Flu d’Etat: The Fumes of Our Freedom

Apparently, the discovery that older people, particularly those who are sick may die from a virus, had the planet shrieking in terror and panic last year. Of course, if the virus can be given a logo, a brand name and unrelenting hype, excoriating all dissenters no matter how overwhelmingly over credentialed and rational, that allows the panic pot to fully boil over.

We can imagine that strange spirit and inner will that took Homo Sapiens, with no guarantees, out of the caves and into the world, vulnerable before the elements, predators, pathogens. Truly our ancestors faced a reality that exemplified Hobbes’ description of life being “nasty, brutish and short.” Yet somehow without tranquilizers and antidepressants, inch by inch, iteratively forward they went creating tools, domesticating fire, learning to husband resources, while also increasingly expressing their inner lives through art, music, dance.

And while we’ve never quite shed tribalism, once perhaps essential for biologic survival, our freedom from necessity has advanced over the centuries. And eventually other freedoms, duly sacrificed and suffered for, also came increasingly to the fore, to infuse our civic existence.

From the indomitable courage that had people set sail on uncharted and perilous waters, to dangerous terrain traversed and daunting peaks scaled, both the inner and the outer life of human beings became ever more bold, more enterprising, adventurous, and expressive. And yet eventually also, we gained the capacity to be more meaningfully reflective and even to some extent, reverent.

Millennia and centuries later with painfully bloody regressions for sure, that spirit continued to struggle forward, at times careening between plunder and purpose. And while debauchery and death were certainly amply recorded, so were soaring examples of achievement, wealth building, advances in medicine and technology, and even a sheltering canopy, however imperfect, of evolving ethics. So advanced had we become in key metrics, that proclaiming “the end of history” was at least a (briefly) arguable proposition.

And then somehow, if we fast forward to the debacle of 2020, we decided to about face and scamper back into the caves. We returned to mental and emotional serfdom, capitulated and set aside our fighting spirit, groveled before bureaucrats and ignored everything we medically knew about immunology and airborne infections.

It’s as if we were doing penance for our ancestors having devoted themselves to extending human significance. We let our civil liberties be highjacked, our ability to read simple data on infectiousness and mortality deteriorate to the point of self-chosen ineptitude. And we let what was statistically a medium level influenza strain be rendered epic and epochal in our popular imagination.

How did that dauntless spirit that drove us out of the caves unbowed, degenerate into this simpering, hapless, half-witted aversion to the clearly manageable risks of being alive in the face of a mildly lethal pathogen (for most of the population below 65 and not with pre-existing conditions or in Asia or Africa)? And as we’ve now learned, it is also a highly treatable disease from easily available, demonstrably safe, off-label, repurposed drugs being championed by some of our most respected doctors and clinicians who have overwhelmingly demonstrated the efficacy of these treatments in dealing with COVID and saving lives again and again.

Constellation of Fraud

The popular narrative reeks so pungently that we almost have to keep debunking these absurdities to dispel the trance that too many seem to be under.

C-19: It’s novel, it’s new, it’s unprecedentedly dangerous!

No, it’s not! There is a family of coronaviruses. To that extent, this may have been ‘new’ and ‘novel, but not in any way to suggest that either our immune systems or our medical science was dealing with some uniquely implacable foe. Furthermore, it seems to have been circulating from the latter half of 2019. Medical researchers have repeatedly confirmed there were both examples of preexisting immunity and crossover immunity due to prior immunological experience with similar pathogens. As to how dangerous it was, we could not have known and soon enough, data clarified this simply was nothing unprecedented.

It is primarily spread by droplets and infected surfaces.

No, it isn’t. It is an airborne virus, and flourishes in congested, poorly ventilated indoor spaces, and is spread by minute particles. Ergo, being ‘locked’ in is simply insane. Even the US CDC confirms, there is roughly 1 in 10,000 chance of being infected by touching a surface. So, all this mass sanitizing and social distancing was more kabuki theater than anything else.

Everyone is equally at risk!

No, they’re not! This is highly age stratified. Certainly, in the developed world, 93%+ of the deaths are above 70. There is a remarkably good recovery rate above 70, close to 97% for those without serious comorbidities. Another 6 to 10% fall within the ages of 40 to 69 (again, the majority with existing preconditions we are told by meta-analysts at leading universities) and below 40 the mortality rate gets increasingly nominal and infitesimal.

There is no treatment.

Yes, there is! There is, of course, the Nobel Prize winning, WHO essential drug, Ivermectin (cleared for everything except COVID, lest it displace the pandemic profiteering from inadequately tested gene therapy posing as vaccines). There are studies, randomized trials, overwhelming front line clinical experience from around the world all testifying to its saving graces. There is also HCQ and Zinc, Corticosteroids, Monoclonal Antibodies, Vitamin D3, Budesonide and numerous others that are part of demonstrably effective, early treatment protocols. If treated early during the viral stage, leading doctors in the US, UK, Zimbabwe, India, Mexico, South Africa confirm virtually every symptomatic patient can be saved.

Overall, even including the inflammation and thrombosis phase of the illness (when it becomes successively more dangerous) the most effective protocols have shown 85 to 90 % reduction in hospitalization and deaths. That we have not embraced this (just do the easy mortality math), which if focusing on the symptomatic, could have effectively ended the pandemic by end 2020 is a travesty, an outrage, and understandable fodder for so called “conspiracy theorizing.” In fact, in the face of that, it hardly seems a ‘theory’.

Natural immunity cannot save us.

Yes, it can! We would not be alive today if natural immunity did not work. Virtually all past vaccinations have taken place after a pandemic has waned somewhat because those actual vaccines did not get fast tracked past animal trials and safety trials. Apparently, ‘do no harm’ seems to have actually mattered back when.

Every credible study reconfirms what the bulk of our published insights regarding immunology have already trumpeted. Namely immunity is long lasting. And while there is no guarantee no one will ever get reinfected, even that is extremely rare, with virtually no documented global cases. And when it does happen, it is substantially milder and our immune memory in terms of being able to mobilize and deal with the pathogen becomes ever more profound. And that, indeed, seems to last a lifetime.

Despite the seesawing medical vacillations of an increasingly witless WHO, natural immunity trumps any vaccine-based immunity. And in the case of the current crop, the “vaccines” have been focused on suppressing symptoms and do not lead to the sustained immunological template that natural immunity confers. Despite this still being distorted in their description, at least natural immunity is back on the WHO website after having been pulled from there in an almost comic panic spasm.

Asymptomatic people drive the disease, and so, we must lock everyone up.

They don’t and we shouldn’t! Asymptomatic transmission is a dud, has not been demonstrated to be in evidence except where people’s immune system is naturally dealing with the infection, in which case, they are not transmitting. Children, for example, fall within this description, and have not been shown to be vectors of transmission. This has been shown both in open schools in Florida and in Sweden where they stayed open throughout.

Therefore, it may be necessary to revert to the unanimous pre 2020 consensus that said, ‘asymptomatic’ is really a euphemism for ‘healthy.’ Certainly ‘detecting’ an asymptomatic person based on highly fallible PCR testing is no basis to debunk centuries of medical consensus. Said PCR test anyway doesn’t test for live infectiousness, is not by itself (even as per WHO) diagnostic, and amplification settings are often set so high as to make the results almost a parody. And then lab contamination is often rife and viral debris can malinger long beyond any rational infection period. Other than that, we can swoon at its accuracy!

Ergo, locking up the healthy rather than allowing them to develop natural immunity if they are not in the vulnerable risk profile (which the majority are not) is oppressive, useless, society destroying and a form of protracted economic suicide. One is left wondering as to the origin of the fetish to lock up a healthy population when the virus has already spread everywhere, rather than treating those at risk who have symptoms. Take a sober five minutes and ponder that, and you will conclude, whatever the rationale, it has little to do with public health. Or else, if less sinister, it is just irrationality at its apogee.

Everyone should be masked!

No, they shouldn’t! In 2019 WHO had reviewed the 10 most seemingly credible mask studies, all of whom concluded masks don’t work in pandemic situations except in very crowded contexts and should not be used. This was also the conclusion up until the 2020 hemorrhage of medical sanity, of the US CDC, the European Medical Association, the Australian authorities, Johns Hopkins University and virtually everywhere else. There is no new research or any new studies that have led to this somersault. The only randomized trail done over this period, in Denmark, is consistent with all the earlier studies.

Dr. Frankenstein Fauci in his highly vocal emails disdains the use of such masks as well. The nano particles are too small for the masks to arrest anything. Anything other than respirators fitted to the face, which are not practical beyond a few hours, allow ready access to viral invaders, as we’ve said before. This is why one doesn’t use such masks to protect against anthrax, asbestos, black mold, all of which have larger particles.

Masks are unhygienic, suppress oxygen flow, force you to inhale your own waste, and there are no long-term studies that demonstrate any efficacy or even confirm the safety of breathing in and out in such an encased, inhibited manner for a protracted period of time. Moreover, there’s the simple “live” case study of comparing open US states without mask mandates with those that are ‘muzzled,’ and one can see that there is no benefit in terms of mortality and overall results (on the contrary), other than totemic compliance and pathetic virtue signaling.

Of course, if you don’t whisk your mask into a sanitizer as soon as you return home, then at least we can be consoled that we are doing our part in keeping our immune system stronger by spreading all the bacteria, viruses, soot, unhygienic detritus, macro particles and more that have, over the day, inevitably landed on our portable petri dish. To add insult to injury, we can opt to pull it in and out of our pockets and leave it on a kitchen table, so the viral and bacterial cargo can waft around and be shared.

By the way, there is not one recorded instance of outdoor transmission (even CDC accepts it is less than 1%). Therefore, unless you dislike breathing in oxygen there truly is no explanation for the endurance of this mad, sad ritual, when we are outside.

Variants will haunt us forever.

Who cares? Can we make our peace with the fact that viruses mutate? As explained before, former Chief Science Officer of Pfizer, Dr. Michael Yeadon, has pointed out that a variant is no more than 0.3% different than the original virus. And since we know immune systems that were earlier exposed (as Dr. Yeadon points out through medical testing), still recognize and immunologically rally when exposed again to the original SARS from 17 years ago -- even though that is 20% different than SARS-CoV-2 -- we can see how little we have to fear. These variants are simply the currently dominant strain, not some unknown predator.

The current prom queen, Delta, is actually welcomed by specialists like Dr. Harvey Risch of Yale and Dr. Peter McCullough of Baylor because it is so mild relative to mortality, and they say, among the most treatable variants they’ve encountered. So, despite PCR test spasms showing ‘surging cases,’ there has been virtually no impact on mortality. In fact, J.P. Morgan reports that in 10 out of 15 countries where Delta is dominant, even cases declined, and in 13 out of 15 countries, fatalities declined with vaccination percentages ranging from 32 to 63% of the population.

Even in the UK which has seen an uptick in mortality, as per government data, the case fatality rate hovers close to 0.3%.

We must vaccinate everybody!

No, we bloody well shouldn’t! There are numerous early treatments. On that basis alone, the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) should be rendered illicit and inapplicable (this is why there are such desperate attempts to suppress and smear these treatments). So, the deaths and adverse effects recorded even in government databases (which confess to being between 1-20% of actuals) are greater than the cumulative total for all other vaccines since such tracking was undertaken, at least since 1995.

The types of issues range from severe neurological damage, myocarditis, life threatening blood clots, fertility issues, tragic pregnancy consequences and too many others to itemize or catalogue. To this, a riposte is often given that these adverse effects correlate to vaccination but cannot be proven to have been ‘caused’ by the vaccine.

As Hume showed us in defining induction, we cannot “prove” that the sun will rise tomorrow either, optical illusion that it is. But repeated conjunction between a stimulus (‘vaccines’) and a pattern of adverse phenomena closely accompanying all the vaccines, is precisely what, in less corrupt and shamefully influenced times, would simply, on the basis of the precautionary principle, lead to stopping this manic jabbing, to do a proper investigative assessment.

There is a reason the observation “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire” is true in an overwhelming percentage of cases. In the past such correlation, a small fraction of these clearly linked adverse effects, has been enough to at least pause such vaccination campaigns. Today if someone was jabbed and died immediately on the spot, someone would say, “Prove they didn’t have a spontaneous heart attack at that moment.”

We are dealing here with both mental and moral leakage.

Beyond that we now know that the spike proteins, even without the virus, are lethal and this is what we are injecting in the case of the mRNA vaccines primarily. They also do not stay localized and instead spread throughout our organs (SALK Institute study, autopsy plus repeated testimony by Dr Robert Malone, one of the founders of the mRNA technology -- who has for the sin of sharing his expertise, had both his LinkedIn account erased and has had Wikipedia attempt to rewrite history by expunging his mRNA contribution from their site). These are horrifying concerns, and it is monstrous not to have addressed them, rather than cravenly attempting to whitewash them.

The Spectre of Censorship

We must realize the phalanx of pro-orthodox, anti-rationalists, the data deniers (see we can play this game too, and this is more apt than “covid denier” which no one is insofar as we’re discussing a viral strain, or “anti-vaxxer” which no one who steps on a nail I presume would be relative to a tetanus shot), are in desperate paradigmatic straits. With all the “majesty” of State power, their feeble paradigms need guns and law enforcement to enroll cooperation.

They know, at some level, this is utter malarkey and are holding on to it, desperately, as a flat-earther might have to a medieval cosmology, or someone with a theological fantasy being asserted by people with severe mental and emotional problems, on the outskirts of an actual faith, might manically profess.

And I say this because of the pervasive censorship.

Such desperate attempts to silence and muzzle don’t usually spring from confidence, or positions that have self-evident appeal.

Just a smattering of examples: Norway was deplatformed from Tweeting disquiet about Astra Zeneca! Dr. Robert Malone, as indicated above, has accounts cancelled, and is removed from the Wikipedia author page (Joan of Arc may be next). Evolutionary biologist and visiting fellow at Princeton (Bret Weinstein) “demonetized” from YouTube (after over 3 million views) because some cabal somewhere, somehow decide what is or isn’t fit for our eyes and ears. And when and how did that judgment seat pass to them, otherwise than through financial string pulling by desperate vested interests, thereby confessing their impotence in terms of having a case to make?

Noble Prize Winner Professor Satoshi Omura, whose discovery of Ivermectin as an anti-parasitic drug led to one of the world’s greatest public health achievements, was just censored for daring to opine that indeed he believes his discovery will be hugely beneficial for COVID treatment.

None of this is normal! Martin Kulldorff, one of the world’s leading epidemiologists, at a meeting with Florida Governor De Santis suggests that universal vaccination is not called for, the interview is scrubbed immediately, because our precious sensibilities cannot even have that “suggested”, even from someone whose expertise fully entitles him to share an assessment we should be desperately interested to at least consider.

Peer reviewed papers are retracted as it turns out they used public data, and a blitzkrieg is unleashed, of innuendo and allegation, and the authors are given scant time to reply, while clearly specious papers on say HCQ, which are later shown to be outright fraud in terms of literally inventing data, hang out for months and are alluded to as “evidence” to derail inexpensive, early treatment.

Remember everyone, all this is being mounted over an age stratified illness of low risk to virtually everyone. So, the incentive for all the frenzy to demonize, once more, cannot have been public health.

Yes, 3.9 million people are purported to have died of COVID with all types of death certificate rigging. And if you say it’s normal for a positive test on a death certificate to translate into causation (and nothing of course re vaccine deaths can rise to “causation” unless a spike protein jumped out and confessed perhaps, and even then it would be construed as “circumstantial”), I will ask why this logic is only, uniquely applied to this pathogen? Why were these norms so hurriedly “updated” after decades of normal causal logic holding sway, of recording the primary cause of death?

Yes, 3.9 million died over this period, and 5 million die of all-cause mortality every month, so about 85 million have perished over the same period. There is no interest in the other causes of mortality? Or those coming from deferred cancer screenings, heart conditions not attended to, overdoses and suicides, literally many millions more from starvation due to interrupted supply chains (so our affluent Netflix, Uber cosseted lives could squeamishly carry on)?

So, in terms of the medical need for global paralysis, the equivalent of a missile system has been launched for something a water cannon could have handled. The mass censorship is a confession. It says, "We have to shut up anything verging on dissent, especially credible voices, because salacious profits and a way to suspend the encumbrances of democracy are both too good to pass up in this ghastly contrived context." That's the warped need, not the actual gravity of the viral challenge.

What’s an Individual to Do?

I often receive anguished inquiries, of people wishing to reclaim their lives, their liberties, their human dignity. They rail against this tripe to others, who listen with glazed eyes, recite the party line, and decry the sheer sanity being suggested.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is often credited as being a key force in bringing down the Soviet Empire. He dismantled its credibility and was such a threat he was banished from a country he had already endured hard labor in. He then had to evade an assassination attempt and made his way from Zurich to a small town in Vermont.

He argues that we can all refrain from cooperating in lies. They then cannot pass “through” us to seep back out into the world. He writes,

“If many march together on this path of passive resistance, the whole inhuman system will totter and collapse.”

This may be hard to see. He wrote,

“We are approaching the brink; already a universal spiritual demise is upon us; a physical one is about to flare up and engulf us and our children, while we continue to smile sheepishly and babble.”

He may as well as have been writing about now as he searingly says,

“We have so hopelessly ceded our humanity that for the modest handouts of today we are ready to surrender up all our principles, our soul, all the labors of our ancestors, all the prospects of our descendants – anything to avoid disrupting our meager existence.”

He suggests though, what we “can” do is everything. We don’t need the level of civil disobedience or existential courage of a Gandhi or to embody a moral renaissance as Nelson Mandela did. But instead of fruitlessly trying to get people to “reconsider” which they will not, we have to take a stand against “lies.”

Each in our own lives and circle of influence, must refuse to quietly let lies be told and acted upon. There is a threat of violence when only a minority push back. It demands a daily submission to lies, a daily participation in deceit. So, we have to keep calling it out. Not angrily, not judgmentally, but with the conviction we might bring if we were somehow beamed to Socrates’ side, or Galileo’s side, or Rosa Parks’.

As he writes,

“When people renounce lies, lies simply cease to exist. Like parasites, they can only survive when attached to a person.”

We don’t have to debate everyone we pass, just don’t participate in lies to “go along.” There may be sacrifices, doubtless there already have been, far too many, for too many. These lies though desperately need acquiescence and seek to wear us down. Let’s instead, celebrate “moments” of sanity. Let’s play a different game, listen for a different, rousing chorus over the din.

Do not vote for lies Solzhenitsyn suggests, don’t cite them. Paint them or portray them to hold a mirror up to them, don’t allow education to traffic in them.

Become a prism for imperfect truth, hypotheses, uncertainties, but not for outright lies.

As he suggests, it’s a gangrenous ideology, and we need fresh circulation.

Gather friends who seek to live and be alive, have richer, better conversations. Re the trolls, tell them where to stick that jab. The Czechs faced down tanks with not much more than this, and scriveners like Solzhenitsyn whittled away until the ideologically hollow, economic shallowness could not persevere.

As more join this crusade of not letting lies pass through, not letting them stand, not letting them become more of a currency, not electing leaders who bloviate about them with idiotic poses and soundbites, then indeed we may outlast their vanity, their greed, their madness. And if we don’t, we’ll have a hell of a ride regardless. But I vote with hope and if not “positivity” at least “possibility.”

We can aim to support such growth until there is no fertile soil around us for lies. And maybe, just maybe, if enough of us do that, in the best way possible, we will outgrow the real pathogen here. We will transform our sponsoring society until we almost don’t recognize it. And in so doing, perhaps once again, paraphrasing Teilhard de Chardin, we will have discovered fire!