We are assured by the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, the G20, and their friends that pandemics pose an existential threat to our survival and well-being. Pandemics are becoming more common, and if we don’t move urgently we will have ourselves to blame for more mass death of the ‘next pandemic.’
The proof of this is the catastrophic harm done to the world by COVID-19, a repeat of which can only be prevented by transferring unprecedented funds and decision-making power to the care of public health institutions and their corporate partners. They have the resources, experience, knowledge and technical know-how to keep us safe.
This is a no-brainer, all of it, and only a fool who desires mass death would oppose it. But there are still people who claim that the link between the public health establishment and large corporations appears to be the only part of this narrative that withstands scrutiny.
If true, this would imply that we are being systematically deceived by our leaders, the health establishment, and most of our media; a ludicrous allegation in a free and democratic society. Only a fascist or otherwise totalitarian regime could run such a broad and inclusive deception, and only people with truly bad intent could nurture it.
So let’s hope such ‘appearances’ are deceptive. To believe that the premise behind our leaders’ Pandemic Preparedness and Response agenda is knowingly based on a set of complete fabrications would be a conspiracy theory too far. It would be too uncomfortable to accept that we are being deliberately misled by people we elected and the health establishment we trust; that the assurances of inclusivity, equity and tolerance are mere facades hiding fascists. We should examine the key claims supporting the pandemic agenda carefully and hope to find them credible.
Myth #1: Pandemics are becoming more common
In its 2019 pandemic influenza guidelines, the WHO listed 3 pandemics in the century between the 1918-20 Spanish flu and COVID-19. The Spanish flu killed mainly through secondary bacterial infections at a time before modern antibiotics. Today we would expect most of these people, many relatively young and fit, to survive.
The WHO subsequently recorded pandemic flu outbreaks in 1957-58 (‘Asian flu’) and 1968-69 (‘Hong Kong flu’). The Swine flu outbreak that occurred in 2009 was classed by WHO as a ‘pandemic’ but caused just 125,000 to 250,000 deaths. This is far less than a normal flu year and so hardly deserving of the pandemic label. Then we had COVID-19. That’s it for a whole century; one outbreak the WHO classifies as a pandemic per generation. Rare, or at least highly unusual, events.
Myth #2: Pandemics are a major cause of death
The Black Death, the Bubonic Plague that swept Europe in the 1300s, killed perhaps a third of the entire population. Repeat outbreaks over the following centuries caused similar harm, as had plagues known from Greek and Roman times. Even the Spanish flu did not compare with these. Life changed prior to antibiotics – including nutrition, accommodation, ventilation and sanitation – and these mass-mortality events subsided.
Since the Spanish flu we have developed an array of antibiotics that remain extremely effective against community-acquired pneumonia. Fit young people still die from influenza through secondary bacterial infection, but this is rare.
The WHO tells us there were 1.1 million deaths from the 1957-58 ‘Asian flu,’ and a million from the 1968-69 Hong Kong flu. In context, seasonal influenza kills between 250,000 and 650,000 people every year. As the global population was 3 to 3.5 billion when these two pandemics occurred, they classify as bad flu years killing about 1 in 700 mostly elderly people, with little influence on total deaths. They were treated as such, with the Woodstock Festival proceeding without super-spreader panic (regarding the virus, at least…).
COVID-19 has a higher associated mortality, but at an old average age equivalent to that of all-cause mortality, and is nearly always associated with comorbidities. Much mortality also occurred in the presence of the withdrawal of normal supportive care such as close nursing and physiotherapy, and intubation practices may have played a role.
Of the 6.5 million that the WHO records as dying from COVID-19, we don’t know how many would have died anyway from cancer, heart disease or the complications of diabetes mellitus and just happening to have a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result. We don’t know because most authorities decided not to check, but recorded such deaths as being due to COVID-19. The WHO records about 15 million excess deaths throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, but this includes lockdown deaths (malnutrition, rising infectious disease, neonatal death etc).
If we take the 6.5 million toll as likely, we can understand its context by comparing it with tuberculosis, a globally endemic respiratory disease that few worry about in their day-to-day lives. Tuberculosis kills about 1.5 million people every year, which is almost half the annual COVID-19 toll in 2020 and 2021. Tuberculosis kills far younger on average than COVID, removing more potential life-years with each death.
So based on normal metrics for disease burden, we could say they are roughly equivalent – COVID-19 has had an impact on life expectancy overall fairly similar to TB – worse in older populations in Western countries, far less in low-income countries. Even in the US COVID-19 was associated with less (and older) deaths in 2020-21 than normally occur from cancer and cardiovascular disease.
COVID-19 has not therefore been an existential threat to the life of many people. The infection mortality rate globally is probably around 0.15%, higher in the elderly, much lower in healthy young adults and children. It is not unreasonable to think that if standard medical knowledge had been followed, such as physiotherapy and mobility for frail elderly people and micronutrient supplementation for those at risk, the mortality rate may have been even lower.
Whatever one’s views on COVID-19 death definitions and management, it is unavoidable that death is rare in healthy younger people. Over the past century all pandemic deaths have been very low. Averaging less than 100,000 people per year inclusive of COVID-19, they are a small fraction of that caused by seasonal flu.
Myth #3: Diversion of resource to pandemic preparedness makes public health sense
The G20 has just agreed with the World Bank to allocate $10.5 billion annually to its pandemic prevention and response Financial Intermediary Fund (FIF). There is, in their view, about $50 billion needed in total per year. This is the annual, holding budget for pandemic preparedness. As an example of their preferred response when an outbreak occurs, Yale University modelers estimate that to vaccinate people in low and middle income countries with just 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccine would cost about $35 billion. Adding one booster would total $61 billion. Over $7 billion has thus far been committed to COVAX, the WHO’s Covid vaccine financing facility, vaccinating most who are already immune to the virus.
To put these sums in context, the annual budget of the WHO is normally below $4 billion. The entire world spends about $3 billion annually on malaria – a disease that kills well over half a million young children each year. The largest financing facility for tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and malaria, the Global Fund, spends less than $4 billion per year on these three diseases combined. Other and larger preventable killers of children, – such as pneumonia and diarrhea, receive still less attention.
Malaria, HIV, tuberculosis and diseases of malnutrition are all increasing, while economies globally – the main long-term determinant of life expectancy in lower-income countries – decline. Taxpayers are being asked, by institutions that themselves will benefit, to spend vast resources on this problem rather than on diseases that kill more and younger people. The people pushing this agenda do not appear to be dedicated to reducing annual mortality or improving overall health. Alternatively, they either cannot manage data or have a window on the future that they are keeping to themselves.
Myth #4: COVID-19 caused massive harm to health and the global economy
The age-skewing of COVID mortality has been unmistakable since early 2020, when data from China demonstrated almost no mortality in healthy young to middle-aged adults and children. This has not changed. Those contributing to economic activity, working in factories, farms and transport, were never at great risk.
The economic and personal harm arising from the restrictions on these people, unemployment, destruction of small businesses and supply-line disruption, was a choice made against orthodox policy of the WHO and public health in general. The prolonged school closures, locking in generational poverty and inequality on both a sub-national and international level, was a choice to perhaps buy months for the elderly.
The 2019 WHO pandemic guidelines advised against lockdowns due to the inevitability that they would increase poverty, and poverty drives illness and reduces life expectancy. The WHO noted this disproportionately harms poorer people. This is not complicated – even those at the center of the lockdown and future digital ID agenda such as the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) acknowledge this reality. If the aim of poverty-promoting measures had been to reduce elderly death, the evidence for success is poor.
There seems little reasonable doubt that growing malnutrition and long-term poverty, rising endemic infectious disease, and the impacts of education loss, increased child marriage and increased inequality will far outweigh any possible mortality reduction achieved. UNICEF’s estimation of a quarter-million child deaths from lockdowns in South Asia in 2020 provides a window into the enormity of the harm lockdowns wrought. It was the novel public health response that caused the massive harm associated with this historically mild pandemic, not the virus.
Facing truth
It seems unavoidable that those advocating for the current pandemic and preparedness agenda are intentionally misleading the public in order to achieve their aims. This explains why, in the background documents of the WHO, the World Bank, G20 and others, detailed cost-benefit analyses are avoided. The same absence of this basic requirement characterized the introduction of Covid lockdowns.
Cost-benefit analyses are essential for any large-scale intervention, and their absence reflects either incompetence or malfeasance. Prior to 2019, the resource diversion being contemplated for pandemic preparedness would have been unthinkable without such analysis. We can therefore reasonably assume that their continued absence is based on fear or certainty that their outcomes would scupper the program.
A lot of people who should know better are going along with this deceit. Their motives can be surmised elsewhere. Many may feel they need a good salary, and the resultant dead and impoverished will be far enough away to be considered abstract. The media, owned by the same investment houses who own the Pharma and software companies sponsoring public health, are mostly silent. It is hardly a conspiracy to believe that investment houses such as BlackRock and Vanguard work to maximize return for their investors, using their various assets to do so.
A few decades of our elected leaders trooping off for closed-door sessions at Davos, together with a steady concentration of wealth with the individuals they were meeting, could not really have landed us anywhere else.
We knew this 20 years ago, when the media still warned of the harm that increasing inequality would bring. When individuals and corporations richer than medium-sized countries control major international health organizations such as Gavi and CEPI, the real question is why so many people struggle to acknowledge that conflicts of interest define international health policy.
The subversion of health for profit runs contrary to the entire ethos of the post-World War Two anti-fascist, anti-colonialist movement. When people across politics can acknowledge this reality, they can put aside the false divisions that this corruption has sown.
We are being deceived for a reason. Whatever that is, going along with a deception is a poor choice. Denial of truth never leads to a good place. When public health policy is based on a demonstrably false narrative, it is the role of public health workers, and the public, to oppose it.
David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is the former Program Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland.
November 24, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, Human rights, WHO, World Bank |
Leave a comment
On 24 Sept 2021, when CDC director Rochelle Walensky was asked if it was safe to receive a covid-19 vaccine while breastfeeding, her reply was unwavering:
“There is no bad time to get vaccinated,” said Walensky.
“Get vaccinated while you’re thinking about having a baby, before you’re thinking about having a baby, while you’re pregnant with your baby or after you’ve delivered your baby.”
But Walensky’s advice was not based on science. The safety studies had not been done.
It has been over a year since her comment, and a study published in JAMA found trace amounts of mRNA in the breast milk of mothers who’d received the Pfizer or Moderna covid-19 vaccine.
The researchers speculated that lipid nanoparticles containing mRNA, once injected into the arm, are transported via the lymphatic system to the mammary glands and expressed into breast milk.
Yes, it was a small study, and the mRNA was only detected in expressed breast milk for up to two days, but the authors stated:
Caution is warranted about breastfeeding children younger than 6 months in the first 48 hours after maternal vaccination until more safety studies are conducted.
Caution is warranted?
Aaron Kheriaty, psychiatrist and director of the Bioethics and American Democracy Program at the Ethics and Public Policy, Washington DC, has been critical of the “jab first, ask questions later” approach.
He says Walensky’s insistence about the safety of mRNA vaccines in breastfeeding women was “completely reckless” in the absence of adequate safety data.
“We don’t have evidence that it’s harmful, but we also don’t have sufficient evidence that it is safe for your baby, so that’s the first thing that needs to be said when there’s an absence of evidence,” says Kheriaty.
There are still many unknowns. Oral ingestion of mRNA bound to lipid nanoparticles has no demonstrated safety, and the pegylated product (a design of the mRNA vaccines) when ingested, can be rapidly absorbed through the gut lining.
“The safety studies should’ve been done right out of the gate. Until you actually do the studies, you cannot, at the same time, come out and say, don’t worry, this is safe. We have to inform people of the state of the science, we should tell them that the evidence is not clear,” he adds.
Public health authorities argued that pregnant women and their babies would face a greater risk of harm from covid than from the vaccine, but Kheriaty says it was guesswork.
“We didn’t know any of that. It was a theoretical risk. Childbearing women were excluded from the clinical trials, so we did not have that data.”
Childbearing women were coerced
Adam Urato, a maternal-foetal medicine specialist at MetroWest Medical Centre, Massachusetts, says vaccines have an important role to play in medicine, but admits that many of his patients have legitimate concerns about the unknown impact of covid-19 vaccines on pregnancy and breastfeeding.
“These women make good points. They should be listened to, and their judgement and decisions respected,” says Urato.
“After all, these vaccines are synthetic chemical structures. They are made in chemical manufacturing facilities. They aren’t ‘all natural’ substances. And, honestly, we just don’t know what all of the effects are going to be from using these vaccines during pregnancy and during breastfeeding,” he adds.
Urato rejects the media narrative that childbearing women are “victims of misinformation” if they have concerns about covid-19 vaccine safety.
“My patients are intelligent, they have good instincts and I think their concerns are valid. The idea that all of these women are misled, and uninformed ‘victims of misinformation’ is an insult to them,” he says.
When vaccine mandates were imposed across the globe, many pregnant and breastfeeding women were forced to get vaccinated under penalty of losing their jobs and those who declined, were accused of being anti-vaxxers.
“Pregnant women should be allowed to make personal health choices and decide what gets injected into their body, and the decision should be free from coercion,” says Urato.
Instead, doctors are being coached on ways to handle vaccine hesitancy. In Canada, for example, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario encouraged doctors to prescribe medication to manage anxieties about the vaccine or to recommend psychotherapy.
The precautionary principle
A recent article by British sociologist Robert Dingwall reminds us of the underlying principle of clinicians primum non nocere; the first duty of a doctor is to do no harm.
Dingwall writes that safety cannot be “assumed” but must be demonstrated. He says, “doing stuff just in case” or because “it might help,” is not sufficient.
“Emergency conditions do not justify the abandonment of the precautionary principle. If action is urgent, but benefits and harms are uncertain, then the actions or innovations must be temporary, provisional, and closely monitored with a view to withdrawing or halting them if their benefits are not proportionate to their harms.
Pandemic policies would have looked very different if the precautionary principle had been applied correctly.”
Urato agrees. He says that we will look back with regret at how public health authorities treated pregnant women.
“Vaccine mandates were a really cruel, uncompassionate, and inhumane way to treat pregnant women. The community needs to really learn from this awful episode and make sure nothing like this happens again.”
November 23, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Canada, CDC, COVID-19 Vaccine, Rochelle Walensky, United States |
Leave a comment
President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was not assassinated with three shots from the book depository fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. And almost all of us know it.
In opinion polls going back to November 29th 1963, just a week after the shooting, at least a sixty-percent majority has rejected the official line every single time.
In short, regarding JFK, the “crazy conspiracy theorists” make up two-thirds of the population, and always have done.
This is a good thing. A victory for truth in the face of stark odds, overcoming fifty-nine years of propaganda.
It doesn’t matter what you think of JFK the man – whether you believe he was trying to change things, or hail from the Chomsky school of “he was just like Obama” – the simple facts reflect he was killed by state agencies of his own government.
It was a coup.
We don’t need to go into the details, it has been endlessly written about, on this site and a million others.
Suffice it to say, nothing about the “official story” has ever made sense. You have to leave rationality behind to believe it.
Much like mask-usage and the “safe and effective” vaccines during the “pandemic”, embracing the mainstream story of the “lone gunman” and his “magic bullet” has passed beyond the realm of thoughts and opinions and become a tenet of a modern-day religion.
Blaming Lee Harvey Oswald is now an oath of fealty, a show of faith. A sign you are one of the initiated – the first and most debased commandment in the book of State Orthodoxy.
Question it, and you question everything. Pull on that thread and six decades of carefully crafted narratives unravel in minutes.
This is why – fifty-nine years after the fact – they are still lying about it.
Those truly responsible are more than likely all dead. The vast majority of the people living on the planet weren’t even born when it happened… and yet the deceptions still come.
Pathetic exercises in propaganda passed around by second and third generations of twisted servants of the establishment. Brainwashed children, repeating the lies their parents told them despite being surrounded by evidence of their delusion.
It would be tragic if it wasn’t so insidious. Its only saving grace is its ineptitude. (See this from the New York Post, or this from The Express ).
It’s all painfully transparent. Exercises in saying, rather than believing.
A common factor in every propaganda narrative is the repetition of “the big lie”. Over and over and over again. In the case of JFK the catechism is a simple one:
Lee Harvey Oswald shot the 35th President in the back and head from the Texas School Book Depository.
The Express even uses that sentence, word for word. Not one part of this mantra has ever been proven. It’s just what you have to say.
Most tellingly it does not even reflect the official position of the US government, with the Church committee having found JFK’s death “a probable conspiracy” forty-six years ago.
As with Covid, when official sources conflict with official “truth” they are written out of the consensus. Rejected by the modern-day Council of Nicea. Left to gather dust in the archives like the gnostic gospels.
In 1992, following the release of Oliver Stone’s simply brilliant film JFK, the US Senate passed a new law, the Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act.
This law “requires that each assassination record be publicly disclosed in full and be made available in the collection no later than the date that is 25 years [after the law was passed]”.
As of October 2017 both the CIA and FBI are in breach of this law.
Politico has a long article about it, carefully explaining to everyone that it’s definitely not because they have anything to hide and they totally didn’t do it, but also acknowledging that the secrecy does feed into “corrosive conspiracy theories”.
In yet another betrayal of his “anti-establishment” image, The Donald let this slide. Biden is apparently going to pressure them to release something… but that’s just theatre.
Nothing will come of it, save perhaps a few pages of token talking points that subtly reinforce the official story.
Agencies like that won’t ever release real evidence of their own guilt, even supposing it wasn’t shredded, burned and buried next to Jimmy Hoffa decades ago.
But you know what? It doesn’t matter.
We don’t need official documents to corroborate the evidence of our own eyes, and we don’t need official permission before we can acknowledge the truth.
Let the media tell their empty stories to their dwindling readership, let their aging lies echo forever in hollow headlines.
None of us believe them. We all know what really happened, and we always have.
For a deep dive on the JFK assassination, we recommend JFK and the Unspeakable, you should also watch JFK by Oliver Stone which is a wonderfully engaging introduction to the topic. You can read all our past articles on JFK here, and Kit’s long essay on it here.
November 23, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Timeless or most popular | CIA, FBI, United States |
Leave a comment
How do we move ahead in a post-pandemic era? And what are the lessons to be learned from our challenging recent history? Catholic psychiatrist and bioethicist Aaron Kheriaty has thought a great deal about these questions and his answers are found in his just-released book The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State (Regnery Publishing, 2022). The result is a brilliant mix of scientific observations, personal experiences, philosophical reflections, prudent policy prescriptions, and even a few speculative hints about dystopian possibilities of the near future.
Kheriaty, who lost his previous job as clinical psychiatrist and teacher at UC-Irvine in a dispute over mandated vaccines and natural immunity, begins the book in an unexpected time and place: 1947 Nuremberg. He does this to provide historical context for threats to freedom in our time. He briefly surveys the eugenics movement and its appropriation by the Nazi regime. Germany’s medical professionals were well-trained and as good as any in the world, but they lost their way. “Instead of seeing the sick as individuals in need of compassionate medical care, German doctors became willing agents of a sociopolitical program driven by a cold utilitarian ethos,” writes Kheriaty (xvii). After the war the revulsion at the perversion of medicine led to the Nuremberg Code, which emphasized informed consent as a cornerstone of ethical medical treatment.
That code and other ethical agreements remained as part of the medical-bioethical landscape… until 2020. Kheriaty asserts that “[d]uring the covid pandemic, the public health and medical establishment once again abandoned the principle of free and informed consent to advance a supposed greater good” (xxi). Having laid the groundwork for his argument and narrative, he sums up by issuing this frightening declaration: “The unholy alliance of (1) public health, (2) digital technologies of surveillance and control, and (3) the police powers of the state—what I call the Biomedical Security State—has arrived” (xxii). While this probably seems like a heavy meal to digest, the reader can be assured that Kheriaty writes clearly and is grounded in scientific medicine and a solid ethical worldview. His story, while alarming, is neither conspiracy theory nor exercise in despair.
After the Nuremberg prologue, Dr. Kheriaty continues with four long chapters and an epilogue: “Locked Up: The Biomedical Security State”; “Locked Down & Locked Out: A New Societal Paradigm”; “Locked In: The Coming Technocratic Dystopia”; “Reclaiming Freedom: Human Flourishing in a More Rooted Future”; and, “Seattle, 2030.” Sprinkled throughout what could be a gloomy read, we encounter stories of solidarity and resilience. The author makes sure to show us that human interaction cannot — must not — be stymied by government interference in our lives and the functioning of society. “Consider the human goods we sacrificed to preserve bare biological life at all costs: friendships, holidays with family, work, visiting the sick and dying, worshipping God, and burying the dead” (14). But to resist or even question, we must know as much of a situation’s history as possible. Kheriaty lays out the pieces of the puzzle: states of emergency, agency capture of regulators by the regulated, loosening bonds of social cohesion, and the religion of scientism.
Scientism is distinct from science and scientific inquiry, Kheriaty points out. “The characteristic feature of science is warranted uncertainty, which leads to intellectual humility. The characteristic feature of scientism is unwarranted certainty, which leads to intellectual hubris” (54). In other words, scientism upholds so-called science as the only proper form of knowledge and rejects any questioning or skepticism. It is prone to misuse as a political tool and typically accompanies a materialistic worldview. That heavy-handed framework clashes with how science and medicine have long operated through trial and error, experimentation, imaginative solutions, and, most of all, respect for individual humans as made in the image and likeness of God.
Kheriaty’s own story makes for a fascinating sub-plot. As a doctor, ethicist, and teacher he was closely involved with figuring out how to respond to covid and help patients. As the lockdowns unfolded he encountered staggering amounts of fear, worry, and depression. His grasp of bioethics and knowledge of history led him to speak out against new methods of trying to control spread of the covid virus, especially when they superseded societal freedom and individual liberty. “Freedom of movement, of association, of domicile in one’s country of origin, and access to public spaces and public events—these quickly went from basic rights to special privileges conferred by governments as rewards for good behavior” (68). His medical training also led him to critique the development and imposition of a new and mostly untested vaccine. In his own case, he fought against a mandatory vaccination because of a prior covid infection. His argument at the time did not prevent him from being fired. He also touches on the devastating impact of restrictions on work and supply chains.
Indeed, that is one of the constant themes of this book: technology and safety should never eclipse the humanity of our lives. For instance, “[t]here is clearly no such thing as a medication—or a vaccine—that’s always good for everyone in every circumstance all the time” (137). Technology and cultural immersion endanger our sense of ourselves and nudge us to trade autonomy and dignity for convenience. “Today, routine biometric verification for things from mobile phones to lunch lines gets young people used to the idea that their bodies are tools used in transactions” (155). Connected to abuse of genetic and biometric data is the ominous specter of transhumanism, which Kheriaty characterizes as “clearly a religion—a particular type of neo-Gnostic religion” (167). To all these dehumanizing trends the author counsels resistance, but emphatically “nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience” (184).
The book’s final chapter lays out policy proposals for steering clear of dystopia. I found this chapter to be only somewhat persuasive. Kheriaty’s suggestions are certainly prudent and logical; however, they mostly deal with changing the political and medical climate. But bureaucracy and institutional entropy are like the invasive Japanese Knotweed in my back yard, which is to say impossible to eradicate. On other points Kheriaty is spot-on. “The first and most necessary step is to overcome our fear,” he writes (191). And [t]he enemy is not pain or illness. The enemy is fear. The enemy is hatred or indifference toward our fellow human beings” (192). Fear of death was manifest during the pandemic. As Catholics, we are taught to not fear death, but rather to spend our lives preparing for it and to live in a state of grace. During a pandemic or even “normal” times we can bear witness to Christ by living with courage and fighting fear. We can also resist mask mandates that dehumanize us and separate us from others, covering up our God-created uniqueness. Of importance to religious believers, we can engage with our faith authorities to make sure no one is abandoned again because “too many religious leaders and clergy unfortunately showed themselves during the pandemic to be willing chaplains to the new technocracy” (204).
Readers should not skip the epilogue, in which Kheriaty (a native of the Pacific Northwest) posits a dystopian Seattle in 2030. In this uncomfortable scenario, we are asked to consider what life might be like if current trends in pharmaceuticals and their marketing are joined with further developments in social control to create a two-tiered society reminiscent of many well-known alternative futures in literature and movies. Thankfully, Dr. Kheriaty lightens a somber story with some wry humor.
While The New Abnormal is not an explicitly Catholic book, Aaron Kheriaty founds it in Catholic principles of justice, humanity, clear philosophical first principles, subsidiarity, solidarity, and important spiritual goods. He brings in examples from classical and contemporary philosophy, C.S. Lewis, and George Orwell. The prose is clear but some of the concepts can be a little heady at times. This is a valuable piece of work from a man with unique qualifications. His is a prophetic voice calling us to understand and take action while never forgetting the God Who made us.
Greg Cook is a writer living in New York’s North Country with his wife. He graduated from Plattsburgh State College and The Evergreen State College. He is the author of two self-published books of poetry, Against the Alchemists and A Verse Companion to Romano Guardini’s ‘Sacred Signs’.
November 22, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Book Review, Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
Medical ethics is a large field of study. The Covid pandemic certainly brought many medical ethics issues to the forefront and produced rather amazing “ethicist” gems, such as this:
Be aware that “bioethics” has moved on to proposals that might seem crazy to you but are considered seriously and published in Bill Gates-funded publications and scientific journals. Important studies on this subject are conducted under the auspices of the World Economic Forum.
Forcibly giving people collectivism-promoting “Morality Pills” (archive link) is a popular suggestion among bioethicists. It was published in Bill Gates-funded The Conversation and is discussed widely in scientific literature. (The Conversation received 7 million dollars from Bill Gates but pretends to be an independent journalism publication)
What are these morality pills? You might think that morality, to them, means being a good husband or wife, an honest businessperson, fulfilling promises, and so on. Why not enhance that? What’s the problem?
The problem is that this is NOT how they define morality! To them, morality is a collectivist mindset, lack of critical thinking, and compliance. The article explains that some people lack “moral qualities” and refuse to wear masks or take Covid vaccines, or even deny climate change:
My research in bioethics focuses on questions like how to induce those who are noncooperative to get on board with doing what’s best for the public good. To me, it seems the problem of coronavirus defectors could be solved by moral enhancement: like receiving a vaccine to beef up your immune system, people could take a substance to boost their cooperative, pro-social behavior. Could a psychoactive pill be the solution to the pandemic?
They propose giving people pills to enhance “morality” and explain the climate change angle relevance:
But a strategy like this one could be a way out of this pandemic, a future outbreak or the suffering associated with climate change. That’s why we should be thinking of it now.
The proposed solution to give people morality pills is more than idle thinking. Several candidate psychoactive substances are identified and considered seriously: psilocybin and oxytocin, for example.
The obvious objection to all this morality pill talk is that skeptics would not take them! I would not take such a pill to enhance my collectivist mindset. At the risk of being presumptuous, I would say that you, my dear subscriber, would refuse them also. Right?
The ethicists have a solution: administer collectivist morality pills by force or surreptitiously.
As some have argued, a solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply. These actions require weighing other values. Does the good of covertly dosing the public with a drug that would change people’s behavior outweigh individuals’ autonomy to choose whether to participate? Does the good associated with wearing a mask outweigh an individual’s autonomy to not wear one?
Serious articles discuss how to do it:
A covert psychoactive substance administration to the masses must not be discussed publicly before its implementation, right? So the ethicists desire to bypass any democratic process or prior public discussion and scrutiny. These ethicists refuse to see an ethical problem with that!
World Economic Forum Sponsored Research into “Collectivist Bioenhancement”
Some of you, my dear readers, might think this is so batshit crazy that it is simply useless musings of fringe philosophers, not worth discussing.
Quite to the contrary, the famous and influential organization called the World Economic Forum sponsors such bioenhancement research.
Linda Fried, mentioned above, is the aunt of Sam Bankman-Fried. Sam stole billions of dollars from crypto-investors (in my opinion) and used that money to become the second largest Democratic party donor. So, Linda Fried is not exactly a nobody languishing in obscurity. By the way, a friend of this blog El Gato wrote a great post discussing Sam — check it out.
Linda explains in her article that her goal is “collective welfarism,” and she is part of the group convened by the World Economic Forum:
A stronger ethical approach, though, would be to abide by the principle, termed ‘collective easy rescue’, whereby small individual losses are justified in the name of collective well-being. Mass vaccination is a well-documented example of collective easy rescue.
Human “enhancement” to force mass vaccination? Sounds familiar?
Those “medical ethicists,” “world changers,” and “disinformation fighters” are so self-absorbed and self-righteous that they think their way of thinking is the only right way. They consider any deviation from their mindset to be antisocial, divisive, and subversive.
To them, freedom is dangerous. Truth is misinformation. Pursuing personal happiness and liberty instead of welfarism is selfish and immoral and needs to be dealt with through covert bioenhancement pills. Their opponents need to be silenced as “disinformation agents” or influenced via secretly applied substances to enhance compliance and lower critical thinking.
My post, discussing outlandish agenda developed under the auspices of the World Economic Forum, may sound like the perfect conspiracy theory. If someone approached me and told me that the WEF is sponsoring “bioenhancement research,” whose goal is to develop substances to impose “collective welfarism” and achieve compliance with mass vaccination, I would not take that person seriously!
Such is the problem with describing many WEF proposals. Some of their ideas are so crazy that they are difficult to accept as genuine when retold. Official papers, proposals, peer-reviewed studies, and agenda articles describe plans that are extremely strange to the uninitiated — and yet are pursued seriously. Other authors, such as Tessa Lena, also mentioned how difficult it is to describe these tendencies.
I have explained my difficulties with describing crazy but real proposals by world-leading unelected organizations such as the WEF.
I Do Not Spread Conspiracy Theories – I Report on Actual News
Their proposals, when understood properly, are highly disturbing and seem unreal — except that they are very serious.
WEF Uses CODED LANGUAGE to Communicate Unthinkable Plans
The difficulty with their plans is that regular people cannot believe they are real. That happens for a good reason: nobody would expect such insanity to be seriously promulgated by important men and women. Even I have difficulty reconciling the plain text and the simple meaning of their anti-human theories with my idea of what our leaders should act like.
And yet, here we are — the welfarist pills are promulgated under the auspices of the WEF by no one but Linda Fried, the aunt of the second-largest Democrat donor and crypto thief (in my opinion) Sam Bankman-Fried.
In the future, you may need to be careful with your drinking water or the compulsory mystery “health enhancement pill” you must take for an unexplained reason!
Would you take such a welfarism bioenhancement pill?
November 22, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular | Human rights, WEF |
Leave a comment
Pfizer’s quest for blockbusters by hook or by crook
Author’s Note: The following post is an excerpt from The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, by John Leake and Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH. Please note that a special and very handsome hardcover edition, published by Skyhorse with a forward by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., will be released tomorrow (November 22).
Long before COVID-19 arrived, I was a close observer of the pharmaceutical industry. My great grandparents believed that pharmaceutical labs were at the forefront of progress, relieving suffering and extending life, and for the most part they were right. My paternal great grandfather owned a large chain of drugstores and was a benefactor of UT Southwestern Medical School. At the time of my birth, my maternal great grandmother gave me a generous gift of Pfizer stock. She had been impressed by Pfizer’s key role in discovering how to mass produce penicillin during World War II (in which her son was killed in action). Eighteen years later her gift paid for my university education. And then, in 1998, Pfizer received FDA approval to sell Viagra.
Pfizer initially developed the drug to treat high blood pressure and angina pectoris. However, as Pfizer’s researchers discovered in clinical trials, the drug was better at inducing erections than managing angina. And so, the company repurposed the drug for erectile dysfunction and launched a massive, global PR and marketing campaign—including seeking moral approval from Pope John Paul II and contracting the war hero and 1996 presidential candidate Bob Dole to be the brand’s poster gentleman—that succeeded in making Viagra a blockbuster. Fortunately for me, I still owned a large chunk of Pfizer stock. The price spiked in late 1998 and reached an all-time high in April of 1999. I sold my entire remaining position, which financed my early years as a freelance author, before my first book was published.
So, I learned firsthand why pharmaceutical companies seek to develop blockbuster drugs with fanatical zeal. Formulating a safe and effective new medicine to address a large, unmet need is very difficult and expensive. Performing clinical trials and obtaining FDA-approval is an arduous process that normally takes several years. Thus, if an opportunity for a new blockbuster presents itself, a big drug company like Pfizer will go to extreme lengths to seize it.
Three years after the release of Viagra, I learned that Pfizer was not the entirely respectable company my great grandmother had believed it to be. I arrived at this realization through my interest in British spy novels. In 2001 I lived in Vienna, around the corner from the Burgkino (Burg Cinema) which still played the 1949 film noir classic The Third Man on its big screen every weekend. I spent many a dreary winter Sunday afternoon watching the film. Based on the novella and screenplay by Graham Greene, The Third Man is a crime story about Harry Lime—an American running a medical charity in Vienna, who makes a killing selling penicillin on the bombed out, impoverished city’s black market. To increase his profits, he cuts the drug with other substances, thereby destroying its efficacy and causing the patients (including children) to die horribly from their infections.
In the film’s most iconic scene, the good guy (played by Joseph Cotton) meets his old friend Harry Lime (played by Orson Welles) on the Giant Ferris wheel in the Vienna Prater amusement park and tries to appeal to his conscience. At the wheel’s apex, the charismatic Harry opens the door, points down to people walking on the ground below, and says:
Look down there. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you twenty thousand pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man. Free of income tax. … Nobody thinks in terms of human beings. Governments don’t, why should we? They talk about the people and the proletariat; I talk about the suckers and the mugs. It’s the same thing. They have their five-year plans, and so have I.
I sensed that Graham Greene might have based the story on something he’d witnessed or heard about. Doing some research, I learned that Harry Lime was probably based on the British spy Harold “Kim” Philby, with whom Greene worked in British intelligence during World War II. Greene, it seems, discovered that Philby was a Soviet double agent long before he was exposed as such in 1963. Instead of ratting out his friend, he kept it to himself and left the intelligence service in 1944. Several pieces of evidence suggest that when he wrote The Third Man a few years later, he based it on his conflicted friendship with Philby.
John le Carré was also fascinated by Graham Greene and Kim Philby, and his thriller Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy—one of my all-time favorites—was inspired by the Philby story. His novel The Constant Gardener was published in 2001, and I read it with great interest. The story wasn’t set in Cold War Europe, but in Kenya, where a British diplomat’s wife is brutally raped and murdered. Upon closer examination, the diplomat realizes that she was about to reveal a horrifying crime committed by a pharmaceutical company, which murdered her in order to prevent the exposure.
The novel’s plot was reminiscent of a controversial drug trial performed by Pfizer in Kano, Nigeria in 1996 during a meningococcal outbreak. For the trial of its new antibiotic, trovafloxacin, Pfizer gave 100 children this new drug. The control group of 100 other children received the standard anti-meningitis treatment at the time—a drug called ceftriaxone. However, for the control group, Pfizer administered a substantially lower dose of ceftriaxone than the drug’s FDA-approved standard.
When the reduced dosing in the control group was discovered, it raised the suspicion that Pfizer did this in order to skew the trial in favor of its new drug. Five of the children who received trovafloxacin died, while six who received the reduced dose of ceftriaxone died. Other children apparently suffered grave injuries from the administration of the experimental antibiotic without their informed consent. The investigation and litigation that ensued was the stuff of a thriller, involving private investigators, bribery, blackmail attempts, and disappearing records. Thirteen years later, in 2009, Pfizer settled out of court with the plaintiffs.
In his author’s note, le Carré claimed that nobody and no corporation in the novel was based on an actual person or corporation in the real world.
But I can tell you this. As my journey through the pharmaceutical jungle progressed, I came to realize that, by comparison with the reality, my story was as tame as a holiday postcard.
In 2009, the same year that Pfizer settled with the trovafloxacin plaintiffs, the New York Times reported that a U.S. federal judge assessed Pfizer with the “largest health care fraud settlement and the largest criminal fine of any kind ever” for its illegal marketing of Bextra and three other drugs. The U.S. Department of Justice was unequivocal in characterizing Pfizer’s officers as guilty of grave criminal conduct at the expense of the American public.
November 21, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Book Review, Corruption, Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | FDA, Pfizer |
Leave a comment
‘Censorship kills’ is the rally cry for a global medical community under unfathomable pressure from big tech and government to stifle the Covid debate. Fortunately, legislators and the greater public are seeing through the authoritarian behavior and taking action.
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | November 17, 2022
Real Housewives Star and business mogul, Bethenny Frankel, made waves on social media when she went off on how taboo it’s become to even question the possibility of suffering an adverse reaction from Covid-19 vaccines.
November 21, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Covid-19, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
Readers will recall the ban on singing of all kinds during the lockdowns and even after they were lifted because singing was supposedly a ‘transmission risk’. Turns out, this typical piece of Covid hysteria was based on a flawed study. The Church Times has more.
The ban arose out of reports in the United States in March 2020 that 52 of 61 singers who attended a rehearsal of the Skagit Valley Chorale, in Mount Vernon, Washington, had subsequently contracted Covid. The source was judged to have been a chorister at the practice who later tested positive for the virus, and was considered the super-spreader.
The Los Angeles Times carried the headline: “A choir decided to go ahead with rehearsal. Now dozens of members have COVID-19 and two are dead.” An investigation by the county’s public-health officials was referred to in other scientific papers and widely disseminated, and, with a growing consensus that airborne droplets were spreading the virus, all indoor singing was banned.
It dealt a serious blow to many choirs, both professional and amateur. Scientific study accelerated. Two lay vicars from Salisbury Cathedral took part in rigorous trials at Porton Down, the MOD’s Science and Technology laboratory, to test how far airborne droplets could travel. These, and other studies commissioned by the Department for Digital, Media, Culture and Sport, were reported eventually to have given the Government confidence to reconsider appropriate mitigations.
Now a review of the Skagit case by scientists at Nottingham Trent University (NTU), Brunel University, and Brighton and Sussex Medical School, has concluded that many of the choristers’ symptoms had started too early to have been caused by the rehearsal.
In a paper entitled “The Skagit County Choir COVID-19 Outbreak: Have we got it wrong?” they review and analyse the original outbreak data in relation to published data on incubation. They conclude that it was “vanishingly unlikely that this was a single point source outbreak as has been widely claimed and on which modelling has been based”.
An unexamined assumption led to “erroneous policy conclusions about the risks of singing, and indoor spaces more generally, and the benefits of increased levels of ventilation”, the paper says.
“Although never publicly identified, one individual bears a moral burden of knowing what health outcomes have been attributed to their actions. We call for these claims to be re-examined and for greater ethical responsibility in the assumption of a point source in outbreak investigations.”
One of the co-authors, Professor Robert Dingwall, of NTU, said on Wednesday that the speed with which the choristers were being infected and displaying symptoms was implausible, and did not fit the epidemic curve.
“All the ‘mights’ got turned into definite findings by the people who quoted [the original study],” he said. “We looked at it and saw the distribution of days on which the symptoms appeared, and realised they just couldn’t all have been affected at that rehearsal – the symptoms were just appearing too quickly.”
Worth reading in full.
November 19, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
The other day we saw a UN report which claimed that “billions live in regions that have already experienced warming greater than the global average.”
They didn’t say where those regions were, a strange lacuna for such a large number of souls. I thought this an interesting question, so I looked it up, searching with terms like “warming faster than rest of the world” and the like. I used the Regime-approved search engine Google.
Here are the regions of the world which Regime-approved government and media sources—I would never quote from conspiracy-believing denier sites!—think are warming faster than the rest of the world. I believe all of these links are from the last year or two. I did not cheat and use anything from the 2000s or earlier.
- The Arctic: The Arctic is warming four times faster than the global average
- Europe: “Europe hotting up more than twice global average“.
- The Mediterranean: “The Mediterranean region is warming 20% faster than the global average.“
- The Middle East: “Middle East region heating up twice as fast as rest of globe.“
- Africa: “Africa’s climate has warmed more than the global average since pre-industrial times“; “Africa warming faster than rest of world: IPCC Sixth Assessment Report“.
- Russia: “Russia warming ‘2.5 times quicker’ than global average: ministry“.
- China: “China warming up faster than rest of the world: Report“.
- West Asia: “Countries in the eastern Mediterranean and West Asia are warming twice as fast as the global average”.
- Singapore: “Why Singapore is heating up twice as fast as the rest of the world“.
- Japan: “Tokyo’s mean annual temperature has risen by 2.86C since 1900, about three times as fast as the world average of 0.96C“.
- India: “Global warming to hit India the worst in Asia by 2070.“
- Pakistan: “Temperature increase in the region is at 0.42°C per decade, warming twice as fast as the rest of the world“.
- Indian Ocean: “Indian Ocean warming at higher rate than other oceans, says IPCC report.“
- Australia: “Australia is Warming Faster than Global Average“.
- New Zealand: “In the past two decades, it increased 0.0387 C per year, slightly higher than the world average.”
- South-West Pacific: “South-West Pacific region, ocean heat content has increased more than three times faster than the global average rate.“
- Antarctica: “South pole warmed ‘three times faster’ than global average over past 30 years.“
- Earth’s Lakes: “Earth’s lakes are warming faster than its air“.
- Canada: Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world.
- Latin America and the Caribbean: “Latin America and the Caribbean warming faster than global average“.
- Mexico: “Mexico is warming faster than the rest of the planet, they say“.
- Central and South America: “IPCC: Mean temperatures have very likely increased in all sub-regions and will continue to increase at rates greater than the global average (high confidence).“
- The Atlantic Ocean: “The Atlantic Ocean is warming the fastest“.
- Ladies & Gentlemen, I bring you the seat of the Regime, The Once United States of America: “Over the past 50 years, the U.S. has warmed 68 percent faster than the planet as a whole.“
- Every State Also Heating Up Faster Than Every State
- New England: “New England is warming faster than the rest of the planet, new study finds.“
- Northeast: “Northeast region of the U.S. is warming faster than the rest of the country.“
- California: “California Warming More than U.S. Average as CO2 Climbs“.
- Great Lakes Basin: “Great Lakes Basin warming faster than other parts of country, new study finds“.
- Southwest and upper Midwest: “THE SOUTHWEST (ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, AND TEXAS), IS THE FASTEST- WARMING REGION IN THE NATION: Michigan, Wisconsin and northern-tier states round out the Top 10“.
- Utah: “Climate Analysis Finds Utah Temperatures Rose Fifth Fastest In The Country“.
Have I left anywhere out? I grew bored with the task after thirty minutes, especially when I started to do each individual state. I invite to try your own search and fill in those geographic areas (if any) that I missed.
We all live in Lake Woeonus, where it’s always worse than we thought, there are always five years left to SAVE THE PLANET!, and all the temperatures are rising faster than average.
I’ll save the larger, and more important, conclusion that models, and those that create them, cannot be trusted for another day.
I was scooped on this by at least three years. Here’s a guy who found that same “twice as high” goofiness three years ago.
November 19, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | United Nations |
Leave a comment
As the saga surrounding the arrival of a Ukrainian S-300 surface-to-air missile on the soil of Poland, tragically taking the lives of two Polish civilians, unfolds, several narratives emerge. First is the hair-trigger Pavlovian response on the part of certain NATO nations (Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and the Czech Republic) to jump to conclusions, announcing that this incident was a clear-cut case of Russian aggression against a NATO member requiring a NATO response inclusive of extending air defense coverage into Ukraine, as well as the establishment of a no-fly zone over parts of Ukraine. The second is the confusion that reigned at the highest levels in Ukraine regarding this incident, up to and including the refusal on the part of the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, to acknowledge that the missile in question was of Ukrainian origin.
It appears that those NATO nations calling for the invocation of Article 4 of the NATO charter in the aftermath of the missile incident were primed to do so ahead of the fact. It also appears as if the actual launch of the missile was done without the knowledge and authority of the Ukrainian high command, including Zelensky and his top military advisors.
This could lead one to assess that Ukraine’s northern European NATO allies are simply looking for a fight with Russia with the kind of focused intensity of a lemming running toward a cliff, jumping on any story line which can be twisted and distorted in a manner designed to make NATO intervention in Ukraine viable to other, less enthusiastic member states.
Such an assessment would square with the notion, currently in favor amongst most NATO members and their compliant western media stenographers, that the Ukrainian S-300 missile impact in Poland was a tragic accident, with the missile in question being launched in response to a Russian missile barrage before suffering some sort of malfunction which sent it flying off course, toward its tragic destiny in a Polish farmer’s field.
From an analysis of the basic geometry of the Ukrainian air defense battlefield, this narrative does not withstand scrutiny. Incoming Russian missiles approach Ukraine from roughly an east-to-west trajectory. As such, Ukrainian air defense is layered to protect from a west-to-east perspective, with detection radars set up to pick up incoming targets as far out as possible, allowing tracking radars to be cued as needed to guide the surface-to-air missiles to their designated targets. Any S-300 missile fired against an incoming Russian target would be fired from a roughly west to east direction, following the radar beam toward its target. In short—a Ukrainian S-300 would be launched in a direction which is pretty much 180 degrees away from the path flown by the missile that hit Poland.
Generally speaking, if a missile malfunctions or loses radar track, it will continue to fly roughly in the same direction of launch. Any major deviation from this rule would mean that the control surfaces of the missile were malfunctioning or damaged, which means the missile would not be able to sustain a consistent trajectory and would as such tumble out of control. For the Ukrainian S-300 missile to have reached Poland, it would have required a fully functioning aerodynamic control system. In short, the missile did not malfunction.
Air defense missiles have, over history, had an inherent surface-to-surface capability. The nuclear-capable Nike-Hercules missile could be used in a surface-to-surface role. The Iraqis used Soviet-made SA-2 and SA-3 missiles as surface-to-surface missiles. And the SM-6 missile used by the US Navy and Army can strike targets both in the air and on the ground. While the S-300 was purposely designed as an air defense weapon (its warhead is a relatively small one, between 100 and 143 kilograms of high explosive), it could be used in a surface-to-surface mode simply by using its tracking radar to orient a beam in the desired direction, at an altitude which would permit a ballistic trajectory to be obtained once the missile expends its fuel. The missile would fly in the direction of the beam, and then fall to the ground in the desired arc.
In order to do this, however, a tracking radar beam would have had to have been employed in a manner which oriented it in the exact opposite direction of the incoming Russian targets, toward Poland.
In short, the Ukrainian S-300 which landed on Poland was not the result of an accident, but rather a deliberate action designed to have the missile impact Polish soil.
The Polish are investigating the circumstances surrounding the deaths of their two citizens. If, as it logically appears, the launch of the S-300 missile was a deliberate act, then Poland must view the Ukrainians as the perpetrators of a crime. As such, Poland should be demanding that the launcher and associated radars be removed from service and all records and data associated with the launch in question treated as evidence and turned over to the appropriate Polish prosecution authority. Likewise, all personnel involved in the launch of this missile must be detained and subjected to interrogation by trained criminal investigators.
Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky, denies that Ukraine launched the missile in question, basing his belief on information provided by his senior air force and military commanders. If Zelensky is telling the truth, then there is a conspiracy within the Ukrainian military establishment to instigate a false flag incident designed to draw NATO into the conflict. Any investigation into the command-and-control procedures used in the launching of the missile that struck Poland should be able to determine how high up the chain of command this conspiracy existed.
Likewise, the hair-trigger-like response of Poland and the Baltic states in jumping to conclusions that blamed Russia for the attack on Poland despite their respective militaries knowing that the missile in question was Ukrainian, suggests a certain level of prior coordination between the perpetrators of the attack and those who immediately pointed an accusatory finger at Russia.
Let there be no doubt—any direct NATO-Russian military confrontation over Poland has the real potential to devolve into a general nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Anyone in Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltics who are involved in a conspiracy to drag NATO into the Ukraine conflict by promoting a false-flag attack represents a direct threat against every human being on the planet.
The US and its more responsible NATO partners need to get to the bottom of what transpired regarding the Ukrainian S-300 attack on Poland. Any failure to identify this false-flag conspiracy, if it in fact exists, and to nip it in the bud, only raises the real probability that those involved in such a conspiracy will try again, and again, until they fulfill their suicidal objective of a NATO-Russian conflict.
November 19, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
A look at its origins as it surges in youngsters around the world
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is surging around the world right now. Could this be due to “immunity debt” after lockdowns or because Covid and/or mass vaccination has messed around with our immune systems? The majority of young children have not been vaccinated against Covid, so the direct effect of vaccination can be ruled out here.
RSV is relatively mild for healthy adults but can be more dangerous to young children and the elderly. Every year there are approximately 30 million acute respiratory illnesses and over 60,000 childhood deaths caused by RSV worldwide.
But where did RSV come from?
According to Wikipedia it was first discovered in 1956 when researchers isolated a virus from a population of chimpanzees with respiratory illness. It was later realised that the chimpanzees actually caught the infection from their caretakers.
However, a different version of this story exists. As it is extremely unlikely that the real truth will ever come to light, you decide which version sounds more plausible, the Wikipedia entry above, or the alternative below. Please add any other details you have in the comments below.
Whilst Wikipedia is correct, in that RSV was first discovered in 1956, the story begins a year earlier in 1955.
This was a time when research was being undertaken into the mass production of the polio viral vaccine. In order to conduct the research, viruses were grown in monkey kidney cells. As a result hundreds of thousands of monkeys were shipped to the US.
In late 1955 a troop of chimpanzees at the Walter Reed Army Institute began coughing and sneezing. Morris et al isolated the agent that caused the respiratory illness in one of the chimps and called it Chimpanzee Coryza Agent Virus (CCA). The remaining 13 chimps all developed antibodies to this newly isolated virus.
As documented by Morris, a person working at the Institute started to experience respiratory infection and later developed antibodies to CCA. Once this worker had become infected, a new name was proposed – Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) and from then on, CCA was rarely used in medical literature.
They were curious about this new virus and so susceptible chimpanzees were inoculated intranasally with CCA virus. After a 3 day incubation period, this new troop of monkeys all got ill as well.
A year later, in 1957, Chanock and Finberg reported on recovery from infants with respiratory illness of a virus related to CCA. They said it is clear that their findings show that the viruses infecting the infants are indistinguishable from the CCA virus.
Subsequently, the virus was recovered from infants and small children with pneumonia or bronchiolitis in the Maryland-District of Columbia.
In the winter of 1958, Beem et al isolated a similar virus, with antigenic similarities, in Chicago.
By 1961, Lewis et al had isolated further specimens which looked like CCA.
Prior to July 1960, the influenza and parainfluenza viruses predominated in infant epidemic respiratory infections. In July 1961 the pattern changed abruptly with sudden increases in bronchiolitis and bronchitis, infrequent before. 58% were under 12 months, and patients under 4 years predominated. Infants with bronchiolitis and severe bronchitis yielded RCA not previously isolated. Deaths have occurred.
Many of the research papers said it was likely that the initial chimpanzee virus was the result of an infection passed to the troop by a human.
However, within five years of the discovery of this virus in chimpanzees, children went from predominantly being hospitalised by influenza to hospitalisation due to bronchitis linked to RSV.
Now, approximately one half of all infants become infected with RSV in their first year of life, almost all of them by the age of two. In the US alone, hospitalisation of children with RSV costs $300 million.
So there are two theories, one that the virus passed from a human to the chimps and the other that it passed from the chimps to humans. However, the fact that this virus was unknown in humans before the chimp got ill and within five years the predominant illness in children flipped from influenza to RSV suggests that the latter theory is correct.
November 18, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
Aletho News 