oil prices in 1973 and ushering in a new deregulated epoch of “everything goes” monetarism, and post-industrial consumerism. Foreseeing this emerging unbounded age of unreason, Brzezinski wrote:
“In the technetronic society the trend seems to be toward aggregating the individual support of millions of unorganized citizens, who are easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities, and effectively exploiting the latest communication techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.”
Another figure from this nest of sociopaths emerging onto the scene during these years was a young John Holdren whose 1977 book Ecoscience (co-authored with his mentor Paul Ehrlich) outlined his future dystopia with bone chilling detail saying:
“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all-natural resources, renewable or non-renewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus, the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market. The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
From 2009-2017 Holdren acted as “science czar” under the Obama administration where the respected climate scientist spearheaded the defunding of NASA space exploration programs, the collapse of nuclear investments, the killing of fusion power and the re-direction of billions of dollars into “sustainable” green energy fiascos such as Solyndra.
Today, Holdren is ecstatic that he might be admitted back into the corridors of power now that the “aberration” of Trump has been removed, and a “scientifically” managed governance agenda is being quickly brought back online.
On January 27, 2021, Biden signed into effect a “Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-based Policy Making” which revives the earlier 2009 and 2010 science policy memoranda authored by Holdren. This reform calls for imposing a new Director of the Office of Science and Technology in Policy as a sort of Grand Referee to ensure that “evidence-based” policy making are enforced across all departments and sub-departments of state. Expert councils such as the Chief Data Officers’ Council and Evaluation Officer Councils will be created and empowered to keep all science in alignment with behaviorist operating systems. Biden’s memorandum literally calls for “using behavioral science insights to better service the American people” to define the decision making of the system as a whole.
It is here that the ugliness of Behaviorism and the collapse of real standards of scientific practice show their ugly heads. Many terms and techniques used by Russell’s modern governing class are consciously obscured or sanitized for the lower classes and so I would like to take a bit of time to dwell on two of the most important terms here: 1) Evidence Based Decision making and 2) Economic Behaviorism.
Evidence-Based Lying: Case Study #1
“Evidence-based decision making” may seem harmless on the surface. After all, why would we want to take actions without being informed by “evidence”? However, when one begins to scratch the surface of this term and its real-world applications, a very different picture emerges.
“It has become clear to me that evidence-based medicine either was in its original intent, or has become, a budget cutting and potential population-control measure. Because it is wrapped up in scientific-sounding rhetoric, it has captured the attention of well-meaning physicians who want to incorporate science into their decisions, and has been sold to the public as an advancement in care.”
In her article, Dr. Helgason points out that doctors conditioned to follow such standards lose their fundamentally human ability to judge, diagnose and treat diseases which often lurk below the surface of data which computer models might pick up and transmit as probabilistic “answers” for what may or may not be wrong with a patient.
As one example, take the case of thousands of coronavirus patients whose intubations induced their deaths since “evidence-based” protocols (a LiveScience analysis reported that 9 out of 10 patients intubated on ventilators ended up dying in one major New York hospital). When frontline doctors like Dr. Kyle Sidell began making the case that COVID-19 symptoms are more akin to high altitude sickness (wherein alveoli in the lungs fail) rather than the typical flu-based respiratory problems, he was silenced for his “heresy”, and intubation was continued under the guise of “evidence-based best practice”.
When looking at how COVID-19 mortality statistics are gathered, one should not be surprised to discover that World Health Organization expert councils have mandated that all deaths be labelled “COVID-19” even if the patient died of heart attack, brain hemorrhage or broken neck while having tested positive for COVID-19. How does that affect the reading of the statistics which experts are projecting into the mass psyche?
Evidence-Based Lying: Case Study #2
Another example of the misuse of statistics can be found in large scale energy policy reforms being driven by the apparent need to lower world temperatures by 1.5 degrees in 30 years.
Sounds pretty noble right?
But what if the data sets being used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s computer models are flawed? What if vast swaths of data sets and higher astrophysical variables shaping climate change are being overlooked in the effort to transform mass behavior in accord with a technocratic elite?
What if a closer inspection of CO2:Temperature relationship actually ends up showing that climate change does not follow but is rather followedby CO2 variability? What other factors cause the heating or cooling of the earth other than carbon dioxide? How could we ever find out if we are told the question isn’t worth asking because the scientific debate is over?
While contemplating these matters, the question should always emerge:
Who would benefit by all this sleight of hand? Who would want humanity to falsely adopt fearful and self-loathing states of mind in order to drastically alter its behavior?
Since statistics and evidence-based thinking are the bedrocks of Behaviorism, and since the Behaviorists of the Obama era are consolidating their power under Biden, it is now worth saying a few words about Behaviorism.
Behaviorism: Fascism By Another Name
Ignoring the fact that Behaviorism has gotten a lot of positive press in recent years (one of the leading behaviorists Richard Thaler who co-authored Nudge with fellow behaviorist Cass Sunstein, was even awarded the Nobel Prize in economics in 2017), it isn’t an exaggeration to say that the school of thought is fundamentally fascist in its nature.
Why do I say this?
Well, the easy answer is to re-read Holdren’s own words from 1977 cited above and trace out his life’s policy actions. That’s the sledgehammer answer.
The more subtle but useful answer can be found in Holdren’s recent December 2020 interview on science policy in the upcoming Biden Administration (wherein he most certainly hopes to have a role):
“It is very important that, in talking about these matters, scientists separate what they know or believe as scientists from what they prefer as citizens in terms of public policy. It’s very important to distinguish between issues of fact and issues of values and preferences.”
In Holdren’s eyes, “science” and “values” are two opposing worlds.
The unscientific person might think naively that depopulation is atrocious or that a society run by an unelected master class of technicians is offensive to morality, but that is just our “subjective pollution” talking. The priest of science knows that statistical data sets and computer models are the best and only substitute for 1) mapping out and 2) manipulating reality.
For a behaviourist, subjective phenomena such as Love, Justice, Beauty, Free Will and Intentions are non-scientific pollution.
The educated behaviourist seeks only to find materialistic explanations for measurable behavior without resorting to unscientific concepts like “soul” or “mind” or “God” (these concepts being transcendental, immeasurable, unweighable and thus non-existent).
For similar reasons, concepts like “universals”, “Truth”, “Good”, “Evil” are also considered deplorable non-entities to the “scientific thinker” of Holdren’s calibre. Metaphysical gobbledygook and nothing more.
A Word on B.F. Skinner
The founder of modern radical Behaviorism, B.F. Skinner (1904-1990) was himself very candid about the scientific management of society when he wrote “Beyond Freedom and Dignity” (1971) saying that the behavioral scientist of the new post-industrial age must avoid at all costs concepts like dignity, freedom, good or evil:
“We can follow the path taken by physics and biology by turning directly to the relation between behavior and the environments and neglecting supposed mediating states of mind. We do not need to try to discover what personality, states of mind, feelings, traits of character, plans, purposes, intentions or the other prerequisites of autonomous man really are in order to get on with a scientific analysis of behavior”.
All that exists in this cold soulless world are clusters of ants calling themselves “human”, propelled by electro-neural signals masquerading as free will and urges for sex, dominance over the weak and sensual pleasure.
In a typical case of oligarchical projection, Skinner says clearly:
“we must remember that wars begin in the minds of men, that there is something suicidal in man – a death instinct perhaps – which leads to war, and that man is aggressive by nature”.
And so, you see, in the minds of Skinner, Holdren, Brzezinski, or any of the giddy technocrats managing the Great Reset, it isn’t “empires” or “oligarchs striving to enslave humanity” which are the causes of humanity’s problems.
The enemy of man is in fact man himself.
And for this unfortunate “fact”, it is the duty of the elite to save mankind from himself.
If that means cleansing society of its traditional values that have deluded him into believing that such notions as Family, Nation, God, Progress or Soul are somehow sacred, then so be it. In his vicious tautology, the behaviorist high priest concludes that these ideas must be cleansed- for if they were not destroyed, then humanity would forever resist a return to feudalism under a scientific dictatorship.
Let me start with a couple of the most callous and heartless quotes that I know of. Here’s a description from Politico of the first one:
President Barack Obama’s Energy secretary unwittingly created a durable GOP talking point in September 2008 when he talked to The Wall Street Journal about the benefits of having gasoline prices rise over 15 years to encourage energy efficiency.
“Somehow,” Chu said, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”
And here’s the second quote, from President Obama:
“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gases”
In agreement with the beliefs of President Obama and Secretary Chu, and a vain attempt to fight the imaginary menace of CO2, the countries of Europe have driven up the price of energy. This is supposed to make people use less of it, and thus reduce CO2 emissions.
As a result of the European policies, the current energy price situation looks like this:
Not a pretty picture …
So consider the effect of this on the poor. To begin with, the poor spend a much larger part of their income on energy than do the rich.
Now, the energy prices in Europe are more than twice what they are in the US. So if the US doubled to match the fantasies of Secretary Chu and President Obama, the richest fifth of the nation would only be paying 10% of their income for energy … but the poorest fifth of the nation would be paying close to half of their income for energy. And as I pointed out about the poorest of the poor in my post “We Have Met The 1% And He Is Us“,
Those people have no slack. They have no extra room in their budgets. They have no ability to absorb increases in their cost of living, particularly their energy spending. They have no credit cards, no credit, and almost no assets. They have no health insurance. They are not prepared for emergencies. They have no money in the bank. They have no reserve, no cushion, no extra clothing, no stored food in the basement, no basement for that matter, no fat around their waist, no backups, no extras of any description. They are not ready for a hike in the price of energy or anything else.
The result of all of these factors is what is called “energy poverty”. That’s where you don’t have enough energy to keep your home warm. That’s where you’re a single mom with three kids and your old car you need to get to work drinks gas faster than your ex-husband drank whiskey … so if gas prices double your kids will do without something important. That’s where you and your family sit in the cold and the dark and shiver because you can’t pay your energy bills.
And that’s where a study from the Jacque Delors Institute says (emphasis mine):
During this winter of 2020-2021, hundreds of millions of Europeans are constrained to stay at home because of lockdowns and curfews instituted to contain the propagation of COVID19. For millions of them, this means staying in poorly heated houses, which causes both discomfort and a threat to their own health.
This policy paper gives an overview of the state of energy poverty in the European Union (EU) and the way this issue is currently addressed by Member States and by the EU. While it appears that energy poverty has generally been decreasing over the last years, in 2019 there were still over 30 million Europeans who claimed to be unable to heat their home adequately in the winter.
Thirty million Europeans, many of them pensioners, many of them kids, all of them poor, sitting in unheated houses … that’s about the population of California. Or for the folks across the pond, it’s about the population of Hungary, Austria and the Czech Republic combined. Again per the report, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Greece, Portugal and Cyprus are the countries with the highest share of the population who are unable to heat their homes.
Now, there’s an old saying, “No pain, no gain.” Me, I think that’s crazy because I’ve had lots of painless gains. But if there is pain, well, there should at least be some gain to go along with it. So … shall we take a look at the purported gain in the question of CO2 emissions?
I mean, all those countries signed on to the Paris Climate Discord, they all have followed President Obama’s and Secretary Chu’s theories and drove their energy prices through the roof to reduce greenhouse gases, so now at the end of the day there must be some real gains in per capita CO2 emissions, right?
Here you go:
Thirty million Europeans are freezing in the winter, unable to heat their homes, and for what?
For nothing. Zip. Niets. Diddley-squat. Ingenting. Zero. Nada. Rien. Nichts. Not one thing.
Despite Europe creating widespread energy poverty, despite the US not being in the Paris Agreement, the US has reduced emissions more than any of the countries shown above. Europe is condemning old people and children to shiver in the dark and cold, and for absolutely no gain at all.
Look, I don’t think CO2 is the secret knob that controls the climate. I think that’s a simplistic scientific misrepresentation of a very complex system. As a result, I think that the “War On CO2” is a destructive, costly, and meaningless endeavor.
However, perhaps you do think that the climate, one of the more complex systems we’ve ever tried to analyze, is ruled by just one of the hundreds of different factors affecting the system. If so, I presume you think the European actions are justified because you believe you will be helping the poor people in the year 2050 or 2100.
So … if those are your motives I ask you, I beg you, I implore you, don’t wage your war on CO2 by screwing today’s poor to the floor!
Because I can assure you, possibly helping tomorrow’s poor by actually hurting today’s poor is a crime against humanity, one you absolutely don’t want to have on your conscience.
My best to all, regardless of your views regarding the climate control knob,
Biden regime chief medical advisor Anthony Fauci is hostile to human health, well-being and safety.
Weeks earlier, he pretended to be vaxxed against covid on his left arm.
Moments later, he pointed to an area on his right arm, saying it’s where he was experiencing “injection site soreness.”
He lied about being vaxxed and soreness.
He consistently lies about hazardous to health covid vaccines, most recently saying:
“I feel extreme confidence in the safety and the efficacy of this vaccine (sic), and I want to encourage everyone who has the opportunity to get vaccinated (sic).”
He’s well aware that covid vaxxing provides no protection and risks serious/irreversible harm to health.
It’s why he faked being vaxxed. Other prominent US officials did the same thing.
Fauci is more witch doctor than the real thing, a figure who never treated a patient, who’s indifferent toward human health, who promotes what risks irreversible harm from following his advice.
In cahoots with Pharma and US dark forces, he prioritizes self-enrichment — profiting hugely from mass deception.
As NIAID director, he transformed the agency into an incubator for Pharma’s drug development — including hazardous covid vaccines.
Throughout his public life, he’s been a profiteering con artist, now close to Biden/Harris and chief regime medical advisor.
His modus operandi is more Josef Mengele than Albert Schweitzer.
In cahoots with Bill Gates and other US dark forces, he wants everyone vaxxed with toxins that risk serious harm to health including death.
His claim about safe and effective covid vaccines is one of many Big Lies he’s infamous for — why he can never be trusted.
There’s nothing remotely safe and effective about toxic-laden/DNA altering covid vaccines.
In its Global Health Review, even pro-dirty business as usual Harvard said the following about hazardous mRNA vaccines:
“Potential side effects could include chronic inflammation, because the vaccine continuously stimulates the immune system to produce antibodies,” adding:
“Other concerns include the possible integration of plasmid DNA into the body’s host genome, resulting in mutations, problems with DNA replication, triggering of autoimmune responses, and activation of cancer-causing genes.”
No mRNA vaccine was ever approved for human use — despite years of research.
No emergency exists to justify their use.
Even mRNA proponents admit that there’s an inadequate understanding of inflammation and autoimmune reactions from their use that risks serious harm to health.
There’s no way for gene-altering vaccines to be safe, why independent scientific experts consider their use frankenvaxxing.
Fauci fronts for Pharma. Dismissive toward safe and effective hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin in treating seasonal flu-renamed covid, he promotes hazardous to health mass-vaxxing.
Highlighting the risk, Joseph Mercola said the following:
“To avoid becoming a sad statistic, I urge you to review the science very carefully before making up your mind about this experimental gene therapy.”
“(R)emember that the lethality of COVID-19 is actually surprisingly low, (especially) for those under the age of 60.”
“If you’re under the age of 40, your risk of dying from (covid) is just 0.01%, meaning you have a 99.99% chance of surviving the infection.”
“And you could improve that to 99.999% if you’re metabolically flexible, insulin sensitive, and vitamin D replete.”
“So… what are we protecting against with a COVID-19 vaccine?”
“These mRNA vaccines aren’t designed to prevent infection, only reduce the severity of symptoms.”
“Meanwhile, they could potentially make you sicker once you’re exposed to the virus, and/or cause persistent serious side effects.”
“(Y)ou may regret for the rest of your life, which can actually be shortened” by covid vaxxing.
People are dying post-vaxxing.
Vaxxing for covid mostly likely killed baseball Hall of Famer Hank Aaron at age-86.
Elderly individuals are most vulnerable to be harmed because of their weakened immune systems.
We’re being lied to by Fauci and other frankenvaxxing promoters — including Big Media.
Increased censorship is the new abnormal.
Truth and full disclosure about hazardous covid vaccines are airbrushed from mainstream reporting.
Preserving and protecting health and well-being requires rejection of what may destroy them.
Since being forced out of his senior role in No.10 Downing Street, Dominic Cummings has largely disappeared from the public spotlight. However, frustration over his repeated breaching of the COVID-19 lockdown still lives on among many Brits.
Boris Johnson’s former chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, will not be prosecuted following his breaching of the COVID-19 lockdown back in March, according to revelations by The Mirror.
Mr Cummings, who was ultimately forced out of No.10 by Boris Johnson in November 2020, came under heavy public fire after making a trip to a family home in county Durham in April 2020, during the height of the UK’s first nationwide COVID-19 lockdown. He had also taken a separate 60-mile journey from Durham to the town of Barnard Castle, despite admitting that he had coronavirus symptoms.
Subsequently, the former prosecutor for northwest England, Nazir Afzal, submitted a 255-page dossier of evidence of Cummings’ lockdown breach to detectives in Durham, and urged them to investigate and take action against against him for breaking the law.
According to The Mirror, however, Durham Police Deputy Chief Constable David Orford has now written to lawyers representing Mr Afzal to inform that they “will be taking no further action”.
“We do not consider the relevant tests are made out in relation to any potential offences raised within your submission”, the letter seen by The Mirror reportedly elaborates.
Mr Afzal is reported to have provided the police with detailed allegations against Mr Cummings, which included location data from number plate recognition of his car filmed by CCTV camera footage, as well as footage of the former government adviser wandering around Barnard Castle. Mr Afzal later claimed that the “legal test” for prosecution against Mr Cummings had been met, given the substantial evidence proving his breaking of the legally mandated COVID-19 lockdown.
Since learning that Durham police will not be acting against Mr Cummings, Mr Afzal told The Mirror that he found it “hugely disappointing”.
“I am considering with my legal team what further avenues to pursue because millions of people would want us to. This is also going to form part of my recent decision to examine the legal implications of the whole extent of the government’s failures on COVID”, he added.
In his own defence, following the revelations that he had breached the COVID-19 lockdown in April, Mr Cummings gave what was widely seen as an unrepentant press conference in May, in which he claimed that he had always behaved “reasonably and legally”.
Despite attempts to conceal information by the Governor and his allies, Andrew Cuomo’s nursing home death scandal from last Spring, which could be responsible for 6,500 deaths, is finally coming to a head. Is a cover-up about to be exposed?
SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT COVID VACCINE?
Reports of adverse reactions from the #Covid19 vaccines have piled up and recent polls have shown that 51% of Americans will delay or refuse the shot altogether. Why are people refusing?
Flip-Floppers Caught Flailing
The biggest medical and political leaders in the country have flip-flopped on every #Covid19 policy decision.
CIVIL society is at a standstill; with what John Milton called ‘the known rules of ancient liberty’ smothered, perhaps for ever.
Countless businesses have sunk beneath the waves and multitudes of workers have been laid off. Children have lost nearly a year of proper school.
The Covid nightmare continues; thousands still being hospitalised and still dying while lives and livelihoods are destroyed by the continuing lockdown.
All for a health emergency which experts and pundits have decided can be resolved only by the new experimental vaccines of the big drug companies.
But is this really the case? Was there never an effective prophylactic or early treatment alternative? Well, the evidence suggests there was, one that has been systematically and determinedly denied by the medical authorities and an anti-Trump ‘cancel culture’.
The key to which Professor Harvey Risch, author of more than 300 peer-reviewed publications, was referring was the cheap anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). It was a treatment that countries and doctors worldwide had begun to use to treat Covid patients with a great deal of apparent success, particularly in conjunction with the antibiotic azithromycin and zinc.
Professor Risch wrote: ‘I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully supports but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with Covid-19 are dying unnecessarily.’
His call fell on deaf ears and the episode that followed is one that should really make us question human nature, and human sanity.
I had already written a series of pieces for TCW drawing attention to the neglect and demonisation of this drug in the US and the UK. One turned out to be TCW’s most-read blog of the year.
As I had already pointed out on TCW, the study published in The Lancet did not cover the use of hydroxychloroquine with zinc. Yet the media message was simple: hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work.
My previous articles had pointed to the many countries that have widely used HCQ to treat patients successfully, including Switzerland, Spain, India, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Bahrain, Malaysia, Indonesia, South Korea, Tunisia and Costa Rica.
I also reported on the many doctors who had treated people with HCQ with apparent success; or who said the potential benefits outweighed the risks, especially if used early or as a prophylactic.
As well as Professor Risch, specialists who expressed optimism included Dr Stephen Smith, an infectious disease specialist based in New Jersey; Dr Ramin Oskoui, CEO of Foxhall Cardiology in Washington DC; Dr Anthony Cardillo, CEO of Mend Urgent Care of Los Angeles; Dr Drew Pinsky, the globally-recognised California internist; Dr Joseph Raminian, an infectious disease specialist at NYU Langone Health.
Dr Vladimir Zelenko, a medical doctor based in New York; Dr Pier Luigi Bartoletti, of the Italian Federation of General Practitioners; Professor Didier Raoult, of the l’Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection in Marseille; Dr William W O’Neill, medical director of the Center for Structural Heart Disease at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit.
To take yet another example, Dr Peter McCullough, a consultant cardiologist and Vice-Chief of Medicine at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, told Sky News Australia in December: ‘There’s no controversy over whether or not (HCQ) works … the chances that it doesn’t work are calculated to be one in 17billion.’
He added: ‘The virus invades inside cells, so we have to use drugs that go inside the cell and work to reduce viral replication. The drugs that work within the cell and actually reduce viral replication are HCQ, ivermectin, doxycycline and azithromycin.
‘Sadly, in the United States and I know in Australia – this happens all the time – patients get no treatment whatsoever. They literally are told to stay at home until they are sick enough to go to the hospital. I think that honestly it’s atrocious. History will look back on that and think it was the worst way to handle a potentially fatal illness.’
According to Professor Risch, Covid-19 deaths then increased fourfold and remained elevated. On June 11, he added, the Swiss government revoked the ban on HCQ, and on June 23 the death rate reverted to what it had been beforehand.
It was in early June that The Lancet apologised to readers after retracting the aforementioned study that said HCQ did not help to curb Covid-19 and might cause death in patients.
This episode led to significant changes in the declarations that The Lancet seeks from authors, in the data-sharing statements the journal requires for published research papers, and in the peer-review process for papers based on large datasets or real-world data.
Yet in late July, in the midst of a continuing political furore over the effectiveness of the treatment President Trump had endorsed and used, we were told by a smug Dr Anthony Fauci, a leading member of the White House coronavirus task force, that HCQ was ‘ineffective’.
This was despite Professor Risch arguing in the world’s leading epidemiology journal, The American Journal of Epidemiology, that early outpatient treatment of symptomatic, high-risk Covid-19 patients with HCQ should be ramped up immediately; that five studies demonstrated clear-cut and significant benefits to patients given the treatment, plus other very large studies that showed the safety of the medication.
In August 2020, a group of US doctors, including the Cameroonian-American physician Dr Stella Immanuel, took to the steps of the Capitol to speak up for HCQ, only to be branded as heretical and then censored on digital media for spreading ‘misinformation’ – the first of several times.
One of the doctors, a top epidemiologist, said that perhaps 75,000 to 100,000 lives could be saved if the HCQ stockpile was released and it was given as a prophylactic to front line healthcare workers.
In October 2020, a study by researchers published in The Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection found that treatment which included HCQ and azithromycin led to a ‘favourable outcome’ for patients with Covid-19 pneumonia.
In November 2020, a study reported that countries adopting early widespread use of HCQ treatment experienced a nearly 70 per cent lower death rate, after adjustments, than those which had limited early HCQ use.
Finally, in January this year, an article co-authored by the same Harvey Risch and again published in The American Journal of Medicine recommended treating Covid with HCQ, presenting data showing that the drug interfered with the normal reproduction of the virus.
So the finding was that HCQ can reduce mortality rates in Covid-19 patients. There have been a huge number of studies of varying quality on the effectiveness of the drug. Here is a link you can use to keep track of them (the authors were recently banned from a social media platform apparently without warning).
The website summarises the findings of 239 studies, 172 of them peer-reviewed and 197 of them comparing treatment and control groups. At the top, it states: ‘HCQ is not effective when used very late with high dosages over a long period (RECOVERY/SOLIDARITY), effectiveness improves with earlier usage and improved dosing. Early treatment consistently shows positive effects.’
The question now is whether the rest of the Big Tech digital media companies will follow Facebook and retrack, and apologise for, their censorship of other posts.
These include those shared by President Trump, which pointed to HCQ as a possible treatment, including one which was taken down with huge publicity last summer as the presidential election heated up.
I won’t hold my breath. What is shocking is that the public have been denied honest reporting about the efficacy or otherwise of this treatment for what appear to be political (or even financial) motives.
As Professor Risch wrote movingly in his original Newsweek piece: ‘In the future, I believe this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence.
‘But for now, reality demands a clear, scientific eye on the evidence and where it points. For the sake of high-risk patients, for the sake of our parents and grandparents, for the sake of the unemployed, for our economy and for our polity, especially those disproportionately affected, we must start treating immediately.’
The purpose of this piece is to highlight specific aspects of a topic of major concern for readers in the hope that it might be more effectively addressed, in the interest of public information, by the UK authorities and by the media. It does not seek to offer expert opinion about medical treatment, nor is the author qualified to do so. Medical advice, and advice about treatment, should be sought only from a qualified professional.
Researchers in Austria’s Klagenfurt Clinic are reporting promising results from CBD trials on Covid-19 ICU patients that show reduced inflammation and quicker recovery times.
Cannabidiol or CBD oil was used as part of the overall course of treatment for Covid-19 patients in the hospital’s ICU over the course of three weeks.
Rudolf Likar, head of intensive care medicine at the clinic, started by administering a dose of 200 milligrams of CBD per day which later increased to 300 milligrams.
“We have seen that the inflammation parameters in the blood go down and people leave the hospital faster than the comparison group,” Likar said. “CBD supports the immune system.”
CBD oil’s anti-inflammatory effects reportedly surpass those of other widely used drugs because cannabidiol crosses the blood-brain barrier and staves off some of the dramatic neurological damage associated with so-called “long Covid.”
According to reports in Austrian media, Likar suspects the cannabidiol in CBD oil blocks the ACE2 receptor through which the SARS-CoV-2 virus gains access to human cells and begins self-replicating, with dire consequences for human health.
A study of the anti-inflammatory effects of CBD oil is ongoing at the Klagenfurt Clinic, but the results so far look promising.
“We are now evaluating the data and the data is looking relatively good. We’ll probably use this routinely now because it doesn’t have any side effects,” Likar said, adding that similar research into the efficacy of CBD oil in helping to treat Covid-19 is underway in Israel.
At the end of 2020 many statisticians, doctors and independent scientists noticed something amiss about this extraordinary year. The Office of National Statistics, Public Health England shows that the numbers for death from influenza and those from Covid-19 are askew.
Despite the media and government pandemic presentations, we need to step back and consider the larger picture.
Sometimes it is difficult to see the forest for the trees, but perhaps we have succumbed to seeing a single tree and ignoring the rest of the forest.
Is the fact that one virus has suddenly been given a name, Covid-19, (with wildly hyped media coverage) taken our focus off the overall reality of the annual flu season group of viruses? Has one name and media hype highjacked our lives?
With the 2019–2020 flu season, there have been a number of reports of Covid-19 illnesses in the UK and USA well before the end of 2019. Just today there was a report of Covid-19 illnesses in China as early as August, 2019. [1A]
Until the introduction of the PCR test for Covid-19 in late February, Covid-19 cases and deaths did not exist. This gives the impression that the virus appeared just then, while it was undoubtedly present much earlier as part of the flu season, from numerous anecdotal reports. Various reports indicate symptoms typical of Covid-19 in the U.S. as early as November–December, 2019 and likely even earlier.
With growing attention given to the virus and the increasing availability of PCR testing, we started receiving regular accounts of the number “cases” of the virus. Stepping back a bit and looking at general numbers and ignoring the contentious PCR accuracy regarding positive and negative cases, we see an overall pattern that is very similar to past flu seasons. Cases of flu-like illness generally start in October/November and last until March or April in the UK [1].
The observation can be made that this fairly well describes the 2019–2020 flu season, including Covid-19. The 2019–2020 Covid-19 death numbers appear as a spike because there was no PCR test until about the middle of the flu season, giving the impression that Covid-19 physically appeared late in the season. No, the test appeared late in the season. Despite the testing results, the UK government actually declared the pandemic over in March, but then, oddly, imposed a lockdown a week or two later.
The government declaration of the pandemic’s end can be considered innocently valid and devoid of politics. The advent of lockdowns and more could then be considered political. [So often, when an event occurs, the first observations prove to be the most honest, while the spin and changes come later.]
Much confusion has been generated by different accounting systems regarding illnesses and deaths. There are disparities in the cause of death, whether with the virus or without, and with an over reliance on the PCR test. In addition, many Covid-19 cases were diagnosed solely from symptoms, ignoring the fact that such symptoms are often seen during the flu season.
The observation that some people lose their sense of smell and taste with Covid-19 clearly ignores that these effects occur in every flu season, but now people are told that this is diagnostic for Covid-19. [Dogs are animals and can have spots, but all spotted animals are not dogs.]
We have always taken these symptoms in stride and happily waited until our senses returned. Suddenly, these symptoms are unique and diagnostic of Covid-19. It simply defies reality. If they suddenly reported that you could get a flesh-eating disease from a hang-nail, we would suddenly start considering every incipient hang-nail as a life-threatening event, when, in fact, they are not.
No careful lines have been defined to tell whether deaths have been due to a single virus, multiple viruses, comorbidities (conditions already burdening an individual’s health), or a virus with complications, such as pneumonia. Bacterial pneumonia often has a chance to take hold when one’s lungs are compromised by a flu-type illness. [Note that subsequent pneumonia is not a comorbidity.] Curiously deaths from influenza in the US have recently dropped to about zero; more on this below. [2]
Making our understanding of illness and death in the UK and other regions more difficult are the inclusion of diagnoses determined solely by the PCR test and others solely by symptoms. It is very clear that the traditional symptoms of cold and influenza broadly overlap those of Covid-19, thus making definitive diagnoses very difficult. Add to this the purported rate of false positives from the PCR test (now +97% according to the WHO) [3] and accounting of nonlethal “cases” becomes what they call “problematic.”
To really eliminate the many possible confusions and conditions that can be placed on death rates and possible death causes, it is useful to step back and look at the overall death rate, from all causes, for a country or state. The focus here is on the UK, but the US also provides some guidance. [4]
First, the concept of a pandemic needs to be addressed. A pandemic is the movement of a disease, bacterial or viral, that moves around the world and has a higher than normal damaging effect. Until recently this was described as a higher than normal mortality. The definition has been changed at WHO’s website such that the flu season is now a pandemic despite death rates being within a normal range. [5] (It is also curious that the definition of herd immunity originally included the benefits of natural and vaccinated immunity, but the definition now only includes vaccinated immunity. Very curious.)
Flu season viruses move around the world every year, largely deriving from farms in Southeast Asia where flu-type viruses are exchanged and hybridized between fish, pigs, and chickens and eventually transmitted to farmers, thus starting the next round of viruses for the annual newly-defined “pandemic.” From teaching Environmental Science, I learned that there has been an effort to break this chain of virus evolution by encouraging farmers to specialize in only one major livestock, thus decreasing viral exchanges between these species. This virus hybridization (mixing) is the source of the H#N# marker recombinations that vaccine labs try to detect early for each new flu season and then attempt to offer appropriate vaccines.
The flu season in the tropics is actually all year round and, because of the humidity, virus transmission is low but constant. However, in the more temperate regions, transmission blossoms when Fall arrives and people start spending more time indoors, in a relatively closed environment, and closer to each other.
It is a bit counter intuitive that humidity (which goes with warm temperatures) decreases transmission rates. It is a good deal in the tropics, sunlight on clear days kills viruses and humidity is always on the job. Small water droplets containing virus, from speaking, coughing, sneezing, and even breathing, tend to gain weight under humid conditions and fall to the ground more quickly than under dry conditions.
Flu season in the Southern hemisphere appears to mirror the Northern hemisphere, but flu viruses are likely introduced to the south by air travel during their summer and, thus, possibly starts and dilutes their six-month later flu season over a longer period.
For all of this, it is very difficult to see the forest for the tree (Covid-19, highlighted by the PCR test), but one statistic that sums up and ignores all the various causes of death and various biases in categories is the overall death rate of a country or state [4], such as the UK, which is a well-defined population with good reporting capabilities. [6]
There are some interesting aspects to death rates. Again, from Env. Sci. teaching, when a heat wave hits a city, as happened in Paris a number of years ago, the death rate rises as people succumb to the physiological burden of heat. However, after the heat wave is gone, the death rate tends to dip below normal for a time. This indicates that the heat wave took people who were already very frail and likely to die in the near future, in a couple of weeks or months, the old “one foot in the grave,” which is not an inaccurate description in many cases..
With cold snaps, there is also a spike in the death rate, but after it is over, there is no dip in the death rate, as it goes back to normal. This is because cold does not discriminate and kills all ages. Heat tends to impose a physiological burden on those already heavily burdened, but cold is a much simpler core temperature problem that is a critical problem for all ages.
That said, is there anything we can learn by comparing the death rates from the last year of “the Covid” and previous years? Focusing mainly on the UK as a single, well-defined population and putting aside all reporting bias and possible cause of death confusions, what do the overall death rates tell us?
It has been speculated, not unreasonably, that many more people died from Covid-19 at home, fearful, unwilling, unable to go to hospital, and thus not counted in the Covid death total. However, overall deaths in the UK in the last year would also include those who died at home. Overall deaths effectively eliminates all biased death factors and includes deaths not immediately reported.
The excess total deaths for the UK show a well-defined peak in the 2nd quarter of 2020, from mid-March to mid-May. Looking at the age break-down, it is clear that those over 45 and particularly over 65 were most susceptible to whatever virus or viruses of the flu season were making people ill. The rest of the year showed a low (normal) death rate that was low until Fall, when the new flu season arrived, which showed then a broader peak more similar to a flu season. [1]
It is a realism that every year more people have aged or developed infirmities that make them susceptible to a flu-like illness and/or complications. The fact that there is an annual peak does not indicate unusual illness or mortality; it’s the flu season that we have had for many years.
We need to resist the temptation to think that we are seeing something new in our world. By the same token, with a focus on flu-type infections and the elderly, it is easy to conclude just from the effective hyping of such deaths that many people are dying.
Elderly with complications die from complications all year round, just more in the flu season and this is very usual. It is curious that suddenly the public has been sensitized to the elderly death rate, as if it was a new thing. Suddenly, a virus is singling out the elderly, while, in fact, the elderly are always at risk, while the risk to other age groups varies from season to season.
It is also clear that the overall death rate in 2020 was exceeded by the five years of 1999-2003. [2] I need to define the death rate here, as it is based on the deaths per thousand people, which eliminates the fact that populations were lower in earlier years. It’s a given that larger population might have a higher death total from a given disease, but not a higher death rate. Diseases work on the susceptible individuals of a population and, thus, it is a proportion of the population that becomes ill or dies. [6]
That said, how does the death rate in the UK for 2020 compare to previous years? It is clear that the death rate in the UK for 2020 was not exceptional compared to previous years [4]. How can that be? If you have Covid-19 as well as influenza killing people, what is going on? An observation has been made that, for some mysterious reason, influenza, as of April in the US, dropped to zero and continues at zero in the latest flu season. [6]
In light of the apparent missing influenza, claims have been made that masking, distancing, and lockdowns were completely effective against influenza, but then there is no talk about its failure in stopping Covid-19, which is a virus of the same size and transmission mode.
Then, we are told that Covid is still around because people are not masking and such properly, which means influenza should also still be around in the US. Since these are infectious viruses, how can these restrictions be effective against one virus and not the other? It does not make sense.
It is also easy to find that US states with strict mandates have the same rates of PCR-positive cases as those who do not. The conjecture can be made that influenza cases are largely reported as Covid-19, based either on a positive PCR test result or on symptoms alone.
In the US, it is clear that there has been a monetary incentive for diagnosing the [Covid] disease and encouraging hospitalizations. The cessation of other medical procedures and tests during this period clearly is going to lead to increased overall deaths. The fact that there appears to be no excess of deaths despite this, indicates that the C-19 virus itself was not as lethal as they claim.
Overall, the death rate in the UK is not out of line with the normal death rates from other years and clearly not close to the highest in the last 22 years. [1] It is difficult to consider influenza deaths when there appears to be a bias toward categorizing influenza and other causes as Covid-19 deaths.
Every year and, for that matter, all year long, there is a population of health-critical individuals who may be overwhelmed by a flu-like illness and open to pneumonia complications. The questionable Covid-19 PCR test appears to be keeping the presence of Covid-19 alive, possibly detecting viruses of the current flu season.
The WHO is now admitting that that this test can be 97% false positives or more, with higher processing cycle numbers. [3] The argument could be made that we have an epidemic of testing.
A little exploration of the Office of National Statistics, Public Health England shows that the numbers for death from influenza and those from Covid-19 are askew. [7] They show 4649 cases mentioning influenza and only 380 with influenza only. This means 92% of these cases had other complicating conditions. However, the same week they report 6057 cases mentioning Covid-19 and 5387 mentioned only Covid-19, with 89% being Covid-19 only.
This defies logic. What happened to pneumonia? It is well-known that flu-like illnesses open one up to pneumonia but, according to the above numbers, 89% of deaths from this virus were ONLY from this virus. That does not correlate with the many reports of illnesses with complications and does not at all correlate with the US CDC’s report that only 6% of their Covid-19 related deaths were from Covid-19 only, which means 94% had comorbidities or complications, such as pneumonia.
This is pretty much the exact opposite of UK statistics. [8] However, the CDC is not that far off from the UK’s own death numbers, showing a small fraction of defined Covid-19 deaths, showing 13,844 deaths from Covid and 50,000 with Covid. [9]
One could ask what happened to influenza. There appears to be a strong tendency to list illnesses as Covid-19 to make the situation appear more dire and possibly more profitable. In the US, there is a financial incentive to diagnose Covid-19 and encourage hospitalizations.
A sad fact is that unethical medical personnel can talk people into feeling sicker than they really are, particularly when they are primed by fears of a deadly virus. From multiple points of view, looking at the lack of a proper virus isolation and description, the highly variable Covid-19 symptoms, and the fact that a variety of viruses comprise the flu season, I believe that this undescribed virus is most likely not present anymore, but there is no way to show that it is or not because the only “evidence” is the poorly designed PCR test. It is very hard to prove a negative.
[1A] “More evidence of ‘suspicious activity’ at the Wuhan Institute of Virology emerges”
About the author: Banson Wilcot PhD holds degrees inMarine Biology and Biochemistry, with a focus on dermatology and lipid biochemistry, and taught university courses for 12 years. Dr. Wilcot has been professionally editing and critiquing foreign-source research papers for publication and grant applications for 16 years (1000+ items). Being a generalist, he has edited papers ranging from coal-fire dynamics, nanotechnology, material science, electrochemistry, all areas of biochemistry and molecular biology, and organic applications as well as oceanography/marine biology and many marine research topics.
A study published in the journal Science, Public Health Policy & the Lawrecently claims that the CDC violated federal law by inflating COVID-19 fatality statistics.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on August 23, 2020, “For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19 , on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.”
For a nation tormented by restrictive public health policies mandated for healthy individuals and small businesses, this is the most important statistical revelation of this crisis. This revelation significantly impacts the published fatalities count due to COVID-19.
More importantly, it exposes major problems with the process by which the CDC was able to generate inaccurate data during a crisis.
The CDC has advocated for social isolation, social distancing, and personal protective equipment use as primary mitigation strategies in response to the COVID-19 crisis, while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the promise of inexpensive pharmaceutical and natural treatments.
These mitigation strategies were promoted largely in response to projection model fatality forecasts that have proven to be substantially inaccurate.
Further investigation into the legality of the methods used to create these strategies raised additional concerns and questions.
Why would the CDC decide against using a system of data collection & reporting they authored, and which has been in use nationwide for 17 years without incident, in favor of an untested & unproven system exclusively for COVID-19 without discussion and peer-review?
Did the CDC’s decision to abandon a known and proven effective system also breach several federal laws that ensure data accuracy and integrity?
Did the CDC knowingly alter rules for reporting cause of death in the presence of comorbidity exclusively for COVID-19? If so, why? (Full study.)
Patrick Howley, writing for National File, reported:
The groundbreaking peer-reviewed research…asserts that the CDC willfully violated multiple federal laws including the Information Quality Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, and Administrative Procedures Act at minimum. (Publishing Journal – Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge / Public Health Policy Initiative)
“Most notably, the CDC illegally enacted new rules for data collection and reporting exclusively for COVID-19 that resulted in a 1,600% inflation of current COVID-19 fatality totals,” the watchdog group All Concerned Citizens declared in a statement provided to NATIONAL FILE, referring to the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge study.
The research demonstrates that the CDC failed to apply for mandatory federal oversight and failed to open a mandatory period for public scientific comment in both instances as is required by federal law before enacting new rules for data collection and reporting.
“The CDC is required to be in full compliance with all federal laws even during emergency situations. The research asserts that CDC willfully compromised the accuracy and integrity of all COVID-19 case and fatality data from the onset of this crisis in order to fraudulently inflate case and fatality data,” stated All Concerned Citizens.
On March 24th the CDC published the NVSS COVID-19 Alert No. 2 document instructing medical examiners, coroners and physicians to deemphasize underlying causes of death, also referred to as pre-existing conditions or comorbidities, by recording them in Part II rather than Part I of death certificates as “…the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID-19 being the underlying cause of death more often than not.”
This was a major rule change for death certificate reporting from the CDC’s 2003 Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting and Physicians’ Handbook on Medical Certification of Death, which have instructed death reporting professionals nationwide to report underlying conditions in Part I for the previous 17 years.
This single change resulted in a significant inflation of COVID-19 fatalities by instructing that COVID-19 be listed in Part I of death certificates as a definitive cause of death regardless of confirmatory evidence, rather than listed in Part II as a contributor to death in the presence of pre-existing conditions, as would have been done using the 2003 guidelines.
“The research draws attention to this key distinction as it has led to a significant inflation in COVID fatality totals. By the researcher’s estimates, COVID-19 recorded fatalities are inflated nationwide by as much as 1600% above what they would be had the CDC used the 2003 handbooks,” stated All Concerned Citizens.
Then on April 14th, the CDC adopted additional rules exclusive for COVID-19 in violation of federal law by outsourcing data collection rule development to the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE), a non-profit entity, again without applying for oversight and opening opportunity for public scientific review.
On April 5th the CSTE published a position paper Standardized surveillance case definition and national notification for 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) listing 5 CDC employees as subject matter experts.
“This key document created new rules for counting probable cases as actual cases without definitive proof of infection (section VII.A1 – pages 4 & 5), new rules for contact tracing allowing contact tracers to practice medicine without a license (section VII.A3 – page 5), and yet refused to define new rules for ensuring that the same person could not be counted multiple times as a new case (section VII.B – page 7),” stated All Concerned Citizens.
By enacting these new rules exclusively for COVID-19 in violation of federal law, the research alleges that the CDC significantly inflated data that has been used by elected officials and public health officials, in conjunction with unproven projection models from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), to justify extended closures for schools, places of worship, entertainment, and small businesses leading to unprecedented emotional and economic hardships nationwide.
“A formal petition has been sent to the Department of Justice as well as all US Attorneys seeking an immediate grand jury investigation into these allegations,” All Concerned Citizens stated.
Daniel Payne, writing for Just the News, interviewed epidemiologist Dr. Knut Wittkowski regarding the disappearing flu statistics this year.
Dr. Knut Wittkowski is the former head of biostatistics, epidemiology and research design at Rockefeller University. He holds two doctorates in computer science and medical biometry, and one of his videos on YouTube last year had amassed over 1 million views before YouTube took it down, because he was critical of the lockdowns and its ineffectiveness on stopping the spread of COVID-19.
The weekly comparisons are even starker: This week one year ago, the positive clinical rate was 22%, where now it stands at 0.1%.
Those low numbers continue trends observed earlier in the year in which flu rates have remained at near-zero levels. The trend is not limited to the U.S. Worldwide, health authorities have all reported sharply decreased influenza levels throughout what is normally peak flu season in the northern hemisphere. Rates in the southern hemisphere were also low this year.
Where have all the flu cases gone?
Epidemiologist Knut Wittkowski thinks he can answer the riddle.
“Influenza has been renamed COVID in large part,” said theformer head of biostatistics, epidemiology and research design at Rockefeller University.
“There may be quite a number of influenza cases included in the ‘presumed COVID’ category of people who have COVID symptoms (which Influenza symptoms can be mistaken for), but are not tested for SARS RNA,” Wittkowski told Just the News on Thursday.
Those patients, he argued, “also may have some SARS RNA sitting in their nose while being infected with Influenza, in which case the influenza would be ‘confirmed’ to be COVID.” (Read the full article.)
Is the CDC Hiding and Manipulating Data Regarding Overall Death Rates for 2020?
As we were nearing the end of 2020, we reported on some analysis projections for 2020 that were shaping up to have about as many total deaths for the year as previous years, based on the CDC’s own statistics. See:
A subscriber to Health Impact News recently sent me some screen shots that she allegedly saved at the end of December, 2020, from the CDC website, including a page that was reportedly available during most of 2020 tracking COVID deaths and deaths due to all causes (see above).
However, when you go this page now, you get this notice:
Resource Not Available
“The page you requested cannot be found at this time. It may be temporarily unavailable or it may have been removed or relocated.”
This is NOT the standard 404 error code which you get if you mistype a page address, because on the CDC website the 404 error code looks like this:
So this is a page that used to exist, and according to the screenshot that this user sent to me, on December 30, 2020 this page stated that the total deaths from all causes in 2020 was 2,902,664.
Here is a copy of page 9 of the National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 68, No. 6, June 24, 2019, which lists total deaths for 2016 and 2017:
There were 2,744,248 recorded deaths from all causes in 2016, and 2,813,503 recorded deaths from all causes in 2017, according to the CDC.
So if the alleged CDC numbers for deaths from all causes in the screen capture from December 30, 2020 is correct, with 2,902,664 on December 30th, it is right in line with what we would expect, without the additional deaths allegedly attributed to COVID-19.
The only way this number for total deaths could be accurate, along with the deaths attributed to COVID, would be if deaths due to all other causes that were not COVID, drastically decreased. Is it possible that deaths due to heart disease, cancer, etc. – all decreased so that the total deaths would be on par for what would be expected if there was no Coronavirus pandemic?
So what happened to this page on the CDC website?
What is the CDC now reporting as the total deaths for 2020 here in 2021?
Only the CDC would know the answer to that question, since they control all the data.
Is the CDC Trustworthy?
I have published this information in several articles the past few weeks, but it obviously bears repeating in this article, since the CDC is supposed to be supplying accurate information and statistics, especially now with regards to the new non-FDA approved experimental COVID mRNA injections.
The CDC is the largest purchaser of vaccines in the world, allocating over $5 BILLION in their budget (supplied by American taxpayers) each year to purchase and distribute vaccines from Big Pharma. See:
Do you think this might be a conflict of interest?
Secondly, the CDC owns over 56 patents on vaccines, and many of their scientists earn royalties from the sale of vaccines. (Source.)
Do you think this might be a conflict of interest?
The CDC has a long history of corruption, and over the years many of their own scientists have tried to blow the whistle on this corruption only to be silenced. See some of our previous coverage on CDC corruption:
Dr. Scott Gottlieb was the former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner. He joined the board of directors of Pfizer, Inc.—the world’s largest pharmaceutical company and second largest manufacturer of vaccines, in 2019 just shortly after he left the FDA. Pfizer, which posted total revenues of $53.7 billion in 2018, announced Dr. Gottlieb’s election to the board on June 27, 2019.
On July 22, 2020 President Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed” project awarded $1.95 BILLION to Pfizer and BioNTech for 100 million doses of their mRNA-based COVID-19.
So what do you think? Can we trust the CDC and the FDA? Are they actually concerned about Public Health, or are they simply the marketing branches of Big Pharma trying to protect their products?
John Kerry, as Joe Biden’s Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, is back in the news telling Americans we urgently need to reduce our travel and our carbon dioxide emissions to avert an imminent climate catastrophe. Like many climate activists, however, Kerry personally lives under a different – more carbon-promiscuous – set of rules than he seeks to impose on everyone else.
Kerry continues to double-down on more stringent climate restrictions, saying this past week that the United States and the world need even more restrictions than the controversial Paris Climate Treaty, including the imposition of a new tax on carbon dioxide. Climate activists have long called for such a tax to apply especially forcefully to airplane travel. As the climate-activist David Suzuki Foundation asserts, “Emissions from flights stay in the atmosphere and will warm it for several centuries. Because aircraft emissions are released high in the atmosphere, they have a potent climate impact, triggering chemical reactions and atmospheric effects that heat the planet.” Also, as the title of a 2019 New York Times article asserts, air travel emissions are “Worse Than Anyone Expected.”
One appalling example of “Do as I say, not as I do,” is Kerry’s personal sightseeing tour of Antarctica in his final days as Secretary of State, in November 2016. Recall that in November 2016, Kerry was Secretary of State for the lame-duck Obama administration just before President Trump’s inauguration. Even before November 2016, Kerry’s State Department was bragging about Kerry’s total miles flown, as Kerry broke the record for most miles flown (and most carbon dioxide emitted) by any Secretary of State. Yet, in late November 2016, there was little reason for a lame-duck Secretary of State to fly to Antarctica – that is, unless personal climate tourism counts as a good use of taxpayer dollars and carbon dioxide emissions.
Photo: John Kerry stepping off the large Air Force jet he flew thousands of miles to Antarctica. Source: U.S. State Department.
Kerry’s Antarctica jaunt likely cost taxpayers more than $1 million, while emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide and depositing all sorts of traditionally defined pollutants (soot, etc.) on the otherwise-pristine Antarctic landscape. There were no diplomats from any other countries for Kerry to meet with – according to his Secretary of State duties – but he sure seemed to enjoy the airplane-and-helicopter sightseeing.
Photo: John Kerry taking a personal helicopter tour of Antarctica, emitting pollutants in the Mount Erebus region. Source: U.S. State Department.
Kerry’s narcissistic Antarctica trip is not a one-off outlier, either. Fox News reported this morning that Kerry flew on a private jet to Iceland in 2019 to, ironically, accept a prize for being a climate warrior. Asked about the appropriateness of spewing several thousand miles of private-jet carbon-dioxide emissions for a personal round-trip flight, Kerry replied that flying by private jet to accept awards is, “the only choice for somebody like me who is traveling the world to win this battle.”
Um, sure.
Photo: John Kerry stepping out of an SUV he used for his personal tour of Antarctica. Source: U.S. State Department.
When an Icelandic reporter asked Kerry about the apparent hypocrisy of flying a private jet – not even airline first-class – to accept his climate prize, Kerry morphed into a full “Do you know who you are talking to?” moment
“I negotiated the Paris Accords for the United States,” Kerry lectured the reporter.
He also may hold the record for largest carbon footprint of any American citizen.
“John Kerry has never been known to pass up an opportunity to fly thousands of miles when it suites his ego or curiosity,” Marc Morano, Director of Communications for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and publisher of the website Climate Depot, told Climate Realism. “Why should a trip to Antarctica be any different? In Kerry’s world view, he is one of the chosen ones who get to fly private jets and government planes unlimited miles while the rest of us will have to ‘morally justify’ our commercial airline trips.”
James Taylor is the President of the Heartland Institute. Taylor is also director of Heartland’s Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy.
A Tracking Project by the not for profit Kaiser Family Foundation, has revealed that more than half of Americans are likely to delay having a Covid vaccine or refuse it altogether. According to the survey, only 41 per cent of those who took part said that they are eager to receive the shots as soon as possible. The study which was conducted in January, revealed that 31 per cent of those polled said they would wait and see further results from the vaccines, seven per cent said they would only get inoculated if they were made to, while 13 per cent said they will definitely not receive the shots.
The study has also looked into the concerns among those who are hesitant to receive the jabs, with 68 per cent of those people saying they are worried about the long term effects of the vaccines. Some respondents expressed fears that the vaccine could cause Covid-19 and that it might cause serious side effects, though these concerns are more pronounced in the groups less keen to receive the shots.
Here in the UK, a recent report found that as many as 72 per cent of Black people surveyed said they wouldn’t have a vaccine. Robin Shattock, from the Department of Infectious Diseases at Imperial College London said recently:
“I know there has been concerns about the safety of these vaccines but these are theoretical risks which are so much smaller than getting the virus and potentially becoming very ill or transferring it to a loved one. These vaccines will save a huge number of lives and I urge those who are reluctant to take up the opportunity to be vaccinated.”
Tell the families of those who died in Norway, or in Gibraltar, shortly after receiving a Covid vaccine, that the risks are theoretical.
Dr. Vernon Coleman, over at http://www.vernoncoleman.com is doing a terrific job documenting the reports of adverse effects and deaths that are pouring in from around the world. The numbers are mounting. The media, as usual, is silent.
By Professor Roger Watson and Dr. Niall McCrae | The Daily Sceptic | November 15, 2021
As scholars at leading British universities over recent decades, we witnessed the replacement of critical thinking and debate by narrative: facts are discrimination and scientific method is imperialism; truth, instead, is derived from ‘progressive’ values. This educational trend may be a major contributory factor to the ease in which society has been inculcated to the Covid ‘new normal’ of masking, testing, and repeated doses of vaccines for a disease of similar risk to severe influenza.
One doesn’t need much critical reasoning to observe the flawed logic of some vaccination enthusiasts, such as people who respond to experiencing any side effects, however debilitating, by saying “at least I know it’s working”, or, after contracting the disease despite their promised inoculation (over 90% effective, according to initial drug company claims), “I’d have been worse off without the jab.” … 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.