The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
 TeasersGilad Atzmon Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
🔊 Listen RSS

For years Eco-Enthusiasts, both activists and scientists, have been telling us that the ‘party’ will come to an end. The planet we are stuck on can’t take it for much longer, it is getting too crowded and unbearably warm. Most people didn’t take any real notice of the situation and for a reason. This planet, we tend to think, isn’t really ‘ours,’ we were thrown onto it and for a limited time. Once we grasp the true meaning of our temporality, we begin to acknowledge our terminality. ‘Being in the world’ as such is often the attempt to make our ‘life-time’ into a meaningful event.

Most of us who haven’t been overly concerned with the ecological activists and their plans to slow us down knew that as long as Big Money runs the world, nothing of a dramatic nature would really happen. In the eyes of Big Money, we tended to think, we, the people, are mere consumers. We understood ourselves as the means that make the rich richer.

Rather unexpectedly, life has undergone a dramatic change. In the present age of Corona, Big Money ‘let’ the world lock itself down. Economies have been sentenced to imminent death. Our significance as consumers somehow evaporated. The emerging alliance we have been detecting between the new leaders of the world economy (knowledge companies) and those who carry the flag of ‘progress’ ‘justice’ and ‘equality’ has evolved into an authoritarian dystopian condition in which robots and algorithms police our speech and elementary freedoms.

How is it that the Left, that had been devoted to opposition to the rich, has so changed its tune? In fact, nothing has happened suddenly. The Left and the Progressive universe have, for some time, been sustained financially by the rich. The Guardian is an illustrative case of the above. Once a left -leaning paper with a progressive orientation, the Guardian is now openly funded by Bill & Melinda Gates. It shamelessly operates as a mouthpiece for George Soros: it even allowed Soros to disseminate his apocalyptic pre-Brexit view at the time he himself gambled on Brits’ anti- Brexit vote. By now it is close to impossible to regard the Guardian as a news outlet – a propaganda outlet for the rich is a more suitable description. But the Guardian is far from alone. Our networks of progressive activists fall into the same trap. Not many of us were surprised to see Momentum, Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign support group within the Labour Party, rallying for the ‘Holocaust Survivor’ and ‘philanthropist’ George Soros. When Corbyn led the Labour Party, I learned to accept that ‘socialists’ putting themselves on the line of fire defending oligarchs, bankers and Wall Street brokers must be the new ‘Left’ reality. We are now inured to the fact that in the name of ‘progress’ Google has demoted itself from a great search engine into a hasbara outlet. We are accustomed to Facebook and Twitter dictating their worldview in the name of community standards. The only question is what community they have in mind. Certainty not a tolerant and pluralist western one.

One may wonder what drives this new alliance that divides nearly every Western society? The left’s betrayal is hardly a surprise, yet, the crucial question is why, and out of the blue, did those who had been so successful in locating their filthy hands in our pockets go along with the current destruction of the economy? Surely, suicidal they aren’t.

It occurs to me that what we may be seeing is a controlled demolition all over again. This time it isn’t a building in NYC. It isn’t the destruction of a single industry or even a single class as we have seen before. This time, our understanding of Being as a productive and meaningful adventure is embattled. As things stand, our entire sense of livelihood is at risk.

It doesn’t take a financial expert to realise that in the last few years the world economy in general and western economies in particular have become a fat bubble ready to burst. When economic bubbles burst the outcome is unexpected even though often the culprit or trigger for the crash can be identified. What is unique in the current controlled demolition is the willingness of our compromised political class, the media and in particular Left/Progressive networks to participate in the destruction.

The alliance is wide and inclusive. The WHO, greatly funded by Bill Gates, sets the measures by which we are locked down, the Left and the Progressives fuel the apocalyptic phantasies to keep us hiding in our global attics, Dershowitz tries to rewrite the constitution , big Pharma’s agenda shapes our future and we also hear that Moderna and its leading Israeli doctor is ready to “fix” our genes. Meanwhile we learn that our governments are gearing up to stick a needle in our arms. Throughout this time, the Dow Jones has continued to rise. Maybe in this final stage of capitalism, we the people aren’t needed even as consumers. We can be left to rot at home, our governments seemingly willing to fund this new form of detention.

I believe that it was me who ten years ago coined the popular adage “We Are all Palestinians” – like the Palestinians, I thought at the time, we aren’t even allowed to name our oppressor…

 
🔊 Listen RSS

Americans may be surprised to learn from Alan Dershowitz that their constitution is far more intrusive and oppressive than what they and their forefathers have believed for generations. The law ‘scholar’ declared yesterday that “you have no (constitutional) right to not be vaccinated.”

Watch Video: You Have NO RIGHT to NOT be Vaccinated” – Alan Dershowitz:

One possible explanation for Dershowitz’s peculiar constitutional ‘interpretation’ is that some parts of the American constitution were actually written in Yiddish, Hebrew and Aramaic. As such, their meaning is only accessible to a small privileged segment within the American population, one that amounts to 2% or less.

But there is a far better explanation that shines light into the ‘reasoning’ offered by Dershowitz.

In a spectacularly brave Huffpost article titled What Is Pilpul , And Why On Earth Should I Care About It? author David Shasha writes, “ Pilpul is the Talmudic term used to describe a rhetorical process that the (Jewish) sages used to formulate their legal decisions… It is a catch-all term that in English is translated as ‘Casuistry’.”

The English word ‘c asuistry’ is defined as: “the use of clever but unsound reasoning, especially in relation to moral questions; sophistry.”

Dershowitz, is a pilpul master. He often employs peculiar reasoning in relation to moral questions especially when it comes to his own morality and conduct.

Shasha writes of the history of pilpul tradition that “the Ashkenazi rabbis were less concerned with promulgating the Law transmitted in the Talmud than they were with molding it to suit their own needs. Pilpul was a means to justify practices already fixed in the behaviors of the community by re-reading the Talmud to justify those practices.”

Pilpul, as described, is not about understanding of the law and its meaning but about the deliberate miss- interpretation of the law so it fits with one’s core interests.

Shasha points out that “even though many contemporary Jews are not observant, pilpul continues to be deployed. Pilpul occurs any time the speaker is committed to ‘prove’ his point regardless of the evidence in front of him. The casuistic aspect of this hair-splitting leads to a labyrinthine form of argument where the speaker blows enough rhetorical smoke to make his interlocutor submit. Reason is not an issue when pilpul takes over: what counts is the establishment of a fixed, immutable point that can never truly be disputed.”

Pilpul is basically a legalistic exercise that is removed from truthfulness, ethical thinking or even logic. What we see from Dershowitz is a dramatic pilpul-ization of the American legal culture and ethos.

“In this context,” Shasha continues, “the Law is not primary; it is the status of the jurist. Justice is extra-legal, thus denying social equality under the rubric of a horizontal system. Law is in the hands of the privileged rather than the mass.”

In a pretty accurate description of Dershowitz’ modus operandi Shasha writes, “Pilpul is the rhetorical means to mark as ‘true’ that which cannot ever be disputed by rational means.”

Shasha, obviously had Dershowitz in mind when he wrote his Huffpost article. But Dershowitz is not the only one. In Shasha’s article Noam Chomsky is equally guilty of pilpulism. “The contentiousness of the Middle East conflict is intimately informed by pilpul. Whether it is Alan Dershowitz or Noam Chomsky, both of them Ashkenazim who had traditional Jewish educations, the terms of the debate are consistently framed by pilpul. What is most unfortunate about pilpul — and this is something that will be familiar to anyone who has followed the controversies involving Israel and Palestine — is that, since the rational has been removed from the process, all that is left is yelling, irrational emotionalism, and, ultimately, the threat of violence.”

I agree with Shasha. The Middle East conflict has been reduced into a pilpul battle ground between Zionists and their Anti Zionist Zionist twins. The question for Americans is whether Pilpul, a Jewish Ashkenazi litigious practice that is removed from truthfulness, ethics and reason should interfere with American’s constitutional rights, way of living, politics, culture, spirit and vaccination policies.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Anti-Vaccination, Coronavirus, Jews 
🔊 Listen RSS

The 1927 cinematic epic Metropolis is often described as a ‘German expressionist’ (anti realist) and a ‘science-fiction’ film. Today, as we watch the evaporation of the Covid19 phantasmal saga of viral apocalypse, we will examine whether Metropolis’ plot was truly anti-realist.

Watching the film almost a century after its creation brings up some existential and perplexing thoughts. Is not Metropolis the most timely expression of our current fatigue with corporate culture, our dismay with ‘science’ and ‘technology,’ and our fatigue of our deeply rotten and uniquely ungifted political class? I suggest that back in 1927, the creators of Metropolis understood the current dystopia and its ontological roots better than some of our most venerated contemporary ‘intellectuals.’ Accordingly, I believe that rather than as ‘science fiction,’ ‘an astute prophetic message’ is the best description of this ambitious moment in German cinema.

The film was directed by Fritz Lang and written by his wife,Thea von Harbou, in collaboration with Lang. It is important to note that Lang escaped from Germany in 1933. Lang, it seems, didn’t approve of the Nazi regime: his wife, however, stayed behind. After the war, Thea von Harbou was imprisoned for collaboration with the Nazis. I don’t intend to examine whether Von Harbou was a ‘Nazi’ or not, but I will support the argument that Metropolis was probably the definitive and most prophetic ‘National ist Socialist’ (as opposed to National Socialist) masterpiece.

Metropolis was created in Germany during the era of the Weimar Republic. It is set in a futuristic metropolitan ultra capitalist dystopia that isn’t so removed from the reality of some of our present day Western metropolises. It tells the story of Freder, the son of the oligarch city master (Joh Fredersen), and Maria, an inspirational working class, Christian and saintly character. Together Freder and Maria defeat social injustice and the class divide by means of Herd-Unity. For this unity to occur, a mediator has to come forward to transform the history of social conflicts into a harmonious future. We are exposed to two and a half hours of horror, oppression, slavery, capitalist malevolence and class divide that resolves in the end into reconciliation of an Hegelian ‘end of history’ nature. The cinematic epic exhausts itself when the workers’ leader and Joh Fredersen are shaking hands and accepting their mutual fate and co-dependence. “The Mediator Between the Head and the Hands Must Be the Heart,” is the inter title of the scene, emphasising the ideological and metaphysical motto of the film.

Post WWI Germany was evidently in need of a unifying character who could resolve the class struggle and bond the workers and the capitalists into an integrated organismus sharing an harmonious, unified reality. It would be naïve not to believe that Hitler and his National Socialist party were driven by such a vision. And they weren’t alone. Roosevelt might have been committed to a similar search for such a bond, as was Henry Ford as well as many others.

The film was made in 1925-6 and saw the screen in 1927, during a significant period in terms of German politics and intellectual evolution. In 1927 Martin Heidegger published his monumental Being and Time (Sein und Zeit). Heidegger posited that the history of Western Philosophy is a tale of the forgetting of Being. Heidegger, more than any other philosopher before him, identified the growing detachment that has become intrinsic to modern existence and post enlightenment human landscape.

Another text that was published at that time in Germany that had a far more immediate influence than Heideggers’ philosophical musings was Hitler’s Mein Kampf (1925). Though the text is largely described as an ‘anti-Semitic diatribe,’ Mein Kampf wasn’t really a book ‘about Jews,’ though Jews were mentioned occasionally in the text. It was the means by which Hitler, at the time, a veteran corporal and a prisoner, outlined his political ideology and future plan for Germany under his leadership. In that regard, it is interesting to read George Orwell’s 1940 review of the book. Orwell, a voice from the Left, despised Hitler. His review provides an astute critique, yet, he tried to understand the success of Nazism in the light of the total failure of the German working class movement. Not once does Orwell mention Jews or anti-Semitism. In this regard, it is interesting to read George Steiner’s view of Mein Kampf as one of “half a dozen books” published between 1918-27 that resulted from the crisis in German society and culture following its humiliating defeat in WWI. In the introduction to his book about Martin Heidegger, Steiner correctly locates the work of Mein Kampf within the context of its contemporaries such as Ernst Bloch’s The Spirit of Utopia (1918), Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West (1918), Franz Rosenzweig’s The Star of Redemption (1921), Karl Barth’s The Epistle to the Romans (1922), and, of course, Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time (1927) mentioned above.

While at the time some film critics saw Metropolis as a ‘banal’ communist statement, it was actually an invaluable Nationalist Socialist cinematic revelation as it was critical of both capitalism and communism. By so doing, it expressed the true political spirit and the wishes of many Germans at the time. Like Heidegger and many other German intellectuals who were critical of the enlightenment, the meaning of modern technology and the crude exploitive instrumentalisation of science, Metropolis identified the growing detachment from the Christian and Athenian Western ethos. In a way, the film forecast the nuclear bomb, offered a phantasy of a manmade viral apocalypse, it depicted the reality of concentration camps and even predicted robots dictating the ‘party line’ long before Mark Zuckerberg was born.

Twenty years before Orwell created Emmanuel Goldstein and many decades before George Soros reduced the so-called ‘Left’ into his controlled opposition toy, Lang, together with von Harbou realised that in the eyes of Capitalists and Oligarchs, the fantasy of a ‘proletarian revolution’ is a useful political tool. There is no better means towards total hegemony and oppression than the disasters the masses bring on themselves willingly and even enthusiastically.

While this is obviously the most cynical interpretation of democracy and the prospect of a revolution, it is hard not to admit that this sardonic reading is the reality in which we live.

In 2020 it isn’t Trump or the Tory government that oppresses the masses. It isn’t the White House that deletes Youtube videos of doctors and renowned scientists and it isn’t the British police that close the social media accounts of truth seekers. Instead, it is the private technology companies that dictate a tyranny of correctness in the name of so-called ‘community standards.’

And they are not alone. Corbyn was initially seen by some, including myself, as a refreshing development in British politics. However, it took just a few weeks before many of us were devastated to realize that the British Labour Party under his leadership had quickly morphed into one of the most oppressive authoritarian political bodies around.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Germany, Inequality, Jews, Zionism 
🔊 Listen RSS

Back in the 1960s, the British academic establishment was rather excited about the work of Karl Popper, the philosopher who developed the concept of empirical falsification. Popper was keen to define the demarcation between the scientific and that which only mimics empiricism and scientism. A theory, according to Popper, can be considered scientific if, and only if, it is potentially falsifiable by experiments or its predictions. Popper attempted to create criteria that would deny psychoanalysis, Marxism and astrology any scientific status based on the fact that these theories are not falsifiable.

One may wonder what Popper would have to say about the ‘science’ of Neil Ferguson, the man who predicted up to 550.000 Coronavirus dead in the UK and 2.2 million dead in the USA.

On 29 April, Off-Guardian published what I believe to be the most insightful criticism of the lockdown policy so far. In the article Iain Davis digs into the work or shall we say, blunders, he attributes to Ferguson. Davis writes, “both Public Health England (PHE) and the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) were satisfied that COVID-19 (C19) presented a ‘low risk’ of mortality and downgraded it from the status of a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID) on March 19th. The ACDP board members include Professor Neil Ferguson from Imperial College. Presumably Prof. Ferguson was among the dissenting voices on the ACDP board as he completely ignored the majority opinion of his scientific colleagues.”

There is nothing wrong in holding a dissenting scientific view, however, this specific ‘dissenting view’ and the way it was implemented by the UK and the USA governments appears to have led America, Britain and the rest of the world to respond in a way that created a catastrophe of a previously unknown scale.

“In an interview on 13th February, widely reported by the mainstream media ,” Davis writes, “he (Ferguson) stated his predictive models were ‘not absurd.’ He said that infection rates of 60% of the population with a 1% mortality rate were possible. Standing by his prediction of 400,000 C19 deaths in the UK. The Imperial College computer model report was released to the public on 16th March, predicting huge numbers of deaths from C19. By the 19th March Prof. Ferguson must have known a majority of his peers disagreed with him.”

Davis points out that Ferguson failed to implement the most basic of scientific procedures, namely allowing a peer review of his ‘predictions,’ making sure that one or more people with similar competence in epidemiology evaluate what we now know to have been the grossly exaggerated Imperial College models and predictions.

Davis reveals that “when it comes to wildly inaccurate predictions Prof. Ferguson’s work at Imperial College has a long and distinguished history. In 2002, he said that (up to) 50,000 people in the UK would die from ‘mad cow disease’, to date less than 200 have passed away; he predicted 200 million global deaths from the H5N1 bird flu. Currently it is a suspected factor in the deaths of 455 people world wide; in 2009 he told the UK Government that 65,000 could die from swine flu in the UK and worked with the World Health Organisation to predict millions of deaths from the H1N1 global flu pandemic*.”

You may ask what kind of scientists are mistaken in their predictions by factors of 200 or more? What kind of an academic institution would provide such a scientist with a platform, let alone having him lead a department? And the questions go far deeper. Davis writes, “while Prof. Ferguson and his Imperial College colleagues have been consistently wrong they have also been unquestioningly believed by governments and intergovernmental bodies on every occasion. Seemingly without reservation. Despite the clear evidence to the contrary, policy makers from all political parties have shown tremendous loyalty to Imperial College’s silly data models. In doing so, they have not only ignored the researchers’ woeful history of failed predictions but have also denied the scientific evidence which usually contradicts them.”

Davis is not alone. On April 28th F. William Engdahl expressed very similar concerns re Neil Ferguson, his reputation and his past ‘models.’ “In 2005,” Engdahl writes, “Ferguson claimed that up to 200 million (!) people worldwide would be killed by bird-flu or H5N1. By early 2006, the WHO had only linked 78 deaths to the virus.”

I am not in any position to assess the true danger to us of C19 or our response to it. But simple common sense tells us that the only reliable scientific fact about our British leading epidemiologist team is the uncomfortable fact that it has often been wrong and by a huge margin.

In an unreserved manner Engdahl suggests that, “the same Ferguson group at Imperial College, with WHO endorsement, was behind the panic numbers that triggered a UK government lockdown. Ferguson was also the source of the wild ‘prediction’ that 2.2 million Americans would likely die if immediate lockdown of the US economy did not occur. Based on the Ferguson model, Dr Anthony Fauci of NIAID reportedly confronted President Trump and pressured him to declare a national health emergency. Much as in the UK, once the damage to the economy was begun, Ferguson’s model later drastically lowered the US fatality estimates to between 100,000 to 200,000 deaths. In both US and UK cases Neil Ferguson relied on data from the Chinese government, data which has been shown as unreliable.

How would Neil Ferguson and his Imperial College group score on Popper’s falsifiability test? Not well.

In Popperian terms, what Ferguson and his Imperial College team produce has little to do with science, as it does not even attempt to produce a clear criteria for falsification. ‘Predictions’ of ‘possible’ death that fluctuate widely from 50-200.000 in the case of Mad Cow Disease or from 20.000 -500.000 in the case of C19 cannot be considered ‘falsifiable’ scientifically as the range is too broad to validate one theoretical calculative model over another. The models at play, so it seems, include too many ‘if’ variables, possibly to cover their author’s reputation rather than to produce something that resembles a verifiable prediction.

The next question is why anyone in Britain or the USA takes such ‘science’ seriously. One wonders what is it that has led Britain and its academia to lose touch with the core scientific ethos?

 
• Category: Ideology, Science • Tags: Academia, Coronavirus, Disease, Sweden 
🔊 Listen RSS

I was planning to write a long article comparing the accountability of the various possible Covid-19 culprits. I thought I would delve into a hypothetical question: who is more guilty of a mass murder – a young scientist who forgot to seal the safety latch of a laboratory coronavirus refrigerator and by failing to do so, exposed humanity to the risk of a viral pandemic, or an epidemiologist and professor who distributes a phantasmic unsubstantiated study that is not fact-based and proved to be grossly incorrect and by so doing, inflicted financial chaos leading to the destruction of the Western economy, contributed to world famine and the possible deaths of millions?

But as soon as I started to delve into it, I gathered that the topic was not as interesting as I hoped. The young scientist was negligent, a relatively minor offence in comparison with the epidemiologist who committed a conscious, wilful act following a process of so-called methodical ‘deliberation.’ The young scientist is guilty of negligence that led to many deaths, the epidemiology professor is, basically, complicit in a crime against humanity.

I realized a more interesting question is why most Western countries failed to take the right decision. Britain is particularly interesting as it initially took what seems now to be the right policy, then made a 180 after it was subject to a media blitz fuelled by the embarrassingly exaggerated ‘predictions’ from a ‘scientific study’ delivered by London Imperial College.

If we want to live in a better world, we may have to delve into the systematic failure of our media, government, dysfunctional political class, and the scientific political technocrats. Considering the crimes that are now committed by our so-called elite, a criminal investigation is likely the only way forward and may be our only hope to survive.

Other intriguing questions have surfaced amidst the Corona crisis. While it is clear why many people supported severe lockdown measures back in February and March, it is far from clear why liberals and progressives are still supporting the ludicrous surrender of our most essential rights to operate freely and make a living? Why do the tech companies stick with a narrative that is becoming increasingly shaky? Why does Facebook deploy its robots to silence anyone who doesn’t agree with the World Health Organization? Why, in the most blatant violation of freedom of speech, has Youtube been removing content and alternative views presented by frontline scientists and medical doctors such as Dr. Erickson’s Covid19 Briefing? For those who don’t remember, just two months ago the same American press, that is now rallying against dissenting American doctors, was criticizing China for silencing its own medical professionals who insisted upon telling the truth. What is it about David Icke’s message that brings to light the true authoritarian nature of Google, Facebook and Twitter? Why are the tech corporations united against those who see 5G as a global menace? Whether the 5G dissenters are right or wrong, there is no health risk to any of us from people who express their thoughts and are upset by radiation.

It may be too depressing to admit that in the West, it is the tech companies, rather than the state, that display the most authoritarian tactics. But they are not alone in this battle. What we see is a broad alliance among the so-called progressives, the liberals and the bitterest Orwellian enemies of freedom and speech rights.

The division we see in contemporary society is not of a socio-economic nature, it is not rich vs. poor, it is not political, it has nothing to do with Left or Right, it is not even cognitive, it is all about Athens and Jerusalem. Athens teaches us how to think for ourselves, while Jerusalem dictates what to think, what to say and who not to listen to. Athens pushes for an Agora: an open marketplace of ideas dominated by tolerance and pluralism while Jerusalem adheres to a set of beliefs, and as is typical with beliefs, the more they are removed from factuality and rationality the stronger the belief happens to be.

It does not come as a surprise to many of us that some progressives and liberals are still very pessimistic, as if they try to save the ridiculously farfetched predictions made by our state ‘scientists’ two months ago. They cling to predictions that have proven to be grossly wrong and by unheard of proportions. I guess that the progressive worldview is not a political position, it is a mental state and it is actually of a very problematic supremacist nature. Progressives are those who believe that those who do not agree with them are somehow inferior: ‘reactionaries’ so to say. To be a progressive is to believe that your view isn’t just right, it is actually superior, scientifically and analytically even if the facts and the rules of logic suggest the opposite.

In my latest book, ‘Being in Time,’ I reached the conclusion that the progressive worldview is probably choseness’ final stage. I guess that my old insight has now materialized into a public awareness. I can only thank Covid-19 for that.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Censorship, Coronavirus 
🔊 Listen RSS

Herd Immunity Ratio

As an intellectual exercise let’s think of an imaginary state, “State A.” Our fictional State A is devastated that 100 of its citizens are infected with Covid-19. For this exercise, we accept that these 100 citizens are representative of State A‘s demography, classes, ethnicities and so on. Apparently, State A’s nightmare is just the beginning because out of its 100 Covid-19 carriers, not one survives the next three weeks.

Let’s now imagine another case, we will call “State B.” State B is similar to state A in terms of its size, population, geography, climate, culture, ethnicity, nutrition, etc. In State B 100 citizens also tested positive for Covid-19. Following the experience of State A, State B braces itself for the possibility that all its infected citizens may perish but then for reasons that are not yet clear to us, no one in state B dies. And if this is not different enough, hardly any of the 100 develop any symptoms.

The crude difference between State A and B may tell us something about the herd immunity in States A and B. It is easy to detect that the ratio created by the number of fatalities (F) divided by the number of those infected (I) is an indication of the level of immunity or ‘herd immunity’ in a given region or a state.

State A: F/I = 100/100=1
State B: F/I = 0/100=0

State A’s immunity ratio equals 1. This means that anyone who contracts the virus in State A will likely die. In state B, on the other hand, one is likely to survive the virus. In fact, they may, without knowing it, have already survived.

But let us now consider some more realistic cases. In “State C,” again, a state similar to A and B, out of 100 who tested Covid-19 positive, 10 people died within the next few weeks.

State C: F/I=10/100=0.1

The herd immunity ratio in State C is 0.1. In terms of herd immunity, State C is far better off than State A as a virally infected subject may benefit from a 0.9 chance to survive. But State C’s situation is not as good as in State B where no one is expected to die as the F/I ratio in State B is O. We can see that the smaller the F/I ratio is, the greater is the herd immunity in a given state or a region.

But let us look at another realistic case. In “State D” out of 100 patients only 1 died within a few weeks.

State D: F/I=1/100=0.01.

This means that in State D the herd immunity is close to perfect. Someone who contracts the Covid-19 virus has only a remote chance that he will lose his life. In other words, the survival rate is 0.99

State C and D are not completely imaginary cases. The F/I ratio in State C is a good representation of the numbers we saw in Northern Italy, NYC, Spain, UK and other vulnerable regions that have suffered heavily in the last few weeks. The ratio in State D is very similar to South Korea and Israel. Though many people are identified with Covid-19 in these two states alone, very few have died.

Such a methodical search for herd immunity ratio may help to identify the survival rate in different states, regions and cities. It may help us to determine policy; to decide who, what and how to lockdown or maybe not to lockdown at all. It can also help to locate the origin and the spreaders of the disease as we have a good reason to believe that the regions with the most immunity to a given viral infection have likely experienced the disease in the past and have developed some form of resistance.

In reality, this model is problematic for many reasons and can hardly be applied. As things stand (in reality), we are comparing data that was collected under different circumstances and using various procedures designed with completely different strategies and philosophies. Both Israel and South Korea, for instance, conducted testing on mass scale and hence, identified many more carriers. More crucially both Israel and S. Korea made a huge effort to identify super spreaders and applied strict isolation measures to those spreaders and those who were infected by them. Britain, USA and Italy on the other hand conducted limited testing and have generally tested those who developed symptoms or were suspected of being infected.

But there is a far greater problem with the above herd immunity ratio model. It assumes that we know what we are dealing with i.e., an infectious viral situation, while the evidence may point otherwise.


The Radioactive Clock

It has become clear that the health crisis we are facing isn’t consistent with anything we are familiar with. Those who predicted a colossally genocidal plague weren’t necessarily stupid or duplicitous. They assumed that they knew the root cause of the current crisis. They applied recognized models and algorithms associated with viral pandemics. They ended up eating their words, not because their models were wrong but because they applied their models to the wrong event. While no one can deny the alarming exponential growth of the disease, it is the unusual ‘premature’ curve-flattening point and then the rapid decline of infections which no one explained. In fact, some still prefer to deny it.

Many of us remember that our so-called ‘experts’ initially tended to accuse China of ‘hiding the real figures’ as no one could believe that the virus, all of a sudden, pretty much ran out of steam. Some also claimed that Iran was faking its figures to make its regime look better. Then came South Korea and the scientific community started to admit that despite its initial rapid exponential growth, for an unexplained reason, the ‘virus’ seems to run out of energy in an unpredictable fashion: the curve straightens out almost abruptly and starts to drop soon after, almost literally disappearing to the point where even a country as enormous as China passes days without diagnosing a single new Covid-19 carrier.

When Italy experienced its Corona carnage, every health ‘expert’ predicted that when the ‘virus’ slipped out of the rich Lombardy region and made it to the poor south, we would see real genocide. That didn’t happen.

We have also started to notice that lockdowns have not necessarily saved the situation and that adopting relatively light ‘lockdown’ measures doesn’t translate into a total disaster as Sweden has managed to prove. The ‘virus,’ appears to stop spreading according to its own terms rather than the terms we impose upon it.

Thinking about the anomalies to do with the virus in analytical mathematical terms, as opposed to seeing the virus in biological or medical terms, has made me believe that a paradigm shift may be inevitable. We seem to have been applying the wrong kind of science to a phenomenon that is not really clear to us. This may explain what led a British ‘scientist’ to reach a ludicrous and farfetched estimate that Britain could be heading towards an astronomic death figure of 510.000. Following the same flawed algorithm, Anthony Fauci advised the American president that America could see two million dead. Both scientists were wrong by a factor of 25-40 times. Such a mistake in scientific prediction should be unforgivable considering the damage it inflicted on the world’s economy and its future. One might say that the good news is that our governments are finally listening to scientists, the tragedy, however, is that they are listening to the most idiotic scientists around.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Coronavirus, Disease 
🔊 Listen RSS

I ask because just three years ago the USA experienced one of its most severe influenza outbreaks in recent memory. I am talking about the 2017-18 influenza that according to The American Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was associated with “45 million illnesses, 21 million medical visits, 810,000 hospitalizations.” By September 2018 CNN announced that as many as 80.000 were dead for reasons associated with the outbreak.

The number of flu cases that year in the USA alone was about 18 times higher than the current number of Novel Coronavirus cases worldwide (2.5 million so far). The number of hospitalized American patients was more than 4 times higher than those who have been hospitalised in the USA with Coronavirus symptoms (200.000 to date). The fatalities/hospitalized ratio that year was around 0.1, about the same ratio we saw in Northern Italy last month. And if all of that isn’t enough, the number of American fatalities in 2017-18 was more than three times the deaths currently associated with Covid-19.

In case the above has yet to provoke your suspicious grey cells, maybe looking into the age groups of the 2017-18 USA influenza’s victims will do the job. In the 2017-18 influenza, death rates were highest in the over-65 age group. The CDC reports that “people 65 years and older accounted for approximately 58% of reported influenza-associated hospitalizations.” But the story gets even more interesting. In the 2017-18 flu season the second most affected group was those aged 50 to 64. This is actually very unusual for influenza, as normally the second highest death rate occurs in children, from birth through age 4. Contagion-Infectious Disease Today reported in June 2018 that the “ferociousness of the 17-18 flu season overall, combined with above-average impacts on younger baby boomers, made 2017-2018 one for the record books.”

In September 2018 CNN reported that: “Overall, the United States experienced one of the most severe flu seasons in recent decades.” At this stage, I hope it won’t surprise you to find out that pneumonia was the primary fatal complication associated with the 2017 outbreak.

The following may sound like a description of the current Novel Coronavirus pandemic: “The season began with an increase of illness in November; high activity occurred during January and February, and then illness continued through the end of March.” You guessed right, this is not the description of the current global Corona pandemic but actually how CNN described the outbreak of influenza in America in September 2018.

Does it take a genius to figure out that the American 2017-18 influenza outbreak was pretty ‘similar’ to the current Novel Coronavirus epidemic?

The first question that comes to mind is why didn’t America lock itself down amidst its catastrophic 2017-18 influenza as it has now? One may wonder why the CDC didn’t react to the ‘severity’ of the outbreak that was at least three times as lethal as the current Novel Coronavirus health crisis? But, even more disturbing is the fact that despite the severity of the 2017 flu outbreak and its deadly impact, the enormous number of hospitalisations and the infectious rate, the World Health Organisation (WHO) didn’t see the need to alert the world or to close the planet for business as it did this year. Peculiarly, the WHO didn’t even bother to tag the American outbreak as an epidemic or pandemic. It was just an ordinary ‘influenza.’

This makes me wonder, whether it is possible that what we now consider as ‘novel’ Coronavirus isn’t a novel event after all? If this is the case, how is it possible that America failed to respond to a lethal virus that attacked almost 11% of its population and left 80.000 dead? Was it silenced or is it a story of total dysfunctionality on every possible level?

Those who know something about pandemics and, by now, I am not convinced that Anthony Fauci or the WHO fall into this category, tell us that global pandemics in recent decades came in three waves. The first wave is often severe, the second wave is catastrophic and the third wave is relatively light. I wonder whether it is possible that this stage of the corona crisis is actually the second wave rather than a ‘new event’? If this is the case, the first wave was hidden from us by those who claim to be our guardians who defend our planet from viral attacks.

If this scenario is correct, President Trump can save his energy. Trying to shake off his responsibility by putting the blame on China with the hope that the Chinese may decide to build the wall instead of the Mexicans, is not going to work. The American government may want to invest its energy eliminating some of the widely available information about the American 2017-18 Influenza outbreak.

The current corona virus is certainly a global financial disaster but the Black Plague it isn’t. However, it has been very effective in making us all aware of the danger in modern virology affairs and the possible impact of bioweapons and viral engineering. If there is any significance to the present crisis, it is because the government’s reaction ought to be an immediate criminal investigation. Questions must be raised with the WHO. Where were you in 2018? Why didn’t you warn the world? What prevented you from tagging the American influenza outbreak as a pandemic or epidemic? Was it the $400 million the WHO receives annually from the USA government or maybe it has something to do with the WHO’s intimate relationship with the American pharmaceutical industry.

I began by asking whether amnesia is a Covid-19 symptom. The answer is a categorical NO. In 2017-18 America was subject to an alarming health situation far more dangerous than the current coronavirus. But not many in America knew about it. It wasn’t a news item. It is not that we forgot, we never knew. We lived through it despite the fact that it was far more severe than the current crisis. And the next necessary question is who decided to make the current crisis into a phantasmic apocalyptic narrative and why? Soon we will know the answer as it clearly backfired.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media, Coronavirus, Disease 
🔊 Listen RSS

In 2002 Arnold S. Relman, a professor of medicine at Harvard University commented that: “The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country [USA] are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”

Those who are interested in the notion of truth and its pursuit recognize what led Professor Relman to blow the whistle on his profession and its standards. His observation can be applied to almost every academic and research domain. Rather than seeking the truth, what our universities and research institutes do most often is to bend an ‘image of truthfulness’ and an ‘illusion of scientific discourse’ to fit with the interests of those who are powerful enough to dictate their views. We do it to our past (history) and to physics, chemistry, biology, political science, legal studies and most other contemporary scholarly domains.

Yet, although truth is evasive and the subject of relentless assault by those who are supposed to be its guardians, truth survives. Miraculously it manifests a unique and undeniable trait: truth always unveils itself.

Not many living scientists have been subject to as much public hounding as professor Peter Duesberg. Some have come close to accusing the scientist of mass killing. And yet it was Duesberg who, well ahead of most, noted that medical science had gradually become compromised and treacherous in its ethos.

Whether we like to admit it or not, Peter Duesberg predicted the current institutional turmoil to do with Novel Coronavirus and the dangerous conjunction between those who mimic the image of ‘scientific thinking,’ and the pharmaceutical industry and other oligarchs who see financial opportunity in human suffering.

Duesberg is known to many as the ‘HIV Denier.’ In the 1980s, while he was a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, he came to the conclusion that the human immune deficiency virus (HIV) is a harmless passenger virus* and had little to do with the AIDS condition.

I do not have an opinion, nor am I qualified to comment on Duesberg’s scientific theories. Yet, it was Duesberg’s work that alerted many critical minds, including mine, to the disturbing fact that medical science had lost its way. Perhaps to some it is more disturbing that in the long run, it has become clear that whether Dueseberg’s science was right or wrong, the gist of his argument has been adopted by most of us, including those who deny the validity of his science.

Duesberg’s research led him to believe that it wasn’t HIV that caused AIDS, instead he thought it was the lifestyle choices within the male gay community at the time that made this community so vulnerable. He referred primarily to illicit drug use and profligate sexual interactions. He practically blamed the victims, but when the victims made the necessary changes in lifestyle, AIDS somehow became ‘less infectious.’

Duesberg was a romantic 19th century style scientist, he understood the essence of scientific thinking in general and of medical science in particular. He observed that AIDS patients were dying of a variety of diseases that were related to the failure of the immune system, however, the ill only became ‘AIDS victims’ once diagnosed as ‘HIV positive.’ Duesberg smelled a rat already in the 1980s. He grasped that we had accumulated numbers rather than thinking about the problem scientifically. He identified the corrosive role of the pharmaceutical industry and the dangerous impact of world health institutions. Now at the peak of the Corona crisis, many of us can hardly manage to bear the stink of that rat that grew exponentially into a rotten dinosaur.

The medical discipline is traditionally defined as the science of dealing with the maintenance of health and the prevention and treatment of disease. Forms of Medical Science have appeared in many different cultures and variations, but throughout, the science is primarily committed to maintaining health and to identifying symptoms and defining a course of treatment.

There are two crucial parts to medicine, 1.the diagnosis – the art or act of identifying a disease from its signs and symptoms. 2. The course of action. We understand that Western medicine existed successfully before we possessed the means to conduct forensic ‘viral tests’ whether for HIV or Covid 19. In 1917, at the time of the Spanish Flu, patients were diagnosed as carriers of the disease without the help of ‘bio-labs’ and forensic tests. The same applies to malaria, pneumonia, different cancers and so on. They were then treated according to the knowledge and means available.

It should be embarrassing to admit that four month after the outbreak of the contemporary health crisis, and over a century after the Spanish Flu, medical science and the public health authorities haven’t progressed much. They probably have less of an understanding of the philosophy at the core of their profession. We see governments desperate to put their hands on ventilators and CV19 tests just to find out that ventilators are actually deadly and the tests do not really work. In fact, we learn, just a bit too late, that putting patients on their belly often achieves better results than a ventilator. As in the case of AIDS we insist upon reducing a difficult situation involving a manifold of symptoms and complex implications into a Covid-19 ‘binary test.’

Duesberg didn’t deny that young males were dying in large numbers from a score of infectious diseases in the 1980s. What he doubted was whether it was all caused by a single mysterious virus. He believed, and with reason, that the human experience and human health are complex and cannot be reduced into binary reasoning or a single factor. Duesburg, like Relman a decade and a half later, realised that medical science in the West has been compromised. Instead of the maintenance of health and diagnosis and treatment of disease, it has committed itself to the maintenance of the pharmaceutical industry and other satellite institutions associated with that corrupt universe.

Peter Duesberg wasn’t the first to point at the collapse of the medical scientific ethos. Notably, the Austrian philosopher Otto Weininger realised in the early days of the 20th century that medical science was about to lose its bond with a holistic understanding of the human as an organism and was destined to morph into “a matter of drugs, a mere administration of chemicals.” It seems likely Duesberg would have found common ground with Weininger.

Some Americans were upset in the last few days by the fact that many fatalities in NYC were added to the Corona victims’ list despite the fact that they never tested positive. I hold the opposite view. Medical science can operate perfectly well without Covid-19 tests. In Britain we trust members of the general public to diagnose themselves as Covid-19 carriers and to self -isolate accordingly. If a Brit can diagnose himself as a carrier of a lethal virus without a test, we should assume that an educated American medical professional can do the same for a patient.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: AIDS, Coronavirus 
Gilad Atzmon at Jason Liosatos Outside The Box.
🔊 Listen RSS

In this interview I elabore together with Jason Liosatos on the prospects of a Corona paradigm shift, escalating the crisis into a criminal investigation. Is it a bio-lab accident, or may be a bio-weapon mutating into a mass killer? Who should investigate the possible culprit(s)? I offer some basic mathematical tools that could help to track down and identify the possible origin of the virus. If you regard yourself as a critical being you may enjoy this conversation.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

We have recently heard from frontline medical physicians that the current global health crisis is something they have not been trained to deal with nor do they fully understand the spectrum of symptoms they encounter in hospitals and emergency centres. Earlier this week, Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell, an emergency physician affiliated with Maimonides Medical Center (Brooklyn), posted two insightful videos urging health practitioners to accept that COVID-19 does not cause any form of pneumonia. Instead, the virus causes a condition of oxygen deprivation, and ventilators as they are currently being used, may cause more harm than good for some patients.

What Dr. Kyle-Sidell suggests is a paradigm change in the perception of the current endemic. Kyle-Sidell is not alone, the few doctors who allow themselves to discuss the situation in a critical manner admit that medical science is perplexed by the virus.

One would assume that if the virus at the centre of the current epidemic was an unsavoury present from ‘mother nature’ we would be able to trace its evolution. We likely would have seen the gradual appearance of some of the new symptoms that have caught our medical establishment unprepared. It doesn’t seem this happened. In the view of many medical practitioners the new disease is in a category of its own. It is a novelty.

This means that it is possible that the Corona virus wasn’t created by nature but by creatures who believe themselves to be greater than nature.

In light of the above, I offer my paradigm change, one that is probably more radical than what Dr. Kyle-Sidell may have had in mind.

Since we do not know its provenance, we should treat the current epidemic as a potentially criminal act as well as a medical event. We must begin the search for the perpetrators who may be at the centre of this possible crime of global genocidal proportions.

While medical diagnosis is defined by:

  1. a determination of the nature of the cause of a disease.
  2. a concise technical description of the cause, nature, and/or manifestations of the symptoms.

Criminal investigations are primarily engaged with the human element. The criminal investigator seeks to ascertain the methods, motives, and identities of criminals, the identity of victims and may also search for and interrogate witnesses to the crime.

Treating the Corona virus as a crime would mean searching for possible offenders: individuals, institutions, or states that may have created the lethal virus as part of a research program or more directly, as an agent of biological warfare.

Law enforcement agencies often allocate dozens of investigators, officers, detectives and agents to untangle a single homicide. One would expect that following the deaths of tens of thousands around the globe, every police force, government and intelligence agency would join forces in the attempt to identify the possible culprit(s) at the root of the coronavirus crisis. We may be dealing with a negligent or criminal event on a massive scale.

While scientists and medical experts find it difficult to explain exactly how Covid-19 operates or how it came about, a few critical voices within the scientific community and the dissident media have pointed to alternative explanations that seem more explanatory than anything conventional medical thought has so far offered.

Some claim that G5 radiation is at the core of the new epidemic. I do not have any intention nor am in any position to comment on the topic, however, considering the scale of death we are dealing with, a criminal investigation may have to look closely into such a possibility: identifying the danger, identifying the possible motive and spotting the financial benefactors as well as beneficiaries.

A number of scientists have commented that laboratories and research centres have been engaged in the study of corona viruses and experimented with models that resemble the current virus. Specifically, some have pointed to a North Carolina laboratory that experimented with the viruses extracted from bats in 2015.

Back in 2015 USA Today published extensive research relating to the ongoing safety issues in biological laboratories in America and elsewhere. “Vials of bioterror bacteria have gone missing. Lab mice infected with deadly viruses have escaped, and wild rodents have been found making nests with research waste. Cattle infected in a university’s vaccine experiments were repeatedly sent to slaughter and their meat sold for human consumption. Gear meant to protect lab workers from lethal viruses such as Ebola and bird flu has failed, repeatedly.” The American outlet revealed that “hundreds of lab mistakes, safety violations and near-miss incidents have occurred in biological laboratories coast to coast in recent years, putting scientists, their colleagues and sometimes even the public at risk.” Naturally, safety failures in biological laboratories aren’t just an American problem. “A small, deadly outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in China in 2004 was traced to lab workers at the National Institute of Virology in Beijing. In 2007, an outbreak of foot and mouth disease among cattle in England that required herds to be slaughtered was blamed on leaking drainage pipes at a nearby research complex.”

In 2014 the US National Institute of Health removed its funding of gain-of-function (GOF) experiments involving the influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses. Gain-of-function involves activating mutations to change the gene product to enhance its effect or so that its normal actions are superseded by a different and abnormal function. Apparently, the National Institute of Health’s moratorium ended on Dec. 19, 2017 when the US announced that it would resume funding American gain-of-function experiments involving these viruses. This means that since 2017 some American laboratories have been experimenting with Corona viruses; creating mutants with the financial support of the government.

Treating the Corona virus outbreak as a crime ought to include a visit by the FBI to the office of the National Institute of Health and a careful review of all the files related to American laboratories conducting GOF experiments with Coronavirus. This investigative procedure must be exercised in every region and country in the world that has engaged in GOF experiments.

As soon as the Corona virus became the new disaster, Dany Shoham, a former Israeli military intelligence officer, was quick to point to China’s biowarfare program as a possible originator of the virus.

By now, with the exception of President Trump and his Pompeo character, not many are convinced that Covid-19 is a Chinese Virus (as Trump refers to it when he wants to annoy progressives). A criminal investigation would have to examine Chinese as well as Russian, British, French, German, etc. laboratories and their safety records. It should also verify whether Dany Shoham had any evidence for his assertion regarding China or whether he was attempting to divert attention from another possible suspect in this Corona affair.

Israel, with its extensive biological warfare laboratories and WMD facilities must also be subject to thorough scrutiny.

 
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2