You’ve undoubtedly heard about the Pfizer vaccine with a 95% effectiveness rate. It was all over the news. And now it’s been approved for emergency use authorization by the FDA and is being rolled out.
Later, after the press release from Pfizer, the study finally got published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
This is the journal that former editor Marcia Angell said, “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
I looked through the study. I read the science. Despite what Forbes says, I like to do my own research. Because if we don’t, well, how damn easy do we make it for them to pull the wool over our eyes?
Here’s the study in question so that you can do the same:
Well, to be honest I didn’t start with the science itself, not at first. Here’s a tip! Instead, I looked at the conflicts. Why? Well, these seem to be a good shortcut to telling you what is really going on. In short, financial conflicts show a greater likelihood of bad science. By bad science I mean good for whoever is funding it and bad for the rest of us including the information ecology.
If this is new insight to you, here’s what you need to know on this topic. A 2003 systematic review published in the BMJ found, “Research sponsored by the drug industry was more likely to produce results favouring the product made by the company sponsoring the research than studies funded by other sources.”
A different systematic review from JAMA concluded, “Financial relationships among industry, scientific investigators, and academic institutions are widespread. Conflicts of interest arising from these ties can influence biomedical research in important ways.”
Reflecting on such, Sheldon Krimsky, in an article titled Science on Trial wrote, “Scientists typically believe that they are…objective of their inquiry, namely, the unfettered search for certifiable knowledge. While this is a widespread belief, it is not based on empirical evidence. Practicing scientists are least likely to know whether their conflicting financial interests affect the outcome of their research.”
This Pfizer COVID vaccine study? Let’s look at that little concluding paragraph.
“A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)”
Maybe it is just me. But the most relevant piece of information is the ‘funded by’ statement.
This is my opinion, and I invite you to make your own, but this part leads me to discount the rest. I can’t trust it. And it’s not just the study funding itself.
Conflicts of Interest – Author Funding
Not only that, but I looked at the disclosure forms for all the many authors on the study.
1 received fees as part of being a sub-investigator for the site in Argentina
1 received resources to their University where they worked during the trial
3 report personal fees or grants from other pharmaceutical companies
Over half the people stand to gain directly as a positive result of this trial. Do you think their might be bonuses, promotions or other incentives when the Pfizer stock shoots upwards and revenues break records?
Conflicts of Interest – Hidden Away?
Please keep in mind this is what was freely disclosed. Unfortunately, we sometimes see stuff hidden away. (Dr. Jose Baselga is a good example of this if it’s new to you.)
With a quick search I found that Edson Duarte Moreira, one of the people who said there was no relevant conflicts in this study, is by no means clean of past conflicts.
In a 2014 paper on HPV, he listed “received grants through his institution for conducting HPV vaccine trials, consulting fees, support for travel, fees for board membership, and fees for lectures from Merck.”
Merck is one of two companies that makes the HPV vaccine. Turns out he’s author on a bunch of HPV vaccine trials.
A 2013 paper says he “has received grant support through his institution from Sanofi-Aventis, Merck, Pfizer and Novartis, and was compensated by Sanofi-Aventis, Merck and Pfizer for serving at Scientific Advisory Committee.”
So, he had been paid directly by Pfizer in the past. Just not in the 3 years required to disclose.
Bottom line, he has shown a pattern of being paid directly by the company that stands to gain the most from positive research.
So I don’t trust the science from the get-go. But assuming I did, let’s look at the science, shall we?
The WHO says, “the cut-off should be manually adjusted to ensure that specimens with high Ct values are not incorrectly assigned SARS-CoV-2 detected due to background noise.”
That’s geek-speak for saying that many COVID cases are not real cases. Just background noise.
So at this point we have Fauci saying it’s a problem. We have the New York Times saying it’s a problem. We have the WHO saying it’s a problem.
Mainsteam and credentialed sources…and still people won’t be convinced. Frustrating, I know.
“Efficacy will be assessed throughout a participant’s involvement in the study through surveillance for potential cases of COVID-19. If, at any time, a participant develops acute respiratory illness, for the purposes of the study he or she will be considered to potentially have COVID-19 illness. In this circumstance…assessments should be conducted…The assessments will include a nasal (midturbinate) swab, which will be tested at a central laboratory using a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test.” (pg 51)
Note that antigen testing was also used, which is fraught with its own problems.
So I searched this document for everywhere using the terms “PCR”, “cycle”, “count”, “ct”, “threshold”. While there are many instances of these words, none of them have to do with what the PCT test Ct value was set too.
Most everyone else is saying that anything above 35 is meaningless. Many are saying 30 or 25 is far better.
So, in the end, this trial is unscientific because it relies on a faulty test.
How to Lie with Statistics
Well, maybe not lie, but certainly spin!
Let’s assume we can discount all the conflicts, even though we shouldn’t. Let’s assume the test was valid, even though as we’ve seen it is not. Let’s get to the actual study data.
The study had 37,706 people received both doses of injections. 18,556 got the vaccine. 18,530 received placebo injections.
The cases only counted if the onset was at least 7 days after the second dose. Had the onset been anytime, then lots of vaccinated people would have been tested because many of the side effects of the vaccine are an awfully similar to the symptoms of COVID. That’s a very specific window of time supposedly because they have to give the vaccine time to build the spike proteins to ward off the invader.
In this time frame, 8 people who got the vaccine tested positive for COVID. 162 people who got the placebo tested positive for COVID.
In this time frame, 1 person who got the vaccine had a severe case of COVID. Nine people who got the placebo had a severe case of COVID.
From this they do some statistical analysis to arrive at that 95% efficacy mark.
“Vaccine efficacy was estimated by 100×(1−IRR), where IRR is the calculated ratio of confirmed cases of Covid-19 illness per 1000 person-years of follow-up in the active vaccine group to the corresponding illness rate in the placebo group. The 95.0% credible interval for vaccine efficacy and the probability of vaccine efficacy greater than 30% were calculated with the use of a Bayesian beta-binomial model. The final analysis uses a success boundary of 98.6% for probability of vaccine efficacy greater than 30% to compensate for the interim analysis and to control the overall type 1 error rate at 2.5%.”
I’ll be honest. Without reading up on it, that’s above my statistical skills. But something I do know is that this shows something call relative risk. Let’s look at absolute risk instead. Much easier statistics.
According to these numbers, your chance of catching symptomatic COVID:
170/37706= 0.451% overall
162/18530 = 0.874% without a vaccine
8/18556 = 0.043% with a vaccine
Keep in mind this is any symptoms at all, like a cough or fever. We’ll come back to that subject later. So that vaccine is lowering the chance you get any COVID symptoms over .8% in absolute terms.
And your chance of a severe case of COVID which includes “respiratory failure; evidence of shock; significant acute renal, hepatic, or neurologic dysfunction; admission to an intensive care unit”.
10/37706 = 0.027% overall
9/18530 = 0.049% without a vaccine
1/18556 = 0.005% with a vaccine
Here we see a lowering of 0.044% in absolute terms. That is far, far less than 0.1%.
Six people died in this study (“Two BNT162b2 recipients died (one from arteriosclerosis, one from cardiac arrest), as did four placebo recipients (two from unknown causes, one from hemorrhagic stroke, and one from myocardial infarction). No deaths were considered by the investigators to be related to the vaccine or placebo.”)
But this is key. No one died of COVID in this study.
So according to it, your chances of dying are 0% with or without the vaccine.
(The cynical joke is if it hadn’t been in this study, there’s a good chance some or all of those deaths would be COVID deaths!)
A Different Conclusion
Now, I don’t know about you, but looking at those stats my first takeaway is not that the vaccine is 95% effective…
…but that COVID is not worth worrying about!
Oh how I wish the headlines read, “Pfizer vaccine study a waste of time and money as COVID not as harmful as thought”
If you look at the stats, the vaccine study itself is showing you this!
Just to be clear, I’m not denying that it is virus isn’t hurting some people. Nor that certain high risk groups might want to take some precautions.
Instead, I’m saying that the worldwide response, lockdowns, masks, social distancing, etc. is unwarranted…if health is the actual concern.
And most certainly that mandating this vaccine is ludicrous.
But, alas, this has nothing to do with health.
And don’t forget that this study was never intended to show that it would stop or slow the spread of SAR CoV-2. Yet, somehow that is what people will magically believe. Because, you know, science.
Then you have to factor in the next part…
Pfizer Vaccine Side Effects
The adverse event reporting in this study only extended 14 weeks after the second dose.
More so than acute symptoms, I’m more worried about longer term stuff. Autoimmunity for instance can take years to develop. Same with cancer. Then there’s the whole infertility thing which certainly isn’t caught in this short time frame.
Hopefully there is none of these. But you can’t say scientifically that they aren’t. We just don’t know is the only valid scientific opinion. After all, this mRNA vaccine is brand new technology never before used in human beings.
And the fact is that they’re crossing over the placebo patients into the vaccine group (because its so effective it would be unethical to deny them the real vaccine so they say). This means we will not actually have useful long-term safety data from this.
Therefore, the two year safety follow-up won’t really show us any long term effects.
Still let’s look at the short term risks. Here’s some of what the study lists as for side effects:
“Severe systemic events were reported in less than 2% of vaccine recipients after either dose, except for fatigue (in 3.8%) and headache (in 2.0%) after the second dose.”
“Fever (temperature, ≥38°C) was reported after the second dose by 16% of younger vaccine recipients and by 11% of older recipients.”
“More BNT162b2 recipients than placebo recipients reported any adverse event (27% and 12%, respectively) or a related adverse event (21% and 5%).”
Just compare these percentage numbers to the amounts who got COVID, even the unvaccinated group, above.
Here’s another conclusion or headline we didn’t see. “Pfizer Study Finds Vaccine Causes 2-5X as Many Symptoms as COVID.”
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I’d rather take my chances with the coronavirus then with this vaccine.
The short-term side effects show much more likelihood of symptoms than COVID. They seem worse. And we aren’t sure about the long-term effects yet.
On December 18th 112,807 people had received the first dose.
Of these 3,150 have health impact events which are defined as “unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, required care from doctor or health care professional”.
3150/112807 = 2.792%
Please compare that percentage number with the 0.746% of any COVID symptoms without a vaccine in this study, let alone the 0.041% of severe COVID.
Note that unable to perform normal daily activities is worse than the any COVID symptom group, though not necessarily as bad as the severe COVID group.
Hopefully, that is a one-time adverse event that the people bounce back from. What is worrisome is to think that with that, there is likely some systematic longer-term consequences.
Just some more extremist, terrorist, anti-science, anti-vaxxer, Russian misinformation for your to think about for yourself.
Love it? Hate it? Questions? Other resources to look at? Leave them in the comments below…
“British and American state intelligence agencies are ‘weaponizing truth’ to quash vaccine hesitancy as both nations prepare for mass inoculations, in a recently announced ‘cyber war’ to be commanded by AI-powered arbiters of truth against information sources that challenge official narratives.”
“Both countries are preparing to silence independent journalists who raise legitimate concerns over pharmaceutical industry corruption or the extreme secrecy surrounding state-sponsored Covid-19 vaccination efforts, now that Pfizer’s vaccine candidate is slated to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by month’s end.”
“Also unmentioned is that the head of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Patrizia Cavazzoni, is the former Pfizer vice president for product safety who covered up the connection of one of its products to birth defects.”
“On Monday, the UK newspaper The Times reported that the UK’s [Government Communications Headquarters] “has begun an offensive cyber-operation to disrupt anti-vaccine propaganda being spread by hostile states” and “is using a toolkit developed to tackle disinformation and recruitment material peddled by Islamic State” to do so. In addition, the UK government has ordered the British military’s 77th Brigade, which specializes in “information warfare,” to launch an online campaign to counter “deceptive narratives” about Covid-19 vaccine candidates.”
“Imran Ahmed, the CEO of the UK-based Center for Countering Digital Hate, a member of the UK government’s Steering Committee on Countering Extremism Pilot Task Force, which is part of the UK government’s Commission for Countering Extremism…told the UK newspaper The Independent in July that “I would go beyond calling anti-vaxxers conspiracy theorists to say they are an extremist group that pose a national security risk… Among the websites cited by Ahmed’s organization as promoting such “extremism” that poses a “national security risk” were Children’s Health Defense, the National Vaccine Information Center, Informed Consent Action Network, and Mercola.com, among others.”
So basically I’m the equivalent of an ISIS member now especially since I contribute to “extremist organizations” like CHD and ICAN.
And maybe you are dangerous too for reading this!
Seeing this and some other developments I just had to put together this article. Make no mistake the rollout is continuing…
We can’t think of mandates as just a government thing anymore. We live in the corporatocracy after all. So there are these kind of corporate and institutional partnerships that will be occurring left and right.
I’ll wait to see what kind of scientific shenanigans are in the final study thank you.
This reminds me of Remdesivir earlier this year as I covered here. Gilead announces positive results in a press release. Fauci lauds the antiviral. The FDA makes it the only approved drug. The paper got published a month or so later. The results were minor at best and only in a sub-group which wasn’t previously mentioned.
Wait…if the WHO says remdesivir doesn’t work…shouldn’t Youtube be busy censoring any positive information about remdesivir now as they follow WHO guidelines? (As if anyone could keep up with their flip-flopping!)
Nope, doesn’t look like Youtube is doing anything about this “misinformation”.
But based on the press release of 90% success, Pfizer’s stock rallies up…
Do they know something you don’t? Here’s one possibility. They pump their stock with the announcement. But when we see the science actually get published there will be problems in it and the stock falls. We will see.
“None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.”
“Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.”
What they are designed to find out, the primary outcome, is to lower already mild symptoms. And the vaccines only need 50% successful in this in order to be approved.
With science by press release that 90% number is seeded out into the world. Even that TicketMaster article mentions it. But is it 90% successful at stopping mild symptoms? Is it successful at stopping transfer of the virus?
Earlier this year Fauci said regarding vaccine efficacy, “What I would settle for, and all of my colleagues would settle for, is the primary endpoint to prevent clinically recognizable disease.”
They’re not even going for that (aka bad symptoms such as hospitalization)!
When the disease is mostly asymptomatic people what is the point?
And what is the point of force vaccinating people to prevent transfer in concerts and airplanes, if the vaccines don’t actually accomplish that goal?
Oh yeah…it’s not logical. It’s propaganda.
All about the Faulty Testing
Bigger question. What cycle number is the PCR testing set to in order to verify these cases. If you haven’t heard the PCR testing is highly problematic.
“Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.
“Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.
“Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said.”
This is the biggest reason the case count is booming right now.
Isn’t that great for those that want to use this pandemic for their purposes? Based of how you set your measurement you can guarantee a completely meaningless test. False positives galore.
The Pfizer scientists could literally have different settings for the placebo and experimental group and most people would be none the wiser. I wouldn’t be surprised if the cycle setting isn’t mentioned in the vaccine trials at all.
As stated, Pfizer’s vaccine is expected to be approved at the end of this month.
Then they have the full power of information warfare of the security state behind them to stop the “misinformation” of what really occurs going on.
Understand that this plan is moving forward regardless of if Trump or Biden is the president.
While the soap opera professional wrestling election chaos continues be sure to be paying attention to what is not readily in the news.
I apologize for dropping off the map on my pandemic updates. I meant to write to say that I was taking a pause…but just couldn’t get that piece right.
There’s still so much I would love to share…
And it’s on that note that I write today.
As you know, in writing about current events, I tend to keep going back to understanding history. While there are absolutely new developments, and higher technologies involved, the patterns tend to be the exact same.
So if you can understand the past, you have a much better chance of understanding the present…and the future!
Many people were surprised the lockdowns extended past the initial recommended two weeks in order to prevent hospital surges.
Back then would you have assumed we’d still be dealing with this towards the end of September?
I sure did.
Understand the agendas, understand the game, and you can make better predictions.
A huge part of what we’re dealing with in the world is corporate malfeasance. Far more so than a democracy, we live in corporatocracy. And crime pays so, unfortunately, it is a criminal corporatocracy.
If you want to understand that, then there are few better places to go then to understand some of the “original corporate gangsters”…Big Tobacco.
A couple months ago I finished reading a 500 page book, The Cigarette Century, by Allan M. Brandt, a Pulitzer Prize finalist.
The Times Literary Supplement called this, “A masterpiece of medical history.” It features a whopping 1550 references and thus is a very deep look into what is one of the most important case studies of history.
The Atlantic said, “Both an engrossing cultural history, and a passionate, exhaustively researched indictment of a public-health catastrophe that happened largely in plain sight.”
Everyone knows that Big Tobacco did some nefarious things.
Over time, two things happened…
I think that the average person assumes (wrongly) that those loopholes were closed so that corporations couldn’t possibly get away with the same things again. Obviously, there are plenty other corporate cases, but that things were made better over time, rather than worse.
In other words, the public as a whole did not really learn the lessons.
Some people did though. The PR firms that Big Tobacco worked with learned. The predatory CEO’s that put profits over people learned. Those that would control scientific opinion learned. Those that would buy politicians and regulators learned. The lawyers learned.
(Quick example. The PR firm Hill & Knowlton led the scientific “debate” about the harms of smoking. They worked with Big Tobacco for 15 years. They’re still around and have had many exciting adventures, including helping us get into the Iraq War. And just recently guess who hired them? That’s right! The WHO. The WHO paid H&K $135,000 to identify and target influences in order to better get their messaging across to the public.)
Having gone through this detailed history it is my firm opinion that the case of Big Tobacco shows the blueprint, the key, to today…
It’s often called the Tobacco Playbook, because there are strategies and tactics that industries use over and over again. Understand these and you can cut through at least 75% of the BS.
I would argue that Big Tobacco did not lose. They, in fact, won. After all, they’re still around and hugely profitable. Most of their profits coming from the rest of the world outside the US now. As regulation and revelation occurred here, they mostly went overseas using their extensive playbook elsewhere.
As I said crime pays.
I was struck by a few sentences near the end of the book.
“In this century, in which we have known tobacco’s health effects from the first day, the death toll is predicted to be one billion. This is a pandemic.”
One billion over a century comes out to 10 million deaths per year.
Compare this death count to our current pandemic (if you believe the official numbers is a bit south of 1 million worldwide thus far) that is supposedly the cause of all the regulations, censorship, and economic havoc. Doesn’t quite add up now does it?
Still the regulation and revelation that occurred in the USA is important.
How did that happen?
Ultimately, it was litigation and the discovery process, not to mention numerous whistleblowers, that turned the tide.
This is the key to fighting against the corrupt corporations that exist today. With more awareness of what was successful and what was not, we can make better plans for the future.
For example, did you know there are non-profit organizations that are suing government agencies regarding vaccines…and winning?
They’re obtaining documents that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the science is anything but settled.
And this is why this case history is important. My aim is to distill down The Cigarette Century down into a much shorter special report, showing the specifics of the tactics and methods used by Big Tobacco.
And how these play out in other industries as well.
In addition, I’m giving you a chance to help support this project.
Truth is, I would love to go fulltime in my journalistic endeavors! My businesses are doing fairly well but I still need to work in them and have many bills to pay.
This has been a passion project of mine. Super passionate…but unprofitable. That it takes away time from my businesses it actually puts me in the hole.
After an extremely positive experience using GoFundMe to help support me in my home burning down, I got the idea to give this a shot.
If you’ve enjoyed my deep diving journalistic works, and your able to, chip in and support me in doing more going forward.
I have no clue how this will go, but it’s worth a shot.
This is odd to share. I am not trying to come off as holier-than-thou although I’m sure that can be read into this. I’m sharing my experience, my feelings around events, understanding they are very different than everyone else in the same situation. I am not writing this to judge other people’s response to these events as inferior. Your response is your own, more normal than mine and that is fine. Instead, in writing this I am striving to better understand why my experience is such as it is. In addition, I’m hoping that my sharing may help some others through inspiration, as indeed several people have said regarding part 1. With that disclaimer, onward…
Am I just suppressing grief that will come out later?
Am I just in denial about what happened?
These are the questions I was asking myself after I had confirmation that my home had completely burned down.
You see, what I was feeling was positive.
Don’t get me wrong. I was realistic about the hurdles ahead, but focused on what mattered. No one was hurt. It was all just material things that could be replaced and a good exercise in enforced minimalism.
As for the sentimental things… well, here is a good enforced opportunity to practice non-attachment.
I mentioned the paradox of feeling both devastation and liberation to some, but if I’m honest, I was feeling more of that latter.
But why wasn’t I depressed? Angry? Stricken with grief?
Would it hit me like a tidal wave later? Would it come in repeated waves over time?
No, I was actually my normal happy self. I thought there might be small pangs as I recognized this or that thing that I enjoyed was gone. But to be honest, now three weeks out, not really even that for me.
I’ll admit I have faced some frustration over insurance hassles. And, especially since we were just seven days from selling the house, that this event will financially set my family back despite insurance.
But I had already moved on.
Truth was people around me were more sad for me than I was personally! That’s a weird thing to deal with.
I would say I had already reframed the situation to know that this would be a good thing. Actually reframe is the wrong word. Just the frame from the very beginning. A new challenge to overcome. An adventure to have. A great story to tell. Something that would make me a better person. That would strengthen my family.
I wouldn’t even say I was being stoic so much as I was actually already looking at the positive things to come from this.
It came down to perspective.
First of all, I knew it could have been far worse. As I mentioned, no one got hurt (that I knew). Had that been different, I don’t think I’d be positive the same way. This gives me perspective.
Secondly, I’d gone through rough things before. The worst being losing my mother to cancer. I had tons of grief at that time. Back then I DID suppress my feelings. And while I still miss her, wishing she was around to play with her granddaughter especially, having worked on my grief with many psychological tools over the years, I see her passing as the last gift she gave me.
Couldn’t the fire be a gift too? Why wait to see it as such? This gives me perspective.
A friend of mine lost her house to a fire years ago. I had heard her story. I had talked to her about it. And, like with my mother, she now sees it as a blessing in disguise. This gives me perspective. (Thank you Denise!)
In the days following, I was amazed by all the love and support and donations too. This made me feel on a more embodied level that I was rich in one of the most important things, human connection. This gives me perspective.
All these came immediately to mind. But for a couple of days there was something niggling at me. I didn’t quite have the complete picture. I felt like I was missing another key component. Why was I genuinely okay with this?
And then it hit me.
I’ve spent the last year and a half diving deep into the darkest corners of humanity. Into the amazing levels of corruption that exist in our world.
There’s this idea that doing so makes people unbalanced (or attracts unbalanced people in the first place). Looking at conspiracies makes people depressed. Angry. Sad. And I have no doubt that that is true…to some degree and for some people.
There is no doubt I felt those feelings at times. Comes with the territory. There are revolting horrible possibilities.
Yet, I could make a very strong case that most people aren’t willing to dig into the facts of such, as a protection mechanism. Deny it exists so you don’t have to face its terror.
Not me. I felt the trauma of our reality…and I kept moving forward.
I felt the confusion of the mysterious, contradictory and insane possibilities, the ten thousand rabbit holes…and I kept moving forward. As the saying goes, “If you’re going through hell, keep going.”
I felt like I broke my mind at times wrestling with the truth. My sensemaking capacity fractured striving to understand what was really going on. (I still don’t…but I am reasonably comfortable in this place of realizing we’re all delusional about a lot…)
Too few people wrestle with the fact that 97%+ of people would have joined the Nazi’s had they been in Germany at the time. Or at least stepped aside and allowed it to happen.
“Not I” says the naive individual who doesn’t actually reflect on what really went on there, how uncertain things were in the present compared to having hindsight, and how well propaganda really works.
“Yes I” says the person who does the deep, dark self-reflection.
Knowing this now let me set about changing course so I can truly say “Not I”. (Still a work in progress of course…)
And this more so than anything else I believe was why I was in a good mood!
Knowing what really goes on, the depths of the darkness of what occurs in the world, it makes me more resilient. More antifragile.
After all, it could be far worse. I mean come on! Child sex trafficking is a thing. A BIG thing. I have wrestled with conceiving that that could be my daughter. This gives me perspective.
There are more people in slavery today than in anytime in history…and yet we’re arguing about reparations for past slavery. This gives me perspective.
Companies profiting off of the death of people is a thing. In fact, it makes the world go round. And gaining so much profit they can steer laws, science and culture in their favor. This is so pervasive most people can’t see but a tiny fraction of it. This gives me perspective.
So much perspective in fact, that losing my home and just about all my possessions genuinely feels like child’s play in comparison.
No, not just that. My house burning down is a good thing. I needed more genuine personal adversity to forge my soul for the battles ahead.
What is occurring right now in the world and what is coming down the road is much harder…
Face the truth. It might break you. But if it doesn’t you’ll become a better person for it.
That’s my crazy, weird, but seemingly useful perspective anyway.
“According to Nazi ideology, Untermenschen—subhumans, as they were called, a designation that included Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Poles, Slavs, Russian prisoners of war, the handicapped, the mentally ill, and others—were no different from white mice or lab rabbits whose bodies could thereby be experimented on to advance the Reich’s medical goals. ‘The sub-human is a biological creature, crafted by nature,’ according to Heinrich Himmler, ‘which has hands, legs, eyes, and mouth, even the semblance of a brain. Nevertheless, this terrible creature is only a partial human being….Not all of those who appear human an in fact so.’…the Reich had first sterilized and then euthanized nearly its entire population of mentally ill persons, including tens of thousands of children, under the Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring.” – Annie Jacobsen, Operation Paperclip
If you’re not familiar with Operation Paperclip, that is where the USA brought Nazi scientists over to work in the U.S. If you’ve heard of it it’s probably like this, with a lack of much detail. In fact, that’s why I read this book, to fill in the missing facts.
We brought over war criminals, people who by everything they did should have been in the Nuremberg trials, tried and hanged. We brought over scientists and doctors that experimented on human beings, including in ways that killed them from freezing experiments, explosive decompression, mustard gas research, and more. One survivor at Dachau reported how he was used for a seawater drinkability test. This included part of his liver being removed without the use of anesthesia to be analyzed.
We brought over zealot Nazis. We brought over SS officers. We brought over some of Hitler’s inner circle. Some of these scientists, hiding and whitewashing their past, became highly decorated individuals over here.
A big question I have, that I don’t have the answer too, to what degree did Nazi ideology spread and infect people over here? Or did these former Nazis really just abandon their old ways? Which of these seems more likely to you?
When some of these details came to be publicly known, Jacobsen quotes nuclear physicist Hans Bethe, and Dr. Henri Sack who wrote, “Was it wise, or even compatible with our moral standards to make this bargain, in light of the fact that many of the Germans, probably the majority, were die-hard Nazis?…Had the war been fought to allow Nazi ideology to creep into our education and scientific institutions by the back door?…Do we want science at any price?”
It wasn’t just scientists and doctors. We worked with their intelligence officers. That’s right, we gave more power to former Nazis who were great at being duplicitous and keeping secrets.
“A network of former Nazi intelligence agents, the majority of whom were members of the SS, began working…side by side with army intelligence officers,” writes Jacobsen. “According to documents kept classified for fifty-one years, relationships between [Major General and former head of Nazis’ intelligence against the Soviets Reinhard] Gehlen and [US Army Colonel William] Philp declined and became hostile as Philp finally realized the true nature of who he was dealing with. The Gehlan Organization was a murderous bunch, ‘Free-wheeling’ and out of control.”
This is where Operation Bluebird began, which led to Operation Artichoke, followed by MK-Ultra.
Of course, it was all just to better fight the communist Russians. They were going after their scientists too, so we had to play the escalation game.
Our own sociopaths wanted to win no matter the cost. We “needed” to do MK-Ultra. We “needed” to conduct experiments with biological and chemical warfare on our own populations. We “needed” to do much more.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ― Edmund Burke
There were good people that tried to stop Operation Paperclip, but not enough. Small details were leaked out to the press back then. Most of the information only came to light many, many years later. There are STILL classified details regarding many of these Paperclip members.
Yet the people that skirt the rules tend to get their way because the moral people live by those rules.
This is how evil is insidious and spreads over time.
We must understand evil if we want to make changes and that is what this article aims to do.
Culturally, there is a denial that evil even exists. That surely must help those who are evil operators. It’s easier for good men to do nothing if they don’t even perceive evil happening. (This makes me wonder if that idea was up-regulated.)
Or if the attention is misdirected away from the actual evil…
Something I’ve Not Mentioned Publicly Before
This is the second time I’ve opened up a post quoting Nazis. And so I’ll mention this…
My grandfather fought for Germany in WWII.
He wasn’t a Nazi nor SS or anything like that. He was a run-of-the-mill man who fought as an anti-aircraft gunner. He was captured and released after the war. He came over to America in the mid to late 50’s with my mother when she was around six or seven years old.
My grandfather on my father’s side also fought in WWII but for the Americans.
I’ve always thought this was interesting, but beyond these basic details I don’t know much. We didn’t really talk much about our history in my family.
But here’s another twist I did hear about. My grandfather’s grandfather had enough Jewish blood in him that he would have been sent to the camps, but he hid it well.
My grandfather got wrapped up in Nazi propaganda. This, despite his family not being of “pure blood”.
Maybe knowing this happened has helped me to get to this point where I see that we ALL easily get wrapped up in propaganda.
On the Sociopathy Spectrum
I don’t think that sociopathy or empathy are black and white things. Like pretty much everything, it is more useful to think of them on a spectrum where you can have more or less.
I’ve always had a hard time with “feelings”. Over the years I’ve done tons of work to the point where I am fairly balanced. Of course, there are more layers of the onion to be peeled in the future.
And I reflect on that often especially as of late.
I do believe in free will. I also see that we are so affected by circumstances in far more subtle ways that many realize.
And thus, I recognize that had my life happened just slightly differently, it could have completely changed my trajectory.
I was never physically or sexually abused. But if I was…what would I have become?
I had a period in high school where I had a morbid fascination with serial killers. Did I dare to think about actually becoming one?
Sure, some sociopaths may be born that way. Genetics likely plays some role though there is certainly no sociopath gene. (In fact, the whole idea of “gene” is pretty much wrong, but that’s a big topic for another day.)
I think much more so that sociopaths are made.
I think that lack of empathy can be taught. It can be culturally enforced. It can be rewarded.
…Or to put it another way natural empathy can be stomped out.
Personally, I feel like with just a few key events and/or choices I could have gone down a much darker path.
And this grappling with your own possibility of evil is something that not enough people do.
This is a deep, dark shadow (one that many people deny exist). Had I grown up in Germany in the 1920’s and 30’s…there’s a really good chance I would have become a Nazi too.
Jordan Peterson highly recommended the book “Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland“. It’s a fascinating read about how ordinary men were conscripted into doing work…which in time led to slaughtering Jews. It doesn’t excuse this behavior. Far from it. But it explores how ordinary men came to do such a thing. Some fought against it but that’s few and far between. Most took part. Some gleefully.
Maybe I wouldn’t have been a Nazi. Maybe I would have been one of the good guys. But there is certainly a chance I would not.
I recognize that. I sit with that. It gives me two things.
More compassion for those that perpetrate evil things knowing that they’re often victims of evil themselves.
It helps me to understand how evil can and does operate in this world.
Projection
Especially if we’re not aware of our own shadows we project them out onto other people. (I’ve been getting into more shadow work lately.)
They accuse of people of being anti-science when we actually want better science. And now…
I agree that some people are being dicks about it. I do not think spitting on food or getting in people’s faces about masks is warranted. But notice what the broader message is here. Us vs. them.
J. Edgar Hoover wrote, “Yet the individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent.”
He was referring to Communism…and based on what we now know about him and his actions, he was projecting like crazy!
The Predator Class vs The Prey Class
I was thinking about this topic and then, boom, find yet another Daniel Schmachtenberger video discussing it. There’s a reason I like this guy…
I recommend watching the video, but I’ve transcribed most of it below. This is super important and seldom discussed.
*****
“I had a conversation several years ago with one of the most powerful, evil power brokers in the world. Long one-on-one where I was actually surprised at how much he kind of both was inviting me into his world and opening up about it. And the way he framed it, it goes like this. I’ll just do it briefly cause it’s important.
“It’s like, look, humans are animals. Animals are either predators or prey. Predators don’t feel bad when they kill prey. If you feel bad, when the prey humans die, it’s cause you’re a prey human and you won’t run the world and the apex predator will run the world. They will be the thing that determines the shape of an overall ecosystem.
“And whether you like what apex predators do or not, doesn’t determine, it doesn’t matter at all to the fact that apex predators will be the ones who run the world. So the only question is whether you have what it takes to make it into that group or not.
“And so that’s the inexorable argument, right? Power in the form of predatory power is inexorable. Can’t do anything about it. It’s always going to win. Well, if that’s the case and I can’t effectively fight against it, that justbinds all kinds of moral possibilities as just stupid and naive.
“So then the next part was power as virtue. Which he said, and it’s actually good that the apex predators are the ones who run the world because they’re the ones who are steely-eyed and real and grounded enough to understand how shit works. And the world is actually kind of brutal and people who just don’t get how it fucking works can’t guide stuff. They’ll make it worse. Sometimes you got to put a head on a spike in the yard to keep everybody else from being assholes. And so it goes from power as inexorable to power as virtue, and then some people stop there.
“And then the last step is feeling good about exercising your own power over because it says you are a part of that class, which becomes power as fetish, which is the movement from sociopathy to sadism. When you actually fantasize, fetishize the exercising of it.
“Now of course, everything he was saying was utter gibberish. And it’s important to know that. And I didn’t bring it up with him because I knew that wasn’t relevant in that moment. I was basically getting more information. Like blue whale is neither predator nor pray in a traditional sense. Neither is an elephant. The apex predator is lower on the food chain than a virus or a parasite or a mosquito in many ways. You’re pretending that there’s this thing that isn’t really there. And you are not acknowledging that the arms race that has always won, self terminates pretty soon, because when you externalization and war, it actually destroys everything. And so basically, it’s gibberish, but it’s compelling enough gibberish that if you kind of want to do it anyways, it’s plausible deniability.”
*****
Power as inexorable. (In other words, inevitable, impossible to stop.)
Power as virtue. (In other words, moral excellence, that is literally inverting what most would say is moral.)
Power as fetish. (In other words, an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion.)
Welcome to the evil worldview!
These are some ways that a significant portion of people see the world. I found this very powerful because of the layer of values that some sociopaths can operate from.
It helps me to understand a “world perception” that could drive the behavior we see playing out in the world, in corrupt institutions.
No One Thinks They’re Evil
I don’t really remember the movie all that much, but this quote stood out for me. I remember it now despite watching the movie once probably twenty years ago.
“No matter what you do, no matter how awful, no-one ever thinks that they’re a bad person.” – Matt Damon in The Talented Mr. Ripley
There is always rationalization for everything that is done.
…Therefore rationality can NOT be our ultimate guide.
Here is how rationalization can work. Power is the only game in town so might as well play it. Well, since the game is power the person who is best at it is the best most virtuous person. Since it’s all about power let’s do things just for the sake of power.
The Russians will get advanced Nazi science and technology and kill us Americans, so we need to get them instead, despite whatever they did in the past. We need to spend tons of money on biological, chemical and nuclear warfare in preparation.
Black men wouldn’t go in for syphilis treatment anyway therefore we’ll study the course of the disease and never treat them. What science gains from actually blocking these men from being treated, because our assumption was racist and wrong, will be worth it. (Tuskegee)
Our drugs our saving people’s lives. Never mind that we statistically manipulated data to get them approved or sell them for non-approved uses, bribing doctors to do so. On the whole, we’re helping people more than we’re harming them.
Yes, we can always find a rational reason to explain away doing evil.
That doesn’t mean it isn’t evil.
So with this in mind let’s look at one of the biggest boogeymen right now.
Amoral George Soros
Is George Soros behind Antifa through his Open Societies Foundation? Is he sending stacks of bricks at protest sites to incite violent riots? Is he funding Black Lives Matter as a part of a color revolution?
I don’t know! The little I’ve seen suggests the possibility, but I have yet to come across hard proof and I’m doing my best not to leap to conclusions, recognizing that much of this could very-well be propaganda.
I have not dug deeply into this man. But here is what I know. This interview alone speaks enough to me about the morality of this man. I’d recommend watching the video, but I’ll pull quotes from it below.
“In the last two years you’ve been blamed for financial collapse Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan and Russia,” says journalist Steve Kroft.
“All of the above,” replies Soros with a smirk and a bit of a laugh. (Notice the body language as he talks about some devastating things.) “I am basically there to make money. I cannot and do not look at the social consequences of what I do.”
Later he says, “I don’t feel guilty because I’m engaged in an amoral activity which is not meant to have anything to do with guilt.”
In other words, I won’t admit to there being morality involved. The money part is amoral. What that in turn causes does not matter. Therefore, I am not guilty because there are no morals involved with which to be guilty. Big rationalizations!
“Whatever his motivations, no one can accuse him of greed. He’s backed away from the day to day operations of his businesses and is giving away his billions now with the same determination he made them in places like Haiti, a country that has less money in the bank than he does.”
Here comes the widespread belief that philanthropy automatically makes you a good person. See Robber Baron Philanthropists for more. Don’t forget, Jeffrey Epstein was trying to rebrand himself as a philanthropist. (Did you see the news, they finally arrested Ghislaine Maxwell!)
That’s one of the problems inherent in making money into your God or even close to it. Then if people are giving away so much of it they MUST be good, right? If money is god then those that give away are godly.
Kroft mentions this, “Like Carnegie, JP Morgan and the Rockefellers he amassed billions through ruthless business decisions only to turn around and give away most of his fortune to advance his own personal philosophy.”
Is this what a moral person does? Thankfully, there is a movement today called by many names such as conscious capitalism, evolved enterprise, etc. People are beginning to recognize that the “robber baron” your way to the top, only to about-face later on, is not an ideal way to go. It’s not a moral way to go.
But notice that last line. To advance his own personal philosophy. What if you disagree in part or in whole with that philosophy? Is it a moral philosophy? Or is it an amoral philosophy?
Back to Nazi’s, we see that Soros was a Hungarian Jew that posed as a Christian. He was able to avoid arrest, meanwhile he or his father was involved in confiscating property from other Jews.
When asked about this, he replies, “There was no sense that I shouldn’t be there…Well, actually in a funny way it’s just like in markets. If I weren’t there, if I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would be taking it away anyhow. Whether I was there or not, the property was being taken away. So I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.”
The game of power is there. I might as well be good at it. I’m not guilty because power is a virtue. If not me, then simply someone else. This is a cop out to say that someone else would be doing it anyway.
Amorality = Immorality
I’ve been talking about these words, so let’s make sure we’re clear.
Morality = The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
Amorality = Lack or absence of morality
Immorality = The character of being immoral; transgression of the moral law; immoral thought or action; wickedness; dissoluteness; licentiousness.
Kroft says, “At the center of George Soros there’s an inherent contradiction…On one hand you’re the capitalist who does not care about the social consequences of his act. And on the other hand you’re a philanthropist who only cares about the social consequences. How do you resolve the two?”
“Recognizing that as a competitor I’ve got to compete to win. As a human being, I am concerned about the society in which I live,” replies Soros. “It’s one person at one time who engages in amoral activities, and the rest of the time tries to be moral.”
Is there such a thing as amoral activities? He’s talking about playing the markets. Sure, for you or me to play in the markets there isn’t really an outcome outside of what happens for with the money. There is no inherent morality in such. When you get to the economy-crashing-scale you cannot claim it’s amoral. It has very real impacts on people and the world. Again, saying it is amoral is a cop out.
Notice his language too. One person who engages in amoral activities and the rest of the time TRIES to be moral.
If you’re saying your decisions are amoral, like playing the markets, then they are not guided by morals. They are guided by making money. If the desire is to win at the money game, then morality will be trampled upon in doing so simply because these are sometimes competing aims. Therefore, amorality leads to immorality.
Rest assured; I’m not saying you have to believe in God to have morality. There are atheists such as Sam Harris that are trying to figure out a way to establish morality. There’s been humanism for quite some time. So I’m not saying we all have to agree to a certain belief structure.
But can we all agree that we do need morality? And that the “Golden Rule” tends to be a good place to start?
With atheism and materialism tends to become a belief in the universe and life just being random. (I say this as someone who previously believed in these things or as I think of it now, bought the propaganda.) If it is random then there is no meaning beyond the meaning we give things. If there is no meaning then there is no right or wrong, no good and evil.
Steve Kroft asks if he believes if Soros is religious or believes in God. “No.” Kroft says “Soros told us he believes God was created by man and not the other way around. Which may be why he believes he can smooth out the world’s imperfections.”
Messianic. Messiah. Do you desire to have this man leading the way into the future?
Do you trust he is using his power (in the form of money and influence) for moral purposes that align with your own?
Is it possible that he is manipulating peoples and governments the same way he manipulated markets while thinking it’s just an amoral activity?
Once again, to deny that evil exists, we’re pushing it into the collective shadow, which allows it to flourish all the better.
Let’s equate sociopathy with amorality. You don’t feel empathy. You don’t have a conscience. If you establish power as your virtue, then you’ll engage in what others see as immorality to get there. That’s your guiding north star.
I cannot tell you that 100% for sure that Soros is one of these people. I’m not trying to force beliefs on you. But based on this interview alone I do NOT think he is a good person and I am troubled by what I see.
A Hilarious Aside
Also quoted in this interview is Jim Grant, editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer and Wall Street Analysis.
First a serious quote. “This man is a carnivore of the first order.”
Carnivore of the first order would be equivalent to apex predator going back to what Schmachtenberger said.
But here’s the golden quote…
“George Soros, in a way, is Donald Trump without the humility.”
Wow! Very funny given Trump’s position today. That quote aged well (or not so well depending on your perspective)!
Smart Criminals Make The Laws
Look, I get that George Soros is used as a boogeyman for conservatives. That there are lies spouted about him in order to push right-wing agendas. I’m not denying that that has taken place because, after all, others are playing the same power game too.
Wading through the muddied waters and getting to the bottom of the swamp is extremely tough to do.
There are predator class billionaires on both sides of the aisle. The Koch brothers would be the equivalent boogeyman for the left who peddled influence in much the same way.
Remember in a previous video, Schmachtenberger said, “I don’t find that most successful politicians that I’ve encountered near the top of the power actually believe red vs. blue ideology. They just believe in the game of power and signal red vs. blue ideology as part of their mimetic warfare to control people that are going to vote for them.”
And while billionaires certainly have their leanings, they tend to fund both parties because they understand what that gets them.
Think about that for a moment. Really give it some thought. We see it play out in spades. That’s what lobbyists are all about! That’s what regulatory capture and the revolving door accomplishes.
What about when you play the international game where you can use the laws of different countries to your advantage? (In the 60 Minutes interview, it shows how Soros operates in low tax and regulation countries specifically, while saying there should be more regulations! He’s just playing the game to win.)
As of the start of this month, Soros has a $8.3 billion net worth, with his Open Society Foundations having been given $18 billion in 2018, with current assets of $8.4 billion.
That’s a lot of money that can affect a lot of change. I’m not saying we should automatically assume anything.
But given what I know about apex predators, sociopathy, and the widespread corruption going on in our world, I am extremely suspect. I think this interview alone speaks volumes about this man.
Bill Gates is another messianic billionaire who doesn’t believe in God and made his way to the top by ruthless (amoral/immoral) business practices.
Do you automatically trust that he is being truly moral now? Does his personal philosophy that he is propagating through philanthropy match up with yours? Not for me.
Nazi Medicine
We brought Nazi doctors over here that conducted human experiments.
IG Farben was a chemical and pharmaceutical company where some of these doctors worked. They relied on slave labor from the concentration camps and produced Zyklon B used in the gas chambers.
After the war some of the executives were convicted, but many were not. The company was broken up into what today are Bayer, BASF, Sanofi and Agfa.
I still have a lot more digging to do into these companies and their literal Nazi past.
Yet I already know of some clear examples of “medical sociopathy” such as Bayer’s selling of HIV infected blood products for which they paid tens of millions of dollars. Of course, “the company accepts no responsibility” and “continues to insist it has always acted responsibly and ethically.”
Just like Monsanto, which is now owned by Bayer. They’re paying out $10.9 billion for Roundup causing cancer. CEO Werner Baumann says “the Roundup settlement is the right action at the right time for Bayer to bring a long period of uncertainty to an end.” They deny any responsibility and even the cancer link.
Why do I bring these up?
How much of our medical system is infected by sociopathic and evil ideas? Because we need to see this to look at today’s events. It’s not just careless indifference in the chasing of money. That’s a part of it, but it doesn’t explain everything.
No, many times actions are taken that are willfully killing people. So I want to talk about that in relation to a few things going on.
Medical Malpractice Deaths
“They’re not dying of COVID. Yes people are going to die of COVID, I know this, I’m not like a new grad student. I am literally saying they’re murdering these people.” This comes from an ICU nurse, Nicole Sirotek, that was working on the frontlines.
“What I need is someone to help me save these people from being killed from gross negligence and medical mismanagement and no-one is listening to me.”
And on topic for this post, “It’s like if we were in Nazi Germany and they were taking the Jews to a gas chamber and I’m the one saying, ‘Hey that’s not okay. This is wrong.’ And then everyone tells me, ‘Hang in there. You’re doing a great job. You can’t save everybody.’…I’m pretty sure when you defibrillate someone with a heart rate of 40 and a stable rhythm that’s murder…And I’m pretty sure when you put someone’s PEEP (Positive End Expiratory Pressure on a ventilator) up to 25 and PEEP doesn’t go past like 15 or 20 and you blow someone’s lungs out and they die – that’s murder.”
That population is those living in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. And 42% could be undercounted. “States like New York exclude from their nursing home death tallies those who die in a hospital, even if they were originally infected in a long-term care facility.”
States like New York, New Jersey, California and Michigan ordered active COVID19 patients to go to nursing homes after discharge from hospital. Governor Cuomo said “They don’t have a right to object. That is the rule and that is the regulation and they have to comply with that.” Weeks later after thousands of deaths that order was partially rescinded.
Was this just a bad call, relying on some bureaucratic rule?
Or was there actual mal-intent? I do not know the answer, but I agree it needs investigation.
And now thousands of nursing home residents are simply being evicted. NY Times reports, “According to three Lakeview [nursing home] employees, [an 88 year old man with dementia eviction] came as the nursing home was telling staff members to try to clear out less-profitable residents to make room for a new class of customers who would generate more revenue: patients with Covid-19.”
Hydroxychloroquine Update
I covered the controversial drug Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in my Science as Propaganda post. Go back and read it if you’ve haven’t.
To recap, doctors and scientists the world over are saying this dirt cheap existing drug works, especially when combined with zinc and the antibiotic, Azithromycin. But some scientific studies are saying that it doesn’t work and may even be deadly. The data for one such study, published in the Lancet, was completely made up, literally pulling data out of thin air. Damage was done even though less than two weeks later this paper was retracted.
As science goes more research is being done. There is good, legitimate research. And then there is agenda-driven research. Here’s some new data I didn’t cover before on the latter.
On June 15th, the FDA revoked emergency use authorization of HCQ and CQ. “FDA has concluded that, based on this new information and other information discussed in the attached memorandum, it is no longer reasonable to believe that oral formulations of HCQ and CQ may be effective in treating COVID-19, nor is it reasonable to believe that the known and potential benefits of these products outweigh their known and potential risks.”
So let’s look at some of the agenda driven science.
The problem is that these trials are using excessive, deadly doses. The WHO’s own information shows this. A 1979 paper by consultant H. Weniger mentions that 1.5 to 2 grams of HCQ may be fatal. Around this amount is what is being used, the Recovery trial specifically 2.4 grams in the first day.
Meryl Nass, MD says “Excessive, dangerous HCQ dosing continues to be used in WHO’s Solidarity trials. These trials are not, in fact, testing the benefits of HCQ on Covid-19, but rather are testing whether patients survive toxic, non-therapeutic doses.” If you want more detail see this article here.
Only when this information was repeatedly pointed out was the HCQ arm of the trial stopped. They did it without announcing this information.
So let’s think about this for a second. Do you think these were honest mistakes? It was just an accident to use massive doses of a drug that has been widely used for decades safely at lower doses out of the blue?
Or do you think that they set out to prove the HCQ did not work, so that Gilead could make money off of Remdesivir now, and that a vaccine later on becomes the savior?
As you might expect by this point, the Gates Foundation is implicated in this research, along with the Wellcome Trust for funding the Recovery trial. As for the WHO trial, well Gates is now the #1 financial backer of the WHO.
Understand what this means:
They were not only ALLOWING people to die from COVID19 due to poorly treated them.
But they were in fact KILLING people by purposefully overdosing them on drugs all to prove this drug doesn’t work so that their agendas move forward.
The CDC bought 7 million doses directly from manufacturers (you did know they’re the biggest customer of the vaccine companies they regulate, right?) spending $100 million to do so. This is fourteen times the normal 500,000 doses they normally buy.
IG Farben offspring Sanofi is one flu vaccine provider. The industry is producing 189 million doses total, up from 170 million last year.
The reasoning is interesting. “Getting a flu shot does not protect against the coronavirus, but disease experts said reducing episodes of flu could prove pivotal in freeing up space in hospitals and medical offices to deal with covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus.”…because all the hospitals were so heavily overloaded previously, right?
And did you know, as the Guardian reports, that “Higher influenza vaccination rates could help prevent a future pandemic by exposing new viruses like Covid-19, which was probably circulating much earlier than December 2019 but was mistaken for flu, an expert has said.”
They want you to read that you should get your flu vaccine. I read that this thing was with us well before March 2020 and therefore all this shutdown continuation and masking up is nonsense.
“Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus; however, significant protection with vaccination was associated not only with most influenza viruses, but also parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections.”
The data is from 2017-2018 so does not involve SARS-CoV2 but other types of coronaviruses. The fact-checkers want to dismiss this of course. The funny thing is they don’t actually address the data in the study head on…because they can’t. But if they were honest, it would be cause for concern and more study, rather than blanket denial.
What if the flu vaccine DOES increase susceptibility to coronaviruses including SARS-CoV2?
Then ramping up production, suggesting and mandating that people get it would cause even more harm.
If we understand evil, that some powerful people not only don’t care if you die, but might actually enjoy the fact, we have to consider this possibility. What would this accomplish? Three things:
Sales of flu vaccine right now for profit.
Expanding mandates for flu vaccine now for more control.
If more people die of COVID later on during flu season, more fear, more restictions, more mandates are all forthcoming.
And back in March, Deputy chief medical officer for England said that people who get the flu shot are in the high risk group and should isolate for 12 weeks to avoid the coronavirus.
Hanlon’s razor states, “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
Look, I know most people are not in on these evil schemes. I attribute most of it to stupidity. (Or sometimes better explained as people being under the influence of propaganda and not realizing it.)
But how many coincidence’s until we get to the point of realizing there IS MALICE involved? At some high powered levels?
At what point does Occum’s razor take over, you know as the simpler explanation?
Hydroxychloroquine, for sure. Some know. Some are intentionally killing people.
The other stuff, maybe, just maybe it’s a bunch of coincidences.
You really have to see the wider picture to get that there is evil going on. Any single example can be denied, explained away. But the pattern over time cannot.
There is evil in the world.
It exists (though the exact nature of it is a whole different, even bigger topic)
It is more widespread than most realize
It is insidious, meaning subtle and expanding over time
It crawls up hierarchies and then dominates them
And if we don’t understand how it operates, we have no chance of stopping it. If all it takes is for good people to say nothing, to do nothing, then evil thrives.
There is very little chance of this happening if we don’t face our personal shadows. If we don’t look into ourselves and see how the possibility (and hopefully only the possibility!) of evil exists.
With more men and women doing that, we’ll be equipped to facing the collective shadow of evil.
I’ve made some predictions over the course of the pandemic. This post is a bit shorter than the rest, but I wanted to circle back to some of those things and project further out.
The Second Wave is Upon Us
The second wave is upon us. (Or some people say it’s the same wave.) Whatever we call it, we see cases rising as places begin to open back up.
But can we just take this at face value? Of course not.
The experts were saying that a second wave is coming. And the experts are always right, right? Well if you recognize there is a well-oiled propaganda machine in play, then yes you can believe them in a roundabout way because they’re telling you where we are going.
They’ll make sure to use whatever tricks are up their sleeves to spawn a second wave because it advances their agendas.
This video shows why psyops have become a part of how we live. This really builds on the idea of propaganda and mimetic warfare and what that has led to collectively. Some other interesting bits here include the idea of cultural monocropping and how this plays into polarization.
I highly recommend watching this. I’ve gone through it three times.
Anyway, increased testing makes the virus case numbers go up.
What’s worse is that a significant portion (maybe even majority?) of the new cases are actually old cases.
No surprise, the CDC is up to shenanigans again. The CDC is combining results from PCR and antibody tests. (We’ll leave aside the accuracy problems of these tests for now.) PCR test would show active viral load. Antibodies would show past infection.
Thus many “new cases” are actually old cases.
For example, back in February my wife had some weird skin issue going on with her toes. We were stumped. Later on we found out about “Covid Toes”. Aha! That’s it.
My wife has not been tested for SARS-CoV-2 at all. But were she to get an antibody test now, she’d likely have them. And according to the CDC’s rules, she’s a new case. Danger!
How soon until they just stop counting cases cause everyone knows there’s an epidemic going on? (Lest you think I’m joking, the CDC did that before with the Swine Flu.)
To be fair, there does appear to be rising hospitalizations in certain areas. What impact has the financial and emotional stress, the lock down, the lowered immunity having on this, I can’t say for sure.
Earlier on during the lockdown my guess was that we would be in some sort of lockdown, opening and closing, until the vaccine was rolled out.
According to the data this is somewhere around the equivalent of the seasonal flu. Maybe a little bit worse. Moving forward, because we already do have a flu vaccine and that still kills many people, should we continue to have stay-at-home orders always? Should we wear masks forever more?
Here in California, in addition to the mask order, Governor Newsom said, “We have the capacity and ability to toggle back in terms of the stay-at-home order.”
I read that as saying we WILL be toggling back in terms of the stay-at-home order.
What is Phase 3?
Back in Battleground for Your Mind I wondered what was Phase 3? If phase 1 was the coronavirus and phase 2 is the protests and riots, what is phase 3?
I have a guess now.
It may be when the news starts covering the economic destruction that has occurred.
The media is a reinforcing feedback loop. News on the subject will stir up panic…making us feel the squeeze of the economy much more, which allows the media to give it more coverage.
I saw this image the other day.
I can’t really comment on the order of the dominoes. Not something I’ve studied up on. But I do know there are systematic impacts where one thing leads to the next. The worse the economy gets the worse the economy gets.
Many people equate the stock market to the economy. Due to the Fed printing money and buying up corporate debt it is being artificially inflated like crazy. This gives people hope but doesn’t impact the real economy like with small businesses.
The media giving coverage to this will be like throwing gas on the fire. I mean just look at how protests became worldwide so quickly.
Based on the majority of media having a liberal bias, my guess is that this will not happen in the next month or two. The media will cover it maybe late August or September. One of Donald Trump’s big wins for his tenure has been the economy, so making that much worse right before the election leads to a greater chance of him being voted out.
I’m not saying that there might not be some other big things going on before then, but this is my guess.
What’s Going on with Digital Currencies?
I haven’t covered this subject in a long time. But I have seen some interesting updates going on.
These point to methods by which cryptocurrencies could actually be regularly used. Adoption is the main hurdle that hasn’t yet been overcome. There will be a tipping point and then at a certain point it will become ubiquitous. (Remember it was only 2007 when the iPhone came out. Now smart phones are ubiquitous to the point where there is hardly any other option.)
This shows the biggest institutions are behind blockchain technology. That it indeed will become adopted with this level of institutional authority behind it.
As previously mentioned, the dollar is going to go away or change in a big way (aka Digital Dollar). No clue when it’ll happen, except within the next ten years or so, but it is almost guaranteed.
I am bullish on cryptocurrencies long term. However, I believe that there will be another crash, like when lockdowns get strict again and/or the media starts covering economic damage. Buy that dip, just like the previous one, might be an ideal to shoot for. (NOT FINANCIAL ADVICE!)
Forward Momentum on Vaccines
My guess is that there will not be a nationwide mandate of the vaccine. It just doesn’t seem like that could fly here in the USA. It will be more step by step in restricting you from activities if you don’t have the vaccine.
For instance, University of Tennessee says you have to get flu shots and the coronavirus when it’s available. This is an emergency rule, but they plan to make it permanent.
Chief Medical Officer of Australia, Brendan Murphy says he expects their border’s to be closed until there’s a vaccine.
Education and travel are two places we’ll see these restrictions for sure. Healthcare facilities too of course. There’s a fair chance some states such as California and New York could make it mandatory statewide.
But then I saw this…
Last week we discussed masks and how the messaging for these is pretty much exactly the same as the messaging around vaccines.
A warning of what’s to come if he’s elected? Maybe the agenda will move fast and strong.
Next week we dive into attempting to better understand sociopathy and evil. I do not think we can make sense of what is going on without being aware of this.
Someone I consider a mentor recently said that “90% of science is marketing”. I thought that was well put and I’d like to extend the idea further. Much of science is propaganda and nothing more. That’s the topic we’re exploring today.
A big part is by utilizing the ALMIGHTY AUTHORITY of science. This is how science is used for good or ill.
But not all science is true!
In fact, “it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true” as was found by Ioannidas.
Think like the enemy…
If you are a propagandist, then there are few things more worthwhile than shrouding your propaganda in scientific clothing.
Can you get something published even if it is straight up lies, as long as it serves your agenda?
With that seed, then just tap into the media marketing machine. Few people are scientifically literate (especially if you use complex modeling) so you’ll be able to slip it by the vast majority of people.
Even those that are scientifically literate, everyone is busy, so who will have time to dig deep into every study?
Just look at how many layers you need to go through to understand the “truth”. As we move down the list we see less understanding, more propaganda.
Do you read and understand the whole paper?
Do you look at just the abstract?
Do you only read a news article or TV story about the science?
Do you only see a headline from such news about the science?
Do you only hear second-hand the above as the “science” spreads socially?
This science is then what government policies are based on, which in turn impact the public. (How many government officials fall into the same steps above? How many politicians are scientifically literate?)
So let’s look at a few examples of how this plays out:
Remdesivir vs. Hydroxychloroquine
Asymptomatic Transmission
Face Masks
First up, two issues from my Medical Monopoly series.
Medical Monopoly Musings #44 Remdesivir – Poor Science and Conflicts of Interest
Remdesivir is an intravenous anti-viral drug being used for the novel coronavirus. It is produced by Gilead Sciences.
With the novel coronavirus, the drugs companies have been rushing to cash in (*ahem* save lives).
The NIAID study showed that those patients with COVID19 taking remdesivir improved in recovery time and discharge from the hospital, down from 15 days to 11 days. However, the survival difference between remdesivir patients and placebo control was not statistically significant (8% vs. 11.6%).
(Meanwhile, a Chinese study published earlier at the end of April did not find any statistically significant clinical improvement. Here 14% of remdesivir patients died while 13% on placebo did, though again, not statistically significant.)
Christopher Roland of the Washington Post wrote, “Fauci said the results were modest. But, lacking any other treatments, he proclaimed the drug the “standard of care” for hospitalized coronavirus patients. Full results of the trial have not been released, and many questions about the drug’s effectiveness remain unanswered.”
Over three weeks later, on May 22nd, the full study and data was finally released. Turns out the results for faster recovery time were only for a sub-group, those also receiving supplementary oxygen. Furthermore, they also changed the primary outcome during the trial from number of deaths to recovery time while the trials were ongoing (though those who changed it said they didn’t have access to the data).
The study concludes, “These preliminary findings support the use of remdesivir for patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19 and require supplemental oxygen therapy. However, given high mortality despite the use of remdesivir, it is clear that treatment with an antiviral drug alone is not likely to be sufficient.”
So at best the drug has a modest effect. At worst, it has some negative side effects that was dropping people out of the trials. But wait, there’s more…
As I’ve established over the course of this series is that conflicts of interest are often at the root of controversies of the medical monopoly. Here is no different.
Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson said, “When it comes to money, we checked financial ties among experts on the government panel devising coronavirus treatment guidelines— which had the effect of dialing back hydroxychloroquine use and giving an edge to remdesivir. We found that of 11 members reporting links to a drug company, nine of them named relationships to remdesivir’s maker Gilead. Seven more, including two of the committee’s leaders, have ties to Gilead beyond the 11 months they had to disclose. Two were on Gilead’s advisory board. Others were paid consultants or received research support and honoraria.”
To give perspective on how conflicts of interest work on government panels we can look at the criminal case of Vioxx and similar drugs. The FDA’s 2005 advisory board had 32 advisors, ten of which had conflicts of interest with the drugs’ maker Merck. The board voted to keep these dangerous drugs on the market, but had these conflicted members not been involved, the vote would have gone the other way. Eight of these ten said that their ties did not alter their votes. (At least two were honest about it!)
Next time, we’ll turn to the even more controversial hydroxychloroquine, which is off patent and very cheap in comparison. Never has science become so politicized with a media barrage involved…
Medical Monopoly Musings #45 Hydroxychloroquine – Poor Science and Conflicts of Interest
Last time we covered the drug Remdesivir for COVID-19 and how this was bound to conflicts of interest with the drug’s maker Gilead in the approving committee, as well as some questionable science on whether it worked. Now we turn to hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which was notably promoted by President Trump.
In this case, we’ll cover the drug in the same way as the previous one, looking at science and conflicts of interest.
The crazy thing is it is not possible to have this conversation in a balanced way anymore as politics is more polarized than ever. Personally, I am critical of lots of Trump’s actions and words, but unlike many, I am not blinded by 100% hatred for the man. There are some things he does and says that I do agree with.
Trump was not the first one to talk about HCQ. This was recommended by scientists across the world first and foremost by French Dr. Didier Raoult who said, “We know how to cure the disease.”
One study touted by the media in the USA was done at the VA showed that more people died when taking HCQ. But there were flaws in this study. As a retrospective study, it wasn’t randomized. More importantly sicker patients were put into the treatment group, which would then make sense as to why they died more.
An influential study was published in the Lancet showing HCQ increased mortality which seemed to be the death-knell for this drug, so much so that the WHO paused its other ongoing trials of the drug (which were later resumed). This led many to claim that Trump’s disinformation was killing people!
Yet, this study was later retracted when the company behind the data, Surgisphere, wouldn’t share said data. They were behind another NJEM paper that got retracted for the same reason, though this one looked at ACE inhibitors, not HCQ.
Looking deeper, these are the only studies this company’s data has been used for. According to LinkedIn they only had five employees. Checking at the time of writing this, the number has gone down to two. Prior to February of this year the company only had one employee, the founder Dr. Desai, who has had malpractice suits against him.
There is much more controversy behind this company and its founder which you can find in the references. In other words, Surgisphere appears to be a shell company whose sole aims appeared to be to make HCQ look bad. So who was behind it?
One thing we find is that the Lancet paper’s lead author, Dr. Mandeep Mehra has a long list of drug and medical company conflicts. He has “personal fees from Abbott, Medtronic, Janssen, Mesoblast, Portola, Bayer, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, NupulseCV, FineHeart, Leviticus, Roivant, and Triple Gene.” This study was “supported” by Brigham and Women’s Hospital where they’re also doing Remdesivir studies with over 1,000 patients, for which they’re receiving funding from Gilead.
Yes, there are still more studies that show no benefit. Many of these don’t use zinc which is said to open the cellular pathway to allow HCQ into the cells to work. Dr. Anthony Cardillo said “[HCQ] really only works in conjunction with zinc. Every patient I have prescribed it to has been very, very ill and within eight to twelve hours they were basically symptom-free and so clinically I am seeing a resolution.”
Importantly, there are many studies that DO show benefit with little to no risk. A public Google document titled, “Sequential CQ / HCQ Research Papers and Reports January to April 20, 2020: Executive Summary Interpretation of the Data In This Report” shows more than 20 trials from across the world. They state, “The HCQ-AZ combination [an antibiotic also used in combination], when started immediately after diagnosis, appears to be a safe and efficient treatment for COVID-19, with a mortality rate of 0.5%, in elderly patients. It avoids worsening and clears virus persistence and contagious infectivity in most cases.” Doctors across the world are saying it does work.
What about Trump’s conflict of interest for HCQ? A big hubbub was made of this. New York Times reported, “Mr. Trump himself has a small personal financial interest in Sanofi, the French drugmaker that makes Plaquenil, the brand-name version of hydroxychloroquine…As of last year, Mr. Trump reported that his three family trusts each had investments in a Dodge & Cox mutual fund, whose largest holding was in Sanofi.”
Mutual funds own lots of stocks. For this reason mutual funds are exempt from conflict of interest laws (not that that makes it impossible for them to be a problem). Yet his stake in Sanofi is no more than $1,500. More importantly, HCQ is off-patent. While Sanofi makes it, so do many other companies. And its dirt cheap, especially compared to the new patented Remdesivir.
Meanwhile all of the New York Times articles I’ve seen have been silent regarding the conflicts of interest behind the approval of Remdesivir.
This is how “science” is done in our modern world. While most of the time bad science hides in the shadows, this is one of the most blatant examples I’ve seen! Too bad our news cycle has moved on, so the people aren’t thinking about this anymore. Few and far between will hear this story. Remdesivir is still the standard of care being promoted.
What is the drug that will save us? Notice how the entire scientific, political, and medical conversation is on this drug, that drug, or the vaccines. Notice how nothing is mentioned about ANY of the important aspects of health. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be doing drug trials and find those that can help. That’s all well and good, but if it really were about health and saving people we’d be talking about much else.
There are plenty of trials showing common nutrients are working for this disease; zinc, vitamin C, vitamin D, phytonutrients, etc. Even Google is censoring those topics as the CEO of YouTube said they will “remove information that is problematic, including anything that is medically unsubstantiated, such as take vitamin C, take turmeric. Anything that would go against WHO guidelines, we will be taking those down.”
Notice the Agendas Going On Here…
The agenda is clear from the beginning. Make drug companies money! That is a constant agenda.
A secondary agenda is that we need a therapy now, but it can’t be too good, because the only true savior is the upcoming vaccine, which goes back to the first agenda.
Notice what is missing from the agenda. Saving lives! Understand that to some sociopaths money absolutely comes over lives…
So when scientists first, and President Trump later, start talking about a cheap and effective drug, that must be clamped down on.
How do we do so? By publishing science showing what is effective and what is not. By showing what is safe and what is dangerous. It doesn’t matter if we have to go so far as to completely make up data to do so, if we get a paper out, the propaganda machine can crank it into high-gear.
The damage is done! No matter the paper gets retracted later or studies are critically flawed. We don’t need to mention it. We’ll just tuck that away into the small corners of the internet. After all, riots are going on so there’s no time to cover it on our news program.
Notice that the big authority paper the New York Times trumps up (pun intended) a very tenuous conflict of interest for Trump and HCQ. But they fail to mention the significantly large conflicts of interest with Gilead and remdesivir.
I only found out about such conflicts because of following investigator Sharyl Attkisson. (She used to work for CBS News but went independent because of the censorship and conflicts of interest that were occurring there. This award winning journalist is now labeled a right-wing conspiracy theorist by her detractors.)
This is Scientism
I first encountered these problems reading Rupert Sheldrake’s book, Science Set Free. He writes, “I have spent all my adult life as a scientist, and I strongly believe in the importance of the scientific approach. Yet I have become increasingly convinced that the sciences have lost much of their vigor, vitality and curiosity. Dogmatic ideology, fear-based conformity and institutional inertia are inhibiting creativity.”
I like science too. It’s great…when it’s done properly. But it has massive flaws, nor is it the only way of seeing the world.
What is called the Science Worshiper’s Method here is not just used by lay people. Unfortunately, scientists themselves fall into this category, especially those with conflicts of interest.
I dug more deeply into this topic as I wrote Powered By Nature as they idea underpins our moving away from nature.
“Science has in many ways become a new religion. “Scientism” is described as the excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques. Like many religions, there’s even the promise of an ideal future, a kingdom of science, when our technology makes us immortal and god-like. Also apparent is an arrogance that comes with the belief that it’s just a matter of time until science proves that its own viewpoint is correct. Just as in the corrupt Catholic Church of years past, the scientific community embraces a self-preserving quality for the way things are done. The establishment reaps benefits in keeping things the way they are. And thus, things that threaten it will be put down in a number of ways.”
Sure, science corrects itself sometimes. But it can take a hundred years or more for a “holy” theory to be overthrown. We do not have the kind of time available…
Science is Real Fake!
Our appeal to scientific authority is really, really broken because science can and has been gamed.
You only have to go back to “Tobacco Science” to understand how the scientific game is used.
Yes, science tends to work pretty much perfectly in physics, engineering and chemistry. Once you move outside of these hard science fields where things either work or don’t work, things begin to get more slippery.
If you don’t think that huge corporations have gotten even BETTER at gaming the scientific system you’re falling prey to some of the best propaganda around.
I’ve spent a lot of time on PubMed, a database of science and medicine. I’ve read countless breakdowns of all the ways that science can be flawed both intentionally and not. (At some point I’d like to compile a list of all the ways.)
You can literally find science to back up just about anything you want to believe these days. That makes saying “Science is Real” meaningless.
More often than not, it’s not about hiding away information but instead using such an overabundance of it to confuse and muddy the waters. This is “censorship through noise”…and then let us authority figures filter the noise for you.
The science can be completely hollow…and the desired effect still achieved.
A NEJM article reviewing how it happened said this, “In conclusion, we found that a five-sentence letter published in the Journal in 1980 was heavily and uncritically cited as evidence that addiction was rare with long-term opioid therapy. We believe that this citation pattern contributed to the North American opioid crisis by helping to shape a narrative that allayed prescribers’ concerns about the risk of addiction associated with long-term opioid therapy. In 2007, the manufacturer of OxyContin and three senior executives pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges that they misled regulators, doctors, and patients about the risk of addiction associated with the drug.” (emphasis added)
In this case the “hollow science” was cited 608 times over the following years, the majority of which using it as evidence of their low addiction rate.
That’s right. Scientists and doctors were part of the propaganda machine.
I’ve come to the conclusion that it is best to assume some level of conspiracy is going on with anything big because of historical evidence that there often is. Not to say that’s 100%, because it’s not, but to use that as a starting point for hypothesizing.
With what I know, at least when it has to do with health and medicine, we should similarly start with the assumption that any scientific study is false!
…Especially if it is propagated in the mainstream news!
Again, don’t make assumptions that lock you into 100% belief. But use that as a starting point for investigating further.
“Very Rare” Asymptomatic Transmission
A stir was cause recently when a top WHO official said that asymptomatic transmission is “very rare”. Understand that this is the key point of everything we’re doing! Shutting down businesses. Social distancing. Mask mandates (to be covered shortly).
Instead of asking sick people to stay home so they don’t infect others, we need healthy people to stay home because they might have the virus, not know it, and spread it to other people.
“From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” said Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, Technical Lead COVID-19 WHO Health Emergencies Programme. “We are constantly looking at this data, and we’re trying to get more information from countries to truly answer this question…It still appears to be rare that an asymptomatic individual actually transmits onward.”
“We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing. They’re following asymptomatic cases, they’re following contacts, and they’re not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare. Much of that is not published in the literature.”
This caused an outcry and Dr. Kerkhove walked backed her statements. “I was responding to a question at the press conference. I wasn’t stating a policy of WHO or anything like that. I was just trying to articulate what we know. And in that, I used the phrase ‘very rare,’ and I think that that’s misunderstanding to state that asymptomatic transmission globally is very rare. I was referring to a small subset of studies.”
Here’s the kicker…“Some estimates of around 40% of transmission may be due to asymptomatic, but those are from models, so I didn’t include that in my answer yesterday, but wanted to make sure that I covered that here,” Kerkhove said. (emphasis added)
To sum this up:
From the DATA available both published and unpublished asymptomatic transmission is very rare.
But models and estimates say asymptomatic transmission may be big.
So our policy and recommendations are to go with the models and estimates and not the scientific data.
The question to ask is the WHO a science based organization…or a political one?
Remember that despite the 100,000+ deaths in the US and 463,000+ worldwide (big numbers that instill fear), the death rate is nothing compared to what the models predicted. We know games have been played with the numbers, not to mention inaccurate testing, and yet the CDC says the total death rate is between 1% at worst and 0.2%, with their best estimate being 0.4%.
Of these, almost all of them are 70 to 80+ years old, the people that are similarly taken out by the flu (despite there being a vaccine for that one).
So now let us turn to the great face mask debate…
Are Face Masks Effective?
If we collectively can’t even figure out something as simple as face masks, what chance do we have with bigger issues like racism, global warming, poverty, economic policy?
Seeing the polarization of this play out on social media has been entertaining.
Ten RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, and there was no evidence that face masks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
Quality of evidence
There is a moderate overall quality of evidence that face masks do not have a substantial effect on transmission of influenza.
Resource implications
Reusable cloth face masks are not recommended.Medical face masks are generally not reusable, and an adequate supply would be essential if the use of face masks was recommended. If worn by a symptomatic case, that person might require multiple masks per day for multiple days of illness.
RECOMMENDATION:
Face masks worn by asymptomatic people are conditionally recommended in severe epidemics or pandemics, to reduce transmission in the community. Disposable, surgical masks are recommended to be worn at all times by symptomatic individuals when in contact with other individuals. Although there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission, there is mechanistic plausibility for the potential effectiveness of this measure.
In summation, they say there is a moderate level of scientific evidence that they do NOT work, but there is a plausible mechanism by which they could so they might be recommended in certain circumstances. Once again, the recommendation actually goes against the science!
The WHO’s April 6th, 2020 coronavirus guidelines said this: “there is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”
But flip-flopping in their June 5th advice: “The use of masks is part of a comprehensive package of the prevention and control measures that can limit the spread of certain respiratory viral diseases, including COVID-19. Masks can be used either for protection of healthy persons (worn to protect oneself when in contact with an infected individual) or for source control (worn by an infected individual to prevent onward transmission).”
On March 8th, 2020. Dr. Fauci told 60 Minutes, “Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks…There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and it might even block a droplet. But it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often there are unintended consequences; people keep fiddling with the mask, and they keep touching their face…But when you think masks you should think of healthcare providers needing them and people who are ill.”
Later he’s saying, “I do it [wear a mask] when I’m in the public for the reasons that, a) I want to protect myself and protect others. And also because I want to make it be a symbol for people to see. That that’s the kind of thing you should be doing.”
Do you see that? On their recommendation page, not a single one of the studies is actually about masks or face coverings. Its all about asymptomatic carriers.
Isn’t that the wrong thing to be covering on this page with scientific backing?
Notice the pattern. News article has headline about the new mask recommendation. They link to the CDC but don’t mention science at all. Neither does the CDC, at least not for whats relevant.
Digging deeper on the CDC website I did find this.
A May review of the data posted on the CDC’s website states, “Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.” (emphaiss added)
Looking for more research, here’s an April 6th study from the Annals of Internal Medicine, “In conclusion, both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface.”
That’s infected patients let alone healthy people!
I’ve seen people from OSHA talking about how the recommendations do not fit their guidelines this as this video explains too.
Hmmm, I just picked up a pulse oximeter to test if a mask lowers oxygenation for myself. Let me conduct a little experiment… (I’ll report back later my results.)
I also came across a BMJ study that said “This study is the first RCT [random controlled trial, aka the gold standard of studies] of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended.” (emphasis added)
If you want to go even deeper here’s a couple articles reviewing more science against masks:
And to balance it out, I’ll point out an article by Nassim Taleb, whose work I respect, on why we should wear masks. The biggest point of disagreement I have there is that there IS a good amount of evidence that masks don’t work as I’ve covered here.
Personally, I’ll wear a mask in a store as is required at every store where I live. Their store, their rules. (I see this as the same as no shirt, no shoes, no service, just add no mask in there.)
If I was to visit a nursing home I would certainly take precautions.
But no, I’m sorry I will NOT wear a mask outside. I do not give the state of California that power over me.
It’s Not Really About the Masks…Preparation for What’s Next
Fauci mentions it’s a symbol and I think he’s right about that! I see people talking about how it’s a submission ritual. Submission to the fear, to the propaganda.
The symbol or lack of it certainly becomes a trigger for social reinforcement.
But that’s not really what I’m talking about here.
The other day I saw this article headline and had to click in:
Ding, ding, ding! Alarm bells ringing. It’s a modeling study…because the models have been so effective thus far with SARS-CoV-2, right? (After all, we’re already basing asymptomatic transmission off of models instead of the data.)
Layers and layers of bad science does not make the underlying assumptions true. Repeating something over and over again does not make it true. But, unfortunately, both of these do make things more BELIEVABLE.
This paper contains some equations that are above my head.
Since that’s Greek to me, I should just trust the experts because they’re smarter than me, right?
Authority figures never lead us wrong, right?
There couldn’t possibly be an untrue assumption underlying all that math, could there?
To me, it’s not really about the masks…I’ve seen this messaging before.
The SF Gate article states “Homemade coverings that catch only 50 percent of exhaled droplets would provide a “population-level benefit,” they concluded. As has been well-publicized, wearing a mask primarily protects others from yourself, rather than the other way around. It is not a sign that you consider others a danger.”
It’s not about your health, it’s about the community health.
As I said, I’ve seen this before, as this exact messaging has grown stronger and stronger around vaccines the past few years.
And that is what this is all about. The propaganda of the masks fits hand in glove with the propaganda for the upcoming vaccine.
“Everyone needs to do it.”
“It’s not about you. It’s for other people’s protection, especially the weak.”
“You are dangerous if you don’t have a mask on/the vaccine.”
“You can’t be allowed at school/can’t travel without one.”
Never mind the logical inconsistency of it. We ALL need to vaccinate to protect those whose immune systems are too weak to handle vaccines…yet we vaccinate babies the day they are born without investigating if their immunity is strong or weak.
In Colorado you can still have children exempted from vaccines for school, but now you must go through re-education if you do. This law passed.
Propagating the Propaganda
So how does the scientific propaganda work?
Some science is put out showing masks work. The media propagates the message. They do not propagate any of the science or naysayers that don’t fit the agenda.
The governing bodies and officials line up to the approved message, even flip-flopping as necessary. That’s fine, people don’t remember the past much anymore.
The politicians push orders making it law.
I literally revised my diagram as I finished writing this article.
Agenda comes first. Science next. Media and government to follow.
And by then the propaganda is strong enough to grab 95% of people, who then work to socially police one another.
Perhaps that’s why when I posted on Facebook “Someone help me out. Where is this new science that proves mask wearing works?” I got lots of people on both sides of the debate…and not a single one of them actually linked to a study.
If you don’t do that, or just need a quick refresher, in that post I detail how we can lump Gates into four possible categories depending on what set of information we look at.
There’s the saintly philanthropist.
There’s the regular human being with both virtues and flaws.
There’s the money and power hungry sociopath.
And there’s “evil” category in which I lump: eugenicist and/or satanist and/or pedophile.
I’m not here to tell you what to believe. Lord knows we’ve got enough people doing that! I’m here to present information and help you to draw your own conclusions.
There are plenty of people that are calling Gates evil! The problem with that is that it is increasing polarization.
This recent video from JP Sears covers the left vs. the right. “It’s obvious that more division is the solution to all our problems”
But this just as well could be any other polarizing topic…such as Bill Gates.
How many people are not willing to accept Bill Gates is anything but a saintly philanthropist because the criticisms sound so unbelievable?
He gives away more money then anyone so he must be the best ever , right?
How many people dive straight into the deepest, darkest conspiracy theories about Gates…thus making most people immediately dismiss it?
A nuanced discussion. That’s what we need more of right now…in SO MANY different areas.
So let’s look at a criticism of Gates and his Foundation that is NON-conspiratorial.
This book stretched my thinking out of the polarized zones to how Gates may better fit in the middle, either categories #2 or #3. But you be the judge for yourself…
Problems with Philanthropy and Foundations
I discussed some of the problems of philanthropy non necessarily being philanthropy in my earlier article about Robber Baron Philanthropists. This book similarly looks at John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford and many others.
The main hypothesis here seems to be, even with completely philanthropic intentions, is philanthropy working?
“Critics of philanthrocapitalism raise three main concerns. The first centres on the accountability and transparency of private philanthropic players – or lack thereof…The Gates Foundation…is accountable to no one other than its three trustees: Bill, Melinda, and Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett….The second concern is that philanthropy, by channelling private funds towards public services, erodes support for governmental spending on health and education…The third major concern is that many philanthropists, both today and in the past, earned their fortunes through business strategies that greatly exacerbate the same social and economic inequalities that philanthropists purport to remedy.”
To me TRANSPARENCY is one of the most important topics. Without transparency, things can be hidden. At the very least this gives rise to conspiracy theories. At the best, this allows true conspiracies to thrive.
John Perkins, former economic hitman, made the same criticism of foundations. Why use ruthless business practices, paying low wages to workers as Rockefeller and Carnegie did, only to give away the money later? Why stifle competition to make more money like they and Gates did to consolidate profits?
“What’s remarkable about the growing number of foundations over the past two decades is that they haven’t had any effect on reducing economic inequality. In fact the opposite appears to be the case. What to make of the fact that growing philanthropy and growing inequality seem to go hand in hand? Does philanthropy actually make the rich richer and the poor poorer?”
Growing inequality is a problem…one that leads to revolution in time. Should we look at this as the main indicator that philanthropy as its being done today is NOT working?
(As many people are pointing out right now, why is it that mega-businesses Amazon and Walmart get to stay open while small business that sell the same things are shut down?)
“The Gates Foundation frequently offers grants to for-profit companies such as, to name just three recent beneficiaries, Vodacom, Ogilvy, and ABC News (which is owned by Disney and which pays many of its news staff seven- and eight-figure salaries). Charity law in the US does not prohibit direct grants from a private philanthropist to for-profit companies…On its website, the Gates Foundation emphasizes that the Gates’s tax savings are minor in comparison to their disbursements, and that’s true. The website notes that from 1994 to 2006, Bill and Melinda donated more than $26 billion, resulting in savings of 8.3 per cent, or just over $2 billion. And yet, is a gift from the Gates Foundation to a highly profitable company really the best use of money that, if it had been taxed as income rather than placed in a trust, could have benefited federal or state relief programmes?”
This is a piece we’ll be coming back to. Did you know that tax-deductible grants can go to for-profit companies? This can then be used in a variety of self-serving ways where conflicts of interests are apparent.
“In their 2002 article ‘The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy’, Kramer and Porter asserted that to be genuinely ‘philanthropic’, corporations should deliberately pursue philanthropic strategies that align with their own financial goals. This, they suggest, would ensure that companies obtain a ‘competitive edge’ through giving, helping them to earn greater financial returns as a direct result of their charitable endeavors.” (emphasis added)
Part of the problem in our world is fiduciary responsibility of corporations meant to maximize profits for their shareholders, without caring for environmental concerns or people. This philosophy has even made its way into the charitable sector.
If you can be philanthropic in a self-interested way that increases your competitiveness and financial returns, doesn’t that become necessary to increase shareholder value? But is this really philanthropy in any sense of the word, anymore?
Funding Media
To me, this is probably the most important part as I’ve been investigating propaganda and narrative control (and will be continuing too in the near future).
In other words if you are engaging in non-transparent, conflicted interest or even worse things, how do you get away from it?
By funding the media of course!
“For decades, health activists in the US and internationally have suggested that current patent laws are a significant obstacle to achieving worldwide access to affordable medicines. Bill Gates does not agree. And his outspoken views on patents, combined with enormous cash injections towards the health policies he prefers, may have single-handedly thwarted efforts to open pharmaceutical markets to more generic competition. The influential health scholar James Love has noted the problem concisely: ‘[The Gates Foundation] funds most of the journalism on this topic, and they have been hardline advocates for strong patent protection, since the 1990s.’…Through his foundation, he’s spent hundreds of millions in tax-deductible grants to convey the public message that aid ‘works’.” (emphasis added)
If you can fund not only the programs you want, but the coverage of said programs, doesn’t that give you a bit too much power?
From the Gates Foundation 2018 annual report we see a large chunk, half a billion dollars goes towards Global Policy and Advocacy.
Here you can see that broken down.
Now, this is certainly covering much more than just funding to media but that’s in there. Here’s an example from a previous year:
“In the early months of 2013, the Gates Foundation hosted a ‘strategic media partners’ meeting at its headquarters in Seattle – representatives from the New York Times, the Guardian, NBC, NPR, and the Seattle Times all came. The aim of the event writes Tom Paulson, a Seattle-based reporter, was to ‘improve the narrative’ of media coverage of global aid and development, highlighting good news stories rather than tales of waste or corruption. In 2013, the foundation gave Ogilvy, a global public relations firm, a $100,000 grant for a project titled ‘Aid is Working: Tell the World’. Ogilvy PR is part of Ogilvy and Mather, one of the largest marketing companies in the world. That Ogilvy is a beneficiary of Gates Foundation largesse raises the same question as does its grants to Vodacom: why can’t a highly profitable company cover its own marketing or business-expansion efforts. And, secondly, if aid flows are working well, why do they need a masterful PR campaign to convey that message effectively?…Can aid really be said to be working when US and EU subsidies and import controls continue to thwart African growth? Can we be as sanguine as Gates is about current patent rules when poor and middle-income nations are leading the charge to alter them?” (emphasis added)
Remember that before Bill Gates was seen as a philanthropist, he was a ruthless businessman. Everyone agrees with this! What were the business tactics involved with the press back then?
“Resentful of negative press attention to the company’s business tactics, Microsoft’s management adopted a practice of blacklisting journalists. John Dvorak, a columnist at PC Magazine, describes how Microsoft management would list reporters on a whiteboard with the comments ‘Okay’, ‘Sketchy’, or ‘Needs Work’. Many reports believed, Dvorak writes, that if you ended up in the ‘needs work’ category, Microsoft would take pains to try and have you fired. Dvorak himself ended up on Microsoft’s blacklist, something he only realized because of documents unearthed during the discovery process of the Comes v. Microsoft lawsuit in Iowa. Dvorak adds, rather dryly, that while Microsoft failed to completely unseat him, threats from the company did succeed in seeing him removed as a licensed columnist for PC Magazine Italy.” (emphasis added)
I think it is a sign that things are wrong when people can’t talk publicly about things for fear of backlash. When we hear about this in relation to a philanthropic foundation, something must surely be off.
“He emphasized the need to protect his identity due to concerns over a backlash from the Gates Foundation. ‘Maybe I’m a paranoid guy,’ he said. ‘But I’m scared out of my mind talking to you right now.’…Gates Foundation’s funding of media outlets leads journalists to censor negative criticism; those in the field refer to the problem as the ‘Bill Chill Effect’. Anna made this point: ‘You have a foundation that is essentially paying for areas that it wants to pursue, and also supporting otherwise independent international agencies or norm-setting agencies. Once you have them on the payroll, their voices are compromised. That’s why you’re not going to get anyone to talk on the record…[this] reality has to come to light.’” (emphasis added)
Alan Mccleod of MintPressNews, an independent news site, wrote that the “Gates Foundation underwrites the entire Global Development section of the Guardian, and has given the British newspaper over $9 million. Studying its donation database, it transpires it has also contributed over $3 million to NBC Universal, over $4 million to the influential French newspaper, Le Monde, over $4.5 million to NPR, $1 million to Al-Jazeera, and an astonishing $49 million to the BBC’s Media Action program, to name only a few…Gates himself is the head of a gigantic media empire. We already rely on Microsoft for social media (LinkedIn), entertainment (Xbox), hardware and software like the Windows Phone and Windows OS. The company also owns stakes in media giants like Comcast and AT&T. And the “MS” in “MSNBC” stands for “Microsoft.””
This is why we see such glowing pieces about the Gates Foundation in many places. This is the public relations that makes “everyone” know that Bill Gates is a saintly philanthropist.
Such conflicts of interest are seldom if ever disclosed. Tim Schwab at The Nation did a great article called “Bill Gate’s Charity Paradox”. He starts off talking about the Netflix series, Inside Bill’s Brain, which, “underlines Gates’s expansive intellect by interviewing Bernie Noe, described as a friend of Gates. “That’s a gift, to read 150 pages an hour,” says Noe. “I’m going to say it’s 90 percent retention. Kind of extraordinary.” [Director Davis] Guggenheim doesn’t tell audiences that Noe is the principal of Lakeside School, a private institution to which the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has given $80 million. The filmmaker also doesn’t mention the extraordinary conflict of interest this presents: The Gateses used their charitable foundation to enrich the private school their children attend, which charges students $35,000 a year.”
We need to look at not just financial conflicts of interest in business and charity, but media conflicts of interest too.
Gates Foundation on Education
While most of the attention gets pin on areas surrounding health, let’s not forget that The Gates Foundation has been involved in education for a long time.
“In 1997, Gates expanded into education. Through a gift of $200 million, he established a second fund, the Gates Library Foundation. The Library Foundation built on an earlier programme initiated at Microsoft – donating personal computer software to libraries. The donation of Microsoft equipment raised eyebrows among some critics. The late historian Theodore Roszak suggested that ‘this doesn’t even count as philanthropy. It’s just seeding the market. You’re simply lubricating future sales.’”
Charitable donations that bring about future sales…a great business tactic. But not the most ethical, most people would agree.
“[T]he New York Times ran an op-ed in which Gates was described as ‘the real secretary of education.’…The Gates Foundation is now the largest philanthropic support of US primary and secondary education.”
“Diane Ravitch, a historian and former US assistant secretary of education during the administration of George Bush Sr., has suggested that US public education is being undermine by a select group of philanthropists she calls ‘the Billionaire Boys Club’. Never before, she suggests, has a single group of philanthropists had such a strong reshaping national education policy. And the most influential of them all is Bill Gates.”
There are tons of details in the book about No Child Left Behind with its standardized testing, Common Core, ranking teachers effectiveness that I won’t get into that the Gates Foundation has supported. Read the book if you want more. Just to sum up, none of those covered in the book have worked well!
“When it comes to public education in the US, there’s little indication yet that many of the initiatives the foundation has spearheaded have in fact been positive for students. Despite a history of policy reversals and failed efforts, the foundation continues to be upheld as an exemplary and uniquely results-oriented organization. And there’s nothing stopping the foundation from itself promoting that perception of its work, a problem that irks teachers. One former teacher, Anthony Cody, summarized this concern clearly in an interview with Valerie Strauss of the Washington Post: I have found it remarkable that an education reform project built around the concept of ‘accountability’ has no mechanism, no means by which we, the public, can hold its sponsors accountable. We have ‘bad teachers’ who must be held accountable. Schools and students that must be held accountable. But Bill Gates himself? Who holds him and his employees accountable for the devastating effects their reforms have had?’ The answer is no one.”
In Microsoft, Bill was accountable to shareholders. He was also accountable to governments for breaking anti-trust laws as ultimately occurred. But with his foundation, as there is far less scrutiny, it looks like he is less accountable than ever before. There is no anti-trust equivalent with foundations.
The Foundations Financial Investments
“Mitch Kapor, the billionaire founder of Lotus software, expressed to me his surprise and dismay at Gates’s intransigency on the topic of ethical investing: ‘The Gates Foundation manages its endowment along conventional lines, i.e., it does not pay attention to mission or impact. I recently spoke to Bill about this and he spoke about this fact as though it were out of his hands and that he didn’t have the ability to change the approach to investment.”
This is similar to the line of reasoning behind treating employees and customers well in growing a business, versus being ruthless in order to win. Here we see that the foundations investment is only about return, rather to consider what a business may be causing in the world (its mission and impact).
How you can say you’re interested in health if you are so heavily invested in health-destroying companies? At the very least it is hypocritical.
Indeed, what we see is that Bill Gates himself, and his foundation have increased in wealth despite (or in fact because of!) giving away so much money.
“For years, with the exception of tobacco companies, the foundation chose to invest in companies offering strong financial returns regardless of negative health effects…the foundation’s stake, for example, in GEO group, a leader in the for-profit prison industry…Until 2014, the foundation had a large stake in Coca-Cola and McDonald’s…The Gates Foundation has a policy of not commenting publicly on its investment decisions.”
If you really wanted to do good wouldn’t you want to put money behind companies that are profitable but are supporting your stated mission just in how they do business?
Agriculture and Nutrition
Here is one such example of their investment.
“In 2010, the foundation purchased shares in Monsanto, an investment worth about $23 million…later the foundation sold its shares in Monsanto, but it continues to collaborate on philanthropic ventures aimed at expanding the company’s presence in African markets.”
Monsanto, who is now wholly owned by pharmaceutical giant Bayer, has been rated as the most evil company in the world several times. Not just for their GMO foods, but how they then use patents on these to pressure farmers and often times run them out of business. They’ve even used an “intelligence center” to target activists, authors and others that disagree with their actions.
“In 2006, in partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation created the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)… Bill Gates has repeatedly suggested that we need to extend the Green Revolution to Africa. His comments have sparked outrage in developing regions. Vandana Shiva, a renowned Indian environmental activist, has condemned the Gates Foundation’s links to Monsanto, calling the foundation the ‘greatest threat to farmers in the developing world’… Even unlikely figures such as Warren Buffett’s son have emerged as vocal critics of the Gates Foundation’s work in agriculture.”
Here is Shiva speaking about him:
Like the failed education reforms, the “Green Revolution” showed some early positives but longer-term has been a big failure. It enriches big companies while making the poor poorer, not just financially but health-wise too. (Witness all the lawsuits going on regarding Monsanto’s Roundup causing cancer right now.)
“The Gates Foundation has championed the idea that Coca-Cola should be upheld as a key partner in global health policy-making. In 2010, Melinda Gates gave a TED talk titled ‘What Non-Profits Can Learn from Coca-Cola,’ where she exhorted development experts to adopt the beverage giants distribution strategies….But her suggestion ignores a history of objectionable labour practices, including suggestions that the company’s subsidiaries hired a far-right paramilitary group to intimidate and murder union members at the company’s Colombian bottling plants…The foundation has also partnered with Coca-Cola…in 2010, for example, the Gates Foundation provided a $7.5 million grant to TechnoServe…to ‘create new market opportunities for local farmer whose fruit will be used for Coca-Cola’s locally-produced and sold fruit juices. Through its shares in Berkshire Hathaway, the Gates Foundation is heavily invested in Coca-Cola…when a philanthropic foundation that is heavily invested in Coca-Cola chooses to set up a charitable initiative that enlists poor farmers in cultivating fruit for Coca-Cola, the question is – does this still count as philanthropy? And if not, then why should the Gates Foundation continue to receive the generous tax exemptions it currently enjoys?”
Here we see several of the themes brought up in this article. The Gates Foundation investing in a company that is having devastating health effects the world over. The Gates Foundation using its grants in a way that benefits the company it has invested in showing a clear conflict of interest, yet getting tax benefits from doing so. And whitewashing some horrible corporate practices along the way.
Gates Foundation on Health
The thing that the Gates Foundation is doing more than anything else is vaccines. Vaccines themselves are a polarizing topics when they shouldn’t be. There should be room for the consideration that not every vaccine is great. After all how many diseases don’t have vaccines and not for lacking of trying, HIV, malaria, Lyme, coronavirus (I’m talking about the ones before this years epidemic)?
These either didn’t work at all and/or had devastating side effects.
And this doesn’t mean that all vaccines are bad either. Can we please unpolarize and talk about the risks and benefits without be immediately labeled looney anti-vaxxers?
“Donald Henderson, a former WHO epidemiologist who led the WHO’s successful campaign against smallpox during the 1960s, has suggested that polio eradication may be a misplaced pursuit: it strips money from other areas of need, forcing nations to prioritize polio immunization at the expense of vaccination coverage for other diseases. Arthur Caplan, an eminent bioethicist who himself suffered from polio as a child, has also criticized Gates’s obsession with polio eradication, pointing out that ‘government budgets and resources in poor nations are diverted from other far more pressing local problems to try and capture the last marginal cases.’…And despite vaccine research funded by the Gates Foundation and elsewhere, the difficulty of fully eradicating vaccine-derived poliovirus, a mutation of the virus contained in the oral vaccine, still lingers. ‘I can’t see myself how we can satisfactorily eliminate the vaccine-derived strains’. Henderson said. ‘I just don’t think it can be done.’”
“[Bill Gates fixation on eradicating polio] seems to contradict an outspoken claim from Melinda and Bill: that they choose to invest their money where they can have the most impact in terms of lives saved. ‘We literally go down the chart of the greatest inequities and give where we can effect the greatest change’, Melinda said in 2008…In 2012, there were only 223 reported case of polio worldwide – a number that has shrunk from 350,000 in 1988, or a drop of 99 per cent. By any measure, polio eradication efforts have been highly successful even if rare cases continue to persist. And by any measure, polio is not one of the world’s greatest killers.” (emphasis added)
Should the almost half billion dollars still be going after that? Again from 2018 annual report we see over half a billion dollars going strictly to polio!
Compare that to nutrition. What about…
“In recent years, non-communicable diseases (NCDs) mainly stroke, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and chronic respiratory disease – have become the biggest cause of death in poor and middle-income countries, outstripping deaths from infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS. Despite the staggering cost of deaths from chronic diseases worldwide, the vast majority of philanthropic donors, including the Gates Foundation, have shown scant interest in tackling the problem. To date, the Gates Foundation has invested less than 4 per cent of funding into research on non-communicable diseases.”
Is this the smart, logical business-like focus on objectives. The objective is clearly to eradicate polio…but should it be? I think Gates wants that feather in his cap, “I’m the man responsible for eradicating polio.”
Let’s look at a different vaccine.
“The Gates Foundation has called loudly and bullishly for national governments to prioritize the inclusion of a number of different high-cost vaccines on national immunization programmes…The Gates Foundation’s funding of recent HPV trials in India is a good example. A few years ago, the foundation funded the Seattle-based NGO Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (generally referred to by its acronym PATH) to carry out ‘demonstration trials’ testing human papillomavirus in approximately 23,000 girls aged ten to fourteen in the Indian states of Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh. The two HPV vaccines distributed, Gardasil and Cervarix, are manufactured by Merck and GlaxoSmithKline respectively…Gardasil has been a top-seller for Merck, earning total global sales of $1.5 billion in 2011, a windfall for the company in the financially lean years that had plagued it since it emerged that the company had manipulated trial data for Vioxx, its bestselling painkiller drug linked to heart failure in tens of thousands of users. Merck pleased to criminal charges…When Gardasil was first in production, Merck sales team reportedly had a catchy unofficial nickname for the HPV vaccine: Help Pay for Vioxx…[PATH] began a two-year vaccination drive in 2009. Most of the vaccines were given to girls at ashram paathshalas (boarding schools for tribal children), sidestepping the need to seek parental consent for the shots…[A parliamentary committee] found that PATH had violated ethical guidelines in a number of alarming ways…PATH has justified this omission by insisting that the vaccine trials were ‘demonstration trials’, and therefore subject to looser safety requirements thana standard clinical trial. The parliamentary report into the vaccine trials lambasted that rationalization, stressing that the HPV trials should have been deemed a clinical trial because it was a ‘study of a pharmaceutical product carried out on human participants’ and ‘four of five primary outcome measures proposed in the study related to evaluation of the safety of the vaccine’. In 2010, the Indian Council of Medical Ethics admitted that its own ethical protocols had been flouted in permitting the trials. In August 2013 a separate parliamentary committee reiterated the severe criticism of PATH, stating that the NGO’s ‘sole aim has been to promote the commercial interests of HPV vaccine manufacturers who would have reaped windfall profits had PATH been successful in getting the HPV vaccine included in the UIP [universal immunization program] of the Country.’” (emphasis added)
This is a good one to further investigate conflicts of interest.
Referring to some pictures of Schwab’s article The Nation, note the conflicts of interest in the above named pharmaceutical companies (actually pretty much all of them). There’s Merck and there’s GlaxoSmithKline.
Understand the complex web that is woven. The Gates Foundation owns stock in Merck. It gives tax-deductible grants to GSK. It funds another NGO called PATH which then uses products from Merck and GSK in trials, in an attempt to get a product mandated form every single person in a country!
Look at all the health organizations the Gates Foundations funds, which helps set these policies, and how many pharmaceuticals the Gates Foundation is involved in.
Any image is going to be just a small part of the picture.
If you think that conflicts of interest can sometimes be problematic then this definitely needs more investigation.
Concluding Thoughts
“A young health researcher based at the University of Cape Cost, in western Ghana, echoed the sentiment: ‘From my point of view, it’s more like [the Gates Foundation] are selling technology than solving problems. Most of their calls have to do with developing some new technology or vaccines.”
This sounds to me a lot like what Bill Gates himself in that Netflix special said as I covered previously. “Any problem I will look at how technical innovation can help solve that problem. It’s the one thing I know and the one thing I’m good at. And so, you know, that’s my hammer. Uh…And so lots of problems look like nails because I’ve got a hammer.”
Look, I have no clue if Bill Gates is really evil at heart. But I can not blindly trust the man as his PR seems to have most people doing.
This man has far too much power and philosophically, I don’t see technology as the answer to all our problems, considering technology created many of them! Geoengineering and blocking out the sun are not good answers to environmental problems. GMO mosquitoes are already out now as if there’s no possibly negative consequences to that. The stuff he wants to do, is doing, is crazy so is it any wonder people are up in arms about it?
The only way I see to stop him is to #exposebillgates so that enough people do not consent to his plans.
Knowledge is power which is why propaganda is powerful. But due to polarization if we’re going to convince people we can’t dive off the deep end. Start with some basics facts like:
Making tax-deductible donations to for-profit companies he’s invested in, a clear conflict of interest.
Or that despite giving away his fortune, he’s richer than ever now.
Or his foundation’s investments directly contradict what they say they’re trying to do in health.
Get the conversation going. Someday we’ll be able to talk about things in an open and honest way. At least I hope so.
If not, it does look like we have an even more tightly controlled future in front of us.
“Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will…To believe yourself above the influence of propaganda, is to become more susceptible to propaganda.”
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda
We as a civilization are screwed if we don’t get better at identifying propaganda real fast. Yet, do we stand a chance?
Really understanding the world is a full time job and my estimate is you need at least a decade of that (10,000 hours+) to even come close. The rat race, or trying to escape the rat race, keeps you occupied so you’re unable to do that.
The honest and mature thing to do is to recognize you’re being controlled no matter your beliefs. Start here. It’s like facing addiction or any other major problem. Recognizing your awash in propaganda is the first step.
From that recognition you can start to make your way through the dense jungle of misinformation and narrative, but be aware that it’s a very long, very hard journey. In doing it you’ll likely think you’re winning…but realize you’ve been led down wrong paths sometimes for years.
Getting duped hard and coming to realize that’s the case is part of the journey. It’s an initiation. Be proud when you come out the other side. (Show me a person that has never been absorbed into propaganda and later realized they were wrong, and I’ll show you someone that is naively convinced they not possessed of an ideology!)
Learn from the experience. How were you duped? How can you avoid that next time?
Yet, realize it will happen again…
It’s hard to face this. Really hard.
This is why so many buy into the consensus narratives. That’s so much easier.
This is why those that realize that it is all BS simply opt out of following news or current events. It’s so much easier to disengage and go about your life.
These are easy choices. Or you can then walk the road less traveled. Once again, we need a lot of people doing this much better and much faster if we want a good future.
Bread and Circuses
Yes, this has happened before…
“Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.”
Juvenal, Roman Poet (100 AD)
Some say we’re repeating the Roman experience right now. Indeed, there are many parallels.
Learn from history, but not just the popular history. Remember that history is written by the victor. (In other words, telling you the truth behind how they were victorious is not always in their best interest.) Conspiracies have happened from at least the time there was money.
Speaking of Goebbels, don’t forget Operation Paperclip, where we brought over Nazi scientists giving them positions in our scientific institutions. Where our intelligence communities worked hand-in-hand with them, learning their methods…
Trends come and go. Patterns repeat. Some patterns last longer than human lifetimes. These may be especially useful to know about right now.
Is the Roman Empire still around? Nope.
And so too shall the American Empire fall…for better and/or worse depends…
Narrative Control
Is your head spinning from what is happening in the world?
Just when I felt like I and others were getting a handle on facts behind the coronavirus…the narrative completely changed.
Wait, were not focused on the virus anymore but now there’s rioting across the world against racism and police brutality?
(I’m aiming to be sensitive to matters at hand and yet focus on what I perceive as the bigger picture. What happened to George Floyd was an atrocity. Same with Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor…on and on it goes. I am against racism. I am against policy brutality. Personally, I was at two protests in Santa Cruz. We absolutely do need reform of institutions regarding these things. Justice needs to be served and would not have been without this popular uprising. Even now it still may not be. But I’m also worried that these events are being manipulated for dubious purposes…)
What the hell happened to social distancing?!?
Watching the media do what has to be of the most massive about-faces ever is fascinating.
Just two weeks ago, the anti-lockdown protests were vilified. Those who partook were selfish bastards, “covidiots,” even “granny killers” that would spread the disease.
Yet, now if you’re not out protesting you’re basically a racist.
The threat to Covid control from protesting outside is tiny compared to the threat to Covid control created when governments act in ways that lose community trust. People can protest peacefully AND work together to stop Covid. Violence harms public health.
Again, I’m not saying people shouldn’t be protesting. I was suggesting protesting back in April. I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of the media and our so-called health leaders.
Here’s another comment from a Senior Scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security:
We should always evaluate the risks and benefits of efforts to control the virus. In this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus. https://t.co/s9DagyjQ1J
— Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH (@JenniferNuzzo) June 2, 2020
Seems to me this just as easily was “In this moment the public health risks of economic shutdown impacts greatly exceed the harms of the virus.”
But that thoughtcrime was not allowed.
Even so, the virus narrative is still strong. At both protests I was at, at least 99% of people were wearing masks. I even had a man mutter something about me spreading the virus, because I was not one of them.
Making Sense of the Downward Spiral
I must share another video from Rebel Wisdom with Daniel Schmachtenberger. I’d recommend watching it, but I’ve pulled out some of the most important quotes below if you don’t have time, along with my thoughts. They’re in italics through the rest of this post.
“There’s like a gazillion hypotheses. I think the problem is the people who aren’t buying the mainstream media narrative are buying the first alternate narrative that appeals to their sensemaking desire to not have uncertainty and put the pieces together, before there is adequate evidence that that alternate narrative is much better.”
You must become more comfortable with uncertainty. You need to hold competing narratives as possibilities within your mind. Reaching conclusions is something you need to do very carefully over time.
A book I read recently was Annie Dukes’ Thinking In Bets. It helped gave me a framework of thinking about both decisions and narratives. “I’d give XYZ a 30% chance of going this way. There’s a 5% chance ABC is true.” This is extremely helpful as you hold multiple possible and sometimes mutually exclusive narratives in mind.
Here’s another tip. Perhaps, instead of looking for answers, you are better spent looking for questions. Like who benefits?
“Warfare is mainly not fought with bullets. Like the kinetic warfare that we think of as warfare that’s fought with weapons is maybe 1% of warfare. 99% of warfare is diplomatic warfare, political warfare, economic warfare, narrative warfare, information warfare. All of this comes together to what we call hybrid warfare, or really just politics, or game theory or the game of power…In this war, the treasure being fought over is people’s minds and the battleground is people’s minds. The primary weapons are tools of narrative influence, and emotional evocation and control of the information flows. And in these wars, they’re asymmetric wars because you have some actors that have access to billion or trillion dollar level information technologies, AI empowered micro-targeting. And then you have other people just trying to figure out shit on their own and they don’t even know they’re in a war. And they don’t even know their own mind is the battleground of the war. And they think they believe the shit they believe. And they think they came to it on their own. And they think they’re doing a good job sensemaking.”
One of the things I recognized is that we’re dealing with advanced technology. Here is what I mean by that. Our governments (and public partners of course) absolutely have hidden technology. It is not a matter of if they do or not. It is a question of how much more advanced?
That’s one piece. But another is that just the public technology is very much beyond the sensemaking of most people, myself included.
Here is a great analogy I heard regarding what is called artificial intelligence, machine learning or algorithms. Imagine yourself as compared to the best chess player in the world. They’re magnitudes of scale beyond your ability, right?
Now, imagine that grand champion player against AI. The AI is a similar magnitude beyond them.
That level of AI is what controls your social media feed.
“Given enough data, the algorithm was better able to predict a person’s personality traits than any of the human participants. It needed access to just 10 likes to beat a work colleague, 70 to beat a roommate, 150 to beat a parent or sibling, and 300 to beat a spouse,” writes a New York Times article from five years ago. Algorithm maybe able to predict your actions better than you consciously can…
Does the government have more powerful algorithms than that? Are these hooked into not only social media but other things? It’s scary to think about but the answer is probably yes. The question again being to the degree of what is available.
You are in an information war and you are so insanely outnumbered and outgunned it is not even funny.
Meanwhile most people are blindly walking down the battlefield thinking they’re strolling in the park.
The Upcoming Election
“We have an election coming up in the US that will be radically consequential for the world. Either way. No matter who wins currently, whether the election is illegally tampered with and stolen or not, half of the population will think it was. This is a real problem.”
Let that sink in for a moment. Last week before I saw this video, I echoed a similar point regarding the election: “How long until we see the “radical left” clashing with the “Q Anon Church”? After all, each side knows with 100% certainty that they’re trying to stop ultimate tyranny from occurring.”
After that, one person asked me about Q Anon. I’m sure other people were wondering too.
If you’re not aware of Q Anon…you’re missing a huge piece of HOW the information war is being fought.
I’m not saying to be a Q Anon “follower”. I’m not saying to dismiss it out-of-hand as a right-wing conspiracy theory either as is the mainstream narrative. I’m saying to be aware of it, because it is important either way (neither are these the only two options). I’ll dive deeper into the subject at some point, but I feel like more groundwork needs to be laid to even be able to talk about that mindscrew in a coherent way.
(For those that are aware and want to know where I stand, I think it’s a limited hangout psy-op. I give it only about 1% chance of being what it says it is all about.)
“I don’t find that most successful politicians that I’ve encountered near the top of the power actually believe red vs. blue ideology. They just believe in the game of power and signal red vs. blue ideology as part of their mimetic warfare to control people that are going to vote for them.”
Politics is a dirty, dirty business. Us vs. them is a powerful means of control and it’s used in more ways than most people give credit.
Remember how even the science of the virus got split by political lines? Watch it happening again, because both red and blue ideologies have things to gain from doing so.
Upregulation and Downregulation
“When I look at the counterculture movement as a whole and I look at the green revolution, the sexual revolution, and the civil rights process, and women’s rights, all the various things, the deeper story that I see, most of the activists who were there don’t know. The deeper story I see is actually understanding COINTELPRO, and how the FBI, CIA and other intelligence agencies actually infiltrated the progressive movements to very specifically derail them. And get them focused on shit that would be ineffective, that we’re still doing today. So I happen to believe there was intentional upregulation by those power structures of postmodernism as a structure of thought. Because if the people that only studied social science only studied how to critique the game of power, without actually knowing how to effectively organize, then they would make sure they could never actually really do anything. So if every time someone’s organizing well you call it imperialism, you won’t end up organizing well, becoming an imperialist, or you’ll just be noise and that’s fine. And the social sciences that are actually studying the history of military theory and political theory and strategy itself, got very downregulated in exchange for something that would make people feel more righteous, while being less effective. So I want to make sure that we’re learning the right lessons from the right periods of history.”
This goes back to what I was saying earlier about learning from history, but the right history, or as Daniel calls it here, the deeper story.
Let me take some time to explain this a bit more because I doubt it is clear to most. Postmodernism is basically the idea that all truths are relative. It has been used to criticize morality, hierarchy, reason, logic and truth.
Some people, such as Jordan Peterson, argue that it has come to be the dominant ideology behind much of what is taught in college to the detriment of higher learning and the people that go through it.
What Daniel is saying is that intelligence operations made these ideas bigger than they otherwise would have been. They upregulated them so that would more embrace the philosophy.
At the same time they took other ideas, that might better challenge existing structures (aka those in power), and downregulated them.
If you have not learned that intelligence agencies did this back then, you wouldn’t know that they’re doing it today…and likely have much better tools, such as AI, to do so.
If they did it with postmodernism, what else have they done it too. What kinds of science? What kinds of spirituality? What other philosophies?
Identity politics, that of oppressor and oppressed, is based in postmodernism. What I believe Daniel is saying here, without coming right out and saying it, is the following.
Are the Protests and Riots Being Upregulated?
The murder of George Floyd went viral.
Why did it go viral? It is particularly brutal and in your face. The video is about nine minutes long, the cops clearly seen. In fact, I’ve seen some question the validity of it based on it just being so blatant. But the sheer incredulity of it certainly seems to be a piece of its virality.
(An aside but interesting point that this has a parallel between ideas of a natural virus vs. one worked on for gain-of-function or other purposes in the lab…)
And you have to imagine that virality can be up and down regulated. A small tweak to an algorithm and something that is viral to any degree could be put to the top of everyone’s feed. A small tweak in the other direction and something would not make the same kind of rounds.
The use of bots and other methods is an easier way this can be done without actually having the social media companies in on it. In the mainstream narrative, these bot armies are always blamed on China and Russia, which I don’t deny they use. But if you don’t think US and other intelligence agencies and their private partners, nor multi-billion dollar foundations, would make use of the same, that’s naïve.
Then there’s what gets play on the mainstream news. “If it bleeds it leads.” Of course there is this old exhortation that is true. It’s a big part of why the past three months have been nothing but coronavirus 24/7.
But bleeding doesn’t always lead. Media coverage of Jeffrey Epstein wasn’t there much at all. We also see it being stamped down on in several places (downregulated) despite it being one of the most interesting stories ever if the news actually covered the details and all the ramifications.
In other words for something to become huge it has to fit the desired narrative.
Why no protests or riots for the underage girls abused by Epstein? Why no protests over the obvious miscarriages of justice there, including no charges, not even an investigation against against Ghislaine Maxwell, Prince Andrews and others involved?
If we accept the hypothesis that media is manipulated (previous posts here and here), of which we have tons of evidence for, then we have to ask, why this narrative? Why now?
Some Theories On Where This is Headed…
The following are some ideas on what is going on and where this all might be headed:
Patsy Hypothesis
This one is my favorite hypothesis. It’s to let off steam from the lock down. It was starting to open up, it seemed not so bad to many, the virus narrative was getting weaker or perhaps just going stale.
People would be angry at the politicians, health leaders and economists if it was lifted and all we had to focus on was the economic ruin.
But instead we are given the authority figure of the police to aim our frustrations at.
(Again, not to take away from any racism and brutality they do engage in that should be reformed.)
Regardless of how the protests and riots play out, no one is looking at the bigger picture because we’re absorbed in this crazy story, justifiably so.
Military in Streets Hypothesis
This is to get US citizens used to military in the streets. Even for people to start asking for the military to help.
This seems to only be a possibility if it continues to get worse and in select areas. But if it happens in some it’s easier for it to happen more later.
That gives another possibility down the road. If the military is already deployed…well, then they could more easily be used to distribute the vaccine.
Second Wave Hypothesis
The lockdowns were growing stale. The second wave has long been promised.
Is that because cases are actually rising, or more testing shenanigans? Regardless, now the protests can be blamed as the cause. Therefore, we’ll need to do more and longer lockdowns as the second wave hits…once again, until the vaccine is here to save us.
Preparation for Stage 3 Hypothesis
I wonder with this level of protests and riots are the American people MORE or LESS likely to engage in the same in the near future?
I’d lean towards more, especially if they’re effective. (The charges against cops have escalated thus far and various proposals for police reform are up in the air. But time will tell…)
So then I ask is this a preparation for the next phase? If phase 1 was the coronavirus and phase 2 is the protests and riots, what is phase 3? I don’t know but I wonder.
Assuming there are some sort of central planners, do they have something up their sleeves?
The US election is coming up in November (or is it? Some theories that it could be postponed or canceled in some way.) More big stuff will happen before that absolutely 100% guaranteed! Something else on the scale of corona or these protests/riots.
Since it happens every year, I would expect some natural disasters. Fires in California. Maybe earthquakes. Hurricanes elsewhere. These have been quite devastating over the last few years, so they’ll probably be again.
How much worse will natural disasters be with the current tensions and economic problems?
Q Anon Hypothesis
This is not really my hypothesis but one of the narratives out there. The virus and the race riots are all ploys to try to steal the election from Donald Trump by the Deep State/Democrats.
I have to wonder about putting Biden up as their candidate. I understand he has been an establishment player for a long time now (aka someone who doesn’t really believe in blue ideology).
But compared to other candidates he had a fraction of popular support. Do they want to lose against Trump?
Or, as others have proposed, will there be some late stage shenanigans of Clinton or Obama becoming vice president? Or Cuomo? Does Biden die and someone must step in to fill his shoes?
One thing Q shared that which is very interesting is the Google Trend for “black lives matter”. It originally blew up in 2015 about the same time before an election. (Again, I’m not saying this detracts in any way from the fact that black lives matter, just that it is an interesting point.)
American’s Great Leap Forward
Hanlon’s razor is an aphorism “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
I don’t know but the more I hear people use that to explain what is going on in the world, the less I think it adequately explains a lot of things. Do you really believe that all the most powerful people in the world are stupid?
And, if indeed there are central planners, they probably have phase 4, 5 and beyond too. I covered not how we’ll get there but what seems to be in the plans in this post.
Please note that these hypothesis aren’t mutually exclusive.
The best operation would be to have positive results no matter how things turned out. Smart people look at possibilities and adapt as the situation unfolds.
My plan was to cover Bill Gates in tons of detail because, like it or not, he’s an extremely important person for the future of civilization. It’s a daunting task!
I’m still unsure. There’s certainly some evidence of eugenics. There’s definitely evidence of sociopathic drive for more money and power.
But I invite you to watch it for yourself and be the judge.
In other news…
Riots are happening in the USA now, in Minneapolis and many other places. I didn’t know that cops killing a black man would be the spark, but I did talk about how a powder keg was being created that could lead to stuff like this back on March 21st.
(While there’s a possibility that riots could have been sparked from George Floyd’s murder under pre-corona conditions, all the quarantine, economic devastation, etc. certainly amplified the unrest leading this to being much bigger than it otherwise would have been.)
President Trump has been fact checked on Twitter talking about mail fraud and in response issues an Executive Order to say that social media platforms will not have platform protections anymore due to bias.
I agree with Trump on this one because I have seen the evidence of bias and censorship on these platforms. Certainly against conservative viewpoints but also against “conspiracy theories” (aka independent viewpoints) and “vaccine misinformation” (more often than not, vaccine facts).
But I’m one of those rare individuals that isn’t die-hard Trump supporter or hater. I see both sides.
I also agree that Trumps says some stupid things on Twitter. Regarding the riots and deploying the National Guard there he said, “Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Why would you say something like this just knowing how much it would stir up people hate everything you say? Is that intentional?
The polarization continues ramping up!
I do believe certain forces want the USA to divide into something of a civil war. Recall the Great Leap Forward hypothesis I put forward last week.
More destruction, not less, actually makes that all easier to do.
More violence means more police and military power steps in. This means more sweeping legislation is easier to drive through in order to “keep people safe”. The more easily the technocrats can deploy their software solutions on people.
And think about it. We’ve got over five months until election time! (Or even the possibility of suspensions of elections.)
How long until we see the “radical left” clashing with the “Q Anon Church”? After all, each side knows with 100% certainty that they’re trying to stop ultimate tyranny from occurring.
Get ready for the ride to become even wilder!
Stay vigilant, Logan Christopher
P.S. My work life has gotten busier, so I have less time to devote here. I’m aiming to get out an update once a week on Saturday’s moving forward now.
The topic I’m thinking about mostly now is “Narrative Control.” To me understand HOW a thing is actually done is critical to being able to see through all the layers of deception. It’s not just fake news but so much more. Thus, understanding the many and diverse tactics is what I’m diving into and will be sharing soon.
