Friday, February 19, 2021

The World Is Suffering From Mass Delusional Psychosis

ORIGINAL LINK

A number of mental health experts have expressed concern over the blatant fear and panic mongering during the COVID-19 pandemic, warning about potential — and let’s face it, likely — psychiatric effects. In a December 22, 2020, article1 in Evie Magazine, S.G. Cheah discusses what may in fact be the real problem at hand: mass insanity caused by “delusional fear of COVID-19.”

Cheah refers to lectures and articles by psychiatrist and medical legal expert Dr. Mark McDonald,2 who believes “the true public health crisis lies in the widespread fear which morphed and evolved into a form of mass delusional psychosis.”

“Even when the statistics point to the extremely low fatality rate among children and young adults (measuring 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at 25), the young and the healthy are still terrorized by the chokehold of irrational fear when faced with the coronavirus,” Cheah writes.

Infectious Hysteria

Cheah goes on to review a number of irrational behaviors that have become all too commonplace, such as parents being kicked off planes because their young children refuse to wear a mask during the flight, or people having hysterical meltdowns when they see a person not wearing a mask.

The science3 is quite clear about the risk posed by asymptomatic individuals, meaning anyone who feels perfectly healthy yet may have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a PCR test set to an excessively high cycle threshold. They pose an exceptionally low risk to others, if any risk at all. Science is even clearer on healthy individuals who test negative for SARS-CoV-2. You simply cannot spread a virus you do not have.

The bulk of published science4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 also shows that masks do not prevent the spread of viral infections, and this is particularly true if you’re wearing cloth masks,12 surgical masks or masks with vents.

Despite all of that, many still enter a state of hysteria when they see an unmasked person, even if they look perfectly healthy and clearly are not suffering from any kind of respiratory issue. This is a highly irrational state that has no basis in reality.

Indeed, according to McDonald, these people are suffering from delusional psychosis,13 and there are a lot of them. He goes so far as to refer to the outside of his home or office as the “outdoor insane asylum,” where he must assume “that any person that I run into is insane” unless they prove otherwise.14 As explained by Cheah:15

“Instead of facing reality, the delusional person would rather live in their world of make-believe. But in order to keep faking reality, they’ll have to make sure that everyone else around them also pretends to live in their imaginary world.

In simpler words, the delusional person rejects reality. And in this rejection of reality, others have to play along with how they view the world, otherwise, their world will not make sense to them. It’s why the delusional person will get angry when they face someone who doesn’t conform to their world view …

It’s one of the reasons why you’re seeing so many people who’d happily approve the silencing of any medical experts whose views contradict the WHO or CDC guidelines. ‘Obey the rules!’ becomes more important than questioning if the rules were legitimate to begin with.”

In his interview with Jesse Lee Peterson (video above), McDonald explains his diagnosis this way:

“There was never a medical crisis. There were always enough resources to deal with the people who were sick … Many resources were in fact turned away … The question then, for me, became, ‘What’s the real crisis? What are people really suffering from?’

It became clear to me, very quickly, within the first two or three weeks in March [2020], that it was fear. Since then … the fear … has morphed and evolved, not just into a ‘I’m worried, I’m scared so I need to stay home,’ but an actual belief that is against reality — because the definition of delusion is something you believe that doesn’t conform with reality.

They believe that they are going to die — no matter what age, no matter what state of health they’re in — if they don’t leave their house with a mask and gloves on every day and run from [other] human beings. That’s delusional psychosis. It’s false, it’s wrong, it’s not backed up by evidence. And many, many Americans are living that and believing that.”

While there’s no data to back this up, McDonald says it appears women tend to be more prone to delusional psychosis than men. Part of it, he suggests, may be because when women get scared, they tend to become more hyperprotective than men do under the same circumstances, likely because women — speaking in pure generalizing terms, of course — tend to be more emotionally driven.

Mass Delusional Psychosis Traumatizes Children

McDonald is particularly concerned with the lasting effects this widespread insanity will have on children as they grow up. As a psychiatrist specializing in the treatment of children and adolescents, he should know. Since the lockdowns began in the first quarter of 2020, he’s seen a massive increase in patients, and their mental states are far worse than what he’s used to seeing in these age groups.

One of the worst traumas children suffer as a result of all this fearmongering is the idea that they may kill their parents or grandparents simply by being around them. As noted by Cheah, they’re also being taught to feel guilty about behaviors that would normally be completely, well, normal.

As just one example, hysterical adults calling a toddler who refuses to wear a mask a “brat,” when in fact resisting having a restrictive mask put across your face is perfectly normal at that age.

“It’s not normal for children to grow up thinking that everyone is a danger to everyone else,” Cheah says, and rightly so. It’s not normal at all, and hysterical adults are mindlessly inflicting severe emotional trauma on an entire generation.

As noted by McDonald in his interview with Peterson above, a primary cause of depression, especially among youngsters, is disconnection from others. We need face-to-face contact, we need physical contact as well as emotional intimacy. We need these things to feel safe around others and within our own selves. Digital interactions simply cannot replace these most basic human needs, and are inherently separating rather than connective.

McDonald cites recent CDC statistics showing there’s been a 400% increase in adolescent depression compared to one year ago, and in 25% of cases, they’ve contemplated suicide. These are unheard of statistics, he says. Never before have so many teenagers considered committing suicide.

“This is a mass-casualty event,” McDonald says, and parents — adults — are to blame, because they are the ones scaring them to the point they don’t feel life is worth living anymore.

This is also why just treating the children is not going to be effective enough. We have to address the psychosis of the adult population. “It’s up to us adults to fix this,” McDonald says, “because children are not going to be able to fix this themselves.”

Delusional People Ultimately Require Controlled Environments

We must also address the mass delusion for another reason, and that is because it’s driving us all, sane and insane alike, toward a society devoid of all previous freedoms and civil liberties, and the corrupt individuals in charge will not voluntarily relinquish power once we’ve given it to them.

A totalitarian society, McDonald believes, is the ultimate end of this societal psychosis unless we do something about it and realize that “we’re fine, we’re perfectly safe.” Indeed, we’re in no more danger now than we were pre-COVID. We must not allow our freedoms to be taken from us due to delusional fears. As noted by Cheah in her article:16

“It’s not unthinkable that the final outcome would be total societal control on every aspect of your life. Consider this — the endpoint of a mentally ill person is for them to be put under a controlled environment (institutionalized like an asylum) where all freedoms are restricted. And it’s looking more and more like that’s the endpoint of where this mass psychosis is heading.”

A December 18, 2020, Tweet by political commentator Candace Owens also sums up how irrational fear and panic have figuratively lobotomized a significant portion of the public:

McDonald points out that many of our leaders obviously do not suffer these same delusional fears. They issue stay-at-home orders from their vacation homes in the Caribbean and repeatedly break their own mask and lockdown mandates. They ride their bikes, stroll through the park, have family gatherings and dine out without a care. They know COVID-19 isn’t the deadly plague it’s been made out to be, but they’re playing the game because it benefits them.

Fear Is Never Virtuous

The video above features a short lecture McDonald gave during America’s Frontline Doctors’ White Coat Summit 217 in mid-October 2020, titled “The Way Forward: Overcoming Fear.”

In it, he points out that not only has fear morphed into a delusional belief that masks, gloves and physical separation is required to stay alive, but fear has also been turned into a virtue, which is doubly tragic and wrong.

Wearing a mask has become a way to demonstrate that you’re a “good person,” someone who obviously cares about others, whereas not wearing a mask brands you as an inconsiderate lout, if not a prospective mass murderer, simply by breathing.

Healthy people should never wear masks, social distance or self-isolate. Not only are these strategies unhealthy from a physical standpoint, they also perpetuate the delusional psychosis gripping the nation and therefore must end.

By encouraging us to remain in fear, to burrow and settle into it and allow it to control and constrain our lives, the fear has become so entrenched that anyone who says we need to be fearless and fight for our freedoms is attacked for being not only stupid but also dangerous. “I would argue that it’s the opposite,” McDonald says.

The problem we now face is that the delusion has taken such hold that even if the mask mandates ended nationwide today, many would refuse to give up their masks, and they would not stop chastising those who don’t wear them, either. What’s more, we now have private companies pushing these freedom-robbing edicts, refusing services to those who don’t wear masks.

Soon, you won’t be allowed into certain venues if you don’t have the COVID-19 vaccine as well, and private corporations are the ones instigating those unconstitutional rules. If you understand the technocratic agenda, then you know why that is. It’s because many private companies are part of the global technocratic alliance that is trying to eliminate our freedoms in order to enrich themselves.

“We started out with fear and hysteria. We moved to delusional psychosis, and now we have group control,” McDonald says. “Now we don’t have police officers and government coming after us. What we have more of is our fellow citizens now castigating us, legally limiting us from getting into vehicles [such as Uber or plane], going into businesses [and] getting jobs.”

Restoring Sanity as We Move Forward

Essentially, citizens are now acting as a de facto “police force” to suppress other people’s freedom, and this has a terribly harmful effect on society. So, how do we get out of the proverbial insane asylum? How do we restore sanity to our society while still helping those who are at greatest risk for complications and death from COVID-19? McDonald offers the following suggestions in his lecture and the featured interview:

We must firmly reject masks as a virtue signal; the idea that action taken out of fear — such as donning a mask — is virtuous. Fear is not helpful and never virtuous.

We should protect those at greatest risk — meaning elderly, frail individuals with comorbidities and those who are in poor health — using simple, inexpensive and readily available prophylactics, including vitamin D, hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin and zinc.

Healthy people should never wear masks, social distance or self-isolate. Not only are these strategies unhealthy from a physical standpoint, they also perpetuate the delusional psychosis gripping the nation and therefore must end.

We must embrace courage, truth, honesty and freedom, not just in our thoughts and words but also in our actions. As noted by McDonald in the featured interview, people cannot think logically when in a state of delusional psychosis, hence sharing information, facts, data and evidence tends to be ineffective except in cases where the person was acting out of peer pressure rather than a delusional belief.

Typically, the best you can do is stand firm and act in alignment with truth and objective reality, much like you would if you were a first responder faced with an accident victim who is responding hysterically to what you know is only a minor injury.

Sources and References

The post The World Is Suffering From Mass Delusional Psychosis appeared first on LewRockwell.



via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Yes, the NY Times Exposed the PCR Test

ORIGINAL LINK

LRC-share.jpg

As I’ve been telling readers for many months, even if you assume SARS-CoV-2 is real, the test is useful, and the case and death numbers are meaningful, there are vast and crippling internal contradictions within the official portrait of COVID-19.

Currently, I’m focusing on the PCR test and its fatal flaws.

The test is a MAJOR weak point in the enemy’s attack on humanity. If the test falls, the case and death numbers are shown to be wildly false, and the whole pandemic narrative collapses.

I urge readers to spread this information far and wide.

On August 29, 2020, the New York Times published a long article headlined, “Your coronavirus test is positive. Maybe it shouldn’t be.” [1] [2]

Its main message? “The standard [COVID PCR] tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus…Most of these people are not likely to be contagious…”

“In three sets of testing data…compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.”

“On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.”

TAKEAWAY FROM THE Times: Up to 90% of ALL people who have been labeled “COVID cases” are not COVID cases. This fact would downgrade the pandemic to “just another flu season.” And there would be no reason for lockdowns.

Of course, the Times goes on to say the solution to this problem is MORE TESTING. Only a moron would accept that notion.

The enduring message of their article still stands: the PCR test apparatus is a fraud, through and through. It enables the recording of monumentally false case numbers, which are used to declare unnecessary lockdowns and wall-to-wall economic destruction.

Make the truth known.


SOURCES:

[1] nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20210217055535/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog.

The post Yes, the NY Times Exposed the PCR Test appeared first on LewRockwell.



via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

How Conspiracy Theorizing May Soon Get You Labelled A "Domestic Terrorist"



If you are starting to feel like forces controlling the governments of the west are out to get you, then it is likely that you are either a paranoid nut job, or a stubborn realist. Either way, it means that you have some major problems on your hands.

ORIGINAL LINK

NYC Waitress Fired For Waiting To Take COVID Vax Over Pregnancy Concerns

ORIGINAL LINK
NYC Waitress Fired For Waiting To Take COVID Vax Over Pregnancy Concerns

A waitress in New York City was fired after she told her employer that she wanted to wait and see if the COVID-19 vaccine - which has been in use for less than nine months - has any side affects on pregnancy.

34-year-old Bonnie Jacobson, who started working at the Red Hook Tavern in August, says she's not an 'anti-vaxxer,' but was uncomfortable taking the vaccine while she and her husband were trying to conceive, she told the Daily Mail.

Bonnie Jacobson

On February 8, the restaurant sent an email to employees which said "If you choose to get vaccinated, here's what you need to know." The email made no mention of mandatory vaccinations - which, by the by, don't prevent people from catching or transmitting COVID-19  and instead helps protect against serious illness from the disease.

During a staff meeting, Jacobson says she told her manager that she wanted more time to research the vaccine, and was told that she wouldn't be required to get the shot.

"As a 34-year-old woman, why take the risk right now when I can just wait a little longer when there are people a lot older and more at risk who could use the vaccine more than I could right now?" she told the Mail. "My dad is 68 years old and lives in Pennsylvania and has diabetes, there’s no reason why I should be getting that before him."

Days later on February 12, the Brooklyn tavern changed its mind and sent an email telling employees that the vaccine was mandatory.

"Please be advised that we will require that all employees receive the vaccination," reads the email.

"This will be mandatory for all existing employees and any new hires. The exception to this policy will be if your own personal health or disability prohibits you from obtaining this vaccination. We encourage you to consult your healthcare professional to determine if getting a vaccine is right for you."

Jacobson emailed her employers back, and said that while she 'fully supports' the vaccine, she doesn't want to get it yet.

"While I fully support the vaccine and understand its importance I do believe this is a very personal choice. I really hope this choice would not affect my employment at Red Hook Tavern," she wrote, adding that she takes COVID "very seriously" and will continue to practice safety guidelines.

"I get tested every 1-2 weeks and have never tested positive for COVID. I plan to continue these safety practices for as long as necessary," her email continues, adding "Also once there is more research to support that it does not affect fertility I would reconsider my position."

On Monday, however, Jacobson heard back - with her employers noting that the company 'respected' her 'very personal choice,' but that "In order to continue employment with us, getting the vaccine is required. At this time your employment will be terminated. We are sad to see you go. If you do change your mind, please do not hesitate to let us know."

Red Hook Tavern owner Billy Durney told the Mail that he could have handled the situation differently, and that the tavern would update its policy so all employees understand their stance.

"Once New York state allowed restaurant workers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, we thought this was the perfect opportunity to put a plan in place to keep our team and guests safe," he said in a statement obtained by various outlets, adding "No one has faced these challenges before and we made a decision that we thought would best protect everyone."

Red Hook Tavern owner Billy Durney

"I just wanted more time they didn’t allow me that, I didn’t even have time to consult a physician. It was a week from being 'your choice,' to it's not going to be mandatory, to it us mandatory, to you’re fired," said Jacobson. "I had a very good working relationship there. I just had an employee review on February 6 and it was all positive, so it was truly shocking that it was so impersonal."

According to labor attorney Carolyn D. Richmond, it's too early for companies to mandate shots.

"Pregnancy and vaccine — as soon as you hear those words in the workplace, you should stop to think if what you are doing is right or wrong," Richmond told the New York Times. "It has to be generally available to the employee population and it's not. None of us are having an easy time getting appointments."

That said, employers have the right to mandate the vaccine, according to Dorit Reiss,  a professor at the University of California Hastings College of Law.

"Requiring a vaccine is a health and safety work rule, and employers can do that," he told CNBC in December.

Last month, the World Health Organization advised pregnant women not to get vaccinated unless at high risk for COVID-19 due to underlying conditions.

Tyler Durden Thu, 02/18/2021 - 23:40

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

The Temporary Collapse Of Texas Is Foreshadowing The Total Collapse Of The United States

ORIGINAL LINK

We are getting a very short preview of what will eventually happen to the United States as a whole.  America’s infrastructure is aging and crumbling.  Our power grids were never intended to support so many people, our water systems are a complete joke, and it has become utterly apparent that we would be completely lost if a major long-term national emergency ever struck.  Texas has immense wealth and vast energy resources, but now it is being called a “failed state”.  If it can’t even handle a few days of cold weather, what is the rest of America going to look like when things really start to get chaotic in this country?

At this point, it has become clear that the power grid in Texas is in far worse shape than anyone ever imagined.  When extremely cold weather hit the state, demand for energy surged dramatically.  At the same time, about half of the wind turbines that Texas relies upon froze, and the rest of the system simply could not handle the massive increase in demand.

Millions of Texans were without power for days, and hundreds of thousands are still without power as I write this article.

And now we are learning that Texas was literally just moments away from “a catastrophic failure” that could have resulted in blackouts “for months”

Texas’ power grid was “seconds and minutes” away from a catastrophic failure that could have left Texans in the dark for months, officials with the entity that operates the grid said Thursday.

As millions of customers throughout the state begin to have power restored after days of massive blackouts, officials with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which operates the power grid that covers most of the state, said Texas was dangerously close to a worst-case scenario: uncontrolled blackouts across the state.

I can’t even imagine how nightmarish things would have eventually gotten in Texas if there had actually been blackouts for months.

According to one expert, the state really was right on the verge of a “worst case scenario”

The worst case scenario: Demand for power outstrips the supply of power generation available on the grid, causing equipment to catch fire, substations to blow and power lines to go down.

If the grid had gone totally offline, the physical damage to power infrastructure from overwhelming the grid could have taken months to repair, said Bernadette Johnson, senior vice president of power and renewables at Enverus, an oil and gas software and information company headquartered in Austin.

For years, I have been telling my readers that they have got to have a back up plan for power, because during a major emergency the grid can fail.

And when it fails, it can literally cost some people their lives.  I was deeply saddened when I learned that one man in Texas actually froze to death sitting in his own recliner

As Texas suffered through days of power outages, a man reportedly froze to death in his recliner with his wife clinging to life beside him.

The man was found dead in his Abilene home on Wednesday after being without power for several days in the record cold.

Most Americans don’t realize that much of the rest of the world actually has much better power infrastructure than we do.  Just check out these numbers

In Japan, the average home sees only 4 minutes of power outages per year. In the American Midwest, the figure is 92 minutes per year. In the Northeast, it’s 214 minutes; all those figures cover only regular outages and not those caused by extreme weather or fires.

As our population has grown and our infrastructure has aged, performance has just gotten worse and worse.  In fact, things ran much more smoothly all the way back in the mid-1980s

According to an analysis by Climate Central, major outages (affecting more than 50,000 homes or businesses) grew ten times more common from the mid-1980s to 2012. From 2003 to 2012, weather-related outages doubled. In a 2017 report, the American Society of Civil Engineers reported that there were 3,571 total outages in 2015, lasting 49 minutes on average. The U.S. Energy Administration reports that in 2016, the average utility customer had 1.3 power interruptions, and their total blackout time averaged four hours.

America is literally crumbling all around us, and it getting worse with each passing year.

Our water systems are another example.

In Texas, the cold weather literally caused thousands of pipes to burst.  The damage caused by all of these ruined pipes is going to be in the billions of dollars.

Right now, we are being told that a total of 797 water systems in the state are currently reporting problems with “frozen or broken pipes”

Some 13.5 million people are facing water disruptions with 797 water systems throughout the state reporting issues such as frozen or broken pipes, according to Toby Baker, executive director for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. About 725 systems are under a boil water advisory, Baker said during a press conference Thursday.

Overall, approximately 7 million residents of the state live in areas that have been ordered to boil water, and it could take months for service to fully return to normal.

Without water, none of us can survive for long, and it is absolutely imperative that you have a back up plan in case your local system goes down.

In Houston, people that are without water in their homes have been forced to line up to fill buckets at a public spigot

Meanwhile, in scenes reminiscent of a third world country, Houston residents resorted to filling up buckets of water from a spigot in a local neighborhood.

One Houston resident, whose power has just gone back on Thursday after three days but still has no water, told DailyMail.com: ‘It is crazy that we just watched NASA land on Mars but here in Houston most of us still don’t have drinking water.’

You can watch video of this happening right here.  Of course if your local water system completely fails, there won’t even be a public spigot available for you to get water.

Shortages of food and other essential supplies are also being reported in Texas.

For Philip Shelley and his young wife, the situation became quite desperate fairly rapidly

Philip Shelley, a resident of Fort Worth, told CNN that he, his wife Amber and 11-month-old daughter, Ava, were struggling to stay warm and fed. Amber is pregnant and due April 4.

“(Ava) is down to half a can of formula,” Shelley said. “Stores are out if not extremely low on food. Most of our food in the refrigerator is spoiled. Freezer food is close to thawed but we have no way to heat it up.”

So what would they have done if the blackouts had lasted for months?

All over the state, extremely long lines have been forming at local supermarkets.  In some cases, people have started waiting way before the stores actually open

Joe Giovannoli, 29, arrived at a Central Market supermarket in Austin at 8:30 a.m. Thursday, an hour-and-a-half before it opened. Minutes later, more than 200 people had lined up behind him in the biting 26-degree weather.

Giovannoli’s wife is three months pregnant and the power in their one-bedroom Austin apartment blinked out Tuesday night. After a water pipe broke, firefighters also turned off the building’s water, he said. Giovannoli said he realized he still had it better than many others across Texas, but worried how long things will take to get back to normal.

This is happening in communities across Texas, and you can see video of one of these “bread lines” right here.

Of course those that had gotten prepared in advance did not have to wait in such long lines because they already had food.

Sadly, even though Joe Giovannoli had gotten to the supermarket so early, he later received really bad news

A few minutes before the store opened its doors, a manager stepped outside and warned those waiting in line that supplies inside were low: No produce, no baked goods, not much canned food.

“We haven’t had a delivery in four days,” he said.

Remember, this is just a temporary crisis in Texas that is only going to last for a few days.

So what would happen if a severe long-term national emergency disrupted food, water and power systems for months on end?

All it took to cause a short-term “collapse scenario” in the state of Texas was some cold weather.

Eventually, much worse things will happen to our nation, and it has become clear that we are not ready.

So get prepared while you still can, because time is running out.

***Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.***

About the Author: My name is Michael Snyder and my brand new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on Amazon.com.  In addition to my new book, I have written four others that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned)  By purchasing the books you help to support the work that my wife and I are doing, and by giving it to others you help to multiply the impact that we are having on people all over the globe.  I have published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe.  I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but I also ask that they include this “About the Author” section with each article.  The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial or health decisions.  I encourage you to follow me on social media on FacebookTwitter and Parler, and any way that you can share these articles with others is a great help.  During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

The post The Temporary Collapse Of Texas Is Foreshadowing The Total Collapse Of The United States first appeared on The Economic Collapse.



via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Fact-checkers are crushing on Joe Biden

ORIGINAL LINK

Appearing at a friendly CNN town hall event this week, President Joe Biden dropped a string of untruths on issues both large and small. One of the president's most egregious falsehoods was the claim that "we didn't have (the vaccine) when we came into office." The first shot was administered back on Dec. 14, 2020.

Glenn Kessler, lead fact-checker for The Washington Post, quickly jumped into action on Twitter, explaining that this was merely a "verbal stumble, a typical Biden gaffe, as he had already mentioned 50 million doses being available when he took office. Former Trump officials should especially cool the outrage meter, as it just looks silly." Castigating those who pointed out the lie is a weird thing for someone charged with verifying factual information to do.

It was a strange coincidence, indeed, that Biden's "verbal stumble" corresponded perfectly with the concerted administration-wide effort to mislead Americans regarding the president's new vaccination plan. Last week, Vice President Kamala Harris had herself accidentally stumbled into numerous similar gaffes, saying there had been "no national strategy or plan for vaccinations," that the new administration was "starting from scratch on something that's been raging for almost an entire year," and that there "there was no stockpile … of vaccines."

When a Twitter follower asked him how he determines what constitutes a "verbal stumble" or a lie, Kessler explained: "People screw up on live television. Biden with his stutter especially does so." Ah, the stutter. How quickly the media has taken to the Biden's stutter excuse. "The Democratic presidential candidate's gaffes may be rooted in a little-understood disability," The Hill theorized when Biden first shared the story of his early struggles with stuttering. Do those who similarly struggle usually steal entire speeches – nay, life stories – from others? Do they coherently say things that are provable lies? I suspect not.

It is odd, as well, that a fact-checker would contend that Biden must have had a "verbal stumble" because he had previously admitted the truth on the issue. For one thing, it seems unlikely this was the standard used for Donald Trump's contradictory ramblings. And though I'm not a professionally trained fact-checker myself, I'm relatively certain that most politicians have the skill set to tell the truth on a topic in one instance and then lie in another. All of these defenses of Biden rely on the notion that the president wouldn't intentionally mislead us. Which is also weird, considering he is a notorious fabulist and fabricator.

Now, many Americans might be unaware of the history of Biden's untruths. Because, while fact-checkers may sporadically, if tepidly, correct falsehoods uttered by Democrats, or retroactively admit to them, they also regularly offer rationalizations, excuses, justifications – rich layers of contextual detail – to safeguard them from criticism, which is a complete abdication of the job they ostensibly claim to do.

Perhaps the most mendacious "fact-checker" is CNN's Daniel Dale, who produces prodigious amounts of disingenuous partisan clickbait. Yesterday, Dale also bored into the soul of Biden to discern exactly what the president "meant," which, it conveniently turned out, was the opposite of what he said. Then again, Dale noted back in September that Biden "makes some false and misleading claims" but "assertions of fact have been largely factual." Tautology aside, a quick fact-check of this claim earns a gaggle of Pinocchios. Then again, Dale is just a left-wing columnist. Nothing wrong with it. But no one needs to pretend otherwise.

The fact is – if you'll pardon the expression – this kind of partisan gruel would never have existed in a reputable newsroom 30 or 20 years ago. Yet, it thrives in an age in which the number of Twitter followers and hits are valued over fact-gathering. There has been no price to pay for this destruction of political journalism – only high ratings. Perhaps it will change post-Trump.

It's not only that the fact-checkers are objectionable but also that the idea of fact-checking is un-journalistic. There is something more insidious about fact-checks than the average hackery. Listening to PBS NewsHour's Yamiche Alcindor, for instance, regurgitate the administration's talking points is sad but inoffensive. Fact-checkers circumvent debate by making pronouncements about highly disputable contentions.

One might be able to look past the five-year abandonment of journalistic ethics and professionalism if reporters and fact-checkers were equal-opportunity sticklers. The problem wasn't the adversarial relationship journalists had with those in power – though the self-aggrandizement and navel-gazing were insufferable. It's the selective deployment of these ethics as now displayed with a different administration. And no one exemplifies the problem better than the self-anointed fact-checkers.

The post Fact-checkers are crushing on Joe Biden appeared first on WND.



via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

German Study: Laboratory Accident Most Likely Cause Of Coronavirus Pandemic

ORIGINAL LINK
German Study: Laboratory Accident Most Likely Cause Of Coronavirus Pandemic

Authored by Swiss Policy Research (emphasis ours),

Professor Dr. Roland Wiesendanger, a leading German expert in the field of nanotechnology and three-time winner of the prestigious European Research Council Advanced Grant, has completed a one-year, hundred-page study on the origin of the novel coronavirus. Professor Wiesendanger concludes that “both the number and quality of the circumstantial evidence point to a laboratory accident at the virological institute in the city of Wuhan as the cause of the current pandemic.”

In the following, SPR provides an English translation of the official German press release of the University of Hamburg. The hundred-page German study by Prof. Wiesendanger can be found here.

SPR would like to add the following information: The two most recent global pandemics were the 1977 ‘Russian flu’ and the 2009 ‘swine flu’. In both of these cases, modern genetic research indicates that a lab escape was the most likely origin of the pandemic virus (see here and here).


Study on the origin of the coronavirus pandemic published

Professor Dr. Roland Wiesendanger, University of Hamburg

For more than a year, the coronavirus has been causing a worldwide crisis. In a study, nanoscientist Prof. Dr. Roland Wiesendanger has now shed light on the origin of the virus. He concludes that both the number and quality of the circumstantial evidence point to a laboratory accident at the virological institute in the city of Wuhan as the cause of the current pandemic.

The study was conducted between January 2020 and December 2020. It is based on an interdisciplinary scientific approach and extensive research using a wide variety of information sources. These include scientific literature, articles in print and online media, and personal communication with international colleagues. It does not provide highly scientific evidence, but it does provide ample and serious circumstantial evidence:

  • Unlike previous coronavirus-related epidemics such as SARS and MERS, to date, well over a year after the outbreak of the current pandemic, no intermediate host animal has been identified that could have facilitated the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 pathogens from bats to humans. Therefore, the zoonotic theory as a possible explanation for the pandemic has no sound scientific basis.

  • The SARS-CoV-2 viruses are surprisingly good at coupling to human cell receptors and penetrating human cells. This is made possible by special cell receptor binding domains combined with a special (furin) cleavage site of the coronavirus zigzag protein. Both properties together were previously unknown in coronaviruses and indicate a non-natural origin of the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen.

  • Bats were not offered at the suspected fish market in the center of Wuhan city. However, the Wuhan City Virological Institute has one of the world’s largest collections of bat pathogens, which originated from distant caves in southern Chinese provinces. It is extremely unlikely that bats from this distance of nearly 2,000 km would have naturally made their way to Wuhan, only to cause a global pandemic in close proximity to this virological institute.

  • A research group at the Wuhan City Virological Institute has been genetically manipulating coronaviruses for many years with the goal of making them more contagious, dangerous and deadly to humans. This has been documented in the scientific literature by numerous publications.

  • Significant safety deficiencies existed at the Wuhan City Virological Institute even before the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, which have been documented.

  • There are numerous direct references to a laboratory origin of the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen. For example, a young female scientist at the virology institute in Wuhan is believed to have been the first to become infected. There are also numerous indications that as early as October 2019, the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen spread from the virological institute to the city of Wuhan and beyond. Furthermore, there are indications that the virological institute was investigated by the Chinese authorities in the first half of October 2019.

“The current coronavirus pandemic is not only dominating the current headlines, but will be with us for many years to come – not least because of the social and economic impact. For months, dealing with and managing the corona crisis has understandably been at the forefront of issues in politics and the media. However, the critical science-based examination of the question of the origin of the current pandemic is already of great importance today, because only on the basis of this knowledge can adequate precautions be taken to minimize the probability of similar pandemics occurring in the future,” says Prof. Dr. Roland Wiesendanger.

The study was completed in January 2021 and initially distributed and discussed in scientific circles. The publication is now intended to stimulate a broad discussion, particularly with regard to the ethical aspects of so-called “gain-of-function” research, which makes pathogens more infectious, dangerous and deadly for humans. “This can no longer remain a matter for a small group of scientists, but must urgently become the subject of a public debate,” says the study’s author.

Read the full hundred-page study in German on ResearchGate →

∗∗∗

Meanwhile... two weeks after World Health Organization wrapped up its junket to Wuhan, they're doubling down on the natural origin hypothesis and have added two species to the list of potential crossover hosts; ferret badgers and rabbits, which 'could have played a role' in the spread to humans. Of course, they'd need to find one in the wild that can carry SARS-Cov-2 and infect a human.

According to the very conflicted Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance, who was on the WHO trip to Wuhan (and participated in coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology after the Obama administration cut US funding for it in 2015), the genetic experts who have been creating chimeric coronaviruses to better infect humans couldn't have possibly been the source.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/19/2021 - 03:30

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

German State Forbids Drivers From Wearing Masks, Sunglasses & Hats At Same Time

ORIGINAL LINK
German State Forbids Drivers From Wearing Masks, Sunglasses & Hats At Same Time

Germany's Bild newspaper reports that Saxony, a region in Eastern Germany, has became the first region in the country to ban drivers from wearing hats and sunglasses while also being masked.

Anybody driving in a car must be identifiable by traffic cameras, the state is demanding. Wearing all three at the same time can greatly obscure an individual's appearance, to the point of being unidentifiable.

All of this is important since, starting Monday, people will be required to wear masks in vehicles in Saxony if members of more than two households are traveling together.

"Wearing a hat and sunglasses in addition to a mask that covers the face and mouth makes [the driver] unrecognizable. So that’s not allowed," Saxony’s Interior Minister Roland Woller was quoted as saying.

"General facial features" of the driver must still be visible to the road safety cameras, Woller added, claiming that officials responsible for handing out fines were advised to handle the new rule on a case-by-case basis.

Meanwhile, Germans were mandated last month to wear medical-grade respirator-type masks on public transport and when going to supermarkets. Simple cloth and/or homemade masks aren't even allowed in such circumstances.

Germany has been among the most aggressive governments on the European Continent when it comes to imposing restrictive measures to combat COVID cases,

As cases and deaths continue to decline generally around the world, Germany has just seen an increase by 10,207 to 2,360,606, data from the Robert Koch Institute for infectious diseases showed on Thursday. The reported death toll rose by 534 to 66,698, the tally showed.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/19/2021 - 05:35

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Thursday, February 18, 2021

Mindless Mask Mandates Likely Do More Harm Than Good

ORIGINAL LINK

In breathless tones, NBC News recently reported1 the existence of a business where mask wearing isn’t enforced. In the Naples, Florida, grocery store, hardly anyone wears a mask. The store’s owner, who the news station claimed “is known for his conservative and often controversial viewpoints,” told a reporter he’s never worn a mask in his life and never will.

The store does have a mask policy posted, but video shows that many customers are fine with not wearing one. There is a mask mandate in Naples, but Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has issued a ruling that makes enforcement of the rule difficult, NBC said.

The irony of the whole thing is that while the media claims mask mandates are based on science and will “save lives,” this simply isn’t true. Science is actually being ignored wholesale and recommendations are primarily pushed based on emotional justifications and triggers. If science were actually followed, universal mask wearing by healthy people would not — indeed could not — be recommended.

A Timeline of Unscientific Extremes

From the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, health experts have been unable to unify around a cohesive message about face masks. In February 2020, Surgeon General Jerome Adams sent out a tweet urging Americans to stop buying masks, saying they are “NOT effective.”2 (He has since deleted that tweet.) Adams also warned that if worn or handled improperly, face masks can increase your risk of infection.3

Similarly, in March 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci stated4 that “people should not be walking around with masks” because “it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.” Logically, only symptomatic individuals and health care workers were urged to wear them.

Fauci even pointed out that mask wearing has “unintended consequences” as “people keep fiddling with their mask and they keep touching their face,” which may actually increase the risk of contracting and/or spreading the virus.

By June 2020, universal mask mandates became the norm and we were told we had to wear them because there may be asymptomatic super-spreaders among us. Interestingly enough, that same month, the World Health Organization admitted that asymptomatic transmission was “very rare.” If that’s true, then why should healthy, asymptomatic people mask up?

By July 2020, Fauci claimed his initial dismissal of face masks had been in error and that he’d downplayed their importance simply to ensure there would be a sufficient supply for health care workers, who need them most.5

Fast-forward a few weeks, and by the end of July 2020, Fauci went to the next extreme, flouting the recommendation to wear goggles and full face shields in addition to a mask, ostensibly because the mucous membranes of your eyes could potentially serve as entryways for viruses as well.6

This despite the fact that a March 31, 2020, report7 in JAMA Ophthalmology found SARS-CoV-2-positive conjunctival specimens (i.e., specimens taken from the eye) in just 5.2% of confirmed COVID-19 patients (two out of 28).

What’s more, contamination of the eyes is likely primarily the result of touching your eyes with contaminated fingers. If you wear goggles or a face shield, you may actually be more prone to touch your eyes to rub away sweat, condensation and/or scratch an itch.

Toward the end of November 2020, the asymptomatic spread narrative was effectively destroyed by the publication of a Chinese study8 involving nearly 9.9 million individuals. It revealed not a single case of COVID-19 could be traced to an asymptomatic individual who had tested positive.

The logical reason for all this flip-flopping is because actual science is NOT being taken into account. From the start, the available research has been rather consistent: Mask wearing does not reduce the prevalence of viral illness and asymptomatic spread is exceedingly rare, if not nonexistent.

Around December 2020, recommendations for double-masking emerged,9 and this trend gained momentum through extensive media coverage as we moved into the first weeks of 2021.10 Undeterred by scientific evidence and logic alike, by the end of January 2021, “experts” started promoting the use of three11,12 or even four13 masks, whether you’re symptomatic or not.

These recommendations quickly sparked a mild backlash, with other experts encouraging the return to common sense, as wearing three or more masks may impair airflow, which can worsen any number of health conditions.

True to form, while promoting the concept of double-masking as recently as January 29, 2021,14 by February 1, Fauci conceded “There is no data that indicates double-masking is effective,” but that “There are many people who feel … if you really want to have an extra little bit of protection, ‘maybe I should put two masks on.'”15 In other words, the suggestion is based on emotion, not actual science.

The Singular Truth Behind Mixed Messaging About Masks

The logical reason for all this flip-flopping is because actual science is NOT being taken into account. From the start, the available research has been rather consistent: Mask wearing does not reduce the prevalence of viral illness and asymptomatic spread is exceedingly rare, if not nonexistent.

Both of these scientific consensuses negate the rationale for universal mask wearing by healthy (asymptomatic) people. The only time mask wearing makes sense is in a hospital setting and if you are actually symptomatic and need to be around others, and even then, you need to be aware that it provides only limited protection.

The reason for this is because the virus is aerosolized and spreads through the air. Aerosolized viruses — especially SARS-CoV-2, which is about half the size of influenza viruses — cannot be blocked by a mask, as explained in my interview with Denis Rancourt, who has conducted a thorough review of the published science on masks and viral transmission.

According to Rancourt, “NONE of these well-designed studies that are intended to remove observational bias found a statistically significant advantage of wearing a mask versus not wearing a mask.”

COVID-19 Specific Mask Trial Failed to Prove Benefit

While most mask studies have looked at influenza, the first COVID-19-specific randomized controlled surgical mask trial, published November 18, 2020, confirmed previous findings, showing that:16,17

a.Masks may reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or it may actually increase your risk by 23%

b.The vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn’t wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection free

The study included 3,030 individuals assigned to wear a surgical face mask and 2,994 unmasked controls. Of them, 80.7% completed the study. Based on the adherence scores reported, 46% of participants always wore the mask as recommended, 47% predominantly as recommended and 7% failed to follow recommendations.

Among mask wearers, 1.8% ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% among controls. When they removed the people who reported not adhering to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8%, which suggests adherence makes no significant difference.

Among those who reported wearing their face mask “exactly as instructed,” 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 2.1% of the controls. So, essentially, we’re destroying economies and lives around the world to protect a tiny minority from getting a positive PCR test result which, as detailed in “Asymptomatic ‘Casedemic’ Is a Perpetuation of Needless Fear,” means little to nothing.

CDC Relies on Anecdotal Data to Promote Mask Use

If you want additional proof that health authorities are not concerned with following the best available science, look no further than the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.18 What do they rely on as the primary piece of “evidence” to back up its mask recommendation?

A wholly anecdotal story about two symptomatic hair stylists who interacted with 139 clients during eight days is all they offer. Sixty-seven of the clients agreed to be interviewed and tested. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

The fact that the stylists and all clients “universally wore masks in the salon” is therefore seen as evidence that the masks prevented the spread of infection. The Danish study reviewed above didn’t even make it onto the CDC’s list of studies.

The CDC’s own data19,20,21 also show 70.6% of COVID-19 patients reported “always” wearing a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days preceding their illness; 14.4% reported having worn a mask “often.” So, a total of 85% of people who came down with COVID-19 had “often” or “always” worn a mask.

This too contradicts the idea that mask wearing will protect against the infection, and is probably a slightly more reliable indicator of effectiveness than the anecdotal hairdresser story.

Another recent investigation22 revealed the same trend, showing that states with mask mandates had an average of 27 positive SARS-CoV-2 “cases” per 100,000 people, whereas states with no mask mandates had just 17 cases per 100,000. I reviewed these and other findings in my December 31, 2020, article, “Mask Mandates Are Absolutely Useless.”

Masks Don’t Protect Against Smoke

The CDC also contradicts its own conclusions that masks protect against viral spread by specifying that wearing a cloth face mask will NOT protect you against wildfire smoke, because “they do not catch small, harmful particles in smoke that can harm your health.”23 To get any protection from harmful smoke particles, you’d have to use an N95 respirator.

The particulate matter in wildfire smoke can range from 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller in smoke and haze, to 10 micrometers in wind-blown dust.24 SARS-CoV-2, meanwhile, has a diameter between 0.06 and 0.14 micrometers, far tinier than the particulate found in smoke.

SARS-CoV-2 is also about half the size of most viruses, which tend to measure between 0.02 microns to 0.3 microns.25 Meanwhile, virus-laden saliva or respiratory droplets expelled when talking or coughing measure between 5 and 10 micrometers.26

N95 masks can filter particles as small as 0.3 microns,27 so they may prevent a majority of respiratory droplets from escaping, but not aerosolized viruses. Influenza viruses and SARS-CoV-2 are small enough to float in the air column, so as long as you can still breathe, they can flow in and out of your respiratory tract.

The following video offers a simple demonstration of how masks “work.” Or rather, don’t, as the vapor flows in and out, all around the mask — even if you’re wearing two of them.

@chadroyvermontPsychrometric’s Visualized we show you what Science has missed . Take a deeper look into this Science it will help stop Covid!#science #school #fyp♬ original sound – user579705

More Science

If you’re still on the fence about whether masks are a necessity that must be forced on everyone, including young children, I urge you to take the time to actually read through some of the studies that have been published. In addition to the research reviewed above, here’s a sampling of what else you’ll find when you start searching for data on face masks as a strategy to prevent viral infection:

Surgical masks and N95 masks perform about the same — A 2009 study28 published in JAMA compared the effectiveness of surgical masks and N95 respirators to prevent seasonal influenza in a hospital setting; 24% of the nurses in the surgical mask group still got the flu, as did 23% of those who wore N95 respirators.

Cloth masks perform far worse than medical masks — A study29 published in 2015 found health care workers who wore cloth masks had the highest rates of influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infections, when compared to those wearing medical masks or controls (who used standard practices that included occasional medical mask wearing).

Compared to controls and the medical mask group, those wearing cloth masks had a 72% higher rate of lab-confirmed viral infections. According to the authors:

Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks … Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”

“No evidence” masks prevent transmission of flu in hospital setting — In September 2018, the Ontario Nurses Association (ONA) won its second of two grievances filed against the Toronto Academic Health Science Network’s (TAHSN) “vaccinate or mask” policy. As reported by the ONA:30

“After reviewing extensive expert evidence submitted … Arbitrator William Kaplan, in his September 6 decision,31 found that St. Michael’s VOM policy is ‘illogical and makes no sense’ …

In 2015, Arbitrator James Hayes struck down the same type of policy in an arbitration that included other Ontario hospitals across the province … Hayes found there was ‘scant evidence’ that forcing nurses to use masks reduced the transmission of influenza to patients …

ONA’s well-regarded expert witnesses, including Toronto infection control expert Dr. Michael Gardam, Quebec epidemiologist Dr. Gaston De Serres, and Dr. Lisa Brosseau, an American expert on masks, testified that there was … no evidence that forcing healthy nurses to wear masks during the influenza season did anything to prevent transmission of influenza in hospitals.

They further testified that nurses who have no symptoms are unlikely to be a real source of transmission and that it was not logical to force healthy unvaccinated nurses to mask.”

No significant reduction in flu transmission when used in community setting — A policy review paper32 published in Emerging Infectious Diseases in May 2020, which reviewed “the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures … in non-healthcare settings” concluded, based on 10 randomized controlled trials, that there was “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks …”

Risk reduction may be due to chance — In 2019, a review of interventions for flu epidemics published by the World Health Organization concluded the evidence for face masks was slim, and may be due to chance:33

“Ten relevant RCTs were identified for this review and meta-analysis to quantify the efficacy of community-based use of face masks …

In the pooled analysis, although the point estimates suggested a relative risk reduction in laboratory-confirmed influenza of 22% in the face mask group, and a reduction of 8% in the face mask group regardless of whether or not hand hygiene was also enhanced, the evidence was insufficient to exclude chance as an explanation for the reduced risk of transmission.”

“No evidence” that universal masking prevents COVID-19 — A 2020 guidance memo by the World Health Organization pointed out that:34

“Meta-analyses in systematic literature reviews have reported that the use of N95 respirators compared with the use of medical masks is not associated with any statistically significant lower risk of the clinical respiratory illness outcomes or laboratory-confirmed influenza or viral infections …

At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID- 19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”

Mask or no mask, same difference — A meta-analysis and scientific review35 led by respected researcher Thomas Jefferson, cofounder of the Cochrane Collaboration, posted on the prepublication server medRxiv in April 2020, found that, compared to no mask, mask wearing in the general population or among health care workers did not reduce influenza-like illness cases or influenza.

In one study, which looked at quarantined workers, it actually increased the risk of contracting influenza, but lowered the risk of influenza-like illness. They also found there was no difference between surgical masks and N95 respirators.

Statistics Show Mask Use Has No Impact on Infection Rates

Another way to shed light on whether masks work or not is to compare infection rates (read: positive test rates) before and after the implementation of universal mask mandates. In his article,36 “These 12 Graphs Show Mask Mandates Do Nothing to Stop COVID,” bioengineer Yinon Weiss does just that.

He points out that “No matter how strictly mask laws are enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases all fall and rise around the same time.” To see all of the graphs, check out Weiss’ article37 or Twitter thread.38 Here are just a select few to bring home the point:

To Pose a Risk, You Need To Be Symptomatic

Studies have repeatedly shown that masks do not significantly reduce transmission of viruses, so it’s safe to assume that a mask will in fact fail in this regard. That leaves two key factors: There must be a contagious person around, and they must be sufficiently close for transmission to occur.

We now know that asymptomatic individuals — even if they test positive using a PCR test — are highly unlikely to be contagious.39 So, really, a key prevention strategy for COVID-19 seems to be to stay home if you have symptoms. As for masking up when you’re healthy, let alone double, triple or quadruple masking, there’s simply no scientific consensus for that strategy.

Sources and References

The post Mindless Mask Mandates Likely Do More Harm Than Good appeared first on LewRockwell.



via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Gina Carano Was Right: The Disturbing Parallels Between 2021 America And 1932 Germany



Actress Gina Carano became one of the highest-profile celebrity victims of cancel culture last week, when she was dropped from The Mandalorian, fired by Disney, and dumped by her talent agency.

ORIGINAL LINK

Neither Hot Nor Cold

ORIGINAL LINK

LRC-share.jpg

Revelation 3: 14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:

The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Origin of the creation of God, says this:

15 ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. 16 So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of My mouth. 17 Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have no need of anything,” and you do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked.

I watched the first fifteen minutes of Jordan Peterson’s discussion with Gad Saad.  That was that.  Before coming to this video, and its short hold on my interest, a review of some of the work Peterson has done since his return from his illness.

The first of these discussions which I commented on was with Douglas Murray – two people that in the past would have held quite an interest for me.  It was clear that both men were working to distance themselves from the right – the same right that has placed both men on the map.

A false position was offered by Peterson, regarding those who believe the recent presidential election was a fraud: you have to believe that the entire US establishment is corrupt, and that Donald Trump is a saint.  It is total nonsense, of course, as one can view the system as corrupt and Trump far less than perfect.  So, no, you don’t have to believe Trump is a saint if you believe the election was fraudulent.

There was no discussion about truth, only about the need to keep faith in the institutions.  An interesting point coming from someone who broke on the stage on the back of dealing with the meaning crisis – without truth, meaning in life is impossible; I should say: without truth, life is impossible.

I held some sympathy for Peterson after this video (albeit, while watching most of it, I was unable to finish it); the man came off of what seemed to be a very debilitating illness.  As he said, he has had his bravery beaten out of him.  I get it.

The second of these discussions which I commented on was with Matt Ridley.  Despite Ridley (and, increasingly, Peterson) focusing solely on the material gains since the Enlightenment, Ridley does note that he is slipping into pessimism regarding various government energy policies.

Peterson will have none of that: don’t go there.  Despite whatever is true of governmental policies, we need to uphold the story.  We need to put our faith in man.  This used to be a problem for Peterson, who always said we had to look up for meaning.  Now, he says we must look down.

Well, the current discussion with Gad Saad…fifteen minutes and I quit.  Peterson asks Saad: why are you focused on the extremes of the left?  Saad explains himself.  But why are you focused on the extremes of the left?  Saad tries again, using an analogy.  Yeah, but why are you focused on the extremes of the left?

This was then followed by Peterson once again offering his analysis of those who believe the recent US election was fraudulent: you have to believe that the entire US establishment is corrupt, and that Donald Trump is a saint.

Peterson was made rich, and became wealthy, on the back of his discussion of meaning.  This loss of meaning is inextricably linked to the success of the left in destroying language, destroying gender, destroying truth.  Peterson understood this, and it is for this reason that he gained some traction with those who hold to conservative and Christian values.

Peterson understood that there was a downside to the Enlightenment, that the gains in materialism must be weighed against the loss of meaning.

Both of these he has thrown away.  I am not sure what his unique selling proposition now is, other than trading on the name he made for himself in his skyrocket to fame.

Conclusion

Peterson is trying very hard to get in the good graces of those who control polite conversation – polite meaning acceptable with all the right people.  He will fail.  He has demonstrated that he can’t be trusted; he is responsible for bring to the broader public a conversation that is not allowed.

He will succeed at alienating many of those who found him a consistent voice – not perfectly so, by any stretch (the topic of Faith Goldy came up, unapologetically, in the short part of this video) – but consistent by most human standards.

He had already alienated the mainstream academia and media; he now discards meaning and truth.  What is left worth listening to?  Nothing much that I can tell.

I have heard that Peterson will be talking with Jonathan Pageau.  I will watch that discussion.  I am pretty sure that I can count on one of the participants remaining consistent, and I look forward to seeing how Pageau responds to Peterson’s change.

Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.

The post Neither Hot Nor Cold appeared first on LewRockwell.



via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Covid: The Predatory Testing Labs Are Complicit in the Crime

ORIGINAL LINK

LRC-share.jpg

Test lab: “This specimen tests positive. The patient is infected with SARS-CoV-2.”

Patient: “Wait. How did you run the test? With how many cycles?”

Test lab: “That information is proprietary. You have no right to know.”

Patient: “Really? The number of cycles can determine the outcome. Change that number, and ‘infected’ becomes ‘healthy’.”

Test lab: “We know what we’re doing.”

Patient: “I’m sure you do. You’re ruining people’s lives and jacking up case numbers.”

Test lab: “You have no right to question our methods. This is bordering on harassment.”

Patient: “No, this is bordering on the truth.”

Test lab: “We’re official. You’re unofficial.”

I’ve written about this issue before, several times.

Now, I’m suggesting a solution.

If you, or someone close to you, is being pressured to take the COVID PCR test, ask the clinic or the doctor’s office how many cycles the test will deploy.

Chances are high they’ll tell you they don’t know, and only the testing lab has that information. Ask for the name of the lab.

Call the lab and ask them. Chances are high they won’t tell you. Inform them that the number of cycles affects the outcome of the test. Make them aware you know this.

Except in Florida [1] [2], US labs are under no obligation to inform the patient or the doctor how many cycles the PCR test deploys. They never inform doctor or patient.

Why? Because a crime is underway. The positive or negative result of any given PCR test is hanging in the balance, depending on the number of cycles.

A cycle is a quantum leap in magnification of the swab sample taken from the patient.

As even Fauci has asserted, at 35 cycles and above, the test result is useless. [3] [4]

Worse, at 35 cycles and above, the tendency of the test is to spit out false-positives.

Yet, as I’ve detailed, the CDC and FDA recommend doing the test at up to 40 cycles; and therefore, most if not all labs will follow that guideline. [5; See pdf page 38 (doc page 37)] [6]

This is a disaster for the patient, and it results in a flagrant inflation of COVID case numbers, which in turn provide a rationale for the lockdowns.

People at testing labs who have a few active brain cells to rub together know all this. They keep their mouths shut. They’re complicit in the crime.

They’re part of a silent bureaucracy that is there to rule The People.

Here is a further variation on a strategy. If you or anyone close to you is under pressure to take the PCR test, obtain the services of a good lawyer. Have the lawyer demand, before the test, a sworn affidavit from the lab stating how many cycles they’re using.

If necessary, explain why.

If necessary, go to court.

If necessary, sue.

It’s long past the time when labs should be allowed to stay secretive and pose as neutral.

History is littered with examples of faceless bureaucracies that have enabled leaders to commit crimes against humanity. Nazi Germany, the USSR, post-World War 2 East Germany. These days, China.

And now, every other country where rulers are declaring brutal lockdowns.

If a small handful of people who are told to get tested—three or four hundred—demand to know, from the labs, what is going on—how many cycles they’re using—and legal and personal pressure is exerted—the truth will come tumbling out, into the open.

This target of attack will expose a gaping vulnerability in the enemy’s position.

Test lab: “All right, you want to know? We run our tests at 40 cycles.”

Lawyer: “Very good. We are prepared, with a mountain of evidence, to show that you’re violating universally agreed upon science. Your lab is spitting out false-positives like a fire hose. You’re ruining lives and falsely inflating case numbers…”

Test lab: “We’re just following orders from the FDA and the CDC.”

Lawyer: “I’M JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS. Where have I heard that before? Oh yes, during the Nuremberg trials, after World War Two. That’s what the Nazi bureaucrats kept saying. It didn’t fly then, and it won’t fly now.”


SOURCES:

[1] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/12/08/florida-forces-labs-to-report-number-of-pcr-test-cycles/

[2] https://www.flhealthsource.gov/files/Laboratory-Reporting-CT-Values-12032020.pdf

[3] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/12/03/lockdowns-are-based-on-fraud-open-letter-to-people-who-want-freedom/

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Vy6fgaBPE

[5] https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

[6] nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog.

The post Covid: The Predatory Testing Labs Are Complicit in the Crime appeared first on LewRockwell.



via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK