A Cesspool of Insanity: The Sluice Gates of COVID
“I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.” — Thomas Carlyle
Let us start simply, too much of the planet is still “locked down,” masked, despite vaccinations, with over a year of silly, life annulling nostrums and intrusions into personal life and invasions into our autonomy. What we were told to justify this was extrapolatory nonsense, and now is demonstrable bilge.
Non masked down jurisdictions have done at least as well, non-locked down regions or States are not awash with crippling viral infections.
And ironically, so “confident” are we in our vaccines, that adverse effects are backlogged, not discussed, and potential causal links to seemingly evident mortality not even entertained, lest the whole perverse scaffolding of mistruths and partial truths comes crashing down.
And deaths from many of these failed COVID policies may match or at least approach those “ascribed” to COVID the disease. Taking a glance back at Italy, March and April 2020, a newly published report indicates there were 49,000 more deaths than average (extreme concentration of elderly, the bulk in care homes, remember), 29,000 were “ascribed” to COVID and 20,000 are being called “hysteria deaths” owing to neglect and panic-stricken changes to medical care.
Take the staggering collateral damage of neglected or deferred health care and deferred vaccinations for TB and Polio, poverty and hunger being devastatingly exacerbated, the economic ruin of so many and the inconceivable fallout on all but the mega-rich, and then couple this with the desire to “muzzle” disagreement and not only faces, exulting in an unconvincing moral rectitude whose defining feature is being terrified of open debate. The sluice gates need opening for sure!
There is No “Science” to Follow
Science, when genuinely practiced, asserts falsifiable hypotheses and welcomes widescale engagement. When it conscripts “expertise” into allegedly “incorrigible” conclusions, then it has devolved into dogma, a mongrel religion. Spirituality, like science at its best, welcomes mystery and realizes that anything akin to truth has no reason to fear our questions… on the contrary.
When economic and political agendas are pureed into scientific or medical jargon, asserted with sweeping grandiloquence, militantly allergic to other narratives, then we know we are dealing with gloss, what has been called “the catnip of cosmopolitan opinion.” As long as the Uber driver arrives, I get a check while working at home in my sweatpants, and Netflix keeps streaming, all is well in civilization!
The public looks swooningly on as Fauci flip flops and never encounters an authoritarian response he doesn’t get thrilled by (China first, the US when he could impose his swill will, and now cheering the authoritarian cuckoo-land that Canada has devolved into), or Neil Ferguson perfects the art of predictive inaccuracy, or we are told to “vaccinate” but not to trust the vaccines and live exactly as we were doing before them, and this convoluted mess is called “science” or “medicine” when it actually reeks of the most blatant demagoguery.
And it was not “science” but the instilling of a pathetic paradigm of human behavior that has been incubating for some time, and finally, last year was pulled out of the proverbial oven. And so that we could stimulate our misguided self-esteem, we began “valorizing” shutting up and doing our job, following the rules, and complying. This made us “virtuous” or depending on our job, even “heroic.” Stoic self-help, “surviving the everyday” got us promiscuous kudos. The more unexceptional we were, the better.
Any sign of rebellion, or seeking stimuli, or autonomy, or exercising our wits, or asking not to be treated as a gullible rube, meant we wanted granny to die, and didn’t care about the mass destruction of our species — or that portion of it who can survive at home on home delivery and digital streaming, the hell with the one third having to provide all that, or the swathes of humanity whose health and development were being undermined and assaulted due to our being unable to deal with an influenza strain with a 99% global recovery rate. What heroes!
Just Change the Standards When Inconvenient?
So, we now hear that the CDC will change the PCR test “amplification” (Ct) setting to 28 post-vaccination. As presumably, we all know by now, above 30, and the PCR test, never intended by its originator for diagnosis, may be detecting “viral debris” or “strands” which cannot be infectious. If at lower amplification it detects the virus, that is usually a sign of infectiousness. Reliability at around 28, is not that different in terms of detection, to the “viral load” assessing rapid Antigen test.
The “40” that was the norm for too long, hence our extended “case-demic”, and which has given way post WHO’s much-belated guidance, would constitute 12 doublings from 28. We should hope ALL PCR tests, pre OR post-vaccination will use the same setting of 28 or less, otherwise, it is truly a fraud and a farce.
Each PCR test “amplification” essentially doubles the source material, and the number of times it is amplified is called the “cycle threshold” (Ct). Quite apart from this, there is a general problem with “false positives” especially when incidence is very low in a population. But amplifying excessively is not so much a “false positive” as a “false clinical positive” (FCP) where non-viable virus material is what is being detected.
Fascinatingly, in the vaccine trials, to accept something as C-19 they insisted (Moderna published guidance) on at least two of the following symptoms: fever, chills, headache, sore throat, taste disorder, or at least one of the following: cough, shortness of breath, difficulty breathing, evidence of pneumonia PLUS a PCR test! Oh, that we might be as cautious when not peddling pharmaceutical remedies!
So, let us hope, and insist, and ensure, the settings are the same; that we are comparing like to like. To opt otherwise is to enter surreal, manifestly nefarious territory, capriciously putting our finger on the scales.
There is though, on this topic, genuinely enticing news on the PCR front from the Ministry of Health in Sweden. Having enjoyed the fruits of their sanity in terms of relative economic solvency and relatively mild COVID mortality despite a temporary surge of “positive tests” (now having peaked without Germanic chest-pounding and lockdown over-reach), the Swedes have now declared that PCR tests cannot be a basis of confirming infectiousness!
Ministry of Health quote:
“The PCR technology used in tests to detect viruses cannot distinguish between viruses capable of infecting cells and viruses that have been neutralized by the immune system and therefore these tests cannot be used to determine whether someone is contagious or not. RNA from viruses can often be detected for weeks (sometimes months) after the illness but does not mean that you are still contagious. There are also several scientific studies that suggest that the contagion of COVID-19 is greatest at the beginning of the disease period.”
One small step for medicine, a giant leap for sanity, rationality, and evidence. Curiously, this key bit of news is glaringly missing in mainstream coverage.
Let Us Speak Plainly
Even SAGE admits now that restaurants and pubs contributed only a nominal number of COVID infections (roughly 220 or some such), of course, one could argue they’ve been essentially closed in the UK. But no such disproportionate number comes from jurisdictions where restaurants have been open either, Taiwan, Singapore, Sweden, Finland, Norway, 22 US States. Yet under some “theory” of indoor space transmissibility (rather than looking at congestion and ventilation), detached from data, the gross impositions on livelihoods and personal choice have continued.
Speaking plainly on another front, the Weimar Court in Germany held against masking in schools, and the judge who ruled the prescriptions illegal has found himself being surveilled, investigated, residence pilfered by an eerily officious “State” apparatus. This beggared believability in a so-called “democratic” country. But it is wrenchingly true. Other voices if not so “official” are just “de-platformed” or not booked, estranged, or rendered pariahs.
In society at large, people have been rendered phobic in terms of seeing relatives or loved ones, again unable to distinguish “biological survival” with “life” and “living” and all that makes being alive worthwhile.
And COVID hysteria is renewed as new “hotspots” are located with prurient glee. The mania sweeps coverage of India, but the fact that 2,000 perish from diarrhea each day there and 1,200 daily from tuberculosis and respiratory illnesses are among the top 10 killers due to appalling air pollution and sagging public health, and that in relative terms, the UK has a more dire outbreak than India with 1.4 billion in population, these are all perspectives that dare not be spoken as they would interfere with our rampant hysteria.
Israel “post-vaccination” has instituted a de facto sustained state of emergency, with two-tier citizenship essentially between those who have opted for an experimental gene therapy called “vaccination” and those who haven’t. The Israeli “Green Pass” bypasses parliamentary protections and asserts the right to include and exclude (getting jobs, traveling, going to cultural sites, worship, visiting your children’s schools) over a viral strain, again, that virtually everyone recovers from and most don’t know they had.
With this precedent set, might the government “treat itself” to insist any of its policies are an “entrée” or else a “ban” to life? Essentially, agree with the government and be “allowed” that which you were born entitled to. Don’t do so, and we will show you how provisional your rights can be. And we will show you that absolutism can flourish anywhere, even in cultures that have the most grounds for historical sensitivity in these matters.
These are reports coming from Israeli health advisers and everyday citizens on the ground, of course not “allowed” to agonize us on YouTube, that new fount of probity and virtue. And if this pilot program works, can other governments also now assert this anytime they wish to declare a “public emergency” backed by a few medical quacks and many quaking advisers?
This is vulgar and vile.
“In a crisis — and politics is one permanent crisis — those in power could always declare a state of emergency to justify exceptional measures.” — Arthur Koestler
In Pakistan, the army has just been sent in to enforce curfews and mask-wearing in key cities when, in a population of over 200 million people with 17,100 “ascribed” deaths, that means 0.00855% of the population have been affected. We are to believe this is “virus control” rather than evident further spasms of global control fetishism and decision making dementia?
With 100 million vaccinated in the US, why has the TSA extended mask mandates for public transport until September when there are 22 States demonstrating, literally proving, in data terms, this is absurdly unnecessary? Again, anyone who thinks this is “science”, has developed a terrifying capacity for self-delusion.
A Japanese Stand
Howard Steen shares a letter from a Japanese Professor friend, under fire for not wearing a mask at his University in Japan. Rather than wilting away, he does what we all increasingly must — speak up, and speak passionately, rationally, and emphatically.
He begins by pointing out a female nurse from Fukuoka, aged 26 was found dead on her sofa, foaming at the mouth, bleeding at the nose, after undergoing the “experimental gene therapy” we call “vaccination.” He is at pains to point out he can’t “prove” that was the cause, “although nobody seems to die of vaccination these days.”
But his next words deserve to be heard directly,
“She died on the altar of fear, a sacrificial lamb to the gods of fear-mongering who, refusing to leave from our lives every day since March 2020, shout at us through the television, smart media platforms, and announcements at work.”
Indeed, life is now a barrage of admonitions. Our psyche is battered by “updates” on clusters and attempts to terrorize us from interacting with each other.
He points out that when we suspect this infection, we “test” it with a test its own manufacturers confess — in the literature that accompanies each kit — is not by itself “diagnostic” and cannot detect a live infection. Yet we have mortgaged the world to its vicissitudes.
Of being “spotted” without the diaper on his face, he says,
“I apologize to the two staff members who had to pass by my class to check whether I was wearing a mask or not. It seems we are in a war-like situation and have to keep an eye on dissidents all the time.”
He goes on to point out that he is not opposed to masks per se. For example, he insisted his three little children wear them when a nuclear explosion in March 2011 sent radioactive dust to their region. He felt, in that instance, there was relevance. This time though, he feels it is not the pathogen, but incomplete information relentlessly being recycled. The charitable name for that is “propaganda.”
As a sentient, critically thinking person, the Professor points out that he can see there isn’t factually or objectively a life-threatening situation, but only an infatuation with fear which gets “upgraded” with every variant, or seasonal “spike”. He reminds us how generous the Japanese Constitution is in protecting liberties, severely limiting what the leaders can do even under states of “emergency.” Of course, these leaders actually pay attention to their Constitution, a novel idea that seems to have eluded most of the Western democracies over this period.
He cites the plethora of Nobel laureates and eminent scientists who are pushing back against this misinformation, including those in the Japanese scientific community. He cites the pressures to conform, mentioning Karin Moelling, who received the highest honor of the German state, the “Order of Merit of Berlin” for her contributions to virology, now an outcast. Others who have been pilloried include scientific and medical eminences like Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, John Ioannidis of Stanford, Martin Kulldorff, Carl Heneghan and others. This is a who’s who of distinguished researchers, benched from mainstream public discourse.
And none of their most frothing critics can even clearly allege why they all have taken a purported collective leave of their senses. We know why their opponents toe the line, benefited by being of service to the purveyors of advantage. But why would people at the top of their field risk their livelihoods and painstakingly earned careers? Why would they indeed if the stakes were not so high? If along with us, their world and civilization were not teetering on the brink?
On masking in particular, the Professor points out that a “constitutionally illegal mandate” is being inflicted upon a remote rural corner of Japan, though the US States without mask mandates, as I’ve said above, have hearteningly demonstrated what an overwhelming chorus of research had already confirmed. He writes,
“Is that because a 60–140 nanometer long virus, smaller in dimension than the wavelength of UV radiation (100–400 nanometer) is miraculously confined by a cloth mask?”
The Professor had missed the memo whereby his University had been transmuted into a Theological College for Asymptomatic Stupidity.
He asks, with such meticulous mask-wearing in so many parts of the world, why is the curve never flattening? And he concludes, as we all should,
“But perhaps the most important life-saving measure would be for all of us, the stakeholders of the Normal life, to allow free and fair public discourse into the conditions that have brought us into this dystopian nightmare.”
Bravo, Professor Saji!
These Are the Stakes!
I really worry when I read that “normal is around the corner” because infections are down, people are vaccinated, enough of us have been infected, or whatever palliative is cited for the restoration of that which was “stolen” through state force backed by unflinching misrepresentation.
You see, if you buy the premise that things had to improve before we were allowed our lives back, that governments can take and make such judgments over an extended period of time, and order foreclosure of lives and bankruptcy of businesses and delayed medical care and educational destruction, and imposition of addiction or suicide-inducing levels of anxiety or stress, or retard years of progress in global health and poverty and children’s education over a statistically unimpressive viral strain, long after it’s clear that’s what we’re dealing with, and even “suggest” passports and other apartheid-like impositions, and we lemming-like, mulishly, slavishly, just acquiesce, then we have retarded human development, progress, and social evolution in a way unparalleled in human history.
And one vaccine-evading variant, and we’re right back where we started? Logically, we must be, unless this sick, toxic, horrific evangel is fully repudiated and routed. One new “public health” or other “emergency” and the same playbook might again be trotted out, after all, there is this horrifying precedent.
If we need “permission” to ply our trade, congregate where we wish (yes, informed by medical guidelines and natural self-preservation and prudence), travel where we will, experience life in its fullness, develop our capabilities, be intimate with those we love, then let the pathogen come today and take us away, for what anyway is the point?
Albert Camus writes in his remarkable The Plague (1947), describing the inner life of this locked-in town,
“Thus, in a middle course between these heights and depths, they drifted through life rather than lived, the prey of aimless days and sterile memories, like wandering shadows that could have acquired substance only by consenting to root themselves in the solid earth of their distress…”
He writes of the “wounds” that imagination inflicts on those who yield to it, a disincentive to anticipate the future. Well, we can’t go back. Because back there is the soil of this tragedy, of us collectively asleep at the wheel, as our sovereignty as humans was whittled away.
Now, there is a great, slow but hopefully definite gathering of all political stripes, races, perspectives, united by one thing: the demand to be allowed to be, unalienably human. And if we start there, not gushing with relief that our “masters” might give us a conditional taste of freedom, but if we insist that freedom is the fundament, and democratic governance is incoherent except as a conversation premised on that bedrock, then, maybe then, this “plague” will have been redemptive and purifying. Otherwise, God help us, and we are voting for the erosion of everything we have loved and valued.
Victor Hugo’s epic book, Les Miserables, in its operetta musicalization, asks,
“Will you join in our crusade? Who will be strong and stand with me?”
Well, hopefully, that answer is in every mirror, mind, and heart in the land. Every constructive act of life and freedom affirming activism counts and matters.