Programmers have a very precise understanding of truth. You can’t lie
to a compiler. Try it sometime. Garbage in, garbage out. Booleans, the ones and
zeros, trues and falses, make up the world programmers live in. That’s all there is! I think
programming is deep, it teaches us about the non-cyber universe we live in. There’s something
spiritual about computers, and I want to understand it.
Science has been misused for political purposes many times in history. However, the most glaring
examples of politically motivated pseudoscience happened just recently, in XX century. That means that
it is useful to review historic examples of "Zombie ideas" used for political purposes and the pattern
that defines that abuse.
The important lesson of XX century is that discredited economic and political ideas, no matter how
absurd, don't die as long as they serve well power that be. In a way they are real living
dead, sucking blood from humans. Those ideas that should have died long ago, still shamble forward,
like Zombies. Usage of such ideas is one of the most dangerous deception schemes practiced by
modern elites
It's not easy to write about pseudo science. The problem has to do with the fluid nature of the concept.
It has no single, precise meaning and there is little agreement about its constituent elements. But
first and foremost it involved subjugation of scientific aims to political goals and deliberate attempt
in deception and subsequent cover up. But recently almost all social and economic science became political
and all politics involved deception: to say that a politician is not lying is the same as to say that
an alcoholic is not drinking. Still there are different degrees of lies and different level of density
of the "cloud of deception".
Discredited ideas with political support or "Zombies" can be extremely dangerous for people who oppose
them. Lysenkoism probably represents classic early example when
an set of obvious lies was supported by repressive apparatus of state and dissenters were prosecuted
and sentenced to Gulag. For nearly 45 years, the Soviet government used propaganda to foster unproven
theories of agriculture promoted by Trofim Lysenko. Scientists seeking favor with the Soviet hierarchy
produced fake experimental data in support of Lysenko’s false claims. Contradicting scientific evidence
from the fields of biology and genetics was simply banned. University programs
taught only Lysenkoism
. This state supported attempt to suppress generics continued for over forty years, until 1964,
and even managed to spread to other communist countries, such as China.
What we saw it as a tragedy in Stalin's Russia genetics, we now see it as a farce in USA economics
with neo-classical economics flourishing with the supportive guidance of neoliberal state and financial
oligarchy.
The whole neoclassical economics is essentially a set of zombie ideas which are kept in the forefront
by financial oligarchy. The financial crisis of 2008 buried key ideas of 'free market liberalism'
(aka neoliberalism), such as the 'Efficient Markets Hypothesis', yet these zombie ideas still were dug
our, dressed and continue to be sold via major newspapers and journals. Much like Lysenkoism in the
USSR by CPSU. See
This is a real Faustian bargain for academic scholars. One can trade the independence for political
influence, good salary and other perks. It is also helps in the power grab. And despite popular image
of scientists, they proved to be as corruptible, if not more corruptible, as anybody else. Historically
the scientific community is generally held together and all its affairs are peacefully managed through
its joint acceptance of the same fundamental scientific beliefs. Science is best practiced in a voluntary,
peaceful and free atmosphere.
But that idyllic arrangement firmly belongs to the past. Now we can talk only about the level
of political pressure on scientists via research grants, not so much about presence or absence of such
a pressure. What really matters as far as politics and science is concerned is what type of environment
the individual scientists have to work in and what degree of freedom they can enjoy.
Historically the situation changed irrevocably since early XX contrary, which signified discovery
of atomic particles. It should be understood that the modern scientist, built in the modern "neoliberal"
democracies, is at the same time - and it is possible that even in the first place - a political agent,
a manipulator. For the unwashed masses a public scientist represent the ultimate carrier of truth for
a given discipline, so his opinion have a distinct political weight. And the architects of these systems
use this values of scientists to the fullest extent possible. Like we can see with neoclassical economics,
scientists have turned into an instrument of cognitive manipulation, when under the guise
of science financial oligarchy promote beneficial to itself a false and simplistic picture of the world,
which brainwash the masses into "correct" thinking.
In this sense one can say that Lysenkoism represented a natural side effect of shrinking of
freedom of the scientific community and growing influence of political power on science. As by Frederick
Seitz noted in his The
Present Danger To Science and Society
Everyone knows that the scientific community faces financial problems at the present time. If
that were its only problem, some form of restructuring and allocation of funds, perhaps along lines
well tested in Europe and modified in characteristic American ways, might provide solutions that
would lead to stability and balance well into the next century. Unfortunately, the situation is more
complex, made so by the fact that the scientific establishment has become the object of controversy
from both outside and inside its special domain. The most important aspects of the controversy
are of a new kind and direct attention away from matters that are sufficiently urgent to be the focus
of a great deal of the community's attention.
The assaults on science from the outside arise from such movements as the ugly form of "political
correctness" that has taken root in important portions of our academic community. There are to be
found, in addition, certain tendencies toward a home-grown variant of the anti-intellectual Lysenkoism
that afflicted science in the Stalinist Soviet Union. So-called fraud cases are being dealt with
in new, bureaucratic ways that cut across the traditional methods of arriving at truth in science.
From inside the scientific community, meanwhile, there are challenges that go far beyond those
that arise from the intense competition for the limited funds that are available to nourish the country's
scientific endeavor.
The critical issue of arriving at a balanced approach to funding for science is being subordinated
to issues made to seem urgent by unhealthy alliances of scientists and bureaucrats. Science
and the integrity of its practitioners are under attack and, increasingly, legislators and bureaucrats
shape the decisions that determine which paths scientific research should take. There is, in
addition, a sinister tendency, especially in environmental affairs, toward considering the undertaking
of expensive projects that are proposed by some scientists to remedy worst-case formulations of problems
before the radical and expensive remedies are proven to be needed. They are viewed seriously
though they are based on the advice of opportunistic alarmists in science who leap ahead of what
is learned from solid research to encourage support for the expensive remedies they perceive to be
necessary. The potential for very great damage to science and society is real.
Of course, the rise of 'Lysenkoism' in the Soviet Union in the late 40th of the twentieth century
is one of the most tragic pages of the history of science. Trofim Lysenko, a Soviet agronomist,
came to prominence as the proponent of a theory of heredity that stood in direct opposition to Mendelianism.
The details of this theory need not concern us, except to note that it was 'Larmarckist' in its contention
that it is possible for organisms to inherit acquired characteristics. This was wrong and the
principles of Mendelianism - the theory of heredity - were well understood by then. But Lysenko theory
fitted nicely with the Soviet ideology. Particularly, the idea that acquired characteristics could be
inherited held out the promise of the perfectibility of mankind which as strange as it may sound was
the necessary precondition to irreversible victory of socialism/communism (later when nationalistic
forces tore apart the USSR it became clear that such hopes are completely misplaced).
So the Stalinist state intervened in the pre-exiting scientific struggle by declaring the victor
and the consequences, certainly for many of the scientists involved and arguably also for the USSR agriculture,
were disastrous. The essence of Lysenkoism is that pseudo-scientific theory became a pseudo-religious
cult and the power of state was used to suppress dissidents. Many scientists were exiled; some killed.
Unfortunately we cannot dismiss the obviously pernicious use of ideology by Lysenko and his supporters
simply as an aberration of the era that is often brushed aside as 'the cult of personality' (with or
without naming the personality in question). This proved to be much more dangerous and at the same time
remarkably resilient phenomenon that survived the dissolution of the USSR. Actually the situation repeated
with the USA economics when anything that was not neo-classic was suppressed was by-and-large similar
although this time this time it happened without any killings.
Do not fool yourself that Lysenkoism is irrevocably connected with communist ideology. The link was
poorly accidental. In reality Lysenkoism emerged more like a cult which was extremely convenient for
the control freaks in high position in government. It's not a secret that a lot of high-level administrators
in academic institutions belong to the category of
micromanagers
and as such they are naturally predisposed to Lysenkoism.
In general "Lysenkovisation of science" occurs when the state tries to control both the methodologies
and goals of scientific activity and that happens all over the world, although to different degree.
In the USSR huge bureaucratic institutions such as VASKhNIL and VIEM had been set up with the specific
goal to control resources and, especially, scientific press. Part of the reason that Lysenkoism
gained official support in the Soviet Union was because the Mendelian approach to genetics contradicted
official ideology, in particular, Engels's dialectical materialism. In early 50th, just before his death
Stalin began to sense that Lysenkoism can hinder practical science by interfering with the academic
atmosphere of toleration of dissent most conducive to scientific accomplishment. He even went as far
as to declare that
“no science can develop and proper without the clash of opinions, without freedom of criticism.”
But it was too late...
Other governments are also far from being immune from this kind of tendency to select between scientific
theories on the basis of ideology rather than the balance of evidence.
More benign variant of Lysenkoism that does not rely on the power of the state is usually called
Cargo Cult Science. Another related term is
"Mayberry
Machiavellis". A long time ago -- well, actually it was just a year, but it seems like a
lot longer than that -- a former Bush advisor John DiIulio got into quite a bit of trouble for revealing
to Esquire that the White House did not possess, in any conventional definition of the term,
a
policy-making process:
...on social policy and related issues, the lack of even basic policy knowledge, and the only
casual interest in knowing more, was somewhat breathtaking—discussions by fairly senior people who
meant Medicaid but were talking Medicare; near-instant shifts from discussing any actual policy pros
and cons to discussing political communications, media strategy, et cetera. Even quite junior staff
would sometimes hear quite senior staff pooh-pooh any need to dig deeper for pertinent information
on a given issue...
This gave rise to what you might call Mayberry Machiavellis—staff, senior and junior, who consistently
talked and acted as if the height of political sophistication consisted in reducing every issue
to its simplest, black-and-white terms for public consumption, then steering legislative initiatives
or policy proposals as far right as possible.
Dan Gardner - Senior Writer for The Ottawa Citizen writes: "Cabinet meetings were scripted, Mr. O'Neill
discovered, by White House staffers who sent advance notes to cabinet secretaries telling them when
they were 'supposed to speak, about what, and for how long.'" Is this the shadow of Politburo or what?
The Financial Crisis and the Systemic Failure of Academic Economics, by David Colander, Hans Föllmer,
Armin Haas, Michael Goldberg, Katarina Juselius, Alan Kirman, and Thomas Lux: [From the conclusion]
..."We believe that economics has been trapped in a sub-optimal equilibrium in which much of its
research efforts are not directed towards the most prevalent needs of society. Paradoxically
self-reinforcing feedback effects within the profession may have led to the dominance of a paradigm
that has no solid methodological basis and whose empirical performance is, to say the least, modest.
Defining away the most prevalent economic problems of modern economies and failing to communicate
the limitations and assumptions of its popular models, the economics profession bears some responsibility
for the current crisis. It has failed in its duty to society to provide as much insight as possible
into the workings of the economy and in providing warnings about the tools it created. It has also
been reluctant to emphasize the limitations of its analysis. We believe that the failure to even
envisage the current problems of the worldwide financial system and the inability of standard macro
and finance models to provide any insight into ongoing events make a strong case for a major reorientation
in these areas and a reconsideration of their basic premises."
While at the surface it looks like rent-seeking behavior of dishonest economists the analogy is pretty
strong. A broad critique of Neoclassical economics has been put forward in the book Debunking Economics
by Steve Keen See, for example:
Henry Simons and Irving Fisher supported the Chicago Plan to take away the bankers
ability to create money.
"Simons envisioned banks that would have a choice of two types of holdings: long-term
bonds and cash. Simultaneously, they would hold increased reserves, up to 100%. Simons saw
this as beneficial in that its ultimate consequences would be the prevention of
"bank-financed inflation of securities and real estate" through the leveraged creation of
secondary forms of money."
Bankers do need to ensure the money they lend out gets paid back to balance their
books.
Banking requires prudent lending.
If someone can't repay a loan, they need to repossess that asset and sell it to recoup
that money.
If they use bank loans to inflate asset prices they get into a world of trouble when
those asset prices collapse.
As the real estate and stock market collapsed the banks became insolvent as their assets
didn't cover their liabilities.
They could no longer repossess and sell those assets to cover the outstanding loans and
they do need to get the money they lend out back again to balance their books.
The banks become insolvent and collapsed, along with the US economy.
When banks have been lending to inflate asset prices the financial system is in a
precarious state and can easily collapse.
Cont ......
Sound of the Suburbs 2 hours ago
That was the 1920s.
What was the ponzi scheme of inflated asset prices that collapsed in Japan in 1991?
Japanese real estate.
They avoided a Great Depression by saving the banks.
They killed growth for the next 30 years by leaving the debt in place.
Japan could study the Great Depression to avoid this fate.
What was the ponzi scheme of inflated asset prices that collapsed in 2008?
"It's nearly $14 trillion pyramid of super leveraged toxic assets was built on the back
of $1.4 trillion of US sub-prime loans, and dispersed throughout the world" All the
Presidents Bankers, Nomi Prins.
We avoided a Great Depression by saving the banks.
We left Western economies struggling by leaving the debt in place, just like Japan.
It's not as bad as Japan as we didn't let asset prices crash in the West, but it is this
problem has made our economies so sluggish since 2008.
We, in turn, seem to have learnt something from Japan, as they did let asset prices
crash.
The banking system and the markets are still closely coupled.
Any significant fall in asset prices will feed back into the banking system.
We are trapped, and the only way to keep things from collapsing is to keep pumping in
more and more liquidity.
It's a choice
Let the assets bubbles collapse, and watch this feed back into the financial
system.
Keep the whole thing afloat, but make things worse in the long run as the bubbles
just get bigger and bigger.
We've gone for option two.
That's why the FED get so jittery when the markets start to fall.
During the coronavirus lockdowns there was no way the markets could be allowed to
reflect what was going on in the real economy.
The banking system would go down.
Sound of the Suburbs 1 hour ago remove link
They learnt from the mistakes of the 1920s and put regulations in place to ensure this
didn't happen again.
Financial stability arrived in the Keynesian era and was locked into the regulations of
the time.
"This Time is Different" by Reinhart and Rogoff has a graph showing the same thing
(Figure 13.1 - The proportion of countries with banking crises, 1900-2008).
Neoclassical economics came back and so did the financial crises.
The neoliberals removed the regulations that created financial stability in the
Keynesian era and put independent central banks in charge of financial stability.
Why does it go so wrong?
Richard Vague had noticed real estate lending balloon from 5 trillion to 10 trillion
from 2001 – 2007 and knew there was going to be a financial crisis.
Richard Vague has looked at the data for financial crises going back 200 years and found
the cause was nearly always runaway bank lending.
We put central bankers in charge of financial stability, but they use an economics that
ignores the main cause of financial crises, private debt.
Most of the problems are coming from private debt.
The technocrats use an economics that ignores private debt.
The poor old technocrats never really stood a chance.
So even in 1971 corporate American understood usefulness of critical race theory and "black
bolshevism" for their needs. Otherwise Bell would never get a tenure in Harvard -- the bastion of
neoliberalism and corporatism.
As the theory is a typical pseudoscience in the best style of Academician Lysenko, it is
natural that " Far more Americans have learned about critical race theory from its opponents
than from the theorists themselves."
The idea that "struggle for racial equality is worthwhile even though it will never succeed."
remiinds me Eduard Bernstein's "movement toward goal is everything; goal is nothing" see
Eduard Bernstein's
Revisionist Critique of Marxist Theory and Practice Bernstein was a member of the German
Social Democratic party which was a particularly strong and important member of the Second
International conference. Bernstein's thoughts are encapsulated in his book, Evolutionary
Socialism, published in 1899.
Notable quotes:
"... ...Far more Americans have learned about critical race theory from its opponents than from the theorists themselves. ..."
"... The political scientist Adolph Reed, Jr., whose work focuses on race and inequality, wrote about a conference he attended at Harvard Law School in 1991, where "I heard the late, esteemed legal theorist, Derrick Bell, declare on a panel that blacks had made no progress since 1865. I was startled not least because Bell's own life, as well as the fact that Harvard's black law students' organization put on the conference, so emphatically belied his claim." Mr. Reed dismissed the idea as "more a jeremiad than an analysis." ..."
"... Like the French existentialist Albert Camus, who saw Sisyphus's eternal effort to roll a boulder uphill as a symbol of human endurance in an absurd world, Bell demands "recognition of the futility of action" while insisting "that action must be taken." ..."
"... To the journalist and historian James Traub, who profiled Bell for the New Republic magazine in 1993, this amounted to a recipe for paralysis: "If you convince whites that their racism is ineradicable, what are they supposed to do? And what are blacks to do with their hard-won victim status?" ..."
In their book "Critical Race Theory: An Introduction," Mr. Delgado and Jean Stefancic list
several of its core premises, including the view that "racism is ordinary, not aberrational,"
and that it "serves important purposes, both psychic and material, for the dominant group,"
that is, for white people. In recent years, these ideas have entered the mainstream thanks to
the advocacy of the Black Lives Matter movement, which was catalyzed by several high-profile
cases of police violence against Black people, as well as the New York Times's 1619 Project and
bestselling books like Robin DiAngelo's "White Fragility" and Ibram X. Kendi's "How to Be an
Antiracist." Critical race theory also informs instruction at some schools and other
institutions.
...Far more Americans have learned about critical race theory from its opponents than
from the theorists themselves. That may be inevitable, since their writing was mostly
aimed at other scholars. But at least one major work is more accessible: "Faces at the Bottom
of the Well," the 1992 book by Derrick Bell, who is often described as the founder or godfather
of critical race theory.
Bell died in 2011, but the response to his work foreshadows today's controversies. In
"Faces," he blends the genres of fiction and essay to communicate his powerfully pessimistic
sense of "the permanence of racism" -- the book's subtitle. Bell's thought has been an
important influence on some of today's most influential writers on race, such as Ta-Nehisi
Coates and Michelle Alexander.
Derrick Bell was born in Pittsburgh in 1930, and after serving in the Air Force he went to
work as an attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the Eisenhower Justice Department. He left
the job in 1959 after being told that he had to resign his membership in the NAACP to avoid
compromising his objectivity. That experience reflects a major theme in Bell's work: Can
traditional legal standards of objectivity and neutrality lead to justice for Black Americans,
or does fighting racism require a more politically engaged, results-oriented approach to the
law?
In 1971, Bell became the first Black professor to receive tenure at Harvard Law School. As
he writes in "Faces," "When I agreed to become Harvard's first black faculty member I did so on
the express commitment that I was to be the first, but not the last, black hired. I was to be
the pioneer, the trailblazer." But the school was slow to hire more Black faculty, leading Bell
to leave in protest in 1990. He ended up spending the last part of his career at NYU Law
School.
... ... ...
The political scientist Adolph Reed, Jr., whose work focuses on race and inequality,
wrote about a conference he attended at Harvard Law School in 1991, where "I heard the late,
esteemed legal theorist, Derrick Bell, declare on a panel that blacks had made no progress
since 1865. I was startled not least because Bell's own life, as well as the fact that
Harvard's black law students' organization put on the conference, so emphatically belied his
claim." Mr. Reed dismissed the idea as "more a jeremiad than an analysis."
In the conclusion to "Faces," Bell argues that the struggle for racial equality is
worthwhile even though it will never succeed. Like the French existentialist Albert Camus,
who saw Sisyphus's eternal effort to roll a boulder uphill as a symbol of human endurance in an
absurd world, Bell demands "recognition of the futility of action" while insisting "that action
must be taken."
To the journalist and historian James Traub, who profiled Bell for the New Republic
magazine in 1993, this amounted to a recipe for paralysis: "If you convince whites that their
racism is ineradicable, what are they supposed to do? And what are blacks to do with their
hard-won victim status?"
... ... ...
These experiences inform "Faces at the Bottom of the Well," which is made up of nine fables,
some with a science-fiction twist. In one story, a new continent emerges in the Atlantic Ocean,
with an atmosphere that only African-Americans can breathe. In another, the U.S. institutes a
system where whites can pay for permission to discriminate against Blacks -- a kind of
cap-and-trade scheme for bigotry.
I agree. If the US scientists are so worried about the possibility the SARS-CoV-2 leaked
from a laboratory, why don't they also ask their government to investigate their own
labs?
And also, the corruption of the medical profession, to which he is now speaking (it's
running as I write this). The interviewer is using the words "medical mafia", citing the
later manifestations we've seen this year. But this interview seems that it will do much to
illustrate the long process of corruption that has happened over the years and decades, and
this is very valuable to learn.
The interviewer is using the words "medical mafia", citing the later manifestations
we've seen this year
Yes, the circuitous depravity they've engaged, the 'offer you can't refuse' has worked
wonders, as the interviewer attests his young peers who've taken the jab only to
regain their 'freedom', like my youngest daughter, 30, against my spoken preference, and my
silent prayers.
This one big fraud. And Fauci is implicated. the fact that in the USA the results of the test
do not come with the number of amplifications used speaks volumes about the current medical
establishement.
Notable quotes:
"... With a cutoff of 35, about half of those tests would no longer qualify as positive. About 70 percent would no longer be judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30. ..."
"... It's just kind of mind-blowing to me that people are not recording the C.T. values from all these tests -- that they're just returning a positive or a negative,' Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University in New York, said. ..."
Up to 90 percent of people tested for COVID-19 in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada in July
carried barely any traces of the virus and it could be because today's tests are 'too
sensitive', experts say.
... PCR tests analyze genetic matter from the virus in cycles and today's tests typically
take 37 or 40 cycles, but experts say this is too high because it detects very small amounts of
the virus that don't pose a risk.
... ... ...
Experts say a reasonable cutoff for the virus would be 30 or 35 cycles, according to Juliet
Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside.
Mina said he would set the cutoff at 30.
New York's state lab Wadsworth analyzed cycle thresholds values in already processed
COVID-19 PCR tests and found in July that 794 positive tests were based on a threshold of 40
cycles.
With a cutoff of 35, about half of those tests would no longer qualify as positive.
About 70 percent would no longer be judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30.
In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle
threshold of 40 would have been considered negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Mina
said.
'I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,' he said.
The Food and Drug Administration said that it does not specify the cycle threshold ranges
used to determine who is positive and 'commercial manufacturers and laboratories set their
own.'
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it is examining the use of cycle
threshold measures for 'policy decision'.
The CDC said its own calculations suggest its extremely hard to detect a live virus in a
sample above a threshold of 33 cycles.
It's just kind of mind-blowing to me that people are not recording the C.T. values from
all these tests -- that they're just returning a positive or a negative,' Angela Rasmussen, a
virologist at Columbia University in New York, said.
Predictable Propaganda, a Whore media complex coupled with a corrupted scientific
community in bed with big pharma, any mention of therapeutics that work like
Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin must be destroyed as it disqualifies these emergency gene
therapy shots that are destroying human lives everywhere. This **** is Pure Evil !
Note well... the only societies I know that condemn free speech and punish those that don't
adhere to 'the way' are China, Russia and North Korea. Can you spot the theme?
Anthony Aaron
You forgot cuba and the United States, at least since the early days of the 21st Century
Personalities of the Left are group-thinkers, not critical-thinkers.
Group-thinkers have two giant vulnerabilities: They're easily misled by ANYONE with
harisma, and psychopaths actively exploit that weakness. And inasmuch as group-think
inherently discounts primary evidence in favor of social affirmation, group-think is ALWAYS
wrong.
So we have real problems with vaccines as Delta mutation puts the end of Fauci and company
fake dream about herd immunity -- it infects vaccinated people, but we can't discuss that the US medical establishment is corrupt,
in bed with Big Pharma and failed us.
This "medical bolshevism" should better be stopped.
Notable quotes:
"... Johnson said Sheryl Ruettgers will detail "severe neurological reactions that still inhibit her ability to live a normal life, including muscle pain, numbness, weakness and paresthesia" that she experienced after getting the COVID-19 vaccine earlier this month. ..."
Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson announced plans to hold a news conference to
discuss adverse reactions related to the COVID-19 vaccine, drawing backlash from health care
experts who view the move as "dangerous" and a way to promote misinformation.
In a statement Friday, Johnson said he plans to give a platform to six people from across
the country who claim to have had negative health reactions after receiving the coronavirus
jab. Johnson said the conference will take place Monday to allow the individuals to tell their
stories and discuss issues that have been "repeatedly ignored" by the medical community,
according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
The Republican senator, who has been a vocal critic of vaccine mandates and has previously
advocated for alternative and unproven drug treatments to COVID-19, faced immediate backlash
from critics who feel the event will be a platform for spreading misinformation about the
safety of vaccines.
Dr. Jeff Huebner, a doctor in Madison, Wisconsin, said that Johnson was "promoting dangerous
and unfounded claims" about the vaccine that contradict medical research and analysis.
"As a member of the Wisconsin medical community I'm gravely concerned about the impact his
event and remarks will have on our ability to return to normal and protect Wisconsinites from
COVID-19.," Huebner said in a statement, the Journal Sentinel reported .
Joanna Bisgrove, a Wisconsin primary care doctor, told FOX6 that Johnson's statements and
event are "putting people at risk and already hurting people."
Tony Evers, the state's Democratic governor, added Friday that Johnson was being "reckless
and irresponsible" and said the event was "jeopardizing the health and safety" of the state's
vaccine rollout and economic recovery.
.@SenRonJohnson, you're being reckless and irresponsible. The #COVID19 vaccine is safe and
effective and based on years of science and research. Every time you suggest otherwise,
you're jeopardizing the health and safety of the people of our state and our economic
recovery.
-- Governor Tony Evers (@GovEvers) June 25, 2021
In defense, Johnson said Friday that he is "just asking questions" and isn't against the
vaccine.
"We're all supporters of vaccines. As I've repeatedly said, I'm glad that hundreds of
millions of Americans have been vaccinated, but I don't think authorities can ignore and censor
some of the issues," Johnson said in a tweet responding to Evers. "On Monday, we'll bring light
to stories that deserve to be seen, heard & believed."
Monday's event in Milwaukee will include statements from former Green Bay Packers player Ken
Ruettgers and his wife, Sheryl.
Johnson said Sheryl Ruettgers will detail "severe neurological reactions that still inhibit
her ability to live a normal life, including muscle pain, numbness, weakness and paresthesia"
that she experienced after getting the COVID-19 vaccine earlier this month.
Additional testimonies will be heard from individuals from Ohio, Missouri, Utah, Michigan
and Tennessee.
The medical community has long stressed that the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine far
outweigh the risks of possible side effects. Earlier this week, top U.S. health officials, medical agencies, laboratory and hospital
associations issued a statement reiterating the benefits by stating that getting vaccinated is
the "best way to protect yourself, your loved ones, your community, and to return to a more
normal lifestyle safely and quickly."
Newsweek contacted Johnson for additional comment, but did not hear back in time for
publication.
Newsweek, in partnership with NewsGuard, is dedicated to providing accurate and
verifiable vaccine and health information. With NewsGuard's HealthGuard browser extension,
users can verify if a website is a trustworthy source of health information. Visit the Newsweek
VaxFacts website to learn more and to download the HealthGuard browser extension.
"... He defines "wokeism" as a creed that has arisen in America in response to the "moral vacuum" created by the ebbing from public life of faith, patriotism and "the identity we derived from hard work." He argues that notions like "diversity," "equity," "inclusion" and "sustainability" have come to take their place. ..."
"... "Our collective moral insecurities," Mr. Ramaswamy says, "have left us vulnerable" to the blandishments and propaganda of the new political and corporate elites, who are now locked in a cynical "arranged marriage, where each partner has contempt for the other." Each side is getting out of the "trade" something it "could not have gotten alone." ..."
"... Wokeness entered its union with capitalism in the years following the 2008 financial panic and recession. Mr. Ramaswamy believes that conditions were perfect for the match. "We were -- and are -- in the midst of the biggest intergenerational wealth transfer in history," he says. Barack Obama had just been elected the first black president. By the end of the crisis, Americans "were actually pretty jaded with respect to capitalism. Corporations were the bad guys. The old left wanted to take money from corporations and give it to poor people." ..."
"... The birth of wokeism was a godsend to corporations, Mr. Ramaswamy says. It helped defang the left. "Wokeism lent a lifeline to the people who were in charge of the big banks. They thought, 'This stuff is easy!' " They applauded diversity and inclusion, appointed token female and minority directors, and "mused about the racially disparate impact of climate change." So, in Mr. Ramaswamy's narrative, "a bunch of big banks got together with a bunch of millennials, birthed woke capitalism, and then put Occupy Wall Street up for adoption." Now, in Mr. Ramaswamy's tart verdict, "big business makes money by critiquing itself." ..."
"... Davos is "the Woke Vatican," Mr. Ramaswamy says; Al Gore and Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock , are "its archbishops." CEOs "further down the chain" -- he mentions James Quincey of Coca-Cola , Ed Bastian of Delta , Marc Benioff of Salesforce , John Donahoe of Nike and Alan Jope of Unilever -- are its "cardinals." ..."
"... He describes this sort of corporate imposition -- "a market force supplanting open political debate to settle the essence of political questions" -- as one of the "defining challenges" America faces today. "If democracy means anything," he adds, "it means living in a one-person-one-vote system, not a one-dollar-one-vote system." Voters' voices "are unadjusted by the number of dollars we wield in the marketplace." Open debate in the public square is "our uniquely American mechanism" of settling political questions. He likens the woke-corporate silencing of debate as akin to the "old-world European model, where a small group of elites gets in a room and decides what's good for everyone else." ..."
"... The wokeism-capitalism embrace, Mr. Ramaswamy says, was replicated in Silicon Valley. Over the past few years, "Big Tech effectively agreed to censor -- or 'moderate' -- content that the woke movement didn't like. But they didn't do it for free." In return, the left "agreed to look the other way when it comes to leaving Silicon Valley's monopoly power intact." This arrangement is "working out masterfully" for both sides. ..."
"... Coca-Cola follows the same playbook, he says: "It's easier for them to issue statements about voting laws in Georgia, or to train their employees on how to 'be less white,' than it is to publicly reckon with its role in fueling a nationwide epidemic of diabetes and obesity -- including in the black communities they profess to care about so much." (In a statement, Coca-Cola apologized for the "be less white" admonition and said that while it was "accessible through our company training platform," it "was not a part of our training curriculum.") ..."
"... Nike finds it much easier to write checks to Black Lives Matter and condemn America's history of slavery, Mr. Ramaswamy says, even as it relies on "slave labor" today to sell "$250 sneakers to black kids in the inner city who can't afford to buy books for school." All the while, Black Lives Matter "neuters the police in a way that sacrifices even more black lives." (Nike has said in a statement that its code of conduct prohibits any use of forced labor and "we have been engaging with multi-stakeholder working groups to assess collective solutions that will help preserve the integrity of our global supply chains.") ..."
"... Mr. Varadarajan, a Journal contributor, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and at New York University Law School's Classical Liberal Institute. ..."
"... Seems to me in a nutshell he is saying that these woke corporations are all hypocrites. No surprise there hypocrisy is a defining characteristic of the woke left and you need to assume that characteristic yourself to be able to work within their bounds. ..."
"... Wokeists argue that theirs is not a religion because it doesn't center on a transcendent being. I see Wokeism as a religion that gathers multiple Secularist sects into a big tent. These sects include Environmentalism, Genderism, Anti-Racism, and more. ..."
"... One thing all religions share in common is the elevation of questionable premises to unassailable truths which they defend with religious zeal. Some questionable premises elevated to unassailable truths by Wokeism are that humans are making the Earth uninhabitable, gender is an individual choice, and race is the most important human characteristic. There are more. ..."
A self-made multimillionaire who founded a biotech company at 28, Vivek Ramaswamy is every
inch the precocious overachiever. He tells me he attended law school while he was in sixth
grade. He's joking, in his own earnest manner. His father, an aircraft engineer at General
Electric, had decided to get a law degree at night school. Vivek sat in on the classes with
him, so he could keep his dad company on the long car rides to campus and back -- a very Indian
filial act.
"I was probably the only person my age who'd heard of Antonin Scalia, " Mr. Ramaswamy, 35,
says in a Zoom call from his home in West Chester, Ohio. His father, a political liberal, would
often rage on the way home from class about "some Scalia opinion." Mr. Ramaswamy reckons that
this was when he began to form his own political ideas. A libertarian in high school, he
switched to being conservative at Harvard in "an act of rebellion" against the politics he
found there. That conservatism drove him to step down in January as CEO at Roivant Sciences --
the drug-development company that made him rich -- and write "Woke, Inc," a book that takes a
scathing look at "corporate America's social-justice scam." (It will be published in
August.)
Mr. Ramaswamy recently watched the movie "Spotlight," which tells the story of how reporters
at the Boston Globe exposed misconduct (specifically, sexual abuse) by Catholic priests in the
early 2000s. "My goal in 'Woke, Inc.' is to do the same thing with respect to the Church of
Wokeism." He defines "wokeism" as a creed that has arisen in America in response to the "moral
vacuum" created by the ebbing from public life of faith, patriotism and "the identity we
derived from hard work." He argues that notions like "diversity," "equity," "inclusion" and
"sustainability" have come to take their place.
"Our collective moral insecurities," Mr. Ramaswamy says, "have left us vulnerable" to the
blandishments and propaganda of the new political and corporate elites, who are now locked in a
cynical "arranged marriage, where each partner has contempt for the other." Each side is
getting out of the "trade" something it "could not have gotten alone."
Wokeness entered its union with capitalism in the years following the 2008 financial panic
and recession. Mr. Ramaswamy believes that conditions were perfect for the match. "We were --
and are -- in the midst of the biggest intergenerational wealth transfer in history," he says.
Barack Obama had just been elected the first black president. By the end of the crisis,
Americans "were actually pretty jaded with respect to capitalism. Corporations were the bad
guys. The old left wanted to take money from corporations and give it to poor people."
The birth of wokeism was a godsend to corporations, Mr. Ramaswamy says. It helped defang the
left. "Wokeism lent a lifeline to the people who were in charge of the big banks. They thought,
'This stuff is easy!' " They applauded diversity and inclusion, appointed token female and
minority directors, and "mused about the racially disparate impact of climate change." So, in
Mr. Ramaswamy's narrative, "a bunch of big banks got together with a bunch of millennials,
birthed woke capitalism, and then put Occupy Wall Street up for adoption." Now, in Mr.
Ramaswamy's tart verdict, "big business makes money by critiquing itself."
Mr. Ramaswamy regards Klaus Schwab, founder and CEO of the World Economic Forum in Davos,
Switzerland, as the "patron saint of wokeism" for his relentless propagation of "stakeholder
capitalism" -- the view that the unspoken bargain in the grant to corporations of limited
liability is that they "must do social good on the side."
Davos is "the Woke Vatican," Mr. Ramaswamy says; Al Gore and Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock , are "its
archbishops." CEOs "further down the chain" -- he mentions James Quincey of Coca-Cola , Ed Bastian of Delta , Marc Benioff of
Salesforce , John
Donahoe of Nike and
Alan Jope of Unilever
-- are its "cardinals."
Mr. Ramaswamy says that "unlike the investigative 'Spotlight' team at the Boston Globe, I'm
a whistleblower, not a journalist. But the church analogy holds strong." He paraphrases a line
in the movie: "It takes a village to raise a child, then it takes a village to abuse one. In
the case of my book, the child I'm concerned about is American democracy."
In league with the woke left, corporate America "uses force" as a substitute for open
deliberation and debate, Mr. Ramaswamy says. "There's the sustainability accounting standards
board of BlackRock, which effectively demands that in order to win an investment from
BlackRock, the largest asset-manager in the world, you must abide by the standards of that
board."
Was the board put in place by the owners of the trillions of dollars of capital that Mr.
Fink manages? Of course not, Mr. Ramaswamy says. "And yet he's actually using his seat of
corporate power to sidestep debate about questions like environmentalism or diversity on
boards."
The irrepressible Mr. Ramaswamy presses on with another example. Goldman Sachs , he says with obvious relish,
"is a very Davos-fitting example." At the 2020 World Economic Forum, Goldman Sachs CEO David
Solomon "issued an edict from the mountaintops of Davos." Mr. Solomon announced his company
would refuse to take a company public if its board wasn't sufficiently diverse. "So Goldman
gets to define what counts as 'diverse,' " Mr. Ramaswamy says. "No doubt, they're referring to
skin-deep, genetically inherited attributes."
He describes this sort of corporate imposition -- "a market force supplanting open political
debate to settle the essence of political questions" -- as one of the "defining challenges"
America faces today. "If democracy means anything," he adds, "it means living in a
one-person-one-vote system, not a one-dollar-one-vote system." Voters' voices "are unadjusted
by the number of dollars we wield in the marketplace." Open debate in the public square is "our
uniquely American mechanism" of settling political questions. He likens the woke-corporate
silencing of debate as akin to the "old-world European model, where a small group of elites
gets in a room and decides what's good for everyone else."
The wokeism-capitalism embrace, Mr. Ramaswamy says, was replicated in Silicon Valley. Over
the past few years, "Big Tech effectively agreed to censor -- or 'moderate' -- content that the
woke movement didn't like. But they didn't do it for free." In return, the left "agreed to look
the other way when it comes to leaving Silicon Valley's monopoly power intact." This
arrangement is "working out masterfully" for both sides.
The rest of corporate America appears to be following suit. "There's a Big Pharma version,
too," Mr. Ramaswamy says. "Big Pharma had an epiphany in dealing with the left." It couldn't
beat them, so it joined them. "Rather than win the debate on drug pricing, they decided to just
change the subject instead. Who needs to win a debate if you can just avoid having it?" So we
see "big-time pharma CEOs musing about topics like racial justice and environmentalism, and
writing multibillion-dollar checks to fight climate change, while taking price hikes that
they'd previously paused when the public was angry about drug pricing."
Coca-Cola follows the same playbook, he says: "It's easier for them to issue statements
about voting laws in Georgia, or to train their employees on how to 'be less white,' than it is
to publicly reckon with its role in fueling a nationwide epidemic of diabetes and obesity --
including in the black communities they profess to care about so much." (In a statement,
Coca-Cola apologized
for the "be less white" admonition and said that while it was "accessible through our company
training platform," it "was not a part of our training curriculum.")
Nike finds it much easier to write checks to Black Lives Matter and condemn America's
history of slavery, Mr. Ramaswamy says, even as it relies on "slave labor" today to sell "$250
sneakers to black kids in the inner city who can't afford to buy books for school." All the
while, Black Lives Matter "neuters the police in a way that sacrifices even more black lives."
(Nike has said in a statement that its code of conduct prohibits any use of forced labor and
"we have been engaging with multi-stakeholder working groups to assess collective solutions
that will help preserve the integrity of our global supply chains.")
... ... ...
Mr. Varadarajan, a Journal contributor, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute
and at New York University Law School's Classical Liberal Institute.
Rod Drake 53 minutes ago
Seems to me in a nutshell he is saying that these woke corporations are all hypocrites. No
surprise there hypocrisy is a defining characteristic of the woke left and you need to assume
that characteristic yourself to be able to work within their bounds.
In addition, I have been
saying for some time discrimination based on political belief desperately needs to be
included as a prohibited basis. Where are the Republicans, while the greatest civil rights
violation of our time is going on right under their noses?
Terry Overbey 1 hour ago
I love reading stories about people who are willing to take on the woke political class. For
most people, even if they strongly disagree, their only option is to bite their tongue and go
along. People aren't stupid. If you buck the system, you don't get promoted, you don't get
good grades, you don't get into elite schools, you don't get the government job.
Thank you Mr Ramaswany.
James Ransom 1 hour ago
Well. If nothing else, he just sold me a book. I think we should say that "Wokeism" tries to
"Act Like" a religion, not that it is one. Because of this fakery, we do not need to give it
"freedom" in the sense that we have "Freedom of Religion."
These misguided Americans perhaps need to be exposed to a real religion. Christianity and
Buddhism would be good choices; I don't know about Hinduism, but my point is that "Wokeism"
is more like a mental disorder. We should feel sorry for its victims, offer them treatment,
but not let them run anything.
marc goodman 1 hour ago
Wokeists argue that theirs is not a religion because it doesn't center on a transcendent
being. I see Wokeism as a religion that gathers multiple Secularist sects into a big tent.
These sects include Environmentalism, Genderism, Anti-Racism, and more.
One thing all religions share in common is the elevation of questionable premises to
unassailable truths which they defend with religious zeal. Some questionable premises
elevated to unassailable truths by Wokeism are that humans are making the Earth
uninhabitable, gender is an individual choice, and race is the most important human
characteristic. There are more.
Humans need to believe in something greater than themselves. We fulfill this need with
religion, and historically, the "greater something" has been a transcendent being. Wokeism
fulfills this need for its adherents but without a transcendent being. Ultimately, Wokeism
will fail as a religion because it can't nourish the soul like the belief in a transcendent
being does.
Grodney Ross 2 hours ago (Edited)
Judgement will be passed in November of 2022. I don't see this as a Democrat vs Republican
issue. I think it's a matter of who is paying attention vs. those who are not. We live in a
society where, generally, the most strident voices are on the left, along with the most
judgmental voices. When the "wokeless" engage in a manner that conflicts with views of the
woke, they are attacked, be you from the left or the right, so you keep your mouth shut and go
about your day.
I believe that this coming election will give voice to those who are fatigued and fed up
with the progressive lefts venom and vitriol. If not, we will survive, but without a meaningful
first amendment,14th amendment, or 2nd amendment.
Barbara Helton 2 hours ago (Edited)
Being woke, when practiced by the wealthy and influential, can be extremely similar to
bullying.
Johnson &
Johnson has agreed to pay $230 million to the state of New York to resolve an opioid
lawsuit slated to go to trial Tuesday, as negotiations intensify with the company and three
drug distributors to clinch a
$26 billion settlement of thousands of other lawsuits blaming the pharmaceutical industry
for the opioid crisis.
Johnson & Johnson's New York deal removes it from a coming trial on Long Island but not
from the rest of the cases it faces nationwide, including a continuing trial in California. The
New York settlement includes an additional $33 million in attorney fees and costs and calls for
the drugmaker to no longer sell opioids nationwide, something Johnson & Johnson said it
already stopped doing.
States have been trying to re-create with the opioid litigation what they accomplished with
tobacco companies in the 1990s, when $206 billion in settlements flowed into state coffers.
More than 3,000 counties, cities and other local governments have also pursued lawsuits over
the opioid crisis,
complicating talks that have dragged on since late 2019 and that have been slowed down by
the Covid-19 pandemic.
Stories across Illinois and most of America now report furious parents standing up against
what's bundled under the term "Critical Race Theory," or CRT, widely taught in K-12
schools.
Those who know what CRT is don't like it. A new Economist/YouGov poll found
opposition beating support by 58% to 38% . And opponents feel strongly. Those with "very
unfavorable" views of CRT outnumber those with "very favorable" views" by 53% to 25%.
Opposition is even more intense when specific tenets of CRT are
polled .
Pause Unmute Duration 0:33 / Current Time 0:05 Loaded
: 35.92% Fullscreen Up Next
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.467.0_en.html#goog_1800563449 Wall Street
Bounces, After Selloff Fed Boosts Liquidity NOW PLAYING SoftBank Said to Plan $14 Billion Sale
of Alibaba Shares China's Companies Have Worst Quarter on Record, Beige Book Says U.S.-Saudi
Oil Alliance Under Consideration, Brouillette Says ETF Volumes Surge in Current Market
Environment Investors Have Given Up on a V-Shaped Recovery, BNY's Young Cautions
What is CRT? Why the intense opposition? Does only the "right wing" oppose its teachings, as
Gov. JB Pritzker claimed
on Wednesday?
Call it "antiracism," "culturally responsive teaching," "equity" or "wokeness" if you want;
dissecting the differences would be quibbling.
Here are the specific teachings they have mostly in common that are generating the rage:
Individuals are forever defined by race, not character. CRT expressly rejects notions of
color blindness and the melting pot.
America is systemically racist and all whites are racists or at least implicitly
biased.
The Constitution and the American system of government were designed to perpetuate
slavery and oppression.
Equality of opportunity means nothing; only equality of results matters.
Individuals are either oppressors or victims; there's nothing in between.
America's true history is told by "The 1619 Project," which holds that America's real
birth date was 1619 when the first slaves arrived, and that it is "out of slavery "" and
the anti""‹black racism it required" "" that "nearly everything that has truly made
America exceptional" grew.
Capitalism is evil. "In order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be
anticapitalist," says Ibram X. Kendi, a leading CRT proponent.
That's probably enough to insult the core values and common sense of most Americans, but
three overarching themes in CRT add to the fury.
First it's taught as incontrovertible truth.
"This is not teaching about critical race theory; it is teaching in critical race theory,"
an important distinction Andrew Sullivan describes in a superb, new article .
"And this is why" crucially" it will suppress any other way of seeing the world" because any
other way, by definition, is merely perpetuating oppression," Sullivan wrote. "As Kendi
constantly reminds us, it is either/or. An antiracist cannot exist with a liberalism that
perpetuates racism. And it's always the liberalism that has to go."
CRT champion Ibram X. Kendi
Second, it is Marxist in its roots
and a broad assault on most everything about classical liberalism.
"Critical race theorists attack the very foundations of the liberal legal order, including
equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of
constitutional law," says a detailed
look at CRT's origins.
Third, there's little hope for rational debate with CRT supporters.
Their standard claim is that opposition means refusal to recognize racism and the history of
slavery. There would be no controversy if that were true, and the polls demolish claims like
Pritzker's that only the "right wing" is opposed, or "ultra-conservatives" as NBC and many
others have claimed.
The Illinois State Board of Education
was particularly deceitful in defending its "culturally responsive" teaching standards.
"The standards do not impact teachers licensure or evaluation," it
wrote , yet that's precisely the object of its new rule. And its standards aren't about
curriculum,
ISBE falsely claimed .
The national press, as you'd expect, suppresses opinion opposed to CRT. Take a look at the
ever-growing
compendium of black scholars and activists who hold different views, compiled at FreeBlackThought.com . They are dead to
the world as most of the MSM sees things.
* * *
Illinois is where the first skirmish occurred in a school in what is now a national battle.
Four years ago, a rather small group of parents objected to the narrow, radical curriculum of
New Trier High School's "Seminar Day" on race "" "Racial Indoctrination Day," as the Wall
Street Journal
called it . That was before terms like "woke" became a thing and before Critical Race
Theory became the commonly used label, but the issues were largely the same as today:
Dissenting parents
objected to what they saw as authoritarianism in the school's exclusion of alternate
viewpoints.
The parents lost. New Trier refused to include those alternate viewpoints.
They lost, in part, because many angry parents were afraid to speak up. They feared
retribution from those who labeled all critics as racists.
But national coverage of that story and more alarming ones ensued. Having seen the reality
of what CRT means to classrooms, its critics are now the majority.
Gone is any excuse for silence. CRT is in our schools due only to a loud and aggressive
minority concentrated in today's political, educational and media establishments. It will be
driven into the obscurity it deserves if the majority continues to speak up.
Pernicious Gold Phallusy 2 hours ago (Edited)
Most Americans oppose CRT because it and its proponents are viciously racist.
Fat Beaver 2 hours ago (Edited)
And they are literally trying to teach our children to hate us and attack us...this is
full blown bolshevism...lead is the only answer to it. It's like any infestation...it has
to be eradicated and the longer you wait the more damage accrues and the greater the
cost...
CRT goes after children. It divides children from other children, divides children from
their parents, divides children from themselves. That's one of the last things that gets
people riled up anymore.
Rattling Bones 2 hours ago
Promoting racism to fight racism is an idiocy that only a liberal could love.
nmewn 2 hours ago
It is openly Marxist, anti-Liberal at it's core and in the final analysis, proposes an
authoritarian state (with all of it's bureaucracies, functionaries & apparatchiks) as
the remedy to the non-existent contrived issue as a means to subvert & divide the
targeted society.
In other words, its commies doing what commies do ;-)
The Justice Centre for Constitutional
Freedoms represents Dr. Francis Christian, Clinical Professor of General Surgery at the
University of Saskatchewan and a practising surgeon in Saskatoon .
Dr. Christian was called into a meeting today, suspended from all teaching responsibilities
effective immediately, and fired from his position with the University of Saskatchewan as of
September 2021.
There is a recording of Dr.
Christian's meeting today between Dr. Christian and Dr. Preston Smith, the Dean of Medicine
at the University of Saskatchewan, College of Medicine, Dr. Susan Shaw, the Chief Medical
Officer of the Saskatchewan Health Authority, and Dr. Brian Ulmer, Head of the Department of
Surgery at the Saskatchewan College of Medicine.
In addition, the Justice Centre will represent Dr. Christian in his defence of a complaint
that was made against him and an investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of
Saskatchewan. The complaint objects to Dr. Christian having advocated for the informed consent
of Covid vaccines for children.
Dr. Christian has been a surgeon for more than 20 years and began working in Saskatoon in
2007. He was appointed Director of the Surgical Humanities Program and Director of Quality and
Patient Safety in 2018 and co-founded the Surgical Humanities Program. Dr. Christian is also
the Editor of the Journal of The Surgical Humanities.
On June 17, Dr. Christian
released a statement to over 200 doctors which contained his concerns regarding giving the
Covid shots to children. In it he noted that he is pro-vaccine, and that he did not represent
any group, the Saskatchewan Health Authority, or the University of Saskatchewan.
"I speak to you directly as a physician, a surgeon, and a fellow human being."
Dr. Christian noted that the principle of informed consent was sacrosanct and noted that a
patient should always be "fully aware of the risks of the medical intervention, the benefits of
the intervention, and if any alternatives exist to the intervention."
"This should apply particularly to a new vaccine that has never before been tried in
humans"¦ before the vaccine is rolled out to children, both children and parents must
know the risks of m-RNA vaccines," he wrote.
Dr. Christian expressed concern that he had not come across "a single vaccinated child or
parent who has been adequately informed" about Covid vaccines for children.
Among his points, he stated that:
The m-RNA vaccine, is a new, experimental vaccine never used by humans before.
The m-RNA vaccines have not been fully authorized by Health Canada or the US CDC, and
are in fact under "interim authorization" in Canada and "emergency use authorization" in
the US. He noted that "full vaccine approval takes several years and multiple safety
considerations "" this has not happened."
That in order to qualify for "emergency use authorization" there must be an emergency.
While he said there is a strong case for vaccinating the elderly, the vulnerable and health
care workers, he said, "Covid does not pose a threat to our kids. The risk of them dying of
Covid is less than 0.003% "" this is even less than the risk of them dying of the flu.
There is no emergency in children."
Children do not readily transmit the Covid virus to adults.
M-RNA vaccines have been "associated with several thousand deaths" in the Vaccine
Adverse Reporting System in the US. "These appear to be unusual, compared to the total
number of vaccines administered." He called it a "strong signal that should not be
ignored."
He noted that vaccines have already caused "serious medical problems for kids"
worldwide, including "a real and significantly increased risk" of myocarditis, inflammation
of the heart. Dr. Christian notes the
German national vaccine agency and the UK vaccine agency are not recommending the
vaccine for healthy children and teenagers.
The Saskatchewan Health Authority/College of Medicine wrote a letter to Dr. Christian on
June 21, 2021, alleging that they had "received information that you are engaging in activities
designed to discourage and prevent children and adolescents from receiving Covid-19 vaccination
contrary to the recommendations and pandemic-response efforts of Saskatchewan and Canadian
public health authorities."
Dr. Christian's concerns regarding underage Covid vaccinations are not isolated to him. The
US Centre for Disease Control had an "emergency meeting" today to discuss the growing cases of
myocarditis (heart inflammation) in younger males after receiving the Covid-19 vaccines.
The CDC released
new data today that the risk of myocarditis after the Pfizer vaccine is at least 10 times
the expected rate in 12 "" 17 year old males and females. The German government has issued
public guidance against vaccinating those under the age of 18.
The World Health Organization posted an update to its website on Monday, June 21, which
contained the statement in respect of advice for Covid-19 vaccination that " Children should not be
vaccinated for the moment ." Within 24 hours, this guidance was withdrawn and new
guidance was posted which stated that "Covid vaccines are safe for those over 18 years of
age."
Dr. Christian says there is a large, growing "network of ethical, moral physicians and
scientists" who are urging caution in recommending vaccines for all children without informed
consent. He said, physicians must "always put their patients and humanity first."
Dr. Byram Bridle, a prominent immunologist at the University of Guelph with a sub-speciality
in vaccinology, recently participated in a Press Conference on Parliament Hill on CPAC organized by MP
Derek Sloan, where he discussed the censorship of scientists and physicians. Dr. Bridle
expressed his safety concerns with vaccinating children with experimental MRNA vaccines.
Justice Centre Litigation Director Jay Cameron also has concern over the growing censorship
of medical professionals when it comes to questioning the government narrative on Covid.
"We are seeing a clear pattern of highly competent and skilled medical doctors in very
esteemed positions being taken down and censored or even fired, for practicing proper science
and medicine," says Mr. Cameron.
The Justice Centre
represented Dr. Chris Milburn in Nova Scotia, who faced professional disciplinary
proceedings last year after a group of activists took exception to an opinion column he wrote
in a local paper. The Justice Centre provided
submissions to the College on Dr. Milburn's behalf, defending the right of physicians to
express their opinions on matters of policy in the public square and arguing that everyone is
entitled to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, as guaranteed by the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms "" including doctors. The Justice Centre noted that attempting
to have a doctor professionally disciplined for his opinions and commentary on matters of
public interest amounts to bullying and intimidation for speaking out against the
government.
Last week, Dr. Milburn also faced punishment for speaking out with his concerns about public
health policies, as he was removed from his
position as the Head of Emergency for the eastern zone with the Nova Scotia Health
Authority. In an unusual twist, a petition has been started to have Dr. Milburn replace Dr.
Strang as the province's Chief Medical Officer.
"Censoring and punishing scientists and doctors for freely voicing their concerns is
arrogant, oppressive and profoundly unscientific", states Mr. Cameron.
"Both the western world and the idea of scientific inquiry itself is built to a large extent
on the principles of freedom of thought and speech. Medicine and patient safety can only
regress when dogma and an elitist orthodoxy, such as that imposed by the Saskatchewan College
of Medicine, punishes doctors for voicing concerns," Mr. Cameron concludes.
Mr. Apotheosis 4 hours ago
These mother f'ers are seriously evil. To the bone evil.
high5mail 3 hours ago
I'm Canadian and the sooner they throw Trudeau and Manitoba's Pallister out of office
won't be too soon.
It is effen ridiculous what this country turned into. Makes California appear to be a
free place compared to here and that is saying something.
I am jealous of people living in Florida, Texas and South Dakota. They don't know how
lucky they are that some people in power there are not only intelligent but have
cajones...
No_Pretzel_Logic 2 hours ago
The Davos crowd is clutching most of the Western countries by the short hairs.
Yank....how does that feel, plebe?
"... The most significant problem came from the scientific community. "Some of the scientists in this area very quickly closed ranks," she says, and partisanship wasn't their only motive: "Like most things in life, there are power plays. There are agendas that are part of the scientific community. Just like any other community, there are strong vested interests. There were people that did not talk about this, because they feared for their careers. They feared for their grants." ..."
"... Ms. Lentzos counsels against idealizing scientists and in favor of "seeing science and scientific activity, and how the community works, not as this inner sacred sanctum that's devoid of any conflicts of interests, or agendas, or any of that stuff, but seeing it as also a social activity, where there are good players and bad players." ..."
"... Take Peter Daszak, the zoologist who organized the Lancet letter condemning lab-leak "conspiracy theories." He had directed millions of dollars to the Wuhan Institute of Virology through his nonprofit, EcoHealth Alliance. A lab mistake that killed millions would be bad for his reputation. Other researchers have taken part in gain-of-function research, which can make viruses deadlier or easier to transmit. Who would permit, much less fund, such research if it proved so catastrophic? Yet researchers like Marion Koopmans, who oversees an institution that has conducted gain-of-function research, had an outsize voice in media. Both she and Mr. Daszak served on the World Health Organization's origin investigation team. ..."
"... She says that regardless of Covid's origin, lab safety is crucial for preventing a future pandemic. "There needs to be a body, an international body that has a mandate to track and keep oversight of these kinds of facilities," she says. "You've got to ingrain more of a safety and security culture in people and the labs." ..."
"... Mr. O'Neal is a European-based editorial page writer for the Journal. ..."
The problem with poeople such as Ms. Lentzos is that they promote the thoery of lab origin
also due to thier political intirests, and affiliations.
Why she ignores the possibility that virus emerged much erlier, possibly in summer of 2019
and not in China? And BTW couple it emerge from UK "novichok" lab in Porton Down ?
Looks like she is another witch hunter.
Ms. Lentzos, who places her own politics on the Swiss "center left," thought that conclusion
premature and said so publicly. In May 2020, she published an
article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists weighing whether "safety lapses in the
course of basic scientific research" caused the pandemic. While acknowledging there was, "as of
yet, little concrete evidence," she noted "several indications that collectively suggest this
is a serious possibility that needs following up by the international community."
She was suggesting an accident, not a deliberate release: "If you're culturing a virus that
is readily able to infect humans, particularly via the respiratory tract, then any droplet
caused by a simple splash or aerosolization of liquid can be inhaled without you realizing it,"
she wrote. "Could an unknowingly infected researcher showing no symptoms unwittingly have
infected family, friends, and anyone else he or she was in contact with? Or was there perhaps
an unnoticed leak of a coronavirus from the lab, from improperly incinerated waste material or
animal carcasses that found their way to rubbish bins that rats or cats could have
accessed?"
She was confident in her argument but "a bit wary about writing it" given that it challenged
the enforced consensus. "It was really sticking my neck out, because no one else was saying it
at the time, even a lot of people who know better. Everyone was just going with the narrative:
"˜Yeah, no, it's natural,' and there's no discussion."
The article barely made a ripple. "If you look at the argumentation that's used today, it's
exactly the same basically as what I laid out, which was, accidents happen," she says. "We know
that they're having questions around safety. We know they were doing this field work. We see
videos where they're in breach of standard biosafety protocol. We know China is manipulating
the narrative, closing down information sources""all of that stuff. All of that is in there.
But it didn't get much traction."
That began to change early this year. Media outlets published articles considering the
possibility of a lab leak. At least five of the Lancet signers have distanced themselves from
the letter. Anthony Fauci and the World Health Organization's Director-General Tedros
Ghebreyesus said the theory merits further study. President Biden ordered the intelligence
community to investigate the question. Even Facebook reversed its ban.
The most significant problem came from the scientific community. "Some of the scientists
in this area very quickly closed ranks," she says, and partisanship wasn't their only motive:
"Like most things in life, there are power plays. There are agendas that are part of the
scientific community. Just like any other community, there are strong vested interests. There
were people that did not talk about this, because they feared for their careers. They feared
for their grants."
Ms. Lentzos counsels against idealizing scientists and in favor of "seeing science and
scientific activity, and how the community works, not as this inner sacred sanctum that's
devoid of any conflicts of interests, or agendas, or any of that stuff, but seeing it as also a
social activity, where there are good players and bad players."
Take Peter Daszak, the zoologist who organized the Lancet letter condemning lab-leak
"conspiracy theories." He had directed millions of dollars to the Wuhan Institute of Virology
through his nonprofit, EcoHealth Alliance. A lab mistake that killed millions would be bad for
his reputation. Other researchers have taken part in gain-of-function research, which can make
viruses deadlier or easier to transmit. Who would permit, much less fund, such research if it
proved so catastrophic? Yet researchers like Marion Koopmans, who oversees an institution that
has conducted gain-of-function research, had an outsize voice in media. Both she and Mr. Daszak
served on the World Health Organization's origin investigation team.
A scientific consensus isn't always true, and peer review can look like peer pressure. "How
do we know what we know? Well, the way we know in science is you provide references to
everything, all the claims that you make, and you can trace it back," Ms. Lentzos says. The
lab-leak theory began to be treated "like an attack on science, the sciences. And so the
scientists were like, "˜Well, I trust other scientists,' without actually doing the
groundwork." Few nonscientists, including journalists and social-media executives, even have
the capacity to do the groundwork. "For many," she says, "it was a shortcut. "˜Yeah,
scientists are saying this and we also believe in those scientists.' "
... ... ...
The problem is, it matters who speaks. "Your institution, the fact that you have a
doctorate, or the fact that you have previously gotten all of these grants make what you say
weightier than what somebody else, even though they're saying the same thing""even though they
use the same evidence." Ms. Lentzos has a doctorate in sociology and is an associate professor
at King's College London.
As an example, she compares a letter signed by several biologists and immunologists and
published May 14 in Science with another, published earlier in the year, by a less specialized
collection of experts known as "the Paris group." The latter received "a lot of media attention
and stuff, but scientists didn't take that as seriously because it wasn't the right voices
saying it in the right outlets, even though there were many scientists in the group, and a much
more diverse group, including biosafety experts like myself." The difference in reception was
striking, because both letters "said exactly the same thing."
Ms. Lentzos says it's possible Covid-19 originated in the wild, but "as time goes on, there
has been more and more circumstantial evidence for the lab-leak theory that's come out, and
less and less from the natural-spillover theory." With evidence mostly circumstantial, and the
Chinese Communist Party stonewalling, can we ever know? "In a perfect world, it would be open;
we'd have a serious forensic investigation," she says. "Evidence has been deliberately taken
away, or erased, but even time would have just done that anyway."
She says that regardless of Covid's origin, lab safety is crucial for preventing a
future pandemic. "There needs to be a body, an international body that has a mandate to track
and keep oversight of these kinds of facilities," she says. "You've got to ingrain more of a
safety and security culture in people and the labs."
Are international institutions capable of the task? Ms. Lentzos has experience working with
United Nations agencies, including the World Health Organization. "It was incredibly exciting
to finally go in. And then you become more disillusioned when you see how things operate, how
things don't operate," she says. "Like any large organization, they are slow, and inflexible,
and bureaucratic." But, she asks rhetorically, "What is the alternative?"
Last month she co-published a
study on global lab safety, along with an interactive map that tracks biosafety level 4
laboratories such as the one in Wuhan. These labs work with the most dangerous pathogens, but
"there's no international body that has a mandate to track where they are, and to have any
oversight over them. There's no official list of how many of these labs there are in the world,
or where they are." The new project tracks each lab's "levels of transparency, or training, or
membership in various biosafety associations," to assess its potential threat.
... ... ...
She concedes it's unlikely "we'll get anywhere on the origins. We're not going to find the
smoking gun. But I do think we have power to change that narrative."
Mr. O'Neal is a European-based editorial page writer for the Journal.
I give credit to the writer of this op-ed for just sticking to facts and keeping unhinged
right-wing bloviation out of it.
And the facts are:
(1) When researchers like Ms. Lentzos started looking into lab leak theory they had no
evidence whatsoever to refer to. It was just hypothesis and speculation. In science there is
room for such, and it wasn't ever presented as anything different.
(2) Trump, Cotton, and the rest of right-wing blowhards took up lab leak hypothesis as
fact to serve their unhinged narratives in effort to deflect from their abysmal, deadly, and
disastrous handling of the pandemic. They prevented serious researchers from being taken
seriously. Pompeo specifically is so dumb and ignorant that he thinks ACE2 receptor is on the
virus.
(3) When researchers gathered more corroborating evidence the media started taking them
seriously. That's how science works. I do recommend reading up in detail on the group of
researchers calling themselves DRASTIC and their arguments.
Derek M
Why are you so angry toward people that don't share your beliefs and opinions?
MARK KOFMAN
On the contrary" I consider ALL arguments intelligently presented. You, on the other hand,
are too vested in your unhinged right-wing ideology and get angry when reasonable people
debunk and dismiss it. Unhinged right-wing bloviation with no basis in fact whatsoever is
what undermines real scientific research. If Trump and his minions kept their mouths shut
real scientists would be able to do their work unimpeded.
MARK KOFMAN
(4) Peter Daszak is the real anti-hero. He indeed orchestrated effort to silence lab leak
theory researchers to protect his parochial turf, and unhinged right-wingers helped him do it
by conflating serious research with unhinged bloviation and conspiracy theories. Peter Daszak
also conspired with Shi Zhengli (the "Bat Woman" who runs the Wuhan lab), Chinese government,
and WHO to whitewash the Wuhan lab. He and Chinese government made sure that no US scientist
except him (he is of British origin, to be exact) would be allowed to visit China as part of
WHO "investigative" team. Individuals such as this have no place in science and deserve utter
contempt, scorn, and condemnation.
However, lab leak theory has received rebuttals to its key arguments:
(1) Lack of identifiable intermediate animal is not pre-requisite for possibility of
natural transmission in the wild being dismissed, as intermediate animal is not identified in
many cases of confirmed natural transmission in the wild.
MARK KOFMAN
(2) Furin cleavage which is claimed as smoking gun marker of genetic engineering also occurs
naturally, so it isn't necessarily a smoking gun. Furin cleavage makes virus protein binding
to ACE2 cell receptor much easier, and its deliberate engineering is consistent with gain of
function research, but if it also occurs naturally then it's no smoking gun at all.
(3) CGG coding sequence can also occur naturally and isn't necessarily proof of
engineering.
The key point that lab leak theory hinges on is that if virus is engineered then it
definitely came from the lab. But whether it was engineered is still debatable among
scientists.
Lab leak is suggested by pure circumstantial evidence: bat caves being far away from Wuhan
and bats not sold in Wuhan wet market, lab's database of viruses taken offline, deliberate
stonewalling by the Chinese government.
Occam's Razor suggests that lab leak is most likely, but there is no hard proof, so the
most rational response is to keep mind open.
Stephen Gardner
We don't know much more today than we knew a year ago. But we did know:
1. There was NO evidence for the zoonotic origin of the virus.
2. The bats implicated lived a thousand miles away and had no link to the wet market.
3. There was a research lab in Wuhan involved in gain-of-function work which had a bad
grade from State as far as safety protocols went.
4. The CCP destroyed or suppressed evidence, including physical evidence and actual
scientists involved.
(That perhaps is most damning. at this point.)
5. Democrats bend over backwards to protect China, much like Lebron.
6. Democrat media jumped to the conclusion that only racists and conspiracy theorists
could accuse China of a lab leak.
(For Democrat ideologues and hacks, that's the default mode of argument, not just for this
but for everything.)
7. The Democrat media was keen to deny it before any such evidence could be considered one
way or another.
Yes--that's how science works--today.
MARK KOFMAN
You did fine with points 1-4 and then drove into the ditch and proceeded to go off the cliff
with 5-7.
There is also no evidence whatsoever disproving zoonotic origin. SARS-CoV-1 virus was
PROVEN to be zoonotic. Based on what reasoning do you conclude that SARS-CoV-2 is not?
It is precisely this type of ideological bloviation that undermines real researchers. Lab
leak is a theory, NOT a fact. It is a theory that is as EQUALLY valid as zoonotic origin.
The points 2-4 that you cite are all circumstantial at best. Chinese government does not
trust its scientists and doesn't want any investigation whether Chinese scientists are guilty
or not. Better safe than sorry. So Chinese government stonewalling is important
circumstantial data point, but not smoking gun proof by any stretch.
Real researchers present scientific evidence far stronger than your points. Read up on
furin cleavage and CGG coding. It will be far more useful than bloviating purely
circumstantial points as hard fact.
Lilly Wu
Circumstantial evidence points to one conclusion over the other. Read Nicholas Wade's
article. You will see the light.
Oh yeah, and everything he says is true about the Democrats.
MARK KOFMAN
You need to look up the definition of circumstantial evidence. You clearly have no idea what
it means.
Nicholas Wade has his own problems with reputation. The fact that you bring Democrats into
scientific debate only proves that your pursuit is trivial partisan ideology, not science or
search for truth. Read what DRASTIC researchers write.
Lilly Wu
Stephen,
Don't forget this point too. "Both American experts explained that COVID-19 has the genome
sequencing CGC-CGG or "˜ double CGG' which is one of the 36 sequencing patterns. CGC is
rarely used in the class of coronaviruses that can recombine with CoV-2 which is a "damning
fact.". Quay wrote, "The insertion sequence of choice is the double CGG." they further said,
"That's because it is readily available and convenient, and scientists have a great deal of
experience inserting it...An additional advantage of the double CGG sequence compared with
the other 35 possible choices: It creates a useful beacon that permits the scientists to
track the insertion in the laboratory.""
MARK KOFMAN
This point has rebuttal. CGG coding can occur naturally.
Jeffrey Sonheim
Here is the flaw in this ointment:
Ms Lentzos opines: "Well, the way we know in science is you provide references to
everything, all the claims that you make, and you can trace it back". This is not science. It
is not the Scientific Method. And it is not even rational dialog.
The key to Science is Open Ended Questioning. The canary in this mine is the stopping of
exactly this - Open Ended Questioning. And this is exactly what happened by Agenda driven
people hiding under their purported scientific credentials. Once the canary in this mine was
snuffed out, for however long, only politicians remained. Making their silly points. Using
the word "debunked" with nary a shred of proof.
A Scientist with a conflict of interest is no Scientist. At all. Yet we read of exactly
this in the telling of this saga. "Take Peter Daszak", Ms Lentzos further opines. I say take
him and banish him from the realm of Science. Malpractice deserves exactly this outcome.
Bruce Fegley
Worldwide, liberal scientists allowed their political beliefs to destroy the scientific
method and to issue propaganda disguised as scientific facts that argued against the common
sense obvious explanation - accidental release from the virus lab sitting right there at the
center of the COVID outbreak.
Mass Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Pamela Rose
I am reminded of The Story of Louis Pasteur. There are always those in the scientific
community / medical community / publishing communities that have not evolved much in 160+
years. Egos, personal gain & power are still headwinds to real science. Humanity applauds
those that choose actual research & results.
Anne Hall
Then there is the account of Doctor Semmelweis, who hypothesized that physicians and their
unwashed hands were carrying infections to newly delivered mothers, which killed quite a few.
He endured quite terrible treatment from his medical community in 19th century Vienna.
GARY FIELD
In May 2020, she published an article
By then, many of us already suspected the Chinese lab.
In April 2020, Australia called for a full and honest CV-19 reckoning at the World Health
Organization. China immediately responded with economic warfare, targeting Australian imports
and encouraging Chinese citizens to avoid tourism in Australia, and to stop sending their
children there for secondary school and university education..
Normal people thought: "Australia's a well respected country. Why the punitive reaction by
China?" Sadly, either through incompetence or malfeasance, we have come to expect that
journalists and politicians ignore or cover up inconvenient facts. But scientists? Spineless
and/or corrupt. Ms. Lentzos is a brave and welcome exception.
A child would understand that when China reacted furiously, to a respectful call by
Australia for an independent investigation, China was trying to deflect from their guilty and
reckless behavior.
John Brady
I have to agree with Michael McElfrish "This is a conspiracy theory whether the lab is true
or not, because it is irrelevant to what happened. and diverts from the real issue, i.e. how
come the US did not contain ihe disease early when it had the chance to do so?" To have the
esteemed WSJ give voice to conspiracy theories is frustrating. It only supports more COVID
denialism. What does appear to be clear is that regardless there is NO human engeneering.
Rupert Murdoch has destroyed the Journal's once impeccable reputation with drivel like
this.
David Lacey
To the voices that were against the lab leak theory in the beginning, we need to follow the
money trail and how much of that trail would be threatened if it was realized that research
like this was done and supported. Scientists get their funding largely via government grants.
If GOFR was banned, deeply investigated, or funding diminished or dropped due to political
pressure, this group would find perhaps their life's work called into question and funding
imperiled. It would be a natural human response to circle the wagons and point investigators
away from anything that would threaten your work. Readers, connect the dots yourself........
Gary Goodman
SOCIOLOGIST'S GUT SAID NO TO COVID GROUPTHINK
This would have been a more accurate headline. Referring to Dr. Lentos as a "Scientist" in
the article's actual title, is misleading.
From the article it seems she did no rigorous research to support the lab leak inference.
She used casual observation along with email chats with a cohort of frequent doubters.
And her only tentative conclusion is, we may never confirm the source of the virus.
Inadvertently, through its attempts to prop-up Dr. Lentos, the article does support the
useful caveat that any reference to a source's authority and credibility should be treated
with skepticism.
Nicholas Megaw in London Sun, June 6, 2021, 8:00 PM
The UK's competition regulator has been accused of "putting foxes in charge of the henhouse"
after asking the banking industry's own lobby group to design a supervisory body to combat the
dominance of big banks. Dozens of organisations including fintech start-ups, established tech
groups like Experian and Equifax, consumer representatives and a cross-party group of MPs have
raised concerns over the Competition and Markets Authority's plan to use proposals drawn up by
UK Finance as the basis for a consultation on the future of so-called open banking rules. Open
banking forces banks to share valuable customer data with other financial services providers,
allowing smaller firms to make faster lending decisions or offer new services such as budgeting
tools.
A top scientist said the virus couldn't have evolved naturally""then reversed his
position weeks later.
They told the world that the Covid-19 virus clearly couldn't have been manipulated in the
laboratory. But what they actually thought at first sight was that it had been.
The letter from five virologists published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020, was the
single most influential statement in capturing the public narrative about the origin of
SARS-CoV-2. Here was an authoritative statement from leading experts assuring the public that
in terms of the virus's origin "we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is
plausible."
But that's the exact opposite of what these experts thought after taking their first look at
the virus. A large batch of emails exchanged with Anthony Fauci, director of the National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was made available this week to BuzzFeed and the
Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act. For the most part the emails concern
meeting arrangements or messages from cranks and have been redacted of any meaningful
information. But one significant email escaped the censor's black marker.
On Jan. 31, 2020, shortly after the SARS-CoV-2 genome had been decoded, Kristian Andersen,
the five virologists' leader, emailed Dr. Fauci that there were "unusual features" in the
virus. These took up only a small percentage of the genome, so that "one has to look really
closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look
engineered."
Mr. Andersen went on to note that he and his team "all find the genome inconsistent with
expectations from evolutionary theory." It isn't clear exactly what he meant by this striking
phrase. But anything inconsistent with an evolutionary origin has to be man-made.
This remarkable email establishes that the Andersen team's initial reaction was to suspect
that SARS-CoV-2 had been engineered in a lab. Their subsequent letter doesn't adequately
explain how they overcame this impression.
The furin cleavage site, a small element of the virus that they doubtless had in mind when
referring to "unusual features," is an anomalous genetic insertion that could be a sign of
laboratory manipulation. The distinguished virologist David Baltimore has called it a smoking
gun and "a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin for SARS2."
The Andersen team in its letter discusses how the virus could have acquired the furin
cleavage site naturally. Their best suggestion is that SARS-CoV-2 picked up the necessary
genetic information from people after it had made its jump from bats. But no evidence for this
idea has emerged. And it's hard to see why the Andersen team decided that this conjecture
should outweigh the appearance of laboratory manipulation.
As virologists, all had a professional interest in not provoking a storm of public
condemnation over gain-of-function experiments, the bland name for genetically enhancing the
pathogenic power of viruses. After taking one look at the horrific possibility that a lab leak
origin for SARS-CoV-2 might cause virology labs all over the world to be closed down, it would
seem, the Andersen team decided to disregard their first impressions of possible manipulation.
Recall what they said in their letter: "We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based
scenario is plausible."
Dr. Fauci has long suggested that the virus emerged naturally""until the past few weeks,
when he started to allow that lab escape is possible and should be investigated. The Jan. 31,
2020, email from Mr. Andersen shows that Dr. Fauci knew from the beginning that experts had
serious suspicions about the virus's origins. There were many other matters on his agenda at
the time, but it's too bad he didn't ask for an independent panel, one not dominated by
virologists, to look into the possibility that Chinese researchers genetically manipulating
coronaviruses in low-level safety conditions had sparked a global pandemic.
Mr. Wade is a science writer who has worked for Nature, Science and the New York Times .
Marching in ideological lockstep is less forgivable in a society where one has a choice in
the matter.
...In this country, scientists, bureaucrats, journalists and executives of Big Tech
companies suppressed the story not out of fear of imprisonment or death, but of their own
volition, out of ideological or even venal motives. You may well ask: Whose culpability is
greater?
It's not simply that the lab-leak theory was "debunked," as news organizations repeatedly
told us when anyone tried to raise it a year ago. It wasn't even permitted to be considered.
Discussion of the topic was deliberately extinguished on tech platforms, in the respectable
scientific journals and in newsrooms.
...Thanks to a recent release of emails under the Freedom of Information Act, we now know
that some of the scientists dismissing the idea had themselves expressed concerns that the
zoonotic explanation they were publicly championing might not be right. We also know that in
the case of the Lancet letter
, some of the correspondents were involved in similar research and had a strong professional
interest in denying the possibility of an engineered virus.
...Last year, many scientists beclowned themselves by bowing to the prevailing political
pieties with their absurd assertion that taking part in protests on behalf of Black Lives
Matter was literally salubrious, whereas taking part in protests against lockdowns was lethally
reckless.
If too many American scientists failed to help us get a proper understanding of the origins
of Covid, they seem to have been abetted by like-minded people in the permanent bureaucracy.
Emails to and from Anthony Fauci uncovered last week show that while there were some genuinely
diligent officials determined to get to the truth, too many in positions of power seemed keen
to stamp out a proper investigation.
As Katherine Eban
reported in Vanity Fair last week, officials from two separate bureaus in the State
Department warned against a proper investigation for fear of opening a "can of worms."
Again we have good grounds to suspect that officials in a bureaucracy that had already
undermined Donald Trump's presidency with baseless allegations about Russian collusion seemed
intent on suppressing any suggestion, however well-supported it might be, that Trump officials
might be right about a critical issue of state.
Yet the largest responsibility for the failure to consider in a timely fashion the lab-leak
theory lies with the media.
Journalists were once marked by their curiosity. Now the only thing that's curious about
many of them is their lack of curiosity when a story doesn't fit their priors.
...It seems increasingly likely that Chinese officials mishandled research and
misrepresented and misinformed the public. But they did so under pain of punishment, even
death, in a system designed to suppress that kind of information.
In this country, constitutionally protected, free and independent scientists, bureaucrats,
journalists and others did the same. What's their excuse?
WSJ became much like ZH pushing "china lab leak" hypotheses. Why the possibility of Fort
Detrick leak or Barric lab leak ( Dr Ralph Baric didn't
create Covid-19 - weehingthong ) is ignored ? "In 2014, the U.S. government decided it would
stop funding
gain-of-function research , though Baric's study was underway and was grandfathered in. The
National Institutes of Health deemed the study not risky enough to fall under the moratorium on
funding, Baric told Nature in 2015...Debbink, who helped author Baric's 2015 paper, said everyone
involved with that research has been targeted online by harassers who are accusing them of
creating a biological weapon."
Top scientist said the virus couldn't have evolved naturally
-- then reversed his position weeks later.
Notable quotes:
"... The Andersen team in its letter discusses how the virus could have acquired the furin cleavage site naturally. Their best suggestion is that SARS-CoV-2 picked up the necessary genetic information from people after it had made its jump from bats. But no evidence for this idea has emerged. And it's hard to see why the Andersen team decided that this conjecture should outweigh the appearance of laboratory manipulation. ..."
They told the world that the Covid-19 virus clearly couldn't have been manipulated in the
laboratory. But what they actually thought at first sight was that it had been.
The letter from five virologists published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020, was the
single most influential statement in capturing the public narrative about the origin of
SARS-CoV-2. Here was an authoritative statement from leading experts assuring the public that
in terms of the virus's origin "we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is
plausible."
But that's the exact opposite of what these experts thought after taking their first look at
the virus. A large batch of emails exchanged with Anthony Fauci, director of the National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was made available this week to BuzzFeed and the
Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act. For the most part the emails concern
meeting arrangements or messages from cranks and have been redacted of any meaningful
information. But one significant email escaped the censor's black marker.
On Jan. 31, 2020, shortly after the SARS-CoV-2 genome had been decoded, Kristian Andersen,
the five virologists' leader, emailed Dr. Fauci that there were "unusual features" in the
virus. These took up only a small percentage of the genome, so that "one has to look really
closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look
engineered."
Mr. Andersen went on to note that he and his team "all find the genome inconsistent with
expectations from evolutionary theory." It isn't clear exactly what he meant by this striking
phrase. But anything inconsistent with an evolutionary origin has to be man-made.
This remarkable email establishes that the Andersen team's initial reaction was to suspect
that SARS-CoV-2 had been engineered in a lab. Their subsequent letter doesn't adequately
explain how they overcame this impression.
The furin cleavage site, a small element of the virus that they doubtless had in mind when
referring to "unusual features," is an anomalous genetic insertion that could be a sign of
laboratory manipulation. The distinguished virologist David Baltimore has called it a smoking
gun and "a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin for SARS2."
The Andersen team in its letter discusses how the virus could have acquired the furin
cleavage site naturally. Their best suggestion is that SARS-CoV-2 picked up the necessary
genetic information from people after it had made its jump from bats. But no evidence for this
idea has emerged. And it's hard to see why the Andersen team decided that this conjecture
should outweigh the appearance of laboratory manipulation.
As virologists, all had a professional interest in not provoking a storm of public
condemnation over gain-of-function experiments, the bland name for genetically enhancing the
pathogenic power of viruses. After taking one look at the horrific possibility that a lab leak
origin for SARS-CoV-2 might cause virology labs all over the world to be closed down, it would
seem, the Andersen team decided to disregard their first impressions of possible manipulation.
Recall what they said in their letter: "We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based
scenario is plausible."
Dr. Fauci has long suggested that the virus emerged naturally -- until the past few weeks,
when he started to allow that lab escape is possible and should be investigated. The Jan. 31,
2020, email from Mr. Andersen shows that Dr. Fauci knew from the beginning that experts had
serious suspicions about the virus's origins. There were many other matters on his agenda at
the time, but it's too bad he didn't ask for an independent panel, one not dominated by
virologists, to look into the possibility that Chinese researchers genetically manipulating
coronaviruses in low-level safety conditions had sparked a global pandemic.
Mr. Wade is a science writer who has worked for Nature, Science and the New York Times .
Metrics are judged to be misleading if they meet the following criteria:
The website for the metric is nontransparent and provides little information about itself such as location, management team
and its experience, other company information, and the like
The company charges journals for inclusion in the list.
The values (scores) for most or all of the journals on the list increase each year.
The company uses Google Scholar as its database for calculating metrics (Google Scholar does not screen for quality and indexes
predatory journals)
The methodology for calculating the value is contrived, unscientific, or unoriginal.
The company exists solely for the purpose of earning money from questionable journals that use the gold open-access model.
The company charges the journals and assigns them a value, and then the journals use the number to help increase article submissions
and therefore revenue. Alternatively, the company exists as a front for an existing publisher and assigns values to that publisher's
journals.
"... In today's world, brimful as it is with opinion and falsehoods masquerading as facts, you'd think the one place you can depend on for verifiable facts is science. You'd be wrong. Many billions of dollars' worth of wrong. ..."
"... A few years ago, scientists at the Thousand Oaks biotech firm Amgen set out to double-check the results of 53 landmark papers in their fields of cancer research and blood biology. The idea was to make sure that research on which Amgen was spending millions of development dollars still held up. They figured that a few of the studies would fail the test -- that the original results couldn't be reproduced because the findings were especially novel or described fresh therapeutic approaches. But what they found was startling: Of the 53 landmark papers, only six could be proved valid. ..."
"... "Even knowing the limitations of preclinical research," observed C. Glenn Begley, then Amgen's head of global cancer research, "this was a shocking result." ..."
"... A group at Bayer HealthCare in Germany similarly found that only 25% of published papers on which it was basing R&D; projects could be validated, suggesting that projects in which the firm had sunk huge resources should be abandoned. ..."
"... "The thing that should scare people is that so many of these important published studies turn out to be wrong when they're investigated further," ..."
"... Eisen says the more important flaw in the publication model is that the drive to land a paper in a top journal -- Nature and Science lead the list -- encourages researchers to hype their results, especially in the life sciences. Peer review, in which a paper is checked out by eminent scientists before publication, isn't a safeguard. Eisen says the unpaid reviewers seldom have the time or inclination to examine a study enough to unearth errors or flaws. ..."
"... Eisen is a pioneer in open-access scientific publishing, which aims to overturn the traditional model in which leading journals pay nothing for papers often based on publicly funded research, then charge enormous subscription fees to universities and researchers to read them. ..."
"... But concern about what is emerging as a crisis in science extends beyond the open-access movement. It's reached the National Institutes of Health, which last week launched a project to remake its researchers' approach to publication. ..."
"... PubMed Commons is an effort to counteract the "perverse incentives" in scientific research and publishing, says David J. Lipman, director of NIH's National Center for Biotechnology Information, which is sponsoring the venture. ..."
"... The demand for sexy results, combined with indifferent follow-up, means that billions of dollars in worldwide resources devoted to finding and developing remedies for the diseases that afflict us all is being thrown down a rathole. NIH and the rest of the scientific community are just now waking up to the realization that science has lost its way, and it may take years to get back on the right path. ..."
In today's world, brimful as it is with opinion and falsehoods masquerading as facts, you'd think the one place you can depend
on for verifiable facts is science. You'd be wrong. Many billions of dollars' worth of wrong.
A few years ago, scientists at the Thousand Oaks biotech firm Amgen set out to double-check the results of 53 landmark
papers in their fields of cancer research and blood biology. The idea was to make sure that research on which Amgen was spending
millions of development dollars still held up. They figured that a few of the studies would fail the test -- that the original
results couldn't be reproduced because the findings were especially novel or described fresh therapeutic approaches. But what
they found was startling: Of the 53 landmark papers, only six could be proved valid.
"Even knowing the limitations of preclinical research," observed C. Glenn Begley, then Amgen's head of global cancer research,
"this was a shocking result."
Unfortunately, it wasn't unique. A group at Bayer HealthCare in Germany similarly found that only 25% of published
papers on which it was basing R&D; projects could be validated, suggesting that projects in which the firm had sunk huge
resources should be abandoned. Whole fields of research, including some in which patients were already participating in clinical trials, are based
on science that hasn't been, and possibly can't be, validated.
"The thing that should scare people is that so many of these important published studies turn out to be wrong when they're investigated
further,"
says Michael Eisen, a biologist at UC Berkeley and the
Howard Hughes Medical Institute. The Economist recently estimated spending on biomedical R&D; in industrialized countries at $59
billion a year. That's how much could be at risk from faulty fundamental research.
Eisen says the more important flaw in the publication model is that the drive to land a paper in a top journal -- Nature
and Science lead the list -- encourages researchers to hype their results, especially in the life sciences. Peer review, in which
a paper is checked out by eminent scientists before publication, isn't a safeguard. Eisen says the unpaid reviewers seldom have
the time or inclination to examine a study enough to unearth errors or flaws.
"The journals want the papers that make the sexiest claims," he says. "And scientists believe that the way you succeed is having
splashy papers in Science or Nature -- it's not bad for them if a paper turns out to be wrong, if it's gotten a lot of attention."
Eisen is a pioneer in open-access scientific publishing, which aims to overturn the traditional model in which leading journals
pay nothing for papers often based on publicly funded research, then charge enormous subscription fees to universities and researchers
to read them.
But concern about what is emerging as a crisis in science extends beyond the open-access movement. It's reached the
National Institutes of Health, which last week launched a project to remake its researchers' approach to publication. Its new
PubMed Commons system allows qualified scientists to post
ongoing comments about published papers. The goal is to wean scientists from the idea that a cursory, one-time peer review is enough
to validate a research study, and substitute a process of continuing scrutiny, so that poor research can be identified quickly and
good research can be picked out of the crowd and find a wider audience.
PubMed Commons is an effort to counteract the "perverse incentives" in scientific research and publishing, says David J. Lipman,
director of NIH's National Center for Biotechnology Information, which is sponsoring the venture.
The Commons is currently in its pilot phase, during which only registered users among the cadre of researchers whose work appears
in PubMed -- NCBI's clearinghouse for citations from biomedical journals and online sources -- can post comments and read them.
Once the full system is launched, possibly within weeks, commenters still will have to be members of that select group, but the
comments will be public.
Science and Nature both acknowledge that peer review is imperfect. Science's executive editor, Monica Bradford, told me by email
that her journal, which is published by the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, understands that for papers based on
large volumes of statistical data -- where cherry-picking or flawed interpretation can contribute to erroneous conclusions -- "increased
vigilance is required." Nature says that it now commissions expert statisticians to examine data in some papers.
But they both defend pre-publication peer review as an essential element in the scientific process -- a "reasonable and fair"
process, Bradford says.
Yet there's been some push-back by the prestige journals against the idea that they're encouraging flawed work -- and that their
business model amounts to profiteering. Earlier this month, Science published a piece by journalist John Bohannon about what happened
when he sent a spoof paper with flaws that could have been noticed by a high school chemistry student to 304 open-access chemistry
journals (those that charge researchers to publish their papers, but make them available for free). It was accepted by
more than half of them.
One that didn't bite was PloS One, an online open-access journal sponsored
by the Public Library of Science, which Eisen co-founded. In fact, PloS One was among the few journals that identified the fake
paper's methodological and ethical flaws.
What was curious, however, was that although Bohannon asserted that his sting showed how the open-access movement was part of
"an emerging Wild West in academic publishing," it was the traditionalist Science that published the most dubious recent academic
paper of all.
This was a 2010 paper by then-NASA biochemist Felisa Wolfe-Simon
and colleagues claiming that they had found bacteria growing in Mono Lake that were uniquely able to subsist on arsenic and even
used arsenic to build the backbone of their DNA.
The publication in Science was accompanied by a breathless press release and press conference sponsored by NASA, which had an
institutional interest in promoting the idea of alternative life forms. But almost immediately it was debunked by other scientists
for spectacularly poor methodology and an invalid conclusion. Wolfe-Simon, who didn't respond to a request for comment last week,
has defended her interpretation
of her results as "viable." She hasn't withdrawn the paper, nor has Science, which has published numerous
critiques of the work . Wolfe-Simon is now
associated with the prestigious Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
To Eisen, the Wolfe-Simon affair represents the "perfect storm of scientists obsessed with making a big splash and issuing press
releases" -- the natural outcome of a system in which there's no career gain in trying to replicate and validate previous work,
as important as that process is for the advancement of science.
"A paper that actually shows a previous paper is true would never get published in an important journal," he says, "and it would
be almost impossible to get that work funded."
However, the real threat to research and development doesn't come from one-time events like the arsenic study, but from the dissemination
of findings that look plausible on the surface but don't stand up to scrutiny, as Begley and his Amgen colleagues found.
The demand for sexy results, combined with indifferent follow-up, means that billions of dollars in worldwide resources
devoted to finding and developing remedies for the diseases that afflict us all is being thrown down a rathole. NIH and the rest
of the scientific community are just now waking up to the realization that science has lost its way, and it may take years to
get back on the right path.
A top scientist said the virus couldn't have evolved naturally""then reversed his
position weeks later.
They told the world that the Covid-19 virus clearly couldn't have been manipulated in the
laboratory. But what they actually thought at first sight was that it had been.
The letter from five virologists published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020, was the
single most influential statement in capturing the public narrative about the origin of
SARS-CoV-2. Here was an authoritative statement from leading experts assuring the public that
in terms of the virus's origin "we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is
plausible."
But that's the exact opposite of what these experts thought after taking their first look at
the virus. A large batch of emails exchanged with Anthony Fauci, director of the National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was made available this week to BuzzFeed and the
Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act. For the most part the emails concern
meeting arrangements or messages from cranks and have been redacted of any meaningful
information. But one significant email escaped the censor's black marker.
On Jan. 31, 2020, shortly after the SARS-CoV-2 genome had been decoded, Kristian Andersen,
the five virologists' leader, emailed Dr. Fauci that there were "unusual features" in the
virus. These took up only a small percentage of the genome, so that "one has to look really
closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look
engineered."
Mr. Andersen went on to note that he and his team "all find the genome inconsistent with
expectations from evolutionary theory." It isn't clear exactly what he meant by this striking
phrase. But anything inconsistent with an evolutionary origin has to be man-made.
This remarkable email establishes that the Andersen team's initial reaction was to suspect
that SARS-CoV-2 had been engineered in a lab. Their subsequent letter doesn't adequately
explain how they overcame this impression.
The furin cleavage site, a small element of the virus that they doubtless had in mind when
referring to "unusual features," is an anomalous genetic insertion that could be a sign of
laboratory manipulation. The distinguished virologist David Baltimore has called it a smoking
gun and "a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin for SARS2."
The Andersen team in its letter discusses how the virus could have acquired the furin
cleavage site naturally. Their best suggestion is that SARS-CoV-2 picked up the necessary
genetic information from people after it had made its jump from bats. But no evidence for this
idea has emerged. And it's hard to see why the Andersen team decided that this conjecture
should outweigh the appearance of laboratory manipulation.
As virologists, all had a professional interest in not provoking a storm of public
condemnation over gain-of-function experiments, the bland name for genetically enhancing the
pathogenic power of viruses. After taking one look at the horrific possibility that a lab leak
origin for SARS-CoV-2 might cause virology labs all over the world to be closed down, it would
seem, the Andersen team decided to disregard their first impressions of possible manipulation.
Recall what they said in their letter: "We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based
scenario is plausible."
Dr. Fauci has long suggested that the virus emerged naturally""until the past few weeks,
when he started to allow that lab escape is possible and should be investigated. The Jan. 31,
2020, email from Mr. Andersen shows that Dr. Fauci knew from the beginning that experts had
serious suspicions about the virus's origins. There were many other matters on his agenda at
the time, but it's too bad he didn't ask for an independent panel, one not dominated by
virologists, to look into the possibility that Chinese researchers genetically manipulating
coronaviruses in low-level safety conditions had sparked a global pandemic.
Mr. Wade is a science writer who has worked for Nature, Science and the New York Times .
If we take ZH commentariat opinions as a representative sample of the US conservatives
opinion, Fauci days are now numbered. And not only because he over 80.
Speaking to Laura Ingraham, Paul asserted that "The emails paint a disturbing picture, a
disturbing picture of Dr. Fauci, from the very beginning, worrying that he had been funding
gain-of-function research. He knows it to this day, but hasn't admitted it."
The Senator also urged that Fauci's involvement has not been adequately investigated because
in the eyes of Democrats "he could do no wrong".
Paul pointed out that Fauci was denying that there was even any funding for gain of function
research at the Wuhan lab just a few weeks back, a claim which is totally contradicted by his
own emails in which he discusses it.
"In his e-mail, within the topic line, he says "˜acquire of perform research.' He was
admitting it to his non-public underlings seven to eight months in the past," Paul
emphasised.
The Senator also pointed to
the email from Dr. Peter Daszak , President of the EcoHealth Alliance, a group that
directly funded the Wuhan lab gain of function research, thanking Fauci for not giving credence
to the lab leak theory.
Ingraham asked Paul if Fauci could face felony culpability, to which the Senator replied "At
the very least, there is ethical culpability," and Fauci should be fired from his government
roles.
Earlier Paul had reacted to Amazon pulling Fauci's upcoming book from pre-sale:
In softball interviews with MSNBC and CNN Thursday, Fauci dismissed the notion that his
emails show any conflicts of interest, and claimed that it is in China's "best interest" to be
honest about the pandemic origins, adding that the US should not act "accusatory" toward the
communist state.
Roger Stone was given 9 years for lying to Congress. Fauci should be on the same
hook.
truth or go home 2 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Looks like Fauci is going the way of Gates, but he won't be arrested, because he is
doing the bidding of the overlords.
What could he be arrested for? Let's see: Misappropriation of government funds, lying to
a senator under oath, covering up a criminal operation, operating a conspiracy to deceive
the people of the United States.
Seems like Rand is willing to nail Fauci to the wall, but he is not willing to go after
the big kahuna - the entire hoax - the fake vaxxes, the fake lockdowns, the fake "cases",
the fake death count, the elimination of flu...
Lucky Guesst 10 hours ago
Fauci is owned by big pharma. All the major news channels have at least one big pharma
rat on the board. MSM continues to push the vaccines. They are all in bed together and need
busted up if not taken out.
SummerSausage PREMIUM 15 hours ago
2012- Fauci says weaponized virus research may produce a pandemic but it would be worth
it.
Jan 9, 2017 NIAD memo recommends lifting ban on funding weaponized virus research. Fauci
controls the funds.
Jan 4, 2017 - CIA/FBI/DNC - under Obama's direction are told, essentially, to get
Trump.
Obama is behind release of this virus, creating pandemic panic and lockdown to
facilitate stealing the 2020 election.
OBAMA must be investigated.
play_arrow
CheapBastard 10 hours ago
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak
it."
~ Anonymous
serotonindumptruck 17 hours ago remove link
Call me a pessimist, but I predict no accountability, no malfeasance, no criminal
charges will be filed against Fauci.
We've all witnessed similar criminal behavior being perpetrated by the wealthy elite
which result in no consequences.
Why should this be any different?
(((They))) now know that (((they))) can lie to us with impunity, and get away with
it.
alexcojones 16 hours ago
New Nuremberg Needed Now.
Fauci in the witness chair.
"So, Dr. Fauci, your decisions, your outright lies, led to thousands, perhaps millions
of unnecessary deaths."
Baric & Batwoman published their chimeric coronavirus with ACE2 receptor access in
2015. Funded by Fauci, of course.
Kevin 3 hours ago (Edited)
That document only shows that Gain Of Function research exists - not that the deaths,
falsely attributed to covid are due to the product of that research.
What self-respecting, lab-created, killer virus, supposedly so deadly that it warrants
the shutting down of the entire planet, is incapable of doing any more damage than the flu
does every year?
In the case of the UK, and according to its own official figures, it hasn't even been
able to do that compared to its history of seasonal flu.
So, 2020 was just a blip compared to the past and most of that blip in increased deaths
was due to the insane policies imposed rather than any lab-created Fluzilla. If you
subtract the deaths that occurred due to:
1. Kicking seniors out of hospital and dumping them into nursing homes where they died
because they no longer got the treatment they needed but where they could infect the other,
previously healthy residents.
2. The many tens of thousands of people who had life-saving surgeries and procedures
cancelled.
3. The huge increase in suicides.
..... I doubt there would even be that blip.
If those historically, insignificant 2020 death figures are due to a lab-created,
chimeric coronavirus then that's an epic fail of the scientists and an enormous waste of
money for their education and the G.o.F. research.
However, it has conned enough idiots into believing that there was a Fluzilla in 2020
and got them to beg for jabs that might be how a lab created, chimeric coronavirus with
ACE2 receptor access gets into their bodies and kills them.
The new con that it was a leaked GoF bio-weapon that caused the 2020 'pandemic' is just
a lie upon a lie.
But it will persuade many of the gullible and fence-sitters to get jabbed because they
will have accepted (subconsciously), that the Fluzilla must have existed last year and that
the only way to combat such a bio-weapon is to jab themselves with poison. Ironically, that
will create in their bodies what they fear most.
Befits 9 hours ago remove link
No, you are not thinking clearly. The Covid death numbers were clearly and horrifically
inflated
1) The CDC changed how death certificates were recorded. Co-morbidities ( cancer,
congestive heart failure, COPD for example) that co- morbidity was listed as cause of death
in part one of the death certificate for 2 decades until the CDC changed death
certificates. If that person had for example a flu At that time ( cough, stuffy nose etc)
it might be listed as a contributing factor ( part 2 of death certificate) person died of
co- morbidity but flu was a contributing factor. The CDC reversed these to make sure Covid
was the cause of death- but truth was people died with Covid not from Covid.
2) 95% of Covid listed deaths actually died of co- morbidities- with Covid not from
Covid. The CDC published that only 5% of " Covid " deaths had only Covid- the other 95% had
on average 4 co- morbidities. In other words their cause of death was co- morbidity not
Covid.
3) personal experience. I was a nurse. A close friend's brother had cancer for 7 years-
in and out of remission. He was " diagnosed with Covid via PCR, almost no symptoms but for
a slight cough and runny nose in March 2020. In April his cancer came back his liver shut
down and he was dead by May 2020. He died from liver cancer but his death was recorded as
Covid 19 simply because he had tested positive 60 days before on a Covid PCR test. This is
the fraud the CDC perpetrated.
4) Hospitals received greatly enhanced financial renumeration if a patient was "
diagnosed" with Covid. Compare hospital reimbursement ( Medicare) for a hospitalized Covid
patient v influenza patient - similar symptoms- on or off respirator. Bottom line the
medical system was financially rewarded for diagnosing " Covid" v influenza. Indeed the
hospital did not even have to confirm a " Covid diagnosis with the fraudulent PCR test to
diagnose Covid- just " symptom" based.
5) The PCR test can not diagnose any viral illness- simply by amplification cycles (30
plus) you can " find" Covid from a dead, partial RNA fragment. As Kary Mullis, Nobel prize
inventor of PCR testing said PCR testing is NOT a diagnostic tool. Hospitals and docs,
universities and public health departments, corporations, the CDC, FDA, used false PCR
testing to financially enrich themselves while destroying the lives and livelihoods of
millions inc careers of medical truth- tellers.
Fauci, the CDC, and the FDA knows all of this. Crimes v humanity trials must be
undertaken v every medical person- from Big Pharma, CDC, FDA, Doctor, nurse, hospital
administrator, public health official, corporate leader etc who used this Covid plandemic
for personal benefit or whom through their actions harmed another.
SoDamnMad 17 hours ago
Watch Tucker Carlson's expose on "Why they lied for so long" At 3:29 he goes into Peter
Danzak getting 27 "scientists" to write in the Lancet that the Covid virus didn't come from
the Wuhan Lab but rather from nature (with the HIV spliced into the genome). But he also
tells individuals at UNC NOT to sign the letter so that their gain-of-function research
isn't tied into this. His e-mail goes to Ralph Baric, Antoinette Baric, as well as Andre
Alison and Alexsei Chmura at EcoHealthAlliance who Fauci got the money to for funding GOF
Chinese research.
Fauci is 80. Why was he allowed to stay on so long?
He controls $32 billion in annual grants that all US scientists and researchers depend
on.
There's a whole lot more corruption to explore.
CatInTheHat 8 hours ago remove link
This whole thing feels CONTRIVED
Why does this even matter anymore?
China is NOT the problem here and focusing on CHINA DISTRACTS from a few things
here.
1 FORT DETRIK. A nefarious US BIOWEAPONS lab that Fraudci worked at for 20 years. FD
also works in conjunction with DARPA
2. Whenever it's WAPO or Buzzfeed (FFS!) who breaks a story related to the Rona, I am
convinced that the elite have called them up to DISTRACT the public from something more
important. Maybe that Fort Detrik was the source of the virus transferred to China via the
US MIC/CIA and the Wuhan military games in China in Nov of 2019. 2 weeks later the first
cases showed up at Wuhan.
3. This VACCINE has now killed over 5000 people and since the rollout for children
between 12-16, several hundred have now been hospitalized with MYOCARDITIS OR
PERICARDITIS.. In Israel a study conducted as the vax rolled out in YOUNG MEN, it was
revealed that one in 3,000 was suffering from MYOCARDITIS within 4 days of the jab.
MSM is now reporting on adolescents in several states hospitalized with INFLAMMATION.
... Which they blame on RONA. FUNNY how every one of those states have rolled out the jab
for CHILDREN
WE are being massively LIED too.
Also, Biden's press secretary PSAKI LIED when she said, today, that 63% of the
population has had the jab.
Wrong. Only 41% of the US population has had BOTH jabs. Anti gun Biden is now offering
guns in exchange for a vax in Virginia. And anti marijuana Biden offering MJ in AZ for
those who take the jab. Why the desperation?
For more perspective on the massive deaths piling up due to this jab, in 1976, when 50
people were killed after the Swine flu jab IT WAS PULLED FROM THE MARKET.
Many thousands who have not had the jab are reporting illness after being in close
contact with those who are vaxxed.
Lots and lots to DISTRACT from
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
ableman28 10 hours ago
True story....one of my VC firms investments was approached by the defense department to
create a wearable lapel style detector for chemical and biological weapons that would work
in very low concentrations giving people time to put on their CBW gear. Our investee said
sure, we'll take a crack at it, but where are we going to get all the biological and
chemical agents to test it with. The DOD response was don't worry, we have everything
you'll need. And they did.
The US bio weapons program was supposedly terminated by Nixon in 1969. And our official
policy is that we don't research or stockpile such things. ********.
Armed Resistance 15 hours ago (Edited) remove link
This virus was engineered at Ft. Detrick. It's the same place that made the
military-grade Anthrax the deep state sent to Tom Daschle and others in government post
9/11 to gin up more fear.
This was a Fauci-coordinated deep state bio weapon they released in Wuhan to kick off
the scamdemic and the "great reset". Releasing it China gave some cover to the deep state
and the people there are under total control of the state. The rest is just filler. Always
about more control.....
BeePee 15 hours ago
The virus was not engineered at Ft. Detrick.
You are a CCP troll.
Sorry you have such a low pay grade job.
Armed Resistance 15 hours ago (Edited)
Anybody who Questions the deep state is a CCP troll? Look in the mirror. You're the one
running cover for these satanists! You rack up downvotes like Jordan did points! ZH'ers can
spot a troll a mile away son.
louie1 PREMIUM 14 hours ago (Edited)
The US way is to put the perpetrators in charge of the inuiry to control the outcome.
Dulles, Zellick, Fauci
Mighty Turban of Gooch 11 hours ago
Our government is corrupt. As long as the Democrats and the MSM have Fauci's back, he
has nothing to worry about no matter what he's done.
He's just a typical lying bureaucrat and lying to the public thru the media outlets, as
we have seen countless times now by countless government 'officials', is not a crime. Lying
under oath however is. But now days we see these guys get away with that too without
consequence.
So don't hold your breath. There is absolutely nothing that can take these guys out.
Even if they throw one of their own under the bus, the best you can ever hope for is a
resignation as criminal charges would never happen.
dustinthewind 16 hours ago (Edited)
"The CDC Foundation operates independently from CDC as a private , nonprofit 501(c)(3)
organization incorporated in the State of Georgia."
"Because CDC is a federal agency , all scientific findings resulting from CDC research
are available to the public and open to the broader scientific community for review."
"The Board of Directors of the CDC Foundation today named Judith A. Monroe, MD, FAAFP,
as the new president and CEO of the CDC Foundation . Monroe joins the CDC Foundation from
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ), where she leads the agency's Office
for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support."
Gates is the largest private donor of the CDC and WHO. Gates is part of the World
Economic Forum who controls Fauci which using US taxpayers funds did gain of function
studies first in the US and caught moved to China where it was intentionally leaked to
blame the Chinese. John Kerry is also part of the WEF and is their man in Washington
calling the war mongering narrative against both China and Russia. Gates funded Imperial
College and Ferguson to write the code that was fake and used by many countries to justify
lockdowns. Gates is the largest ag landowner and wants to ban meat. Who just got hacked and
now it is blamed on Russia? Boris is destroying the UK and after a call from Gates gave 500
million pounds to vaccinate third world countries and lockdowns. Both fathers were tied to
Rockefeller Institute. Rand, connect the dots!
Fauci is under attack globally and has shown himself to be unreliable and should be
fired "" PERIOD! All the emails that have come out from an
FOIA request are interesting, and it shows he has information that was credible
concerning a leak from the lab in Wuhan. Let me make this PERFECTLY clear! This was NOT a
DELIBERATE leak by the Chinese government. If China wanted to really hurt the West, the
technology is there where a virus can be used as a delivery system, and as such, it can be
designed to attack specific genetic sequences meaning that it could target just Italian,
Greeks, English, Germans, or whoever.
COVID-19, based upon everything I see from our model and reliable sources, was created
in a lab and was DELIBERATELY unleashed to further this Great Reset. I BELIEVE someone from
this agenda bribed a lab technician to release it in the local community. China did NOT
benefit from this pandemic. The only ones who benefitted were the World Economic Forum
(WEF) consortium, which I know sold stocks and bonds ahead of the crash. They are also in
league with the World Health Organization (WHO), and the head of the WHO is a politician
and not even a doctor. That is like putting me in charge of surgery at a hospital. How can
Tedros Adhanom be in such a position with no background in the subject matter? Tedros appears at the World
Economic Forum and has participated in its agenda. The WHO should be compelled to turn over
ALL emails and communication ASAP. My bet is they pull a Hillary"¦Oh sorry. They
were hacked by Russians who destroyed everything.
The World Economic Forum is at the center of everything. When will someone investigate all
of these connections right down to creating the slogan, Build Back Better? Of course, they
will call this a conspiracy theory so they can avoid having to actually investigate
anything. My point is simple: produce the evidence and prove this is just a conspiracy
theory.
'John Kerry's Think Tank Calls for War With Russia Over Climate Change'
" America will soon have a government that treats the climate crisis as the urgent
national security threat it is."" John Kerry
Recently-appointed Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry has announced his
intention of dealing with the pressing issue of global warming as a national security
concern. "America will soon have a government that treats the climate crisis as the urgent
national security threat it is," the 76-year-old former Secretary of State wrote. "I am
proud to partner with the President-elect, our allies, and the young leaders of the climate
movement to take on this crisis." Kerry is a founding member of the Washington think tank,
the American Security Project (ASP) , whose board is a who's who of retired generals,
admirals and senators.
For the ASP, the primary objectives were:
A huge rebuilding of the United States' military bases,
Countering China in the Pacific,
Preparing for a war with Russia in the newly-melted Arctic.
The ASP recommends "prioritizing the measures that can protect readiness" of the
military to strike at any time, also warning that rising sea levels will hurt the combat
readiness of the Marine Expeditionary Force. Thus, a rebuilding of the U.S.' worldwide
network of military bases is in order.
Fort Detrik a US BIOWEAPONS lab working in tandem with the Wuhan lab. The US is the
leader in BIOWEAPONS research and has 100's of labs across the US and in other
countries.
FRAUDCI having worked at FD for 20 years.
MommickedDingbatter 12 hours ago
Without Nuremberg trials 2.0, this is all meaningless.
Nycmia37 16 hours ago remove link
Follow the science, lol. Just ask yourself who controls the science?? Big drug pharmas,
people is so stupid they believe in everything doctors tell them. The vast majority are on
the field to get rich and enjoy from the big bonuses and trips they get paid in order to
promote a drug. If they speak out they get called a conspiracy person. Nobody cant go
against this mafia because they have the total control, media, politicians, government. We
the people have to self educate about health and finance otherwise we will become zombies
like the majority of people.
SoDamnMad 7 hours ago remove link
Here are the 27 starting with Peter Daszak who signed THE LANCET letter saying ," We
stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not
have a natural origin. "
Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance, New York
Charles Calisher, Colorado State University
Dennis Carroll, Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs, Texas
Fauci is protected at the very highest levels of the oligarchy. So regardless of these
revelations nothing serious will ever happen to him. At worst, he will step down and retire
to his villa in the south of France. Then the controlled MSM will refuse to mention him
again.
Clearing 17 hours ago
Gee, while you're at it, sue Fauci in his individual capacity. He doesn't get immunity
for lying. See below:
In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government
officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from civil suits unless
the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". It is a form of
sovereign immunity less strict than absolute immunity that is intended to protect officials
who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions" extending to "all
[officials] but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law " Qualified
immunity applies only to government officials in civil litigation, and does not protect the
government itself from suits arising from officials' actions.
DemandSider 3 hours ago (Edited)
"PCR is separate from that, it's just a process that's used to make a whole lot of
something out of something. That's what it is. It doesn't tell you that you're sick and it
doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything
like that," Mullis said.
-Nobel Prize winning inventor of PCR being used as a "test" to perpetuate the scamdemic.
Mr. "small government" Rand Paul is only making it worse.
Almachius 2 hours ago
Never mind Fauci. White Supremacists are the greatest threat to America.
Obiden said so.
And Obiden is an honourable man.
Fiscal Reality 14 hours ago
Fauci doesn't give a crap what happens. He got his book deal payoff. He's praying to get
fired so he can cash in on his taxpayer funded pension and get a $10 million contract with
CNN.
2types PREMIUM 13 hours ago
Amazon pulled his book from presale so says the article. Probably in his best interest
to keep his mouth shut right now. Anything he says can and will be used against him. On
second thought.... maybe that's why water carrier Bezos suspended sales?
The climate of fear that today governs much of our academic world, with future grant applications and even careers at risk if
researchers depart from perceived orthodoxy on certain issues is a clear sign of Lysenkoism...
Those measures as well as control of scientific publications were "amazingly effective" in suppressing dissent and reaching desirable
for authorities academic consensus.
Notable quotes:
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Associated Press ..."
"... The Wall Street Journal ..."
"... The Associated Press ..."
"... The Wall Street Journal ..."
"... For decades, scientists have been hot-wiring viruses in hopes of preventing a pandemic, not causing one. But what if " ..."
"... New York Magazine ..."
"... New York Times, Science, ..."
"... Did people or nature open Pandora's box at Wuhan? ..."
"... as Wade demonstrates, that supposed consensus was largely illusory, having been shaped by two early items that appeared in prestigious scientific publications. On February 19, 2020, the Lancet ..."
"... Nature Medicine ..."
"... Wade notes that the former statement had actually been organized behind the scenes by Peter Daszak, an American closely associated with the Wuhan lab and therefore hardly a disinterested party, while the latter relied heavily upon very dubious scientific reasoning. ..."
"... Moreover, Wade also emphasizes the climate of fear that today governs much of our academic world, with future grant applications and even careers at risk if researchers depart from perceived orthodoxy on certain issues, perhaps including disputing the origins of Covid-19. He argues that although the Lancet ..."
"... Nature Medicine ..."
"... A Troublesome Inheritance ..."
"... We would also expect an animal virus that became dangerous to humans would require a lengthy series of intermediate mutational steps as it gradually evolved the ability to effectively infect our own species, just as had been the case with SARS and other previous diseases. But Covid-19 seems to have suddenly appeared in a maximally infectious form, perfectly pre-adapted to humans and apparently derived from a single original source. ..."
"... Finally, an important structural element of the virus, the "furin cleavage site," is entirely absent from all other members of its viral family ..."
"... Moreover, the particular genetic sequence found in that Covid-19 element is extremely rare in other coronaviruses, strongly suggesting that it was added from a different source. ..."
"... Exactly the same glaring omission is found in Wade's 11,000 word article. Taken together, Lemoine, Baker, and Wade have produced a large collection of high-quality articles on the origins of the global Covid-19 epidemic, but nowhere among their 54,000 words is there even a hint that the virus might possibly have had its origins in America's well-documented and lavishly funded biowarfare program. ..."
"... Associated Press ..."
"... Associated Press ..."
"... It therefore appears that elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency were aware of the deadly viral outbreak in Wuhan more than a month before any officials in the Chinese government itself. ..."
As every fan of the old Perry Mason show remembers, courtroom witnesses swear "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth."
There's a reason for that particular choice of words. A pattern of selective omissions in an otherwise entirely truthful presentation
can easily mislead us as much as any outright lie. And under certain circumstances, such omissions may be made necessary by powerful
outside forces, so that even the most well-intentioned writer is faced with the difficult choice of either excluding certain elements
from his analysis or having his important work denied a proper audience.
I have sometimes faced this dilemma myself , but
over the last few years, my lengthy American Pravda series
has charted those gaping lacunae in our received accounts of modern world history, as I have sought to provide
a historical counter-narrative of the last
one hundred years .
Careful reexaminations of events from fifty or sixty years ago may be interesting, but those of the present day have far greater
importance, and this is particularly true with regard to the Covid-19 epidemic that has engulfed the world since early 2020. Millions
have already died, including many hundreds of thousands of Americans, with
a newly released research study by the University of Washington's authoritative Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME)
now suggesting that our domestic death-toll has already exceeded 900,000. This global outbreak first began in Wuhan, and the nature
of its origin has become a major flashpoint in the new Cold War between China and America, with the trajectory of that conflict having
only slightly changed as Trump Neocons have been replaced by Biden Neocons at the helm of our foreign policy.
Two months ago I published a lengthy article summarizing much of the information from the first year of the outbreak and focusing
upon the heated debate regarding the origins of the virus. Aside from the reports of the teams of investigative journalists at the
New York Times , the Wall Street Journal , and the Associated Press , several very long articles by independent
journalists and researchers have constituted my main sources of information, including:
For decades, scientists have been hot-wiring viruses in hopes of preventing a pandemic, not causing one. But what if "
Nicholson Baker "New York Magazine "January 4, 2021 " 12,000 Words
This compendium of crucial research has now received a major addition, a 11,000 word analysis of the likely origins of Covid-19
by Nicholas Wade, a distinguished former science reporter and editor, who had spent more than four decades at the New York Times,
Science, and Nature , and the author of several excellent books dealing with anthropology and evolutionary biology.
The central focus of both Baker and Wade is indicated by their closely-related titles, namely the origins of the virus and whether
it was the product of a laboratory, presumably the Wuhan Institute of Virology, then later released in a tragic accident. Both these
authors strongly lean toward that latter possibility, but take somewhat different approaches. While Baker, a prominent novelist and
liberal public intellectual, must rely upon general arguments or merely reports the opinions of the experts that he interviewed,
Wade deploys his strong scientific background to build a persuasive case for that same conclusion.
From nearly the beginning of the epidemic, the position taken by the mainstream media had been that Covid-19 was very likely natural
in origin, and although President Trump and some of his political allies soon loudly claimed otherwise, the perceived scientific
consensus remained unchanged.
But as Wade demonstrates, that supposed consensus was largely illusory, having been shaped by two early items that appeared
in prestigious scientific publications. On February 19, 2020, the Lancet had published
a statement signed
by 27 virologists and other noted scientists that declared: "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting
that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin," and that "[scientists] overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in
wildlife." Then the following month Nature Medicine published
an analysis by five virologists providing some theoretical
arguments against any artificial origin, stating that: "Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or
a purposefully manipulated virus."
These published pieces became far more influential than was warranted. Wade notes that the former statement had actually been
organized behind the scenes by Peter Daszak, an American closely associated with the Wuhan lab and therefore hardly a disinterested
party, while the latter relied heavily upon very dubious scientific reasoning. But once these emphatic conclusions had appeared
in influential periodicals, few microbiologists were willing to challenge this newly established orthodoxy, especially because doing
so would have placed them in the same political camp as Trump, a much vilified figure in their community. Baker had earlier made
similar criticism and I had fully endorsed his verdict in my own March article, but Wade's analysis provides far greater depth.
Moreover, Wade also emphasizes the climate of fear that today governs much of our academic world, with future grant applications
and even careers at risk if researchers depart from perceived orthodoxy on certain issues, perhaps including disputing the origins
of Covid-19. He argues that although the Lancet and Nature Medicine letters were actually political statements
rather than scientific findings, they were "amazingly effective" in suppressing dissent and led the overwhelming majority of journalists
to accept them as reflecting a research consensus that actually did not exist.
Wade's own personal experiences have surely informed this shrewd analysis of the underlying political dynamics. His most recent
book A Troublesome Inheritance had appeared in 2014, and its subtitle "Genes, Race, and Human History" reflected the potentially
explosive nature of his subject matter. Although I considered it
an outstanding treatment of the controversial
topic , Wade's work soon attracted a lynch-mob of critics, who organized a denunciatory public statement that they persuaded
139 prominent genetic scientists to sign. All these individuals were soon humiliated
once it was proven
that not a single one of them had actually bothered examining the true contents of the book that they were so fiercely attacking.
In the case of Covid-19, Wade demonstrates that once the political barriers have been removed and we are allowed to consider the
evidence objectively, our conclusions are transformed. The scientific case for the natural origins of the virus becomes pitifully
weak, thereby automatically elevating the competing lab-leak hypothesis, which had previously been denounced and stigmatized as a
so-called "conspiracy theory."
For example, despite fifteen months of presumably intensive effort, the Chinese have failed to locate evidence of any wildlife
population hosting a closely-related precursor virus, which had easily been found in the previous cases of emergent viral epidemics
such as SARS and MERS. Indeed, the closest natural relative to Covid-19 only exists among bats in the caves of Yunnan, nearly 1,000
miles distant from the Wuhan outbreak.
We would also expect an animal virus that became dangerous to humans would require a lengthy series of intermediate mutational
steps as it gradually evolved the ability to effectively infect our own species, just as had been the case with SARS and other previous
diseases. But Covid-19 seems to have suddenly appeared in a maximally infectious form, perfectly pre-adapted to humans and apparently
derived from a single original source.
Finally, an important structural element of the virus, the "furin cleavage site," is entirely absent from all other members
of its viral family, and crucially contributes to its dangerously infectious nature. A natural origin for that structure seems
implausible, while the scientific literature is replete with such additions having been made in laboratory experiments, including
those conducted by the Wuhan researchers. Moreover, the particular genetic sequence found in that Covid-19 element is extremely
rare in other coronaviruses, strongly suggesting that it was added from a different source.
Having now twice read Wade's long article, I can say that I find nearly all of his scientific arguments quite compelling, and
I have almost no points of significant disagreement. Yet my overall conclusions are entirely different from his.
The explanation of this seeming paradox comes near the very beginning of his article, when he accurately states:
As many people know, there are two main theories about its origin. One is that it jumped naturally from wildlife to people.
The other is that the virus was under study in a lab, from which it escaped.
A paragraph later, the text contains his first major section heading, entitled "A Tale of Two Theories."
Although Wade is absolutely correct in stating that "there are two main theories" about the origins of Covid-19, this duality
has been enforced by political pressures quite similar to those that had earlier excluded discussion of the "lab-leak hypothesis,"
but with the sanctions being far harsher and more extreme.
Wade's analysis masterfully demonstrates that once we are actually willing to explore the much-vilified "conspiracy theory" of
an accidental lab-leak, we discover that it is far more plausible than the case of a natural origin, partly because the latter appears
so unlikely. And if these were the only two possible theories, all arguments against the one would necessarily support the other.
But this framework is upended once we recognize that there is a third logical possibility, far more vilified and excluded than that
of the "lab-leak hypothesis" but also far more plausible and supported by much stronger evidence.
In my March discussion of Baker's long article, I summarized how he first became involved in the topic, and described the crucial
omission I had noticed in his 12,000 word opus:
Baker may not have been a professional virologist or expert in biowarfare, but as the Covid-19 outbreak began he had just completed
Baseless , a lengthy non-fictional account of American national security secrets, which appeared to glowing reviews in
July 2020. One of his major elements was an account of America's massive 1950s bioweapons research program, which had been accorded
resources and importance matching that of our nuclear weapons efforts. Based upon his years of research, the author was not a
complete neophyte on biological warfare issues and was also fully aware of our own long history of laboratory accidents, which
had claimed a number of lives. So he was naturally alert to the possibility that a similar accident had occurred in Wuhan, which
contained China's most secure facility of that same type.
The greatest weakness of Baker's comprehensive analysis is not the controversial theory that he carefully examines, but the
even more controversial possibility that he seems to totally ignore. At one point, he notes the remarkable characteristics of
the pathogen, whose collection of features allowed it to so effectively target humans and which had first appeared in a city having
one of the very few world laboratories engaged in exactly that type of viral research, closing his paragraph with the sentence
"What are the odds?" But other, even more implausible coincidences were entirely excluded from his discussion, and the same had
also been true for Lemoine.
Both these authors seem to assume that there exist only two possible scenarios: a natural virus that suddenly appeared in Wuhan
during late 2019 or an accidental lab-leak of an enhanced disease agent in that same city. But there is an obvious third case
as well, clearly suggested by Baker's focus on America's own very active biowarfare program, which he extensively discussed both
in his long article and in his highly-regarded book. We must surely consider the possibility that the Covid-19 outbreak was not
at all accidental, but instead constituted a deliberate attack against China, occurring as it did near the absolute height of
the international tension with America, and therefore suggesting that elements of our own national security apparatus were the
most obvious suspects. Given the realities of the publishing industry, any serious exploration of such a scenario would probably
have precluded the appearance of the important Baker or Lemoine articles in any respectable publication, perhaps helping to explain
such silence. But as I have argued in my long American
Pravda series , many historical accounts that were blacklisted for exactly those sorts of reasons appear quite likely to be
true.
Exactly the same glaring omission is found in Wade's 11,000 word article. Taken together, Lemoine, Baker, and Wade have produced
a large collection of high-quality articles on the origins of the global Covid-19 epidemic, but nowhere among their 54,000 words
is there even a hint that the virus might possibly have had its origins in America's well-documented and lavishly funded biowarfare
program. For several years, our newspapers have proclaimed that we are now locked into a new Cold War against China, with some
risk that it might turn hot. But the obvious possible implications of the sudden, potentially-devastating outbreak of a dangerous
viral epidemic in our leading international adversary remains unmentionable, too explosive even to dismissed or ridiculed, let alone
carefully considered.
As I noted towards the end of my long March article:
I can easily understand why all these simple facts and their obvious implications regarding the likely origins of the worldwide
epidemic might be considered extremely uncomfortable, perhaps too uncomfortable to be discussed in our media outlets, and therefore
have been so widely ignored. Most of these crucial points were already presented in my original April 2020 article on the subject,
which quickly began to attract enormous traffic and interest in social media. Yet just days after it ran, our entire website was
suddenly banned from Facebook and all our web pages were deranked by Google, perhaps underscoring the very dangerous nature of
this material, and the reasons why so few others have been willing to raise the same points.
I find almost nothing to dispute in the comprehensive analyses provided by Lemoine, Baker, and Wade, but I do think my own work
represents a crucial supplement to their research, given that I have primarily focused on that third possibility, a possibility that
they were necessarily forced to avoid considering. Readers may judge for themselves, but I believe that my articles have demonstrated
that the evidence supporting that excluded hypothesis is considerably stronger than that favoring either of those other two possibilities,
whether the mainstream narrative of a natural virus or the much-vilified "conspiracy theory" of a lab-leak in Wuhan.
For convenience, I am excerpting substantial portions of my original April 2020 and my most recent March 2021 articles:
Although the coronavirus is only moderately lethal, apparently having a fatality rate of 1% or less, it is extremely contagious,
including during an extended pre-symptomatic period and also among asymptomatic carriers. Thus, portions of the US and Europe
are now suffering heavy casualties, while the policies adopted to control the spread have devastated their national economies.
The virus is unlikely to kill more than a small sliver of our population, but we have seen to our dismay how a major outbreak
can so easily wreck our entire economic life.
During January, the journalists reporting on China's mushrooming health crisis regularly emphasized that the mysterious new
viral outbreak had occurred at the worst possible place and time, appearing in the major transport hub of Wuhan just prior to
the Lunar New Year holiday, when hundreds of millions of Chinese would normally travel to their distant family homes for the celebration,
thereby potentially spreading the disease to all parts of the country and producing a permanent, uncontrollable epidemic. The
Chinese government avoided that grim fate by the unprecedented decision to shut down its entire national economy and confine 700
million Chinese to their own homes for many weeks. But the outcome seems to have been a very near thing, and if Wuhan had remained
open for just a few days longer, China might easily have suffered long-term economic and social devastation.
The timing of an accidental laboratory release would obviously be entirely random. Yet the outbreak seems to have begun during
the precise period of time most likely to damage China, the worst possible ten-day or perhaps thirty-day window. As
I noted in January, I
saw no solid evidence that the coronavirus was a bioweapon, but if it were, the timing of the release seemed very unlikely to
have been accidental.
Consider also the preceding waves of other unfortunate viral epidemics that had recently ravaged China:
[D]uring the previous two years, the Chinese economy had already suffered serious blows from other mysterious new diseases,
although these had targeted farm animals rather than people. During 2018 a new Avian Flu virus had swept the country, eliminating
large portions of China's poultry industry, and during 2019 the Swine Flu viral epidemic had devastated China's pig farms, destroying
40% of the nation's primary domestic source of meat, with widespread claims that the latter disease was being spread by mysterious
small drones. My morning newspapers had hardly ignored these important business stories,
noting that the
sudden collapse of much of China's domestic food production might prove a huge boon to American farm exports at the height of
our trade conflict, but I had never considered the obvious implications. So for three years in a row, China had been severely
impacted by strange new viral diseases, though only the most recent had been deadly to humans. This evidence was merely circumstantial,
but the pattern seemed highly suspicious.
Another even more remarkable coincidence has received far greater distribution, becoming a staple of anti-American "conspiracy
theories" and even resulting in a diplomatic incident involving the Chinese Foreign Ministry.
According to the widely accepted current chronology, the Covid-19 epidemic began in Wuhan during late October or early November
of 2019. But the World Military Games were also held in Wuhan during that same period, ending in late October, with 300 American
military servicemen attending. As I've repeatedly emphasized in
my articles and comments for more than a year , how would Americans react if 300 Chinese military officers had paid an extended
visit to Chicago, and soon afterward a mysterious and deadly epidemic had suddenly erupted in that city?
It surely would have been very easy for our intelligence services to have slipped a couple of their operatives into that large
American military contingent, and the presence of many thousands of foreign military personnel, traveling around the large city
and doing sightseeing, would have been ideally suited to providing cover for the quiet release of a highly-infectious viral bioweapon.
None of this constitutes proof, but the coincidental timing is quite remarkable.
Biological warfare is a highly technical subject, and those possessing such expertise are unlikely to candidly report their
classified research activities in the pages of our major newspapers, perhaps even less so after Prof. Lieber was dragged off to
prison in chains. My own knowledge is nil. But in mid-March I came across several extremely long and detailed comments on the
coronavirus outbreak that had been posted on a small website by an individual calling himself "OldMicrobiologist" and who claimed
to be a retired forty-year veteran of American biodefense. The style and details of his material struck me as quite credible,
and after a little further investigation I concluded that there was a high likelihood his background was exactly as he had described.
I made arrangements to republish his comments in the form of
a 3,400 word article
, which soon attracted a great deal of traffic and 80,000 words of further comments.
Although the writer emphasized the lack of any hard evidence, he said that his experience led him to strongly suspect that
the coronavirus outbreak was indeed an American biowarfare attack against China, probably carried out by agents brought into that
country under cover of the Military Games held at Wuhan in late October, the sort of sabotage operation our intelligence agencies
had sometimes undertaken elsewhere. One important point he made was that high lethality was often counter-productive in a bioweapon
since debilitating or hospitalizing large numbers of individuals may impose far greater economic costs on a country than a biological
agent which simply inflicts an equal number of deaths. In his words "a high communicability, low lethality disease is perfect
for ruining an economy," suggesting that the apparent characteristics of the coronavirus were close to optimal in this regard.
Those so interested should read his analysis and assess for themselves his credibility and persuasiveness.
Some of this same speculation eventually reached Chinese social media, and led to articles in Chinese government publications,
which immediately provoked a very hostile response by Trump Administration officials.
This latter sequence of events is carefully recounted in
a massive 17,000 word, 54 page report released a few weeks ago by DFRLab, a social media-oriented research unit within the
establishmentarian Atlantic Council, with the work being based upon nine months of research and preparation by a dozen staffers,
together with the Associated Press investigations team. The study seemed aimed at tracking the appearance and Internet
dissemination of a wide range of supposedly false or unsubstantiated "conspiracy theories" regarding the Covid-19 outbreak, and
AP journalists soon publicized
the results , denouncing "the superspreaders" of such allegedly spurious and potentially dangerous beliefs.
But while this project did produce a very useful compendium of the chronology and source references of the various unorthodox
narratives surrounding the disease, many of which were certainly erroneous or implausible, few effective rebuttal arguments were
provided, notably regarding the extremely suspicious timing of the American military presence in Wuhan. Blogger Steve Sailer and
others have often ridiculed this "point-and-sputter" school of refutation, in which non-mainstream theories need only be described
in order to be considered conclusively disproved.
Although the Atlantic Council/Associated Press team certainly included numerous skilled social media researchers, journalists,
and editors, there is no indication that any of these individuals possessed serious national security credentials, let alone specialized
expertise in the arcane topic of biowarfare. This may help to explain why the weighty report which drew upon such enormous resources
was almost entirely descriptive and made so little effort to analyze or evaluate the plausibility of the various conflicting "conspiracy
narratives" that it treated at great length.
One further oddity of the very comprehensive DFRLab/Atlantic Council report was its own rather curious omissions. Given that its
entire focus was on the full range of absurd "conspiracy theories," the authors naturally explored speculation regarding an American
biowarfare attack, and attributed this theory partly to Kevin Barrett, whom the report characterized as "a US Holocaust denier who
has also claimed that the September 11 attacks were an "˜inside job' by the George W. Bush Administration."
The resulting news story
by its Associated Press partners prominently featured Barrett as one of the America's leading "super-spreaders" of Covid-19
conspiracy-nonsense. Yet Barrett's only real role had been to quote and endorse my own very substantial writings in that area, and
although
he unsuccessfully urged the AP journalists to contact me directly , my name was entirely absent from either the news
articles or the lengthy underlying research report. Since my own writings had constituted the longest and most comprehensive presentation
of the American Biowarfare Hypothesis, such an omission appears curious. I suspect that the editors concluded that any attack on
me would bring my articles to much wider attention, and therefore ruled it out as being obviously counter-productive.
I find it highly unlikely that the DFRLab staffers were unaware of my existence. Their comprehensive report appeared in February
2021, and since it was based upon nine months of investigation, the project would have begun in May 2020. But on April 21, 2020,
I had published
my long original
article making the case for an American biowarfare attack, and its rapidly growing popularity on Facebook only came to an end
after the social media giant quickly banned our entire website, a sudden action that had been based upon
a very doubtful report produced
by that very same DFRLab team , with which
Facebook has long partnered . Indeed
this remarkable coincidence of timing raises the interesting possibility that the appearance of my article and its considerable popularity
had actually prompted DFRLab to undertake its nine month investigation into the general subject of Covid-19 "conspiracy theories."
Furthermore:
The extensive material collected by the Atlantic Council researchers lent further support to an important point
I had made
last April about the curious nature of the early Covid-19 coverage:
One intriguing aspect of the situation was that almost from the first moment that reports of the strange new epidemic in China
reached the international media, a large and orchestrated campaign had been launched on numerous websites and Social Media platforms
to identify the cause as a Chinese bioweapon carelessly released in its own country. Meanwhile, the far more plausible hypothesis
that China was the victim rather than the perpetrator had received virtually no organized support anywhere, and only began to
take shape as I gradually located and republished relevant material, usually drawn from very obscure quarters and often anonymously
authored. So it seemed that only the side hostile to China was waging an active information war. The outbreak of the disease and
the nearly simultaneous launch of such a major propaganda campaign may not necessarily prove that an actual biowarfare attack
had occurred, but I do think it tends to support such a theory.
During January, American media outlets, including those under the authority of Secretary of State and former CIA Director Mike
Pompeo, began focusing attention on the Wuhan lab as the potential source of the viral outbreak, while journalists disputing this
narrative and attempting to raise other possibilities had serious difficulties even getting their articles published on alternative
websites:
Scientific investigation of the coronavirus had already pointed to its origins in a bat virus, leading to widespread media
speculation that bats sold as food in the Wuhan open markets had been the original disease vector. Meanwhile, the orchestrated
waves of anti-China accusations had emphasized Chinese laboratory research on that same viral source. But we soon published
a lengthy article by investigative journalist Whitney Webb providing copious evidence of America's own enormous biowarfare
research efforts, which had similarly focused for years on bat viruses. Webb was then associated with MintPress News
, but that publication had strangely declined to publish her important piece, perhaps skittish about the grave suspicions it directed
towards the US government on so momentous an issue. So without the benefit of our platform, her major contribution to the public
debate might have attracted relatively little readership.
All the evidence thus far presented has merely been circumstantial, strongly establishing that elements of the American national
security establishment had the means, motive, and opportunity to stage a biowarfare attack in Wuhan. However, in April 2020 certain
additional facts appeared that some have characterized as "smoking gun" proof of that disturbing scenario:
But with the horrific consequences of our own later governmental inaction being obvious, elements within our intelligence agencies
have sought to demonstrate that they were not the ones asleep at the switch. Earlier this month,
an ABC News story cited four separate government sources to reveal that as far back as late November, a special medical
intelligence unit within our Defense Intelligence Agency had produced a report warning that an out-of-control disease epidemic
was occurring in the Wuhan area of China, and widely distributed that document throughout the top ranks of our government, warning
that steps should be taken to protect US forces based in Asia. After the story aired, a Pentagon spokesman officially denied the
existence of that November report, while various other top level government and intelligence officials refused to comment. But
a few days later,
Israeli television mentioned that in November American intelligence had indeed shared such a report on the Wuhan disease outbreak
with its NATO and Israeli allies, thus seeming to independently confirm the complete accuracy of the original ABC News
story and its several government sources.
It therefore appears that elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency were aware of the deadly viral outbreak in Wuhan
more than a month before any officials in the Chinese government itself. Unless our intelligence agencies have pioneered
the technology of precognition, I think this may have happened for the same reason that arsonists have the earliest knowledge
of future fires.
According to these multiply-sourced mainstream media accounts, by "the second week of November" our Defense Intelligence Agency
was already preparing a secret report warning of a "cataclysmic" disease outbreak taking place in Wuhan. Yet at that point, probably
no more than a couple of dozen individuals had been infected in that city of 11 million, with few of those yet having any serious
symptoms. The implications are rather obvious. Furthermore:
As the coronavirus gradually began to spread beyond China's own borders, another development occurred that greatly multiplied
my suspicions. Most of these early cases had occurred exactly where one might expect, among the East Asian countries bordering
China. But by late February Iran had become the second epicenter of the global outbreak. Even more surprisingly, its political
elites had been especially hard-hit, with
a full 10% of the entire Iranian
parliament soon infected and at least
a dozen of its officials and politicians dying of the disease, including some who were
quite senior
. Indeed, Neocon activists on Twitter began gleefully noting that their hatred Iranian enemies were now dropping like flies.
Let us consider the implications of these facts. Across the entire world the only political elites that have yet suffered any
significant human losses have been those of Iran, and they died at a very early stage, before significant outbreaks had even occurred
almost anywhere else in the world outside China. Thus, we have America assassinating Iran's top military commander on Jan. 2nd
and then just a few weeks later large portions of the Iranian ruling elites became infected by a mysterious and deadly new virus,
with many of them soon dying as a consequence. Could any rational individual possibly regard this as a mere coincidence?
Most of the material quoted above had originally appeared in my April 2020 article and was afterwards extended and further discussed
in my later pieces, the most recent appearing in March 2021. Taken together, they have been read at least a couple of hundred thousand
times, and have provoked more than 500,000 words of comments. Yet the undeniable facts I presented have remained almost entirely
excluded from the ongoing public debate, presumably for the practical political reasons I have suggested, so it is difficult to know
exactly who has become aware of them.
Donald Trump's departure from the White House seems to have finally encouraged our timorous mainstream media organs to admit that
their longstanding presumption of the entirely natural origin of Covid-19 might not be correct, and
they
have begun giving some consideration to the long-derided competing theory of a man-made virus released in an accidental lab-leak.
But under these changed circumstances, I consider it entirely unreasonable if they continue ignoring that very real third possibility
of an American biowarfare attack. The key pieces of evidence I have provided that favor this hypothesis over the competing lab-leak
scenario may easily be summarized:
(1) For three years, China had been locked in growing conflict with America over trade and geopolitics, and for three years in
a row, China had been hit very hard by mysterious viruses. An Avian Flu virus severely damaged its poultry industry in 2018 and the
following year a Swine Flu virus destroyed over 40% of its pig herds, China's primary meat source. The third year, Covid-19 appeared.
Certainly a suspicious pattern if the last were just a random lab-leak.
(2) The Covid-19 outbreak appeared at absolutely the worst time and place for China, the major transit hub of Wuhan, timed almost
perfectly to reach high local levels of infection just as the travelers for the Lunar New Year holiday spread the disease to all
other parts of the country, thereby producing an unstoppable epidemic. The timing of an accidental lab-leak would obviously be random.
(3) 300 American military servicemen had just visited Wuhan as part of the World Military Games, providing a perfect opportunity
for releasing a viral bioweapon. Consider what Americans would think if 300 Chinese military officers had visited Chicago, and immediately
afterwards a mysterious, deadly viral disease suddenly broke out in that city. It would be a strange coincidence if that the American
military visit and an entirely unrelated accidental lab-leak had occurred at exactly the same time.
(4) The characteristics of Covid-19, including high communicability and low lethality, are absolutely ideal in an anti-economy
bioweapon. It seems odd that a random lab-leak would release a virus so perfectly designed to severely damage the Chinese economy.
(5) From almost the very moment that the outbreak began, anti-China bloggers in America and the US-funded Radio Free Asia network
had launched a powerful international propaganda offensive against China, claiming that the outbreak in Wuhan was due to the leak
of an illegal bioweapon from the Wuhan lab. This may have merely been an exceptionally prompt but opportunistic response of our propaganda
organs, but they seemed remarkably quick to take full advantage of an entirely unexpected and mysterious development, which they
immediately identified as being due to a lab-leak.
(6) By "the second week of November" our Defense Intelligence Agency had already begun preparing a secret report warning of a
"cataclysmic" disease outbreak in Wuhan although according to the standard timeline at that point probably only a couple of dozen
people had started experiencing any symptoms of illness in a city of 11 million. How did they discover what was happening in Wuhan
so much sooner than the Chinese government or anyone else?
(7) Almost immediately afterwards, the ruling political elites in Iran became severely infected, with many of them dying. Why
did the accidental Wuhan lab-leak jump to the Iran's political elites so quickly, before it had reached almost anywhere else in the
world.
Given the conclusions suggested above, I also think it would be useful for me to provide my own summary of a plausible scenario
for the Covid-19 outbreak. Although I had already presented this outline
in a September 2020 article , I see no need for any revisions. Obviously, this reconstruction is quite speculative, but I think
it best fits all the available evidence, while individual elements may be modified, dropped, or replaced without necessarily compromising
the overall hypothesis.
(1) Rogue elements within our large national security apparatus probably affiliated with the Deep State Neocons decided to inflict
severe damage upon the huge Chinese economy using biowarfare. The plan was to infect the key transport hub of Wuhan with Covid-19
so that the disease would invisibly spread throughout the entire country during the annual Lunar New Year travels, and they used
the cover of the Wuhan International Military Games to slip a couple of operatives into the city to release the virus. My guess is
that only a relatively small number of individuals were involved in this plot.
(2) The biological agent they released was designed primarily as an anti-economy rather than an anti-personnel weapon. Although
Covid-19 has rather low fatality rates, it is extremely contagious, has a long pre-symptomatic infectious period, and can even spread
by asymptomatic carriers, making it ideally suited for that purpose. Thus, once it established itself throughout most of China, it
would be extremely difficult to eradicate and the resulting efforts to control it would inflict enormous damage upon China's economy
and society.
(3) As a secondary operation, they decided to target Iran's political elites, possibly deploying a somewhat more deadly variant
of the virus. Since political elites generally tend to be elderly, they would anyway suffer far greater fatalities.
(5) Only a small number of individuals were directly involved in this plot, and soon after the disease was successfully released
in Wuhan, they decided to further safeguard America's own interests by alerting the appropriate units with the Defense Intelligence
Agency, probably by fabricating some sort of supposed "intelligence leak." Basically, they arranged for the DIA to hear that Wuhan
was apparently suffering a "cataclysmic" disease outbreak, thereby leading the DIA to prepare and distribute a secret report warning
our own forces and allies to take appropriate precautions.
(6) Unfortunately for these plans, the Chinese government reacted with astonishing determination and effectiveness, and soon stamped
out the disease. Meanwhile, the lackadaisical and incompetent American government largely ignored the problem, only reacting after
the massive outbreak in Northern Italy had gotten media attention. Since the CDC had botched production of a testing kit, we had
no means of recognizing that the disease was already spreading in our country, and the result was massive damage to America's economy
and society. In effect, America suffered exactly the fate that had originally been intended for its Chinese rival.
Fauci is a reincarnations of Academisian Lysenko in much more sinister and dangerous form. He is a political hack masquerading as
bioscience researcher.
Appearing on Newsmax TV, Paul said "I'm just glad that Dr. Fauci has now chosen to accept vaccine science "" basic vaccine science
says you can't get it after you've been vaccinated; that's why we get vaccinated."
He was performing theater, wearing masks because he didn't want people to see him without a mask," Paul noted, adding "It wasn't
the masks worked or that he needed it. You heard the way he phrased it. He didn't want someone to see him without the mask. So,
really, it was theater."
"If we send them a signal that they're just making up this science and they're treating us like imbeciles, and they're doing
things for show, it actually discourages some of the people who are hesitant to get vaccinated," Paul further argued.
When it comes to vaccines, the Senator said that it should be up to Americans whether or not they get the shot, and there shouldn't
be any mandatory decree.
"I think high-risk people should, voluntarily; I wouldn't tell anybody they had to," Paul emphasised, adding "I wouldn't be
out there telling 12-year-olds we're not going to let you go to summer camp or we're not going to let you go to school or get
on a plane unless you're vaccinated."
"We need to really not treat this as a one-size fits all. This really should be individualized, and that's way healthcare should
be in a free society," The Senator further urged.
Fauxci is now making a strategic withdrawal on masks to divert attention away from his responsibility for the illegal NIH funding
of the gain of function research at WIV - where he is using the oldest bureaucrat trick in the book, "it wasn't me!!" (because
he obfuscated it by using a third party to attempt to create "plausible deniability").
Rand Paul should not let him get away with that because he should understand that Grants to third parties are subject to TOR,
progress reports and defined "Deliverables" - reported against in the final report. So Fauxci will have been fully informed throughout.
The virus source issue and illegal funding is the ONE thing that MIGHT get him busted; and he knows it. Don't let it drop Senator!!
asteroids 10 hours ago
That wasn't theatre, Fauci was LYING to you. That's what fraudsters do.
play_arrow
BigJJ 10 hours ago
And he killed many more than that with him steering funds to gain of function "research" under the Obama regime for his genocidal
white man wannabe master in the White House.
Lordflin 14 hours ago remove link
If I were Fauci I would be looking to go underground...
Dr Sen Paul needs to follow up with the fact that Fauci lied under oath in that senate hearing. If the weasel Keebler Elf word
salads his way around "intent" then he needs to be accused of incompetence. Fact is Fauci lied, is incompetent & most importantly,
is a criminal against humanity.
rockstone 12 hours ago (Edited)
You and I are on the same page but Fauci is far from "incompetent." He helped engineer and front one of the biggest and most
dangerous scams in history. It's just you can only keep up the front so long. I try, it's hard but I try, to never see these people
as dumb, or idiots, or stupid. They aren't Fredo. They're crazy like foxes and flat out evil and....... this time they succeeded.
You're correct that he is a vicious criminal. He should hang from a lamppost.
russellthetreeman PREMIUM 14 hours ago (Edited)
Apparently the cdc has recently admitted only 6% of covid deaths were actually caused by covid. All others had serious co-morbidities...it's
all been theatre. Or flat out lies. Depends how you look at it I guess, LOL!
I remember someone called it a hoax early last year. play_arrow
Al Jolson 14 hours ago
Fauci should be hanged for what he's done.
when is Summit News or ZH going to report on the tens of thousands of deaths and serious adverse events directly associated
with this injection?
I've asked that here almost every day for months!!
It doesn't make medical sense to "vaccinate" people who are already immune (variously estimated as up to 80% - think the Diamond
Princess) and it is unethical to "vaccinate" pregnant women and children. It also makes more medical sense to issue "Passports"
to those with natural immunity because they are truly long-term immune and cannot transmit. In contarst, neither applies to "vaccinated"
people who are shedding" spike proteins (being produced irreversibly in huge volumes) and causing problems in the unvaccinated
because it is the spike proteins that cause the AEs.
So, in view of all of the above it is clear that the obsession with "vaccinating" every man, woman and child has NOTHING to
do with "Public Health".
freedommusic 13 hours ago remove link
Dr. Anthony Fauci lacks knowledge of medicine and is willing to lie on television.
""Kary Mullis, PCR inventor, 1993 Nobel Prize
Died August 7, 2019
SacredCowPies 13 hours ago
... petition filed in India's Supreme Court by Dr Jacob Puliyel , a former member of the National Technical Advisory Group
on Immunisation , also prayed that the court may declare vaccination mandates as unconstitutional.
Paul said "I'm just glad that Dr. Fauci has now chosen to accept vaccine science "" basic vaccine science says you can't
get it after you've been vaccinated; that's why we get vaccinated."
There's your outright lie and propaganda. Just get "vaccinated" with the experimental gene therapy and other concoctions because
then you don't need a mask...
It has long been known that the vaccinated test positive.
Feb 26, 2021
In the days and weeks after Covid-19 vaccines became available, healthcare professionals observed that some vaccinated individuals
tested positive by both PCR and rapid antigen tests
I worked at a university for almost 7 years and it's ALL about funding, seriously that's ALL anyone talked about was getting
funding and getting people to apply for grant writing gigs to get funding. They absolutely do what's asked of them for funding.
GreatUncle 12 hours ago
Tells you that scientists are not those who should be trusted because a nice paycheck makes you disregard science.
Proven through this pandemic, also proven with much of the global warming BS too.
Scientists sold out ... if anybody says I am a scientist ask them if they sold out their specialist area too!
seryanhoj 11 hours ago (Edited)
Here's how;-
""Of course the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that
he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?
Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter
to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any
country."
Herman Goering
Sign Felled 14 hours ago remove link
It's NEVER been about the science. I wish respected scientists and researchers around the world would stand up and condemn
gov'ts for invoking "science" in the name of politics. Otherwise, I fear the scientific process will forever be lost and the
conclusions drawn from the process will never be trusted again. Sadly, I don't hold out much hope that will happen. Many of
these previously respected scientists have been complicit in politicizing their own discipline.
"Johnson...caved to big government as soon as technocrats frightened the world with
nonsense...."
True, but the old pre-Wuflu paradigm was to trust the experts. Now that they've squandered
their scientific inheritance and demonstrated that they are political hacks like the rest, we
know better and will do it differently in the future.
Ian Campbell SUBSCRIBER 9 hours ago
We need to make sure you're right. There is a whole 'how science is managed in/by government'
topic to be totally discussed and reformed.
Allowing one group to both exclusively advise gov't without counter opinions publicly
in the mix, while also going on TV, radio and other media and 'advising' the public also is
totally un-acceptable.
The same has happened over agriculture, and energy both of which have become captured by
one side of the relevant debates - the side with the loudest voices, crony contacts and
deepest pockets. It needs to be across the board reform and putting the techno's back in the
most useful box they should be inhabiting. And making sure they are doing only science, not
advocacy.
Michael Yeadon, wasn't just any scientist. The 60-year-old is a former vice president of Pfizer, where he spent 16 years as an
allergy and respiratory researcher. He later co-founded a biotech firm that the Swiss drugmaker Novartis purchased for at least $325
million.
This is amazing interview for a scientist who really knows his staff... His warning is
essentially a very powerful warning against Lysenkoism in science.
I disagree with him on some minor points like wearing masks in closed spaces as well as the spectrum of applicability of
vaccines (I think that healthcare workers, teachers and other people who systematically interact with a lot of (possibly infected)
people might benefit from vaccination, which should in any case be strocly voluntary. But I agree that vaccinating people who
already have had COVID-19 and children s very questionable and probably indefensible practice -- flavor of Lysenkoism which is
called Fauchism. Also stress of vaccines and downgrading therapy is also Faucism, or worse.
I also disagree with his statement that vaccine should be effective against all strains. Now we know that htis not the case. For
exampe South afrecan mutation successfully infects people vaccinated wit the the first generation vaccines.
He is against medicines which are used with violation of safety protocols. He is anti unsafe
medicines, no matter what they are.
We never have such an absurd attribution of death to COVID, when that fact the diseased is
false positive serve as the key reason of death
Lockdowns were political hysteria. Witch hunt against witches which never arrived. They were
unscientific and fradulent. Lockdown were never used before because they are ineffective. Instead
in the past guaranteed the sick. Mass testing of people without symptoms is Lysenkoism and defies
common sense.
Non-symptomatic people will not infect you. That's faucism and new flavor of Lysenkoism.
Asymptomatic transmission is bunk. It can happen but this never exceed fraction of one
percent.
It is all about increasing of the level of fear and increasing political control as in famous
quote. The only open question to what end this control will used for.
PCR technology is similar to technology used in forensic investigation using genetic
material. They just ignore false positives. Nobody in the world releases the percentage of false
positive of PcR test and dependence of the number of false positive on the number of
amplification.
I never expected to be writing something like this. I am an ordinary person, recently semi-retired from a career in the
pharmaceutical industry and biotech, where I spent over 30 years trying to solve problems of disease understanding and seek new
treatments for allergic and inflammatory disorders of lung and skin. I've always been interested in problem solving, so when
anything biological comes along, my attention is drawn to it. Come 2020, came SARS-CoV-2. I've written
about the pandemic as objectively as I could. The scientific method never leaves a person who trained and worked as a
professional scientist. Please do read that piece. My co-authors & I will submit it to the normal rigours of peer review, but that
process is slow and many pieces of new science this year have come to attention through pre-print servers and other less
conventional outlets.
While paying close attention to data, we all initially focused on the sad matter of deaths. I found it remarkable that, in
discussing the COVID-19 related deaths, most people I spoke to had no idea of large numbers. Asked approximately how many people a
year die in the UK in the ordinary course of events, each a personal tragedy, They usually didn't know. I had to inform them it is
around 620,000, sometimes less if we had a mild winter, sometimes quite a bit higher if we had a severe 'flu season. I mention this
number because we know that around 42,000 people have died with or of COVID-19. While it's a huge number of people, its 'only' 0.06%
of the UK population. Its not a coincidence that this is almost the same proportion who have died with or of COVID-19 in each of the
heavily infected European countries – for example, Sweden. The annual all-causes mortality of 620,000 amounts to 1,700 per day,
lower in summer and higher in winter. That has always been the lot of humans in the temperate zones. So for context, 42,000 is about
~24 days worth of normal mortality. Please know I am not minimising it, just trying to get some perspective on it. Deaths of this
magnitude are not uncommon, and can occur in the more severe flu seasons. Flu vaccines help a little, but on only three occasions in
the last decade did vaccination reach 50% effectiveness. They're good, but they've never been magic bullets for respiratory viruses.
Instead, we have learned to live with such viruses, ranging from numerous common colds all the way to pneumonias which can kill.
Medicines and human caring do their best.
So, to this article. Its about the testing we do with something called PCR, an amplification technique, better known to biologists
as a research tool used in our labs, when trying to unpick mechanisms of disease. I was frankly astonished to realise they're
sometimes used in population screening for diseases – astonished because it is a very exacting technique, prone to invisible errors
and it's quite a tall order to get reliable information out of it, especially because of the prodigious amounts of amplification
involved in attempting to pick up a strand of viral genetic code. The test cannot distinguish between a living virus and a short
strand of RNA from a virus which broke into pieces weeks or months ago.
I believe I have identified a serious, really a fatal flaw in the PCR test used in what is called by the UK Government the Pillar 2
screening – that is, testing many people out in their communities. I'm going to go through this with care and in detail because I'm
a scientist and dislike where this investigation takes me. I'm not particularly political and my preference is for competent, honest
administration over the actual policies chosen. We're a reasonable lot in UK and not much given to extremes. What I'm particularly
reluctant about is that, by following the evidence, I have no choice but to show that the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, misled the
House of Commons and also made misleading statements in a radio interview. Those are serious accusations. I know that. I'm not a
ruthless person. But I'm writing this anyway, because what I have uncovered is of monumental importance to the health and wellbeing
of all the people living in the nation I have always called home.
Back to the story, and then to the evidence. When the first (and I think, only) wave of COVID-19 hit the UK, I was with almost
everyone else in being very afraid. I'm 60 and in reasonable health, but on learning that I had about a 1% additional risk of
perishing if I caught the virus, I discovered I was far from ready to go. So, I wasn't surprised or angry when the first lockdown
arrived. It must have been a very difficult thing to decide. However, before the first three-week period was over, I'd begun to
develop an understanding of what was happening. The rate of infection, which has been calculated to have infected well over 100,000
new people every day around the peak, began to fall, and was declining before lockdown. Infection continued to spread out, at an
ever-reducing rate and we saw this in the turning point of daily deaths, at a grim press conference each afternoon. We now know that
lockdown made no difference at all to the spread of the virus. We can tell this because the interval between catching the virus and,
in those who don't make it, their death is longer than the interval between lockdown and peak daily deaths. There isn't any
controversy about this fact, easily demonstrated, but I'm aware some people like to pretend it was lockdown that turned the
pandemic, perhaps to justify the extraordinary price we have all paid to do it. That price wasn't just economic. It involved
avoidable deaths from diseases other than COVID-19, as medical services were restricted, in order to focus on the virus. Some say
that lockdown, directly and indirectly, killed as many as the virus. I don't know. Its not something I've sought to learn. But I
mention because interventions in all our lives should not be made lightly. Its not only inconvenience, but real suffering, loss of
livelihoods, friendships, anchors of huge importance to us all, that are severed by such acts. We need to be certain that the prize
is worth the price. While it is uncertain it was, even for the first lockdown, I too supported it, because we did not know what we
faced, and frankly, almost everyone else did it, except Sweden. I am now resolutely against further interventions in what I have
become convinced is a fruitless attempt to 'control the virus'. We are, in my opinion – shared by others, some of whom are well
placed to assess the situation – closer to the end of the pandemic in terms of deaths, than we are to its middle. I believe we
should provide the best protection we can for any vulnerable people, and otherwise cautiously get on with our lives. I think we are
all going to get a little more Swedish over time.
In recent weeks, though, it cannot have escaped anyone's attention that there has been a drum beat which feels for all the world
like a prelude to yet more fruitless and damaging restrictions. Think back to mid-summer. We were newly out of lockdown and despite
concerns for crowded beaches, large demonstrations, opening of shops and pubs, the main item on the news in relation to COVID-19 was
the reassuring and relentless fall in daily deaths. I noticed that, as compared to the slopes of the declining death tolls in many
nearby countries, that our slope was too flat. I even mentioned to scientist friends that inferred the presence of some fixed signal
that was being mixed up with genuine COVID-19 deaths. Imagine how gratifying it was when the definition of a COVID-19 death was
changed to line up with that in other countries and in a heartbeat our declining death toll line became matched with that elsewhere.
I was sure it would: what we have experienced and witnessed is a terrible kind of equilibrium. A virus that kills few, then leaves
survivors who are almost certainly immune – a virus to which perhaps 30-50% were already immune because it has relatives and some of
us have already encountered them – accounts for the whole terrible but also fascinating biological process. There was a very interesting
piece in the BMJ in
recent days that offers potential support for this contention.
Now we have learned some of the unusual characteristics of the new virus, better treatments (anti-inflammatory steroids,
anti-coagulants and in particular, oxygen masks and not ventilators in the main) the 'case fatality rate' even for the most hard-hit
individuals is far lower now than it was six months ago.
As there is no foundational, medical or scientific literature which tells us to expect a 'second wave', I began to pay more
attention to the phrase as it appeared on TV, radio and print media – all on the same day – and has been relentlessly repeated ever
since. I was interviewed
recently by Julia Hartley-Brewer on her talkRADIO show and on that occasion I called on the Government to disclose to us the
evidence upon which they were relying to predict this second wave. Surely they have some evidence? I don't think they do. I searched
and am very qualified to do so, drawing on academic friends, and we were all surprised to find that there is nothing at all. The
last two novel coronaviruses, Sar (2003) and MERS (2012), were of one wave each. Even the WW1 flu 'waves' were almost certainly a
series of single waves involving more than one virus. I believe any second wave talk is pure speculation. Or perhaps it is in a
model somewhere, disconnected from the world of evidence to me? It would be reasonable to expect some limited 'resurgence' of a
virus given we don't mix like cordial in a glass of water, but in a more lumpy, human fashion. You're most in contact with family,
friends and workmates and they are the people with whom you generally exchange colds.
A long period of imposed restrictions, in addition to those of our ordinary lives did prevent the final few percent of virus mixing
with the population. With the movements of holidays, new jobs, visiting distant relatives, starting new terms at universities and
schools, that final mixing is under way. It should not be a terrifying process. It happens with every new virus, flu included. It's
just that we've never before in our history chased it around the countryside with a technique more suited to the biology lab than to
a supermarket car park.
A very long prelude, but necessary. Part of the 'project fear' that is rather too obvious, involving second waves, has been the
daily count of 'cases'. Its important to understand that, according to the infectious disease specialists I've spoken to, the word
'case' has to mean more than merely the presence of some foreign organism. It must present signs (things medics notice) and symptoms
(things you notice). And in most so-called cases, those testing positive had no signs or symptoms of illness at all. There was much
talk of asymptomatic spreading, and as a biologist this surprised me. In almost every case, a person is symptomatic because they
have a high viral load and either it is attacking their body or their immune system is fighting it, generally a mix. I don't doubt
there have been some cases of asymptomatic transmission, but I'm confident it is not important.
That all said, Government decided to call a person a 'case' if their swab sample was positive for viral RNA, which is what is
measured in PCR. A person's sample can be positive if they have the virus, and so it should. They can also be positive if they've
had the virus some weeks or months ago and recovered. It's faintly possible that high loads of related, but different coronaviruses,
which can cause some of the common colds we get, might also react in the PCR test, though it's unclear to me if it does.
But there's a final setting in which a person can be positive and that's a random process. This may have multiple causes, such as
the amplification technique not being perfect and so amplifying the 'bait' sequences placed in with the sample, with the aim of
marrying up with related SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA. There will be many other contributions to such positives. These are what are called
false positives.
Think of any diagnostic test a doctor might use on you. The ideal diagnostic test correctly confirms all who have the disease and
never wrongly indicates that healthy people have the disease. There is no such test. All tests have some degree of weakness in
generating false positives. The important thing is to know how often this happens, and this is called the false positive rate. If 1
in 100 disease-free samples are wrongly coming up positive, the disease is not present, we call that a 1% false positive rate. The
actual or operational false positive rate differs, sometimes substantially, under different settings, technical operators, detection
methods and equipment. I'm focusing solely on the false positive rate in Pillar 2, because most people do not have the virus
(recently around 1 in 1000 people and earlier in summer it was around 1 in 2000 people). It is when the amount of disease, its
so-called prevalence, is low that any amount of a false positive rate can be a major problem. This problem can be so severe that
unless changes are made, the test is hopelessly unsuitable to the job asked of it. In this case, the test in Pillar 2 was and
remains charged with the job of identifying people with the virus, yet as I will show, it is unable to do so.
Because of the high false positive rate and the low prevalence, almost every positive test, a so-called case, identified by Pillar 2
since May of this year has been a FALSE POSITIVE. Not just a few percent. Not a quarter or even a half of the positives are FALSE,
but around 90% of them. Put simply, the number of people Mr Hancock sombrely tells us about is an overestimate by a factor of about
ten-fold. Earlier in the summer, it was an overestimate by about 20-fold.
Let me take you through this, though if you're able to read Prof Carl Heneghan's clearly
written piece first, I'm more confident that I'll be successful in explaining this dramatic conclusion to you. (Here is a link to
the record of numbers of tests, combining Pillar 1 (hospital) and Pillar 2 (community).)
Imagine 10,000 people getting tested using those swabs you see on TV. We have a good estimate of the general prevalence of the virus
from the ONS, who are wholly independent (from Pillar 2 testing) and are testing only a few people a day, around one per cent of the
numbers recently tested in Pillar 2. It is reasonable to assume that most of the time, those being tested do not have symptoms.
People were asked to only seek a test if they have symptoms. However, we know from TV news and stories on social media from sampling
staff, from stern guidance from the Health Minister and the surprising fact that in numerous locations around the country, the local
council is leafleting people's houses, street by street to come and get tested.
The bottom line is that it is reasonable to expect the prevalence of the virus to be close to the number found by ONS, because they
sample randomly, and would pick up symptomatic and asymptomatic people in proportion to their presence in the community. As of the
most recent ONS survey, to a first approximation, the virus was found in 1 in every 1000 people. This can also be written as 0.1%.
So when all these 10,000 people are tested in Pillar 2, you'd expect 10 true positives to be found (false negatives can be an issue
when the virus is very common, but in this community setting, it is statistically unimportant and so I have chosen to ignore it,
better to focus only on false positives).
So, what is the false positive rate of testing in Pillar 2? For months, this has been a concern. It appears that it isn't known,
even though as I've mentioned, you absolutely need to know it in order to work out whether the diagnostic test has any value! What
do we know about the false positive rate? Well, we do know that the Government's own scientists were very concerned about it, and a report on
this problem was sent to SAGE dated June 3rd 2020. I quote: "Unless we understand the operational false positive rate of the UK's
RT-PCR testing system, we risk over-estimating the COVID-19 incidence, the demand on track and trace and the extent of asymptomatic
infection". In that same report, the authors helpfully listed the lowest to highest false positive rate of dozens of tests using the
same technology. The lowest value for false positive rate was 0.8%.
Allow me to explain the impact of a false positive rate of 0.8% on Pillar 2. We return to our 10,000 people who've volunteered to
get tested, and the expected ten with virus (0.1% prevalence or 1:1000) have been identified by the PCR test. But now we've to
calculate how many false positives are to accompanying them. The shocking answer is 80. 80 is 0.8% of 10,000. That's how many false
positives you'd get every time you were to use a Pillar 2 test on a group of that size.
The effect of this is, in this example, where 10,000 people have been tested in Pillar 2, could be summarised in a headline like
this: "90 new cases were identified today" (10 real positive cases and 80 false positives). But we know this is wildly incorrect.
Unknown to the poor technician, there were in this example, only 10 real cases. 80 did not even have a piece of viral RNA in their
sample. They are really false positives.
I'm going to explain how bad this is another way, back to diagnostics. If you'd submitted to a test and it was positive, you'd
expect the doctor to tell you that you had a disease, whatever it was testing for. Usually, though, they'll answer a slightly
different question: "If the patient is positive in this test, what is the probability they have the disease?" Typically, for a good
diagnostic test, the doctor will be able to say something like 95% and you and they can live with that. You might take a different,
confirmatory test, if the result was very serious, like cancer. But in our Pillar 2 example, what is the probability a person
testing positive in Pillar 2 actually has COVID-19? The awful answer is 11% (10 divided by 80 + 10). The test exaggerates the number
of covid-19 cases by almost ten-fold (90 divided by 10). Scared yet? That daily picture they show you, with the 'cases' climbing up
on the right-hand side? Its horribly exaggerated. Its not a mistake, as I shall show.
Earlier in the summer, the ONS showed the virus prevalence was a little lower, 1 in 2000 or 0.05%. That doesn't sound much of a
difference, but it is. Now the Pillar 2 test will find half as many real cases from our notional 10,000 volunteers, so 5 real cases.
But the flaw in the test means it will still find 80 false positives (0.8% of 10,000). So its even worse. The headline would be "85
new cases identified today". But now the probability a person testing positive has the virus is an absurdly low 6% (5 divided by 80
+ 5). Earlier in the summer, this same test exaggerated the number of COVID-19 cases by 17-fold (85 divided by 5). Its so easy to
generate an apparently large epidemic this way. Just ignore the problem of false positives. Pretend its zero. But it is never zero.
This test is fatally flawed and MUST immediately be withdrawn and never used again in this setting unless shown to be fixed. The
examples I gave are very close to what is actually happening every day as you read this.
I'm bound to ask, did Mr Hancock know of this fatal flaw? Did he know of the effect it would inevitably have, and is still having,
not only on the reported case load, but the nation's state of anxiety. I'd love to believe it is all an innocent mistake. If it was,
though, he'd have to resign over sheer incompetence. But is it? We know that internal scientists wrote to SAGE, in terms, and,
surely, this short but shocking warning document would have been drawn to the Health Secretary's attention? If that was the only bit
of evidence, you might be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. But the evidence grows more damning.
Recently, I published with my co-authors a short Position Paper. I don't think by then, a month ago or so, the penny had quite
dropped with me. And I'm an experienced biomedical research scientist, used to dealing with complex datasets and probabilities.
On September 11th 2020, I was a guest on Julia Hartley-Brewer's talkRADIO
show. Among other things, I called upon Mr Hancock to release the evidence underscoring his confidence in and planning for 'the
second wave'. This evidence has not yet been shown to the public by anyone. I also demanded he disclose the operational false
positive rate in Pillar 2 testing.
On September 16th, I was back on Julia's show and this time focused on the false positive rate issue (1m 45s – 2min 30s). I had read
Carl Heneghan's analysis showing that even if the false positive rate was as low as 0.1%, 8 times lower than any similar test, it
still yields a majority of false positives. So, my critique doesn't fall if the actual false positive rate is lower than my assumed
0.8%.
On September 18th, Mr Hancock again appeared, as often he does, on Julia Hartley-Brewer's show. Julia asked
him directly (1min 50s – on) what the false positive rate in Pillar 2 is. Mr Hancock said "It's under 1%". Julia again asked him
exactly what it was, and did he even know it? He didn't answer that, but then said "it means that, for all the positive cases, the
likelihood of one being a false positive is very small".
That is a seriously misleading statement as it is incorrect. The likelihood of an apparently positive case being a false positive is
between 89-94%, or near-certainty. Of note, even when ONS was recording its lowest-ever prevalence, the positive rate in Pillar 2
testing never fell below 0.8%.
It gets worse for the Health Secretary. On September the 17th, I believe, Mr Hancock took a question from
Sir Desmond Swayne about false positives. It is clear that Sir Desmond is asking about Pillar 2.
Mr Hancock replied: "I like my right honourable friend very much and I wish it were true. The reason we have surveillance testing,
done by ONS, is to ensure that we're constantly looking at a nationally representative sample at what the case rate is. The latest
ONS survey, published on Friday, does show a rise consummate (sic) with the increased number of tests that have come back positive."
He did not answer Sir Desmond's question, but instead answered a question of his choosing. Did the Health Secretary knowingly
mislead the House? By referring only to ONS and not even mentioning the false positive rate of the test in Pillar 2 he was, as it
were, stealing the garb of ONS's more careful work which has a lower false positive rate, in order to smuggle through the hidden and
very much higher, false positive rate in Pillar 2. The reader will have to decide for themselves.
Pillar 2 testing has been ongoing since May but it's only in recent weeks that it has reached several hundreds of thousands of tests
per day. The effect of the day by day climb in the number of people that are being described as 'cases' cannot be overstated. I know
it is inducing fear, anxiety and concern for the possibility of new and unjustified restrictions, including lockdowns. I have no
idea what Mr Hancock's motivations are. But he has and continues to use the hugely inflated output from a fatally flawed Pillar 2
test and appears often on media, gravely intoning the need for additional interventions (none of which, I repeat, are proven to be
effective).
You will be very familiar with the cases plot which is shown on most TV broadcasts at the moment. It purports to show the numbers of
cases which rose then fell in the spring, and the recent rise in cases. This graph is always accompanied by the headline that "so
many thousands of new cases were detected in the last 24 hours".
You should know that there are two major deceptions, in that picture, which combined are very likely both to mislead and to induce
anxiety. Its ubiquity indicates that it is a deliberate choice.
Firstly, it is very misleading in relation to the spring peak of cases. This is because we had no community screening capacity at
that time. A colleague has adjusted the plot to show the number of cases we would have detected, had there been a well-behaved
community test capability available. The effect is to greatly increase the size of the spring cases peak, because there are very
many cases for each hospitalisation and many hospitalisations for every death.
Secondly, as I hope I have shown and persuaded you, the cases in summer and at present, generated by seriously flawed Pillar 2
tests, should be corrected downwards by around ten-fold.
I do believe genuine cases are rising somewhat. This is, however, also true for flu, which we neither measure daily nor report on
every news bulletin. If we did, you would appreciate that, going forward, it is quite likely that flu is a greater risk to public
health than COVID-19. The corrected cases plot (above) does, I believe, put the recent rises in incidence of COVID-19 in a much more
reasonable context. I thought you should see that difference before arriving at your own verdict on this sorry tale.
There are very serious consequences arising from grotesque over-estimation of so-called cases in Pillar 2 community testing, which I
believe was put in place knowingly. Perhaps Mr Hancock believes his own copy about the level of risk now faced by the general
public? Its not for me to deduce. What this huge over-estimation has done is to have slowed the normalisation of the NHS. We are all
aware that access to medical services is, to varying degrees, restricted. Many specialities were greatly curtailed in spring and
after some recovery, some are still between a third and a half below their normal capacities. This has led both to continuing delays
and growth of waiting lists for numerous operations and treatments. I am not qualified to assess the damage to the nation's and
individuals' health as a direct consequence of this extended wait for a second wave. Going into winter with this configuration will,
on top of the already restricted access for six months, lead inevitably to a large number of avoidable, non-Covid deaths. That is
already a serious enough charge. Less obvious but, in aggregate, additional impacts arise from fear of the virus, inappropriately
heightened in my view, which include: damage to or even destruction of large numbers of businesses, especially small businesses,
with attendant loss of livelihoods, loss of educational opportunities, strains on family relationships, eating disorders, increasing
alcoholism and domestic abuse and even suicides, to name but a few.
In closing, I wish to note that in the last 40 years alone the UK has had seven official epidemics/pandemics; AIDS, Swine flu, CJD,
SARS, MERS, Bird flu as well as annual, seasonal flu. All were very worrying but schools remained open and the NHS treated everybody
and most of the population were unaffected. The country would rarely have been open if it had been shut down every time.
I have explained how a hopelessly-performing diagnostic test has been, and continues to be used, not for diagnosis of disease but,
it seems, solely to create fear.
This misuse of power must cease. All the above costs are on the ledger, too, when weighing up the residual risks to society from
COVID-19 and the appropriate actions to take, if any. Whatever else happens, the test used in Pillar 2 must be immediately withdrawn
as it provides no useful information. In the absence of vastly inflated case numbers arising from this test, the pandemic would be
seen and felt to be almost over.
Dr Mike Yeadon is the former CSO and VP, Allergy and Respiratory Research Head with Pfizer Global R&D and co-Founder of Ziarco
Pharma Ltd.
Its both...its fear porn and also shedding...according to researchers.
The National Vaccine Information Center published an important document relevant to this
topic titled "The Emerging Risks of Live Virus & Virus Vectored Vaccines: Vaccine Strain
Virus Infection, Shedding & Transmission." Pages 34-36 in the section on "Measles, Mumps,
Rubella Viruses and Live Attenuated Measles, Mumps, Rubella Viruses" discuss evidence that
the MMR vaccine can lead to measles infection and transmission.
New policies will artificially deflate "breakthrough infections" in the vaccinated, while
the old rules continue to inflate case numbers in the unvaccinated.
The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) is altering its practices of data logging and
testing for "Covid19" in order to make it seem the experimental gene-therapy "vaccines" are
effective at preventing the alleged disease.
They made no secret of this, announcing the policy changes on their website in late
April/early May, (though naturally without admitting the fairly obvious motivation behind the
change).
The trick is in their reporting of what they call "breakthrough infections" – that is
people who are fully "vaccinated" against Sars-Cov-2 infection, but get infected anyway.
Essentially, Covid19 has long been shown – to those willing to pay attention –
to be an entirely created pandemic narrative built on two key factors:
Inflated Case-count. The incredibly broad definition
of "Covid case", used all over the world, lists anyone who receives a positive test as a
"Covid19 case", even if they never experienced any symptoms .
Without these two policies, there would never have been an appreciable pandemic at all , and
now the CDC has enacted two policy changes which means they no longer apply to vaccinated
people.
Firstly, they are lowering their CT value when testing samples from suspected "breakthrough
infections".
From the CDC's instructions for state health authorities on handling "possible breakthrough
infections" (uploaded to their website in late April):
For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct
value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing. (Sequencing is not feasible with higher Ct values.)
Throughout the pandemic, CT values in excess of 35 have been the norm, with labs around the
world going into the 40s.
18 play_arrow
Just a Little Froth in the Market 15 hours ago
They are manipulating the numbers to make it look like only the unvaxxed get infected.
That is fraud, and this rogue agency needs to be stopped.
Enraged 1 hour ago remove link
The CDC is not an independent government agency, but is actually a subsidiary of Big
Pharma.
The CDC owns patents on at least 57 different vaccines, and profits $4.1 billion per year
in vaccination sales.
There are CDC patents applicable to vaccines for Flu, Rotavirus, Hepatitis A, HIV,
Anthrax, Rabies, Dengue fever, West Nile virus, Group A Strep, Pneumococcal disease,
Meningococcal disease, RSV, Gastroenteritis, Japanese encephalitis, SARS, Rift Valley Fever,
and chlamydophila pneumoniae.
People might be starting to get the impression that the federal regime, which owns the
media, judiciary, academia, bureaucracy, and big tech, are attempting to manipulate
information to increase their power and wealth. The elites have confiscated almost ALL the
commoners wealth and now they want the rest of the money and complete and total control. Mao
or Stalin would be proud of these fascists.
LetThemEatRand 17 hours ago
Imagine living under the rule of a globalist oligarchy that controls the Press. That.
JakeIsNotFake 14 hours ago remove link
What is that if not an obvious and deliberate act of deception?
Well, before 3/20, this would have been a FELONY. Each time a lab provided a patient with
KNOWINGLY FALSE test results, the lab and the doctor would have been subject to a 16 month
term in the state penitentiary. For each instance.
Can you imagine getting a positive, terminal prognosis, committing a well deserved murder,
and then not dying?
Oopsie! My bad.
gregga777 14 hours ago
Government, and that especially includes the so-called "Scientists" in government service,
are Corrupt, Incompetent, Unaccountable and Untrustworthy. The Government's so-called
"Scientists," including those funded by Government contracts, are no more trustworthy than
politicians.
PeterLong 14 hours ago
Sometimes you have no choice. We had to undergo surgical procedures in a hospital and had
to get tested a few days before. Whether they use the same parameters for these type cases as
for others I don't know. Perhaps they are reluctant to turn away or delay surgical cases for
BS reasons and therefore possibly use more realistic standards , but my opinion of the entire
medical industry has become so low that I could believe anything. I still wonder about
hospital and other medical practices finances concenring this scam. Have they continued to
profit somehow despite being shut down in some ways?
Beebee 1 hour ago (Edited) remove link
Same here, Peter. Hubby's mother broke her elbow last year. And we had to bring her to
tests to do surgery. She was negative. But, afterwards, suddenly, developed lymphoma. Now, I
wonder about these tests! The cancer chemo was delayed due to all this stuff. She had so many
Covid tests, all negative, and just now completed the chemo rounds. It's not necessary and
they do make a profit. She is the only reason we stay here, otherwise we would moved from NY.
She's a mess, and I resent the fact the hold-ups are due to testing.
fewer 36 minutes ago
Hospitals made tons of money on this. Uncle Sugar pays so much, and the administrators
always slice & dice the budget/reports so they seem on the edge of bankruptcy no matter
what. Naturally all of this is "debunked" by (((the usual sources))).
Here's one fact that the "debunkers" deliberately ignore: the feds pay for all the
treatment of uninsured C19 patients... including illegals . Normally if an illegal comes to
the ED and needs to be admitted, the hospital can't refuse to do that and instead has to eat
the cost (well, they pass the cost on to hardworking, insurance having people like you and
me, but bear with me).
If they admit the person for a reason *other* than C19, then the hospital still eats the
cost. Now, tell me, what's the incentive here if an illegal comes in with a bunch of
comorbidities and needs admission to manage those? What should be recorded as the admitting
diagnosis/problem if they can get swabbed for a high Ct PCR test (a meaningless positive
result)?
lasvegaspersona 7 hours ago
After more than 50 years in medicine, I tell friends and family, 'stay away from us if you
can'. Modern medicine is a rats nest of false positive testing and chasing trivial
abnormalities on imaging studies.
The sad part is patients feel relieved when they are told 'nothing was finally
found'....this after great expense of time and money.
spiff 54 minutes ago
Caught Red-Handed
Yes, define "Caught". I have a feeling life will continue without consequences for the
perpetrator of this fraud, or even your average person knowing about it.
_triplesix_ 14 hours ago
CDC, FBI, CIA, DHS, NIH, EPA, DOE...shall I go on?
Drater 6 hours ago
FAA, TSA, SEC, FCC, NHTSA, DOJ
JakeIsNotFake 13 hours ago
CDC is .gov. As an NGO, (funded by 99% .gov and 1% phony donations), the CDC can legally,
(not honestly), claim they are just an advisory body.
While noteing the distinction, please pay attention to the language: Mask mandate,
guidelines, advisories are NOT laws. Just like travel advisories, protocols, and best
practice. These are all weasel words. And totally unenforceable.
snatchpounder PREMIUM 9 hours ago
Everything is rigged, this plandemic, elections, markets you name it because when there's
currency to be made you'll always have someone more than willing to do it. Big pharma is
making a killing literally in this case and tax slaves paid for the gene therapy shots
creation. And all the rubes who took the shot will pay much more than just currency for their
naivety.
archipusz 11 hours ago
We can speculate all we want about what the agenda is of the CDC.
But what we know is that it has nothing to do with the truth or our health.
Enraged 1 hour ago remove link
The CDC is not an independent government agency, but is actually a subsidiary of Big
Pharma.
The CDC owns patents on at least 57 different vaccines, and profits $4.1 billion per year
in vaccination sales.
There are CDC patents applicable to vaccines for Flu, Rotavirus, Hepatitis A, HIV,
Anthrax, Rabies, Dengue fever, West Nile virus, Group A Strep, Pneumococcal disease,
Meningococcal disease, RSV, Gastroenteritis, Japanese encephalitis, SARS, Rift Valley Fever,
and chlamydophila pneumoniae.
amazing they do not even try to hide the deception.
but reporting on such deception will have one labeled a "conspiracy theorist", and the FBI
classifies "conspiracy theorists" as "domestic terrorists".
That's right, re-stating publicly available comments and policies of government agencies
and officials will have you branded as a domestic terrorist.
And the "intellectuals" in the media, academia, and "think-tanks" have abandoned all logic
and common sense to serve their masters in the government and big pharma.
history will not forget.
smacker 12 hours ago
Very good article which rightly exposes the CDC and all those around it for being utterly
corrupt and are perpetrating a fake pandemic with sinister objectives.
crazzziecanuck 11 hours ago
You realize, it's Putin's fault. Putin can rig a presidential election, it's child's play
for him to manipulate the CDC to do his evil bidding.
Everything is Putin's fault: Trump, COVID, 737 Max crashes, slavery, crucifixion of
Christ, the end of the dinosaurs, and so on.
archipusz 13 hours ago
Notice how Rand Paul will argue with Fauci about policy over when we should wear a mask,
BUT WILL NOT DARE ASK THEM WHY THEY HAVE, AND ARE, COMMITTING CRIMINAL FRAUD WITH THE PCR
TESTING?
Demystified 2 hours ago
It's a rigged game, a scam. These people are so dishonest, and intent on falsifying Covid
test results by applying different standards for vaccinated and unvaccinated people? They are
perpetuating a fraud on the people.
You have to be brain dead to not see what they are doing.
Robert De Zero 3 hours ago remove link
This is so evil. Medicalized dictatorship, supported by propaganda media, is here.
Alien 851 4 hours ago
This is NEWS??? Are you kidding?
It was March 2020 when they changed the rules on reporting of Covid deaths to run the
count as high as possible. It is still used in fear headlines today! How about wildly
fluctuation "new cases" that seem to totally respect state borders...?
For God's sake, wake the hell up!!!!
In March, the CDC redefined what is to be reported by Medical Examiners in the US. One
of them gave examples of Covid Death cases reporting criteria:
"The case definition is very simplistic," Dr. Ngozi Ezike, director of Illinois
Department of Public Health, explains. "It means, at the time of death, it was a COVID
positive diagnosis. That means, that if you were in hospice and had already been given a
few weeks to live, and then you also were found to have COVID, that would be counted as a
COVID death. It means, technically even if you died of clear alternative cause, but you had
COVID at the same time, it's still listed as a COVID death."
After reading my weekend column about the
crisis in life science research,
Hajime Hoji of USC's linguistics department reminded me of the late Richard Feynman's
brilliant deconstruction of the flaws and pitfalls of science as it's done in the modern
age.
"Cargo Cult
Science" was adapted from Feynman's 1974 commencement speech at Caltech, where his spirit
reigns as one of that institution's two certified saints. (The other is Robert A. Millikan,
Caltech's first president.) The text appears in his 1985 book, " Surely
You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! " Here are some excerpts, but the talk is worth reading in its
entirety, both for Feynman's lucid, engaging style and the depth of his thinking.
In the talk, Feynman discussed how much laypersons and scientists themselves take for
granted about research results. "We really ought to look into theories that don't work, and
science that isn't science," he said. "Cargo cult science" was his term for research that never
seemed to yield provable results, but acquired public acceptance because they possessed the
veneer of rigorous methodology.
What cargo cult science lacked was something that, he observed, was never actually taught to
Caltech students. "It's a kind of scientific integrity...that corresponds to a kind of utter
honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you
should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right
about it....Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know
them....If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also
put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it."
One suspects that Feynman, who died in 1988, would be appalled by the current standards of
research publication, which critics say favor audacious claims instead of the painstaking,
judicious marshaling of evidence he advocated. It's even more striking today to ponder his
confidence in science's ability to weed out factitious or mistaken findings.
"We've learned from experience that the truth will come out," he told the students. "Other
experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right.... And,
although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation
as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type
of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much
of the research in cargo cult science."
The truth is that the testing of experimental results by other experimenters is exactly what
may be lacking in today's publication-driven science world. And as some scientists recognize,
getting a paper published in a prestigious journal can do a great deal for one's reputation,
even if it's later shown to be wrong.
Even then, Feynman acknowledged that desperation for research funding was driving a tendency
by scientists to hype the applications of their work. Otherwise, a friend told him, "we won't
get support for more research of this kind." Feynman's reaction was characteristically blunt.
"I think that's kind of dishonest," he said.
Critical race theory ( CRT ) is an academic movement of civil-rights scholars and activists in
the United States who seek to critically examine the law as it intersects with issues
of race and to
challenge mainstream liberal approaches to
racial justice .
[1] CRT
examines social, cultural and legal issues as they relate to race and racism .
[2][3]
Second, that transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and also
achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination
more broadly, are possible. [7]
Critics including George
Will see resonances between CRT's use of storytelling and insistence that race poses
challenges to objective judgments in the U.S., as exemplified by the acquittal of O. J. Simpson .
[47][1][
verification
needed ]Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry argue that CRT lacks
supporting evidence, relies on an implausible belief that reality is socially constructed,
rejects evidence in favor of storytelling, rejects the concepts of truth and merit as
expressions of political dominance, and rejects the rule of law. Additionally, they posit that
the anti-meritocratic tenets in critical race theory, critical feminism, and critical legal
studies may unintentionally lead to antisemitic and anti-Asian implications.
[48][49][8]
In particular, they suggest that the success of Jews and Asians within what CRT theorists argue
is a structurally unfair system may lend itself to allegations of cheating, advantage-taking,
or other such claims.
[50] A series of responses to Farber and Sherry was published in the Harvard Law
Review .
[50] These responses argue that there is a difference between criticizing an unfair
system and criticizing individuals who perform well inside that system.
[50][8]
In the Boston College Law Review ,
Jeffrey Pyle argues that CRT undermines confidence in the rule of law, saying that "critical
race theorists attack the very foundations of the liberal legal order, including equality
theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism and neutral principles of constitutional
law." [51]
By
jurists
Judge Richard
Posner of the U.S.
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals argues that critical race theory "turns its back on the
Western tradition of rational inquiry, forswearing analysis for narrative," and that "by
repudiating reasoned argumentation, (critical race theorists) reinforce stereotypes about the
intellectual capacities of nonwhites. [9]
Former Judge Alex
Kozinski , who served on the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals , criticizes critical race theorists for raising "insuperable
barriers to mutual understanding" and thus eliminating opportunities for "meaningful dialogue."
[52]
Controversies
Critical race theory has stirred controversy in the US since the 1980s over such issues as:
[1]
On 20 October 2020, the Conservative UK Equalities Minister
Kemi Badenoch stated
that, in regard to teaching Critical Race Theory in primary and secondary
school , "we do not want to see teachers teaching their pupils about white privilege and
inherited racial guilt.... [A]ny school which teaches these elements of critical race theory,
or which promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a
balanced treatment of opposing views, is breaking the law." [57] Badenoch's
remarks have been countered in an open letter, signed by hundreds of academics nationwide, that
highlights Badenoch's alleged misapprehensions about CRT. [58] On 30 October
2020, an open letter signed by 101 writers of the Black Writers' Guild [59] condemned
Badenoch for saying that some authors want racial division, including her criticisms of books
such as White
Fragility and Why I'm No
Longer Talking to White People About Race , saying that: "many of these books -- and,
in fact, some of the authors and proponents of critical race theory -- actually want a
segregated society." [60]
In September 2020, President Donald Trump issued an executive order
directing agencies of the United States Government to cancel
funding for programs that mention "white privilege" or "critical race theory", on the basis
that it constituted "divisive, un-American propaganda". [61][62][63]
He specifically called out the value of meritocracy. On January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden issued an executive order
rescinding and canceling Trump's previous executive order and once again permitted agencies to
use such programs. [64]
2021
In mid-April 2021, a bill was introduced in the Idaho legislature that would effectively ban any
educational entity (including school districts, public charter school, and public institutions
of higher education) in the state from teaching or advocating " sectarianism ," including critical race theory
or other programs involving social justice. [65] On May 4, 2021
the bill was signed into law by Governor Brad Little . [66]
@Rev.
Spooner ion and just start making shit up, then that probably qualifies as a "cult".
Bottom line, it's probably all in the eye of the beholder. If you're a true believer, then
it's a "religion". If you have neither belief in a religious species nor respect for its
adherents, then it's a "cult".
An alternative view might be that "religions" are based around life philosophies that
recognise a larger reality than we can perceive here in the material realm, whereas "cults"
probably not so much. The more enduring religions seem to have quite a legacy of spooky stuff
that so-called "modern science" might have difficulty in resolving (perhaps not so much
nowadays, seeing how "science" has become such an arbitrary discipline subject to social and
political whim).
"... He had a total loss of his platelets -- the little blood cells that stop bleeding. In spite of being treated by a team of physicians, he died two weeks later from a brain hemorrhage, and was reported to have had zero platelets . ..."
"... What happened to this physician and the others seems to be a new previously unseen problem related to vaccination -- despite the manufacturers' claims. ..."
"... Increasingly, vaccine manufacturers and government officials are following the sarcastic maxim from Samuel Shem's novel of medical residency entitled The House of God that "if you don't take a temperature you can't find a fever." In other words, if we don't critically look at the actual recorded patient damage, we won't find our products to be defective. ..."
"... Moreover, a vaccine is supposed to prevent disease. By that definition, these agents are not even vaccines. They are more properly termed "experimental unapproved genetic agents." By admission of the manufacturers themselves, both the Pfizer and Moderna products only lessen the symptoms of COVID; they don't prevent transmission. ..."
Many Americans have heard the news account of Dr. Gregory Michael, a 56-year-old Florida physician who, after receiving his first
dose of a Pfizer COVID vaccine on December 18 of last year, was hospitalized three days later. He had a total loss of his platelets
-- the little blood cells that stop bleeding. In spite of being treated by a team of physicians, he died two weeks later from a brain
hemorrhage, and was reported to have had zero platelets .
By February 10, 2021, 36 other similar cases were reported in the mainstream media. Pfizer, which along with its partner BioNTech
made the vaccine the doctor received, said in a statement that it was aware of the death. Typically, they concluded, "We are actively
investigating this case, but we don't believe at this time that there is any direct connection to the vaccine."
Pfizer made this "finding" despite several unusual circumstances of the case. First, low-platelet disorders, known as idiopathic
thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), most commonly affect children, and generally follow a viral illness. Only 10 percent of ITP cases
occur in adults, who usually present with a slow onset form of the disorder, referred to as chronic ITP. The disorder usually starts
by someone noticing easy bleeding, such as slow oozing from gums or the nose, or bruises showing up without trauma. Rarely do platelets
drop below 20,000, and generally treatment either reverses the disease or prolongs life for years in spite of the problem.
What happened to this physician and the others seems to be a new previously unseen problem related to vaccination -- despite
the manufacturers' claims.
Increasingly, vaccine manufacturers and government officials are following the sarcastic maxim from Samuel Shem's novel of
medical residency entitled The House of God that "if you don't take a temperature you can't find a fever." In other words,
if we don't critically look at the actual recorded patient damage, we won't find our products to be defective. Now, major media
are increasingly getting on board, condemning "vaccine hesitancy" and pushing everyone to get vaccinated for COVID, discounting any
dangers. But in the practice of medicine, we are supposed to employ the "precautionary principle" -- above all do no harm.
Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 "vaccines" are experimental, employing a genetic technology never before used on humans. Ironically,
many people who wouldn't purchase the first edition of a new car line are lining up to take an injection they know nothing about,
that has never successfully passed animal trials, that could never meet the required "safety level" for a "drug," and is unapproved
for the prevention of COVID except as an emergency experiment .
Legally, those who get the vaccine are unnamed participants in a Stage IV FDA trial.
Moreover, a vaccine is supposed to prevent disease. By that definition, these agents are not even vaccines. They are more
properly termed "experimental unapproved genetic agents." By admission of the manufacturers themselves, both the Pfizer and Moderna
products only lessen the symptoms of COVID; they don't prevent transmission.
Vaccination was first invented to treat smallpox, which had a a fatality rate of up to 60 percent. Then other diseases such as
typhoid and polio were similarly addressed. But vaccination is not used when effective safe treatment is available. Although censorship
has confused the public understanding, overwhelming evidence dating back to the 1970s shows that viruses can be treated with "lysosomotropic
agents." The truth is, hundreds of papers have shown that chloroquine, and its later version hydroxychloroquine, are very effective
in treating this virus if given early. A worldwide open architecture online review of COVID survival (hcqtrial.com) showed that death
rate was 78.7-percent lower in those countries where hydroxychloroquine was used early and often:
Multiple large studies done in outpatient settings show very excellent prevention and cure with these and other drugs such as
Ivermectin. In Mumbai, India, a study was done of the city police force of 10,000 officers. No deaths were recorded in the 4,600
officers taking a small dose of hydroxychloroquine each week. All the deaths were in the untreated group. Using Worldometer statistics,
COVID deaths per capita in New York State are 2,656 per million population; in New Jersey they are 2,821 per million population.
In India the rate is 126 per million and in Uganda it is only seven per million. Neither India nor Uganda used social distancing
in any real way. But they do use hydroxychloroquine. New York (except for Dr. Zev Zelenko and a few others) does not use the drug.
As to the claims of the efficacy of the drugs, the declaration of 95-percent effectiveness of the Pfizer product was shown to
be bunkum by Dr. Peter Doshi, the associate editor of the British Medical Journal , writing in that publication. After doing
an independent review of the data submitted to the FDA, Dr. Doshi reported that only 30 percent of test subjects, at best, experienced
even the slightest benefit (symptom reduction). Absolute risk reduction -- in other words stopping transmission -- he estimated at
less than one percent.
The limited benefit of taking the drugs is made worse by the relatively high death tolls from the new mRNA therapy. During the
first two months of the rollout of Pfizer and Moderna "vaccines" in 2021, 95 percent of deaths from vaccines recorded in the Vaccine
Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) were for those agents, meaning only five percent of reported deaths involved all the other
vaccines put together. Compared to 2019, deaths in VAERS are up 6,000 percent. Thirty-six deaths were recorded in the first quarter
of 2020 versus 1,754 in the first quarter of 2021.
In Israel, where the Pfizer mRNA product is being used exclusively and a major push is on to vaccinate the whole population, an
independent review of government data after two months of the vaccine program was done by the Aix-Marseille University Faculty of
Medicine Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit's Dr. Hervé Seligmann and engineer Haim Yativ. They showed that when 12.5
percent of Israelis were vaccinated, 51 percent of the deaths from COVID were in the vaccinated group. Additionally, in the
over 65-year-olds, vaccination resulted in death from COVID 40 times more than in unvaccinated people. In other words, this
is not protecting people from COVID but increasing fatalities from the disease -- and this neglects the number of other side effects.
If the truth were known, most sane, thinking people would not likely take part in such an experiment. With the truth hidden and
with threats of travel bans and an unwarranted fear of COVID, and with pressure from employers and the politicization of COVID in
general, Americans have been throwing caution to the wind.
The Unknowns
To understand what is actually happening to people after receiving the mRNA agents, I reviewed data in VAERS -- an open-source
searchable database of possible vaccine side effects reported by both providers and patients. According to the CDC website:
VAERS is used to detect possible safety problems -- called "signals" -- that may be related to vaccination. If a vaccine safety
signal is identified through VAERS, scientists may conduct further studies to find out if the signal represents an actual risk.
The main goals of VAERS are to:
• Detect new, unusual, or rare adverse events that happen after vaccination.
• Monitor increases in known side effects, like arm soreness where a shot was given
• Identify potential patient risk factors for particular types of health problems related to vaccines
• Assess the safety of newly licensed vaccines
• Watch for unexpected or unusual patterns in adverse event reports
• Serve as a monitoring system in public health emergencies
The CDC acknowledges limitations of the system, including:
• Reports submitted to VAERS often lack details and sometimes contain errors.
◦ Serious adverse events are more likely to be reported than mild side effects.
◦ It is generally not possible to find out from VAERS data if a vaccine caused the adverse event.
I searched the VAERS database using keywords that would identify bleeding problems and thrombocytopenia (low or absent platelets).
Entries are defined by age groups and sex with a narrative account of the injury.
In a two-and-a-half-month period from December 15, 2020 to March 12, 2021, 358 cases of unusual clotting or bleeding were identified,
and it makes grim reading. There were 104 cases of frank thrombocytopenia (low platelets) -- some including young people. However,
the numbers alone do not adequately convey the problems. In one case about an 18-29 year-old female, the physician wrote this: "Patient
was seen in in my office on 1/19/21 with complaint of heavy vaginal bleeding. A CBC was obtained which revealed an H/H of 12.2/36.1
and a platelet count of 1 (not 1K, but 1 platelet!) This was confirmed on smear review." The surprise and horror the doctor experienced
upon seeing the absence of platelets is clear when reading the report.
But the platelet problem may just be the most severe expression of a physical derangement that is producing bleeding of all sorts.
As seen in the table below, there were 49 people with brain hemorrhages -- nine fatal at the time of reporting. A number of other
people arrived at Emergency Departments with bleeding from multiple sites, or internally, so massive that they could not be stabilized
even to clearly define the sources of the bleeding.
Severe Thrombocytopenia
94
Various Spontaneous Skin bleeding
10
Mild Thrombocytopenia
11
Vein bleeding from temple
1
Thrombocytopenic Petechial rash/bruising
5
Prolonged surgical site bleeding
3
Severe Pancytopenia
2
Severe multifocal bleeding
5
Unknown Hematologic Problem
1
Severe internal bleeding
5
Multifocal or "massive" brain hemorrhage
20
Severe uncharacterized bleeding
3
Focal brain hemorrhage
29
Bleeding from cancer site liver
1
GI Bleed
34
Renal dialysis shunt
1
Severe Vaginal Bleeding
7
Hematuria
2
Vaginal Bleeding
21
Renal bleed
1
Bleeding in Pregnancy
6
Tonsillar bleed
1
Bleeding with Miscarriage
12
Acute Uterine Fibroid hemorrhage
1
Irreg Menses
4
Nosebleed
32
Oral bleeding
8
Spontaneous Splenic hemorrhage
1
Subconjunctival Hemorrhage
11
Injection Site Bleeding
21
Intraocular bleed
4
Arm Bruising
1
Most cases of severe problems were in people over the age of 50 years. But there were many younger people involved, especially
in the less severe-but-unusual bleeding problems. Of the 36 reported nosebleeds, six were either unable to be stopped with usual
measures, were recurrent, or were recorded as having significant blood loss or dubbed "profuse." Many were associated with other
symptoms: photophobia (eye sensitivity to light), headache, hives, "sick in bed," brain fog, and face swelling. The youngest patient
with a nosebleed was, sadly, a toddler requiring emergency care. Unusual skin bleeding was also reported. Four 65-plus-year-old males
reported blood spontaneously oozing through the skin: one from the legs, one from the scalp, one from an old biopsy site, and one
from an old healed "boil" site. Frank bleeding at the time of the inoculation occurred 14 times. Some bleeding was momentary, but
often the bleeding was difficult to stop, recurrent, and/or persisted after the patient returned home. (How many times have you had
an injection and bled at all, let alone bled off and on for hours?)
Perhaps the saddest were the bleeding episodes that preceded spontaneous miscarriages. Here are some direct entries in VAERS:
40-49 y.o. Female: The evening of my vaccination I began to feel feverish, weak and achy. During the night I woke with heavy
bleeding and found out the following morning I had miscarried my otherwise healthy pregnancy.
39 y.o. Female: Internal brain bleeding 10 days after 1st dose Covid vaccine; brain damage, confused, suffering memory loss;
This is a spontaneous report from a contactable physician (patient).
30-39 y.o. Female: 48 hours after injection developed micro-hemorrhages in her right eye. Symptoms resolved and 12/29 recurrence
of bleeding to right eye slightly worse than before
65+ y.o. Male: Patient developed significant nose bleed after receiving vaccine. Required emergency department visits x 2 and
hospitalization.
65+ y.o. Female: Vaccine administered 02/02/2021. By Thursday 2/11/2021 patient almost nonverbal, by Monday 2/15/2021 patient
went to the hospital with bruising, sores on her stomach and clots reported as thrombocytopenia. Deceased by Friday, 2/19/20201.
40-49 y.o. Female: Bleeding, myalgia, tingling in the fingers of the right hand; fatigue immediately upon vaccination -- bleeding
at the injection site which the employee reports as filling the Band-Aid over the site. When she got home in the evening and took
it off blood ran.
65+ y.o. Female: Within 15 min of the injection, the individual became aphasic and stroke like symptoms. She was taken to the
ER where she was later diagnosed with a cerebral hemorrhage and passed away.
When such facts are presented, the standard retort from vaccine advocates is, "We have given millions of vaccines, so a few deaths
are to be expected." Besides the fact that a willingness to sacrifice individuals for the nebulous good of the masses represents
a bankrupt moral order, simply calculating the numbers of deaths is inadequate. "Experts" need to take the time to read the narrative
to open their eyes -- and their hearts -- to the suffering happening. There are over 25 pages of such stories printed from VAERS
entries, and we must consider, "How many of these people are now dead, and how many are going to die?"
A second-year medical student armed with the facts should recognize looming disaster -- where are the experts?
In truth, neither recipients nor their doctors know what is in these "vaccines." Only a few people at the top of the Moderna,
Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca research groups really understand them. These mRNA injections produce a potentially deadly
pathogen -- the spike protein -- in your cells.
The Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer product says that it contains "a nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA) encoding
the viral spike glycoprotein (S) of SARS-CoV-2." If your immune system is strong enough to withstand this onslaught and create some
immunity, you may survive the first onslaught. But even if you don't die in the short term, mRNA is an epigenetic controller of
DNA . Though this foreign synthetic mRNA doesn't actually become part of your DNA to make you a "GMO human," as some people have
been worrying about, it can control DNA in ways we have yet to completely understand . We literally have no idea whether this
bodily additive is going to have a side effect of expressing cancer genes, or of repressing cancer protective genes, or thousands
of other potentially deadly unknowns.
Additionally, the Pfizer vaccine includes all types of ingredients that may by themselves create ailments. The Pfizer shot
contains "lipids ((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2- hexyldecanoate), 2-[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide,
1,2-distearoyl-snglycero-3-phosphocholine, and cholesterol), potassium chloride, monobasic potassium phosphate, sodium chloride,
dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and sucrose."
I insert this list just for completeness -- don't expect to make sense of it. Your doctor can't either. I understand "sucrose"
(sugar) and sodium chloride (salt), but who doesn't get lost in the "hydroxybutyl" and "distearoyl" lipid list?
After doing some sleuthing and having some inside knowledge to start from, I discovered that this lipid particle is an adjuvant
called "Matrix M." As described in scientific literature, "Adjuvant Matrix-M™ is comprised of 40 nm nanoparticles composed of
Quillaja saponins , cholesterol and phospholipid."
Matrix-M essentially wraps the mRNA in a lipid coating that allows it to move through cell walls and to linger in your system.
Matrix-M is derived from plant chemicals called saponins, which have poorly understood properties in plant biology. They can be toxic
to humans in some cases, and have been traditionally used by aboriginal tribesmen to poison fish. Should we consider that comforting?
The pharmacology industry has a long history of removing bad drugs from the market. Thalidomide is perhaps the most famous example
of a pharmacologic disaster. The drug was released in 1957 for its sedative effects and was touted as being safe for everyone including
"pregnant women and children." In 1961, Dr. William McBride, an obstetrician, discovered that thalidomide was useful for "morning
sickness" in pregnant women. Later he began to see unusual and devastating birth defects in babies born to women for whom he had
prescribed the drug. Independently, Dr. Widuking Lenz, a pediatrician in Germany, also associated thalidomide with severe and unusual
birth defects, such as the absence of limbs or parts of limbs. Sometimes an infants' hands were attached at the shoulders, there
being no connecting long bones at all. By 1962 the drug was taken off the market.
But unlike with our new, experimental agents, recognition of the thalidomide problem was made relatively easy by several factors.
First among these was the uniqueness of the deformities. These were both profound and obvious, which stand in stark contrast to the
current bleeding problems, which appear on the surface to be normal problems in clinical medicine -- such as nosebleeds. Even now,
doctors continue to call the loss of platelets "ITP" -- even though what we are seeing is not the same as what we would expect to
see under that diagnosis. ITP simply does not kill adult males in a few days.
Second, with thalidomide, the physician who first began using the drug for nausea in pregnancy was also the doctor who delivered
the affected babies, so he could readily put two and two together. In the case of our COVID drugs, when your doctor tells you to
get a vaccine, he doesn't administer it, doesn't witness the injection, and usually doesn't follow up to see how you fared. And if
you were to suddenly develop a vision problem or bleeding from the bowel, you wouldn't be seen by your PCP; you would be in an Emergency
Department -- and they don't usually ask about your recent vaccine history.
Third, Dr. Lenz presciently recognized that, in the case of thalidomide, many less-severe deformities, when put into perspective,
revealed "gradations of the defect." Unfortunately in the present case, lesser degrees of clotting problems are indistinguishable
from bleeding issues frequently encountered in an Emergency Room or doctor's office. For example, if a 75-year-old hypertensive male
-- who has gotten a COVID shot -- suffers a brain hemorrhage and dies, it would not likely be deemed unusual, and the relationship
to vaccination may not even be explored.
Keeping that in mind, we should assume the worst when it comes to these new COVID shots. When any new drug problem starts, it
begins slowly and unrecognized -- like a snowball beginning to roll down a mountain. By the time the problem is generally acknowledged,
the avalanche is well on its way. In the case of thalidomide, over 100,000 children were severely damaged before the drug was removed
from use. Though VAERS has the potential to shorten recognition time of drug problems by trying to spot the "unusual patterns," this
requires that physicians be aware of the system, and take the time to enter any suspected side effects -- not just the worst
cases. It also requires that researchers care enough to look. This is not happening. A report previously submitted to the Agency
for Healthcare Research and Quality revealed that fewer than one percent of adverse events get reported to VAERS.
In the past, testing done on mRNA technology revealed problems specifically involving the clotting system. Antibody-mediated platelet
damage has been suspected. Yet today when these exact problems arise, the researchers are mum. Do the experts not study or know their
own vaccine research history?
For those who are concerned about the risks, we need to advocate for ourselves, either through contacting legislators or simply
refusing to take the shots. It's obvious that the pharmaceutical industry is willing to release untried technology upon the entire
world population, and not be deterred by any inconvenience such as unexplained death.
We need to stop being a gullible population that forces our children to get vaccinated for trivial, non-fatal diseases such as
mumps. We need to stop believing in the god-like status of medical technocrats who claim to be making the world safer. We need to
reject the idea that vaccine deniers are anti-scientific troglodytes. We must reject the unspoken premise under which pharmaceutical
companies and doctors operate -- that all vaccines are always safe in all people all the time. It should not be considered unreasonable
to require scientific transparency, honesty by drug manufacturers, and safety from vaccines.
Vaccines are only indicated for diseases with a high risk of death or morbidity, and for which there is no cure. After
seeing the esteemed leaders in medicine denigrate hydroxychloroquine (even though it was a recognized treatment used successfully
elsewhere for SARS, and mentioned favorably by Dr. Fauci for MERS), after watching three plants used in the production of hydroxychloroquine
burn down in a year -- two on the same day -- after watching doctors lose their jobs and be censored for speaking truth and saving
lives with old safe drugs that work, and now, after seeing experimental genetic agents being rolled out for use globally that have
never passed animal testing and have only a few months human trials, perhaps it is time to address the 800-pound gorilla in the room
and ask, "Are they trying to kill us?"
Dr. Lee Merritt has been in the private practice of Orthopaedic and Spinal Surgery since 1995, has served on the Board of
the Arizona Medical Association, and is past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. She is a lifelong
advocate for a patient's right to choose their own medical care without government intervention.
This looks like a reincarnation on Lysenkoism. Politization of epidemic was evident
although it is unclear why this huge instigation of fear benefits neoliberal elite. Still, it is
undeniable that it was used as trump card to weaken mail voting protections. Bit the whole story
is totally bizarre. Looks like science in the USA is no less corrupt then in the USSR under
Stalin.
Notable quotes:
"... Covid mania has also wreaked havoc on science and its influence on policy. While scientists' passion for discovery and improving health has fueled research on the novel coronavirus, Covid mania has interpreted scientific advancements through an increasingly narrow frame. There has only been one question: How can scientific findings be deployed to reduce Covid-19 spread? It hasn't mattered how impractical these measures may be. Discoveries that might have helped save lives, such as better outpatient therapies , were ignored because they didn't fit the desired policy outcome. ..."
"... Covid mania is also creating new conflicts over vaccine mandates. The same people who assured the public that a few weeks of lockdown would control the pandemic now argue that vaccinating children, for whom no vaccine has yet been approved, is essential to end the pandemic. Children account for less than 0.1% of Covid deaths in the U.S. Is enough known about vaccines to conclude that their benefits outweigh potential risks to children? ..."
"... "Yes" is the answer of a salesman, not a scientist. Mandating a vaccine for children without knowing whether the benefits outweigh the risks is unethical. People who insist we should press on anyway, because variants will prolong the pandemic, should be reminded that a large reservoir of unvaccinated people in the U.S. -- and in the world -- will always exist. We cannot outrun the variants. ..."
"... ut one lesson that should transcend ideological differences: Don't put one illness above all other problems in society, a condition known as "Covid mania."" ..."
The problem isn't only the overreaction to the virus but the diminution of every other
problem.
What are the lessons of Covid-19? It depends who you ask. Some believe politicization of the
pandemic response cost lives. Others believe a stronger U.S. public-health system would have
reduced Covid-19 deaths significantly. Still others say lockdowns should have been longer and
more stringent, or that they were ineffective. But one lesson that should transcend ideological
differences: Don't put one illness above all other problems in society, a condition known as
"Covid mania."
The novel coronavirus has caused suffering and heartbreak, particularly for older adults and
their loved ones. But it also has a low mortality rate among most people
and especially the young -- estimated at 0.01% for people under 40 -- and therefore never posed
a serious threat to social and economic institutions. Compassion and realism need not be
enemies. But Covid mania crowded out reasoned and wise policy making.
Americans groaned when leaders first called for "two weeks to slow the spread" in March
2020. Months later, many of these same Americans hardly blinked when leaders declared that
lockdowns should continue indefinitely. For months Covid had been elevated above all other
problems in society. Over time new rules were written and new norms accepted.
Liberty has played a special role in U.S. history, fueling advances from independence to
emancipation to the fight for equal rights for women and racial minorities. Unfortunately,
Covid mania led many policy makers to treat liberty as a nuisance rather than a core American
principle.
Covid mania has also wreaked havoc on science and its influence on policy. While
scientists' passion for discovery and improving health has fueled research on the novel
coronavirus, Covid mania has interpreted scientific advancements through an increasingly narrow
frame. There has only been one question: How can scientific findings be deployed to reduce
Covid-19 spread? It hasn't mattered how impractical these measures may be. Discoveries that
might have helped save lives, such as better outpatient therapies , were
ignored because they didn't fit the desired policy outcome.
A prime example is mask research. However one feels about wearing masks, look at the
evidence from California. Despite a mask mandate imposed last April and steady, high rates of
compliance, California experienced a surge in Covid-19 cases over the winter.
Mandating masks may help in some settings, but masks are not the panacea officials have
presented them as. In September, then-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director
Robert Redfield declared that "this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against Covid
than when I take a Covid vaccine."
The statement was remarkable because he made it before seeing vaccine trial data. Those data
and data from people who have recovered from Covid clearly
demonstrate that this statement is false. Immunity is far more effective than whatever
efficacy masks may offer.
Covid mania is also creating new conflicts over vaccine mandates. The same people who
assured the public that a few weeks of lockdown would control the pandemic now argue that
vaccinating children, for whom no vaccine has yet been approved, is essential to end the
pandemic. Children account for less than 0.1% of
Covid deaths in the U.S. Is enough known about vaccines to conclude that their benefits
outweigh potential risks to children?
"Yes" is the answer of a salesman, not a scientist. Mandating a vaccine for children
without knowing whether the benefits outweigh the risks is unethical. People who insist we
should press on anyway, because variants will prolong the pandemic, should be reminded that a
large reservoir of unvaccinated people in the U.S. -- and in the world -- will always exist. We
cannot outrun the variants.
The good news is that recent state legislative efforts in Utah, Tennessee and Ohio to ban
vaccine passports may burst the Covid mania bubble. If passports are banned, then risks from
Covid must be assessed in the same way other risks -- such as playing a sport or starting a new
medication -- are considered. In many places throughout the country, zero has become the only
tolerable risk level. Why else are people who have been vaccinated or recovered from Covid
still asked to wear masks? Reasonable policies cannot sprout from unreasonable levels of risk
tolerance.
The pandemic has been devastating for many Americans, but policies grounded in Covid mania
have compounded the harm and delayed a return to normal life. The challenges ahead require
rational decision making that considers costs and benefits and keeps sight of the countless
things in life that matter.
Dr. Ladapo is an associate professor at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine.
m m hovaten SUBSCRIBER 38 minutes ago
So what else is new? We all suspected that something was fishy when the mortality on the
Diamond Princess was only 0.3% while the MSM was propagandizing 3.0% mortality. Directors at
CNN said that their mission was to 'get Trump out of office and they were successful in that
endeavor. Huge advertising bucks were to be made pushing the twin evils of Trump and death by
Covid. If anyone cares to do the research, (NCHS), the 2020 excess mortality was actually
0.12% and that includes all the excess deaths resulting from 'lockdowns" in blue states. I
have stopped reading the news because really is 99% 'fake'!
Karen Hogan SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
My question is: will "Public Health" replace "climate change" and "critical race theory" as
the asserted rationale for imposing unconstitutional totalitarian policies on individual
citizens?
Paul in Karen's subscription.
John Pound SUBSCRIBER 52 minutes ago
Not replace, but be combined with...
Victor Cameron SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Covid 19 was a colossal panic instigated by the Media and Government that has ruined
many thousands of lives financially and otherwise, violated Constitutional Rights with an
over reactive "shutdown" and worse, that had no legitimate authority created by fiat.
Covid 19 was no more dangerous than other past viruses, but was fabricated as a threat
to be the new Bubonic Plague by the Media and Government Medical Bureaucrats who vacillated
and put out questionable information. In essence, it was a national disgrace tainted with a
political cast.
Even currently, the Media continues to broadcast data headlined "Pandemic" with
meaningless numbers.
The government medical bureaucracy CDC continues with their mixed messages, and has yet to
dispense with the ubiquitous Masks that no one want to wear, other than the germaphobes among
us.
With multimillions vaccinated and millions more schedule, now is the time to end the virus
drama and return to a normal country.
David L SUBSCRIBER 3 hours ago
The one important factor not mentioned in the article is the role of the media in
contributing to Covid mania. The coverage of the pandemic by the MSM has been a disgrace.
It's been marked by sensationalism (pandemic porn), a complete lack of perspective and
context in presenting data about the course of the pandemic, and highlighting anomalous cases
and falsely representing them as significant outcomes of the disease. And of course, all this
is now being bolstered by the Biden administration with comments like that from the CDC
director a few weeks ago when she said she "had a sense of impending doom", about the current
status of the disease in the country.
Brian Maresca SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago
" B ut one lesson that should transcend ideological differences: Don't put one illness
above all other problems in society, a condition known as "Covid mania.""
Yes, but you're putting the cart before the horse here. The question is how could this
public health emergency been handled to ALLOW society to both address the epidemic, develop
effective social and health protocols, and continue to address the manifold issues that face
America. Idiotic debates should have been cut short. Masks help and social distancing was
paramount. 2nd, from DAY ONE public health officials should have emphasized the PARAMOUNT
IMPORTANCE of regular exercise. IMMUNE HEALTH was a key. 3rd; mass testing for the virus is
an enormous waste of time and effort . Testing should have focused on the
presence of ANTIBODIES. This way public health officials would have known what % of the
public had been exposed, and been able to do follow up studies on the duration of immune
response, INFORMING health policy.
Peter Nystrom SUBSCRIBER 4 hours ago
You assume the article "will create confusion." Opinions and information contrary to official
doctrine always have that potential, especially in the minds of the easily confused. Some of
us are not threatened by the prospect of having to weigh divergent opinions. It's hard at
times to credit our fellow citizens with clear thinking, especially when it differs from our
own...umm....flawless logic! I say print the opinions and let them stand or fall on their own
merit. Ditto for official dogma.
"... Have you had any experiences with fad psychology? Join the conversation below. ..."
"... Mr. Singal is a journalist and the co-host of the podcast Blocked and Reported. This essay is adapted from his new book "The Quick Fix: Why Fad Psychology Can't Cure Our Social Ills," published last week by Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ..."
"... Joining any of these "movements" is like joining a cult. You go there because you are lost and looking for simple answers to complex problems. They have lofty credentials, fancy theories and anecdotal evidence to convince you to have faith and follow without questioning. Once you accept the "guru" you have to follow. There is no sale, if they tell you, you are fine. You are not okay, but here is the solution (and the check). All you need is good friends, they will cure you. No charge. ..."
"... Absolutely agree, and I would apply the theme of failure to just about all the problems we are facing today. These dilemmas are ancient, deep and complex, maybe unsolvable. However, a step in the right direction might be for us all to honestly and completely admit that basically everyone has now joined the struggle for dominance and power over everyone and everything else in our lives. ..."
"... Patrisse Khan-Cullors, the leader of Black Lives Matter and a self-described Marxist, recently purchased a $1.4 million home in an exclusive Los Angeles neighborhood where the vast majority of residents are white, according to reports. ..."
"... She believes in that which she espouses and by good fortune, turned social psychology into profit and bought herself something nice? ..."
"... She is a disingenuous predator like a preacher who fleeces his flock or a president who does the same, and took advantage of those who believed in her so she could profit off their backs? ..."
Amy Cuddy (61 million TED Talk views) argued that by adopting brief, expansive poses -- think Wonder Woman with her hands on her
hips -- women could feel more powerful in the workplace, shrinking stubbornly persistent gender gaps. Angela Duckworth (23 million
views) introduced "grit," a new psychological scale for measuring passion and stick-to-it-iveness, which has been marketed, in part,
as a tool to redress educational inequality. Anthony Greenwald and Mahzarin Banaji's implicit association test, or IAT, came to
utterly dominate the diversity-training industry, promising to pull back the curtain on our minds and reveal their unconscious
biases against disfavored groups.
Psychologist Amy Cuddy, seen here delivering a TED Talk in 2012, argued that 'power posing' can increase confidence.
PHOTO:
JAMES DUNCAN DAVIDSON/TED
These ideas have launched a veritable industry of books, training courses and other products. There's big money in social psychology
and a great deal of excitement. But there's also a lot less substance than meets the eye. Most people don't realize that despite the
air of scientific legitimacy which surrounds such faddish ideas, they have failed to deliver on their potential over and over again.
That's not to say the entire field is rotten. Social psychologists have produced important insights into human nature, from the ways
that in-group/out-group thinking can warp our perceptions of others' motives to Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance.
More recently, Betsy Levy Paluck worked with colleagues to develop an apparently effective anti-bullying strategy that relies on
using students' social networks. Others, like Simine Vazire, have carved out roles as methodological reformers, improving the
quality of research in the field.
Only about half of all published experimental psychological findings are successfully replicated by other researchers.
But a great deal of social psychology's recent output hasn't lived up to these standards. Often the field offers what are, in
effect, quick fixes for complex and enduring societal problems like inequality and bias. These self-help-style solutions are almost
always aimed at diagnosing and optimizing individuals, whether that means boosting their grit, making them feel more powerful or
discovering their hidden racism. Because they promise so much reward for so little effort, social psychology fads often win
attention and resources long before there is any rigorous evidence of their effectiveness. And such evidence often never
materializes: Only about half of all published experimental psychological findings are successfully replicated by other researchers.
The subfield of social psychology tends to fare even worse.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Have you had any experiences with fad psychology? Join the conversation below.
Perhaps it shouldn't surprise us to see science and self-help intersect. Americans have always been easily charmed by the inspiring
promise of profound personal transformation. The 19th-century New Thought movement "held that matter could be spiritualized and
brought under the complete domination of thought, and that all thoughts become matter," as the historian Alfred Whitney Griswold
wrote in 1934. Rhonda Byrne's 2006 book "The Secret," which spawned a wildly successful mega-franchise thanks to a major assist from
Oprah, is basically New Thought updated with the language of 21st-century experimental research.
"Under laboratory conditions cutting edge science has confirmed that every thought is made up of energy and has its own unique
frequency," notes Ms. Byrne's website. This supposedly means that "as your thought radiates out, it attracts the energy and
frequencies of like thoughts, like objects, and even like people, and draws those things back to you." The site offers testimonial
after testimonial proving that anyone who wishes and visualizes hard enough can get what they want, eventually.
The concept of 'grit.' popularized by psychologist Angela Duckworth, sees passion and stick-to-it-ivenss as the keys to success.
PHOTO:
ALAMY
Grit, power-posing and the IAT aren't as fundamentally vacuous as "The Secret." Dr. Cuddy's blockbuster power-posing idea originated
in a study published in the journal Psychological Science in 2010 that she conducted with two colleagues. The study found that
students who power-posed had higher levels of salivary testosterone and lower levels of the stress hormone cortisol than those who
folded their arms across themselves or enacted other "contractive" poses.
The IAT rests on studies in which a computer algorithm calculates reaction-time differences to certain stimuli and translates that
into a score that supposedly corresponds to the test-taker's "implicit bias." If you are quicker to link positive words with white
faces than with Black ones, you might be implicitly biased against Black people.
But the same thing seems to happen over and over with social psychology's big ideas. A book or TED Talk launches a theory to
stardom, changing the national conversation and winning lots of research funding. Then over the next few years countervailing
evidence quietly piles up, until it's high enough to force the question: Why were we so excited about this, again?
Power-posing, for example, is either dead or on life support, depending on who you ask. Serious methodological flaws with that
seminal study caused one of Dr. Cuddy's co-authors on it, Dana Carney of the University of California, Berkeley, to post a public
note stating flatly that she believes power posing isn't real. The concept has endured some bruising replication failures as well,
leaving little reason to believe in enthusiastic claims about its supposed effectiveness. (Dr. Cuddy did not respond to a request
for comment.)
Grit gained a great deal of attention thanks to Dr. Duckworth's provocative claims that it "beats the pants off I.Q., SAT scores,"
and other traditional measures of potential in determining "which individuals will be successful in some situations." Subsequent
research has showed this to be an undeniable overstatement, in some cases a massive one. While some studies have found that grit
might be useful for predicting achievement in certain narrow contexts, the first grit study conducted on a large, representative
sample of Americans, published last year, found that "intelligence contributes 48-90 times more than grit to educational success and
13 times more to job-market success."
To her credit, Dr. Duckworth has acknowledged some of the shortcomings of grit research and the lack of proven grit-enhancing
interventions. But in response to a question about the "beats the pants off" claim, she stood by it, saying that the context of that
remark was her research on teachers and West Point cadets. In fact, if you take a close look at those studies, the claim doesn't
really hold there either.
Psychologists Anthony Greenwald (left) and Mahzarin Banaji developed the implicit association test or IAT.
PHOTO:
QUINN RUSSELL BROWN; ASTRID STAWIARZ/GETTY IMAGES
But it's the implicit association test, a brief computerized exercise anyone can complete on Harvard's
Project
Implicit website
, where the gap between hype and reality is most staggering. The test's creators, Drs. Banaji and Greenwald,
have long claimed that implicit bias may help to explain persistent racial disparities in American society, especially given the
well-documented decline of explicit bias. This is a tidily inspiring story: There is a mental flaw many of us are carrying around
without even realizing it, but here comes a new tool that can shine a light on the problem and help us to overcome it. That's likely
why the IAT narrative was so quickly accepted by corporations and institutions nationwide.
Experts have long understood, however, that modern racial inequalities are the result of complicated social systems that can
reproduce themselves even in the absence of ongoing discrimination. Urban-planning decisions made in the 1960s can continue to
resonate to this day, even if contemporary urban planners are unbiased. Intergenerational poverty is a notoriously difficult problem
to overcome for reasons that go well beyond simple discrimination, whether implicit or explicit.
Implicit bias could certainly play a role in exacerbating these problems. Perhaps some white real-estate agents who view themselves
as unbiased unconsciously favor white buyers over Black ones, contributing to housing discrimination. But no one has come close to
proving that implicit bias is so significant that it deserves to dominate American racial-justice and diversity-training efforts.
It isn't clear exactly what the implicit association test measures in the first place.
Instead, it appears that many people have reasoned backward on this subject, concluding that since there's a test that measures
implicit bias, it must be quite important to explaining racial discrepancies. There's a whole genre of anecdotes in which people
reveal their shame at having scored the way they did on the IAT. "It's something of a custom, when discussing the IAT, to disclose
your own score on the test along with your unease," wrote John Tierney in the New York Times in 2008.
Worse, it isn't clear exactly what the implicit association test measures in the first place. Later research suggests that the score
delivered by the IAT captures not just some ghost of a bias but also cognitive processing speed in general, and may track
familiarity with forms of discrimination rather than endorsement of them. This was memorably demonstrated in a clever study
published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology in 2006, in which psychology researchers were able to induce "implicit
bias" against a wholly fictional group, the "Noffians," by priming test subjects to view this group as downtrodden.
In 2015, Drs. Banaji and Greenwald and a colleague acknowledged in an academic paper that "attempts to diagnostically use such
measures for individuals risk undesirably high rates of erroneous classifications." So even the creators of the IAT cannot endorse
it as a genuinely useful diagnostic instrument for individuals. Yet the test shambles on. In 2018, Dr. Greenwald told the Seattle
newspaper The Stranger that while implicit bias "training has not been shown to be effective," the IAT is still "a valuable
educational device to allow people to discover their own implicit biases."
It's hard to solve complicated social problems, especially in a country as big, diverse, polarized and politically
dysfunctional as ours.
It's hard to solve complicated social problems, especially in a country as big, diverse, polarized and politically dysfunctional as
ours. Psychological quick fixes offer relief from this reality, offering simple solutions to imposing conundrums. Even better, they
come from authoritative-seeming experts with genuine credentials rather than slick self-help charlatans.
If we really could improve gender equity in the workplace with a quick power-pose before a meeting, or close those yawning
achievement gaps with a novel psychometric instrument, that would be undeniably wonderful. But it's also not very realistic. We're
all profoundly affected by forces beyond our control, by decisions made behind closed doors, by the wealth we were born with or
without. "In our complex world, causes and effects always join in complicated ways," wrote the sociologist Charles Tilly in his 2006
book "Why?" "Simultaneous causation, incremental effects, environmental effects, mistakes, unintended consequences, and feedback
make physical, biological, and social processes the devil's own work -- or the Lord's -- to explain in detail. Stories exclude these
inconvenient complications."
There's only so much that individual-level tweaking can do to counter such influences. When we do successfully improve the world,
it's usually the result of big, coordinated actions that are politically fraught, involving difficult trade-offs.
Sometimes it is cheaper and less time-consuming to give everyone in your office an IAT training than to closely examine the
hiring practices that have led to a less-than-diverse workplace.
Quick psychological fixes sidestep these issues. We embrace half-baked psychological science for the same basic reasons we embrace
the idea that chanting a mantra can help us fix our hopelessly messed-up lives. And powerful institutions are happy to jump aboard
the bandwagon because they may have good reasons to prefer Band-Aid approaches.
Sometimes it is cheaper and less time-consuming to give everyone in your office an IAT training than to closely examine the hiring
practices that have led to a less-than-diverse workplace. It might be less painful for all involved to pin academic underachievement
on a lack of "grit" than to look seriously into the heartbreaking educational gaps that manifest themselves by kindergarten and only
grow larger in later grades. But while these ideas help HR managers and school superintendents check items off their to-do lists,
they don't actually solve problems. Once the TED Talk lights go down, there are still the 14-year-olds who are barely literate in
part because of their dysfunctional schools.
Fortunately, there's reason for hope that the worst social-psychology fads are behind us. As awareness of the full severity of the
field's so-called replication crisis has taken hold, so too has an ardor for methodological reform that will likely make tomorrow's
studies sturdier than today's. The original power-posing study, for example, would be less likely to get published in 2021, at least
in a top scientific journal.
Incentives largely caused this problem. Even upright scientists might find that their commitment to rigor wavers when the
possibility of a TED Talk beckons. But incentives can also help to solve it. Research psychologists, particularly young ones, don't
want to waste their early years producing work that will get effortlessly toppled the first time someone tries to replicate it. Now
that they know their work is more likely to face such scrutiny, they are embracing newer, sounder techniques in the hopes of
forestalling such problems. But in the meantime there's still a lot of cleaning up to do, and a lot of zombie ideas in need of
dispatching.
Mr. Singal is a journalist and the co-host of the podcast Blocked and Reported. This essay is adapted from his new book "The Quick
Fix: Why Fad Psychology Can't Cure Our Social Ills," published last week by Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Robert Middleton
SUBSCRIBER
45 minutes ago
I've seen this quick-fix pehenonmenon before, in nutrition, fitness, health, and learnings. Remember high carb / low
fat diets? The Grapefruit Diet? The Scarsdale Diet?
Or vibrating belts? Sauna suits? Subliminal learning? The red wine craze?
BRUCE GALE
SUBSCRIBER
4 hours ago
This summarizes it all:
"It's hard to solve complicated social problems, especially in a country as big, diverse, polarized and politically
dysfunctional as ours. Psychological quick fixes offer relief from this reality, offering simple solutions to imposing
conundrums. Even better, they come from authoritative-seeming experts with genuine credentials rather than slick
self-help charlatans."
I don't know how these people sleep at night.
Brien Akers
SUBSCRIBER
4 hours ago
I would endorse the concept of Grit for its' intrinsic value. There's an old saying: "Hard work beats brains every time
brains doesn't work hard." The point isn't that "every time" may be a bit of an overstatement but that with hard work
and determination a person can overcome much and create a better life for themselves, especially once-upon-a-time in
America.
Robert Middleton
SUBSCRIBER
40 minutes ago
(Edited)
Agree, in a general sense. Hard work helps a lot. Certainly does not hurt.
But there is always dumb luck (right place, right time, or good parents or DNA); old fashioned favortism, nepotism,
privelege; flashes of brilliance / creativity; great personality, good looks (the DNA thing). Grit can only do so
much.
Deborah Feigenson
SUBSCRIBER
6 hours ago
This is a huge problem in education research as well. People find a trendy idea, jump on it because it promises a
quick fix, and then cling to it for years even after it has failed to stand up to any kind of scrutiny. Embracing
humility and healthy skepticism are better than buying in wholesale and refusing to let go (I'm looking at you,
multiple intelligences theory). And I say this as someone who one taught power-posing as a strategy to help students
give presentations...
Publius S
SUBSCRIBER
19 hours ago
Much of the nonsense like the power pose is because of the inability to replicate studies. P-hacking is part
of it (see John Oliver on p-hacking), but also the lack of incentive to try to replicate previous results in
academia.
Dan R
SUBSCRIBER
23 hours ago
(Edited)
The sad reality is that many major US corporations and brands have bought into the implicit bias nonsense.
If you watched the NCAA March Madness tournament, you would have noticed Dove Men Care with their celebrate
Black Men ads. If you go to the Dove Men Care website you will see a body of psychological research
produced by Dove executives and researchers that claims that White people are overwhelmingly guilty of
implicit bias against Blacks entirely based upon these kinds of fake science studies.
So to combat bogus and non-existent implicit bias, Dove promotes Explicit Racial Bias by singling out
Celebrate Black Men in its TV ads. Time to boycott Dove big time ....
NITIN DALAL
SUBSCRIBER
1 day ago
Joining any of these "movements" is like joining a cult. You go there because you are lost and looking for simple
answers to complex problems. They have lofty credentials, fancy theories and anecdotal evidence to convince you to have
faith and follow without questioning. Once you accept the "guru" you have to follow. There is no sale, if they tell you,
you are fine. You are not okay, but here is the solution (and the check). All you need is good friends, they will cure
you. No charge.
Alex Guiness
SUBSCRIBER
1 day ago
... 'zombie ideas in need of dispatching.' If you dispatched all the zombie ideas what would you be left
with?
One thing I have learned since delving into politics and the human condition, is the aphorism
'People are people and do what they do because they are people.'
If you remove the human from humanity you are left with 'ity' which is not much to work with.
Barbara Helton
SUBSCRIBER
1 day ago
Absolutely agree, and I would apply the theme of failure to just about all the problems we are facing
today. These dilemmas are ancient, deep and complex, maybe unsolvable. However, a step in the right
direction might be for us all to honestly and completely admit that basically everyone has now joined the
struggle for dominance and power over everyone and everything else in our lives.
Stephen Keith
SUBSCRIBER
1 day ago
Patrisse Khan-Cullors, the leader of Black Lives Matter and a self-described Marxist, recently purchased a $1.4
million home in an exclusive Los Angeles neighborhood where the vast majority of residents are white, according to
reports.
(from the NYPost)
There's the coalescence of grit, power-posing (she's pictured in front of a sign saying
But
First...Revolution
with a fist held in the air) and IAT.
Obviously, it works.
Alex Guiness
SUBSCRIBER
3 hours ago
Is she an example of someone who was influenced by social psychology?
She believes in that which she espouses and by good fortune, turned social psychology into profit and bought herself
something nice?
She is a disingenuous predator like a preacher who fleeces his flock or a president who does the same, and took
advantage of those who believed in her so she could profit off their backs? and buy a 1200 sqft 3 bedroom home in
overpriced LA?
I think that the problem Neil deGrasse Tyson assigns to bad marketing is more attributable
to prominent scientists overstepping the bounds of their fields ("
What I've Learned From the Pandemic Year: Science Needs Better Marketing ," Review, March
20). Science should inform, not dictate, politics. Science is never settled, so it's OK to
challenge scientists on the facts as well as their predictions.
Many of the inventions Dr. Tyson attributes to science (smartphones, jet flight and the
internet) are in fact the work of engineers. Of course, these inventions are based on science.
But unlike raw science, they have to work in the real world, subject to economics, politics and
culture. Scientists sometimes forget that political and societal decisions are much more
complicated than scientific facts.
Prayson Pate
One need look no further than the 1955 set of encyclopedias in your parent's library to
understand that science is not an irrefutable truth. While the elements of the 1955 periodic
table remain on the 2021 list, many more have been added. The naming of clouds is the same
today as it was in 1955, but how we study and predict weather has changed dramatically. Base
metals are the same, but metallurgy has advanced by leaps and bounds. There were electric cars
over 100 years ago but my 2020 Tesla is a completely different beast than the 1903 Columbia
Electric Runabout. This advancement comes from scientific research and discovery. We call this
progress.
Those of us on the right are quite tired of being cast as rubes and know-nothings by the
self-proclaimed illuminati of the left. We are thinking, feeling and responsible Americans who
happen to be keenly aware of the recent weaponization of science. We like clean water, clean
air, a healthy body and a healthy environment. We just don't agree on whose science will allow
us to reach and sustain these goals.
Steve's fisking is a comic masterpiece! As for Sharkey, he bears out the conclusion that
the most important skill for today's academics is the ability to ignore the obvious,
obfuscate, and appear to embrace the latest ideological fashion, no matter how absurd.
In the present political climate, the words "government" and "ethics" could NEVER go
together in the same sentence. It's an oxymoron. Leftist politicians lie all the time as
easily as they breathe.
CRM114 1 day ago (Edited)
... I was once asked to review a book on Engineering Ethics for a University course. I did
some background research and discovered that the first four examples of ethical behavior
resulted in all those engineers being secretly blacklisted and never being able to work in
the profession again. They didn't use the book. However, the fact still remains that it still
happens, in case you were wondering how all those bridges and dams that fall down passed
inspection the year before.
CaMuPaSh 17 hours ago remove link
The first thing to remember is that most "professors" are frauds.
The second thing to remember is that most places that "professors" work at are frauds.
The third thing to remember is the first thing and the second thing.
We're talking here about a gender of parasite that usually Retires In Place as soon as
s/he gets tenure.
Just keep taking out those student loans to support these, predominantly, left wing
loonies.
Learn plumbing move to TX.
New_Meat 1 day ago remove link
"Military Intelligence"
"Jumbo Shrimp"
and now
"Government Ethics"
Back when, Jack Welch required all GE people to take "GE Ethics". Naturally, one would
think that this is a good thing. But after constant interactions with GE people, we concluded
that the purpose of the training was:
Make sure that everyone in GE knew where "the line" is, then
Make sure that everyone in GE knew where the "gray areas" lie, then
Make sure that everyone in GE knew how far beyond the "gray area" they could operate
without getting into trouble.
Then give the more aggressive people an "out"
Faeriedust 1 day ago
That's the usual purpose of "ethics training" in both medicine and the legal profession.
Been there, arranged the coursework, mailed the certificates.
AI Agent 9 hours ago remove link
Corporate ethics works the same way. President of the Company gets caught bribing the
government. Office of ethics is created. Everyone down to the janitor is trained in ethics:
don't steal stationary and don't stop working, even for a minute.
Meanwhile, new president is designing killer airplanes and hiding stuff from the FAA.
However, saying that's wrong is an ethics violation.
Recent research using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) techniques is allowing us to peer into the connections, yet
shrouded in mystery, between local brain activity, cognitive processes, and partisan attachment. This developing body of
knowledge has revealed the profound importance of evolution in shaping the ways in which our brains process all kinds of
information, in particular political information. At the center of this evolutionary journey is the importance of groups -- of being
initiated and accepted into them, of aligning ourselves with them, of being loyal to them regardless of philosophical
considerations.
The social dynamics of group membership and participation are programmed
more deeply into our brains than is abstract philosophizing.
"In other words, people will go along with the group, even
if the ideas oppose their own ideologies --
belonging
may have more value than facts.
" Because we once moved from place to place as nomads, such groups are our homes even more
than any physical locations are.
We now have decades of research suggesting -- if not proving -- "
the
ubiquity of emotion‐biased motivated reasoning
," reasoning that is qualitatively different from the kind operating when
subjects are engaged in "cold reasoning," where the subjects lack a "strong emotional stake" in the subjects at issue. Coupled
with a growing literature on the startling character and extent of
political
ignorance
, the current state has dire implications for human freedom. The stakes are high: in
their
2018 study
of why and how partisanship impairs the brain's ability to process information objectively, NYU researchers Jay J.
Van Bavel and Andrea Pereira note that
"partisanship can alter memory, implicit
evaluation, and even perceptual judgments."
One recent study, published last fall by a team from Berkeley, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins, set out to better understand how
partisan biases develop in the brain. The researchers had subjects watch a series of videos, using fMRI to explore the "neural
mechanisms that underlie the biased processing of real‐world political content." The results showed that partisan team members
process identical information in highly biased and motivated ways. The
researchers
locate this neural polarization
in the part of the brain known as the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, a region associated with
understanding and formulating narratives. The study also found, perhaps unsurprisingly, that to the extent a given participant's
brain activity during the videos
aligned with that of the "average liberal" or "average
conservative," the participant was more likely to take up that group's position
.
The study accords with years of
previous
research
showing that partisans' opinions on important social, political, and economic issues are
affected
by subconscious brain processes -- processes of which they're neither aware nor in control
. This ought to be deeply
concerning to everyone who belongs to a political team: processes are taking place in your brain, underneath or beyond the level
of direct awareness, that are informing your conclusions about important social and political issues. To reflect on this for even
a moment should fill anyone who aspires to critical thinking or rationality with a kind of dread, for
loyalty
to the team seems to be overriding the higher faculties of the mind
.
But, the authors are careful to note, it's important not to interpret these results as pointing to some kind of determinism,
whereby we can't choose how to think or what we believe. As one of of the
study's
authors,
Stanford psychologist Jamil Zaki, says, "Critically, these differences do not imply that people are hardwired to disagree."
Rather,
these neural pathways seem to be carved largely by the kinds and sources of the
media we consume
. From the data yielded by such research, among many other similar studies,
a picture
begins to emerge of partisanship as a kind of mind poisoning
, an infection that leads to serious and, importantly,
measurable
cognitive impairment
. Evidence suggests that, under the influence of
partisanship, we can't even understand our own thoughts and opinions.
In another important, recent experiment, researchers wanted to understand the relative accuracy of participants' introspective
constructs. The researchers set out to gauge people's ability to understand their own choices, to see clearly "the elements of
internal argumentation that lead to [their] choices." In particular, the researchers wanted to know how subjects would deal with
choices that had been manipulated -- that is, whether subjects would "notice mismatches between their intended choice and the
outcome they are presented with." Would subjects recognize that something was off? If they failed to notice the manipulation,
would they offer justifications for choices they had not even made? The assumption is that subjects who fail to notice the
mismatches must not really understand the reasons for their choices or "the internal processes leading to a moral or political
judgment."
The results revealed
a conspicuous "introspective blindness to the internal processes
leading to a moral or political judgment."
People didn't seem to understand why they had made the decisions they'd made
(or had not made), though some exhibited what the researchers call "
unconscious
detection of self‐deception
" -- these subjects were unable to detect the manipulations of their answers, but they did register
lower confidence in the manipulated choices, which the authors suggest points to "the existence of a neural mechanism
unconsciously monitoring our own thoughts."
Once one has chosen and joined a team, she has very little control over her own thoughts. When they are introduced, new data are
distorted, misinterpreted, or discarded based on their consistency with what we may describe as a program running in the
background:
partisanship leads the team member into a cognitive position of unconscious
self‐deception
. Few of us, if fully understanding this phenomenon, would choose it for themselves -- at least that's the
hope of many who study this area. As the authors observe,
"reflecting on our beliefs may
help to develop free societies."
They suggest that if citizens better understood the brain mechanics of the cognitive
impairment and self‐deception brought on by partisanship, they'd be positioned to make better decisions. Research has shown that
"
reflecting
on how we make decisions leads to better decisions
."
Similar research on self‐deception
in politics has also confirmed the presence of the
Dunning‐Kruger
effect
(to summarize, people think they know a lot more than they actually do). Further, the effect is exaggerated within the
context of politics, with
low‐knowledge participants describing themselves as
even
more
knowledgeable than usual once partisanship is made a conspicuous factor
.
Vitor
Geraldi Haase and Isabella Starling‐Alves posit
that the kind of self‐deception that is such "a major characteristic of
political partisanship probably evolved as an evolutionary adaptive strategy to deal with the intragroup‐extragroup dynamics of
human evolution." Objective truth, meaning roughly an accurate model of reality, is not important, at least not anywhere near as
important, as conformity and indeed submission, which we may associate with
social
reality
.
Whatever its flaws
, evolutionary psychology offers us several promising leads on the question of just why the brain isn't
able to perform on partisanship. This notion of social reality is an important clue. At this juncture, it is important to
underline the fact that when we speak of partisanship, we are not speaking of ideology; the relationship between partisan
identification and political ideology is complicated, the connection between the two not particularly strong. Ideologues tend to
think systematically, and the philosophical
contents
of their beliefs are deeply
important to them. What is important to the partisan is not
what
she believes, but that
she aligns her beliefs with those of her team or in-group -- or else, as may be the case, that she is loyal to and supportive of the
party group despite any real or perceived ideological nonconcurrences.
Americans tend to vastly
overestimate
the differences
in political ideology and policy preferences between Democrats and Republicans. In fact,
most
Americans are not at all ideological
, can't describe ideologies accurately (
as
their proponents would describe them
), and have almost no information on either the history of ideas or the empirical
evidence that bears on particular political or policy questions. Interestingly, partisanship doesn't necessarily seem to be about
politics in the normative or philosophical sense, as "people place party loyalty
over
policy, and even over truth
." There are actually
relatively
weak correlations
between partisan identity and concrete policy preferences. "[P]artisan affect is inconsistently (and
perhaps artifactually) founded in policy attitudes."
Indeed, strong partisanship is necessarily an impediment to ideological thinking insofar as ideology is predicated on an
integrated and consistent approach to policy questions, as against the blind, team‐rooting approach associated in the literature
with partisanship.
Ideological people, whatever their flaws, hold political actors and
government bodies to account.
Partisans change positions readily and shamelessly, depending on anything from who is
living in the White House, to the vagaries of party leaders, to what is perceived as popular at the moment. Further, individual
Americans' political opinions are remarkably unstable over time, vacillating between glaring contradictions, relying on
a confused amalgam of elite opinions. Partisanship as we know it rather seems to be
a holdover
from humankind's history of tribal loyalty
, with "
selective
pressures hav[ing] sculpted human minds to be tribal
." That is, evolution selected for just the kinds of cognitive biases we
find in partisans on both sides today (importantly, neither "team" is immune).
Partisanship quite literally makes one dumb -- or is it that dumb people are just more likely
to be committed partisans?
Zmigrod is careful to point out that the study can't give us the answer to that question,
that we would need longitudinal studies in order to better understand the causal direction and causal phenomena at play. As soon
as partisanship is introduced, as soon as a question mentions a politician or political party,
subjects
are unable to accurately assess basic facts
. Indeed, remarkably, tinging a question with a political shade renders many
subjects
unable to answer a simple question
even when they are given the answer
. Relatedly,
studies have shown that one's political affiliations
even
affect her ability to perform basic math
: given an operation that yields a statistic contradicting a subject's partisan view,
the subject will tend to question the result rather than updating based on the evidence or attempting to reconcile the new
information with her politics.
In a groundbreaking
study
published last summer
, a team of researchers led by the University of Exeter's Darren Schreiber attempted to address the lack
of brain imaging research specifically aimed at better understanding
nonpartisans
,
a group that has been neglected as almost all such research has focused on the differences between the brains of partisans of the
left and right. The study found that nonpartisans' brains are different from those of their brainwashed brethren, particularly in
"
regions
that are typically involved in social cognition.
"
It may be that the next stage in human evolution will involve rewiring our brains to accept the fact that current groups are
artificially and arbitrarily defined -- that all human beings are one people. For just as there is harmful, toxic tribalism, there
is also socially beneficial, cooperative, cosmopolitanism. As social policy expert
Elizabeth
A. Segal writes
, "Ultimately our goal should be to build the tribe we all belong to: that of humanity." Libertarians take
this lesson quite seriously, for we tend to see ourselves as part of a common global community of connected individuals who are
perfectly capable of dealing with one another through peaceful and mutually‐beneficial interactions. We celebrate social,
cultural, religious, and linguistic differences as the spice of life rather than see them as dividing lines or impediments to
willing collaboration. If we can understand and think clearly through partisanship, we can begin to build a freer world based not
on arbitrary divisions and compromised reasoning, but on mutual respect and renewed emphasis on rigorous critical thinking.
Freezing Texas should commission a monument: Greta Thunberg and Bill Gates save the Texans
from global warming by turning them into icicles. So much for global warming, the reddest
herring ever caught in the Gulf of Mexico!
... ... ...
Even the direction of the climate drift is not certain. The Warmers (like Greta) say our
planet is warming up because of carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by mankind. Many experts say the
planet is actually enters the new Ice Age due to diminished solar activity ( here ),
connecting it to Maunder Minimum or Gleissberg Minimum.
In Israel, a popular
expert Chaim Noll says the real problem is desertification, while CO2 is good for plants
and prevents semi-arid areas turning into desert. Still others say the changes are perfectly
normal; we have been through such changes before.
LINK BOOKMARK We really do
not know for sure what's going on and whether we can or should do anything about it. And now,
at the time of the great freeze, Bill Gates has temerity to publish his Warmer's Manifesto,
How to Avoid a Climate Disaster by Bill Gates. The book was heavily promoted, and got
fawning reviews, though it is as silly as any of these books. Gates wants us to stop travelling
(unless you can afford a private jet, of
the kind Gates has invested in), stop
eating meat (worms should be good enough for the hoi polloi, or synthetic meat produced by
the same Gates, for cows fart, and farting is warming the planet). Knowing his and his ilk's
ability to mobilise the media, I wouldn't be amazed if he succeeds in convincing the West. And
any disaster in meat-producing Texas would be grist to Gates' mill.
Besides being silly, this guy knows too much! In 2015, Gates gave a "prescient warning about
the threat of a pandemic", says a
reviewer . To what extent was it "prescient" if in the same 2015, Gates patented a coronavirus quite similar to
the one that attacked mankind in 2020? Perhaps he is prescient "for the same reason that
arsonists have the earliest knowledge of future fires", as Ron
Unz remarked .
Besides being silly, this guy knows too much! In 2015, Gates gave a "prescient warning about
the threat of a pandemic", says a
reviewer . To what extent was it "prescient" if in the same 2015, Gates patented a coronavirus quite similar to
the one that attacked mankind in 2020? Perhaps he is prescient "for the same reason that
arsonists have the earliest knowledge of future fires", as Ron
Unz remarked .
Bill Gates never went to college, so I doubt he knows the carbon cycle. He thinks he can
talk nonsense because he is rich, and the nonsense will then make sense.
There is no global warming, but global cooling, as there was snow even in Israel:
It has now become commonplace to accuse anyone who opposes covid lockdowns of being "antiscience."
This
sort of treatment persists
even
when published scientific studies suggest
the usual prolockdown narrative is wrong. support the antilockdown position.
There are sociological, economic, and cultural reasons why experts will
take the
politically popular position, even when the actual scientific evidence is weak or nonexistent.
Experts Are Biased and Are Self-Interested like Everyone Else
Though we are often encouraged to listen to experts because of their intelligence and expertise,
there
is a strong case for us to be skeptical of their pronouncements.
Beliefs serve a social function by indicating one's position in society. Hence
to
preserve their status in elite circles, highly educated experts may subscribe to incorrect positions, since doing do so can
confer benefits.
Refusing to hold a politically popular viewpoint could damage one's career. And since upper-class
professionals are more
invested
in
acquiring status than working people, we should not expect them to jettison incorrect beliefs in the name of pursuing truth.
Cancel
culture
has
taught us that promoting the world view of the elite is more important than truth to decision makers.
So why should we listen to experts when they give greater primacy to appeasing elites
than solving national problems?
In contrast to what some would want you to believe -- revolting against experts is not
an attack on science, considering that little evidence suggests that they care about scientific truth. Let us not fool
ourselves. People occupying powerful offices are uninterested in being toppled from positions of influence, and as such, they
will seek to minimize views that threaten their professional or intellectual authority. As a result, expecting influential
bureaucrats to value truth is unwise. Truth to a bureaucrat is merely the consensus of the intelligentsia at any given time.
Of note is also the lesser ability of
intelligent
people
to identify their own bias.
Stemming from their greater levels of cognitive
development, it is easier for intelligent people to rationalize nonsense.
Justifying extreme assumptions requires a
lot of brainpower, so this could possibly explain why highly intelligent people -- specifically, people "higher in verbal
ability" -- are
inclined
to
express more extreme opinions. Our culture has immense faith in expert opinion, although the evidence indicates that such
confidence must be tempered by skepticism. Intelligent people, whether they be experts or politicians, do not have a monopoly
on rationality.
Admittedly, intelligence may act as a barrier to objective thinking. Brilliant people are adept at forming arguments,
therefore even when confronted with compelling data, they are still able to offer equally riveting counterpoints. Smart people
can engage opponents without resorting to a bevy of studies to buttress their conclusions.
Thus,
clearly, the proposals of experts ought to be held to a higher standard primarily
because
they
are smarter than average.
The capacity of an intelligent person to provide coherent arguments in favor of his ideas can be impressive, and may only
serve to solidify him or her in his or her conclusions.
For instance, in the arena of
climate
change
experts have recommended policies that are consistent with data on nothing but the claim that a consensus supports
such proposals.
Promoting the wide-scale use of renewables, for example, is usually touted as a sustainable climate
strategy despite the fact that
studies
argue
the
reverse
.
Counter to the rantings of the intelligentsia, we should implore more people to express
skepticism of experts.
Due to their high intelligence, experts tend to be more inflexible and partisan than other
people. This is solid justification for ordinary people to be skeptical of the intellectuals in charge of national affairs.
Unlike
wealthy bureaucrats, who are insulated from the economic fallout of their bad ideas, the poor usually bear the burden.
The globalists found just the economics they were looking for.
The USP of neoclassical economics – It concentrates wealth.
Let's use it for globalisation.
Mariner Eccles, FED chair 1934 – 48, observed what the capital accumulation of
neoclassical economics did to the US economy in the 1920s. "a giant suction pump had by 1929 to 1930 drawn into a few hands an increasing proportion
of currently produced wealth. This served then as capital accumulations. But by taking
purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied themselves the kind of
effective demand for their products which would justify reinvestment of the capital
accumulation in new plants. In consequence as in a poker game where the chips were
concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by
borrowing. When the credit ran out, the game stopped"
This is what it's supposed to be like.
A few people have all the money and everyone else gets by on debt.
James @ 168: I still like going to seminars and talks but in the current pandemic
environment this has been difficult. I don't really like having to use Zoom to attend online
talks but so many places use it now, it is unavoidable in spite of its security issues.
I wouldn't say that not accepting things at face value is a "bad habit" though this has
caused me problems in the past and still does. Being sceptical and open-minded should be
healthy attitudes. Of course having such attitudes does come with its own pitfalls, but this
is how we have evolved as humans so they have some survival value.
I've been following her work for several months now and think her premises much sounder
than Matthew Ehret's, who are actually on the same Canadian team. Generally, the three of us
are working on exposing the rise and spread of what's now known as Neoliberalism. And of
course, there's Dr. Hudson who's ahead of us all.
The line of investigation initiated by Upton Sinclair into the shared Board memberships at
key elite universities within the USA that erased the traditional teaching of
political-economy and replaced it with the mathematical economics which lie at the root of
Neoliberalism's Junk Economics
I see as very promising as they're also prominent bankers and Old Money with social
connections to England's Royalty and Nobility--the primary members of Europe's Rentier
Class . When I look over the comments, many have forgotten just what Class owns the
Duopoly and controls the federal government. Trump was never allowed into their circle but
was used by some of its members in the pursuit of interests that are still shrouded in fog.
My working hypothesis there is they were quite worried that too much industrial capacity had
been foreclosed and moved such that it caused a real threat to national security; thus the
need for MAGA.
With the rise of the Eurasian Bloc, the "threat" isn't military; it's economic. As I wrote
earlier today, an economy based on consumerism will collapse when the consumers can no longer
consume. Hudson's 100% correct that debt's that can't be repaid won't. The current degree of
economic polarization is miniscule compared to what might ensue if the Bidenites don't
forestall it--200 Million people bankrupt while 100 Million have good paying jobs and can
afford their debts--the remaining 40-50 Million are mostly impoverished children. This time
the part of the public that gets shafted as in 2009 under Obama isn't going to sit still, and
what happened in DC will be repeated elsewhere with meaning this time. A genuine MAGA Fascist
wanting control will need to disarm the Rentier Class and the Swamp thus ousting the
current "Friendly Fascist" regime--and that would require a paramilitary since that's
basically what composes the Swamp--Civil War between two Factions of Reaction that would also
split the military. Wonder what barflies think of all that?
Earlier in the week I linked to the latest Renegade Inc program which had Dr.
Hudson as one of the guests. That show's
transcript is now available. Here's an excerpt with Ross Ashcroft asking a question:
"Ross: What do you think are the megatrends that we should be looking at in 2021? What do
you think is the direction of travel, if you like, for so-called developed economies?
"Michael Hudson: Well, the big trend in any economy is the growth of debt, because the
debt grows exponentially. The economy has painted itself into a debt corner. We can see that
in real estate. We can see that for small business. There's also almost no way to recover.
The Federal Reserve has been printing quantitative easing to keep stock and bonds high. But
for the real economy, the trend is polarization and lower employment.
"The trend also is that state and local finances are broke, especially in the biggest
cities, New York City, San Francisco and Los Angeles. They're not getting income tax revenue
from the unemployed or closed businesses. They're not getting the real estate tax with so
many defaults and mortgage arrears. In New York City there's talk of cutting back the subways
by 70 percent. People will be afraid to take the subways when they're overcrowded with people
with the virus. So you're having a breakdown not only in state and local finances, but of
public services that are state run – public transportation services, health services,
education is being downsized. Everything that is funded out of state and local budgets is
going to suffer.
"And living standards are going to be very sharply downward as people realize how many
services they got are dependent on public infrastructure."
And this one I must also include:
"Ross: What is the one thing that has really surprised you in 2020? What have you laughed
at? What has given you a chuckle?
"Michael Hudson: The surprise – that I really shouldn't have been surprised at
– is how naive Bernie Sanders supporters were in thinking that they were going to get a
fair deal and that the elections were going to be fair. The illusion is that people were
actually going to have a fair election when the last thing the vested interests wanted was
Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or any kind of reformer. So what happened to Sanders is
what happened to Corbyn in Britain and the Labour Party's neoliberal leadership.
"So what's for laughs? I guess, Tulsi Gabbard's takedown of Kamala Harris was absolutely
wonderful. Everybody just broke out laughing, cheering for her. And of course, that's why she
was marginalized, and now we have Kamala Harris as the senior vice president."
Of course, none of the dire economic news is being reported with the focus instead on Wall
Street's markets, with much of the public just as brainwashed about it as Trump. The last
third focuses on politics, which is what most barflies want to read about. So, click the link
and read what Dr. Hudson sees in the tea leaves.
"... "Some people's own incompetence somehow gives them a stupid sense that anything they do is first rate. They think it's great." ..."
"... Extreme views often stem from people feeling they understand complex topics better than they do. ..."
"... David Krakauer, the President of the Santa Fe Institute, told interviewer Steve Paulson, for Nautilus , stupidity is not simply the opposite of intelligence. "Stupidity is ... where adding more data doesn't improve your chances of getting [a problem] right," Krakauer said. "In fact, it makes it more likely you'll get it wrong." ..."
Why aren't there more people studying the science behind stupidity?
Nautilus
On this past International Holocaust Remembrance Day, I reread a bit of Bertrand Russell. In 1933, dismayed at the Nazification
of Germany, the philosopher wrote "The Triumph of Stupidity," attributing the rise of Adolf Hitler to the organized fervor of stupid
and brutal people -- two qualities, he noted, that "usually go together."
He went on to
make one of his most famous observations, that the "fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure
while the intelligent are full of doubt." Russell's quip prefigured the scientific discovery of a cognitive bias -- the Dunning --
Kruger effect -- that has been so resonant that it has penetrated popular culture, inspiring, for example, Russell's quip
"Some people's own incompetence somehow gives them a stupid sense that anything they do is first rate. They think it's
great."
No surprise, then, that psychologist
Joyce Ehrlinger prefaced a 2008
paper she wrote with David
Dunning and Justin Kruger, among others, with Russell's comment -- the one he later made in his 1951 book, New Hopes for a Changing
World :
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding
are filled with doubt and indecision." "By now," Ehrlinger noted in that paper, "this phenomenon has been demonstrated even for
everyday tasks, about which individuals have likely received substantial feedback regarding their level of knowledge and skill."
Humans have shown a tendency, in other words, to be a bit thick about even the most mundane things, like how well they drive.
Stupidity is not simply the opposite of intelligence.
Russell, who died in 1970 at 97 years of age, probably would not be surprised to hear news of this new
study , published in Nature Human Behaviour
: "Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most." The researchers, led by Philip Fernbach,
cognitive scientist and co-author of The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone , analyzed survey responses from a nationally
representative sample of U.S. adults.
They obtained similar results, they write, "in a parallel study with representative samples from the United States, France and
Germany, and in a study testing attitudes about a medical application of genetic engineering technology (gene therapy)."
It was nevertheless consistent with prior work exploring the Dunning -- Kruger effect and the psychology of extremism, he Fernbach
called their result "perverse." It was nevertheless consistent with prior work exploring the Dunning -- Kruger effect and the psychology
of extremism, he
said . " Extreme views often stem from people feeling they understand complex topics better than they do. " Now as ever,
societies need to know how to combat this. But what exactly is stupidity?
David Krakauer, the President of the Santa Fe Institute,
told interviewer Steve Paulson, for Nautilus
, stupidity is not simply the opposite of intelligence. "Stupidity is ... where adding more data doesn't improve your chances of
getting [a problem] right," Krakauer said. "In fact, it makes it more likely you'll get it wrong."
Intelligence, on the other hand ... allows you to solve complex problems with simple, elegant solutions. "Stupidity is a very
interesting class of phenomena in human history, and it has to do with rule systems that have made it harder for us to arrive at
the truth," he said.
... ... ...
Brian Gallagher is the editor of Facts So Romantic, the Nautilus blog.
The biggest shakeup to my world view came with Russiagate.
I had previously believed that intelligence sat at the top of the hierarchy for how people
process information and get their belief systems.
Now I know that intelligence is a sub-layer in the hierarchy, and not even second.
Levels:
1) People identify with groups and get their beliefs from that group - herds.
2) People mimic their herd.
3) People apply intelligence to rationalize the beliefs that they already hold.
Trying to deprogram a headline-reader or ingestor of the MSM (aka MIC-mouthpiece)
by interacting with them at level #3 is like "spooning against the tide". You are not even
getting close to level #1.
This is actually reinforcing people's delusion that they are operating primarily from an
intelligence level - a catch-22.
You are telling them that their beliefs originate from intelligently gathered information.
That isn't helping them.
Start paying attention to how often you trigger a mimic's cliche function.
It can be amusing. Then notice that you yourself were under the delusion that their beliefs
originated intelligently.
That is why you are interacting with them in intelligent conversation, isn't it?
You believe that something that was birthed from intelligence can be untangled with your
intelligent argument. Think again.
They have their beliefs that they mimic and then "confirmation bias" cements it,
and cementing it is the function of the endlessly repeated lies of the MIC-mouthpieces.
The repeated lies are kept fresh by putting them into new forms - Russiagate became
Ukrainegate became Bountygate became Vaccinegate
(with occasional side trips into such places as MH17-gate, Skripal-gate and Assange-gate,
etc).
You can spend your time showing them, for example, that the Skripal false-flag was a clown
performance at best - the facts are out there for all to read.
But then, even if successful with that one, "what about this-gate and that-gate" - you
haven't even scratched the surface of their
collective McCarthyism and thus by informing them about Skripal-gate "you are defending
Russia". Good luck with that.
People are mimics that let their herd do their thinking for them. They have various skill
levels at rationalizing to themselves the beliefs that they already hold.
p.s.
Put the three-level hierarchy to the test by considering people's religious beliefs.
People are typically born into those religious groups - level 1. They will consistently
mimic the same cliches, for example, "G-d will curse those that do not support the Jews",
"Jesus will throw you into a Lake of Fire", "Have a Blessed Day".
Do you think they all independently discovered these identical "Truths" on their own, and
so, so many more, by their own personal study of the Bible?
They are mimicking - level 2. Now go and approach them at level 3 - the intelligence level
- but don't neglect to carry a barf bag with you. Maybe you can succeed in reinforcing their
delusion that their religious beliefs are intelligence based, but you will not even nudge
them from their identity group - level 1. And you will only get for your trouble an ear full
of mimicry.
---
I wrote the above last summer. Since then there have been more "-gates" such as the latest
Multiple-US-agencies-Solarwinds-hack-gate. I mentioned Vaccinegate above and I had to stop
and think about what that had been about as the public is being hosed with so much crap these
days. Vaccinegate - supposedly the Russians had hacked our vaccine research.
---
recommended reading: https://woodybelangia.com/what-is-mimetic-theory/
@librul #2
I think you overegg your view.
A significant part of the "me too" views these days is "rice bowl religion" - that is, belief
maintained because the holder think they have to, in order to continue the economic
prosperity.
Another significant part comes from the pervasiveness of mainstream media - both traditional
and social media.
librul @ 2
Thanks Librul. Very insightful and accurate framing and description. Caitlin Johnstone also
lays out the same perspective but yours stands alone as impressive.
Hope we're in the same herd! LOL!
"social media is notorious for the way it creates tightly insulated echo chambers which
masturbate our confirmation bias and hide any information which might cause us cognitive
dissonance by contradicting it. Whole media careers were built on this phenomenon "
.
So-called "social" media is a cancer eating away at our humanity and our sense of community
with every passing moment. It is a devil's brew of the worst of human thought and behavior
that seeks to lower the level of human interaction with every click and toxic retort. It may
be the tool that actually does us in even more than the other big threats to our
existence.
.
"Splitting the public up into two oppositional factions who barely interact and can't even
communicate with each other because they don't share a common reality keeps the populace
impotent, ignorant, and powerless to stop the unfolding of the agendas of the powerful."
.
People today have short attention spans. They don't have any depth of thinking and they
certainly don't want shades of grey. The Dark Powers successfully exploit this weakness to
their benefit with little pushback from an easily amused public. Those who love simplicity
don't want anything more challenging and they certainly aren't the least bit concerned about
those who are actively doing them in.
.
"You should not be afraid of your government being too nice to China. What you should worry
about is the US-centralized power alliance advancing a multifront new cold war conducted
simultaneously against two nuclear-armed nations for the first time ever in human history.
"
.
We should indeed be concerned about Empires measuring the size of their manhoods against each
other but since that has nothing to do with reporting on our neighbors for not wearing masks
or the speed of our internet connections or the latest video of some fool acting the fool on
the web we won't be concerned about it. You gotta have priorities, you know.
Postmodernist, in this context, usually means something like 'based on self-confident
assertions that have no connection with reality'. Or 'based on truthness '.
What is the dominant guiding principle of western societies today?
At the risk of sounding crass, let me suggest that it is the "cover your ass" or CYA
principle. This principle has always been fairly prominent in participative democracies. But
now it has gone into hyper-drive - so much so, that the CYA principle is also now an important
driving force even in financial markets.
CYA and Covid-19
Take the response to Covid-19 as an example of the CYA principle in action. Is there any
doubt that the rush to lock down economies and suspend normal civil rights -- to go to church,
to attend school, to visit friends -- in the face of Covid was driven largely by policymakers'
fears that if large numbers of people died, they would be held accountable in the court of
public opinion?
Of course, no policymakers want a surge in deaths on their watch. But economies did not get
shut down during the 2009 swine flu pandemic, nor during Sars in 2003, the Hong Kong flu
pandemic of 1969, nor even the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918. So what changed between the time
of Sars and the time of Covid? One obvious answer is the rise of social media.
Now that every policy choice is reviewed and debated in real time by millions of people
around the world, CYA has become all-important. Politicians have to put policies in place to
hedge against the wildest tail risks imaginable. At the same time, the first instinct of
policymakers (and of investors -- but more on this later) is to avoid doing anything that
diverges too far from the pack. Any policymaker anywhere looking at the opprobrium heaped on
Sweden will surely agree with John Kenneth Galbraith's observation that "it is far, far safer
to be wrong with the majority than to be right alone".
Once Denmark and Norway had decided to follow Italy's lead and lock down their populations,
any western government that did not follow suit risked being accused of playing Russian
roulette with people's lives, regardless of the epidemiological evidence. Unfortunately, we
still seem stuck in this mindset, even as the weekly death tolls across western countries have
dipped to generational lows, almost regardless of the Covid policies they adopted (see the
chart below).
So, we should all be grateful that Donald Trump appears to be bouncing back from his brush
with Covid having taken little harm. Firstly, of course, Trump is human, and it doesn't do to
wish harm on another human. Secondly, if Covid were to have taken Trump's life, it would have
claimed the highest profile victim possible. And after the death of the US president, who can
doubt that anti-Covid measures would become even more liberticidal. Regardless what you think
of Trump, that would be a very bearish development, at least for "Covid-victims" such as energy
names, airlines, casinos, hotels, and restaurants , all of which are desperate for policymakers
to acknowledge that Covid-19 no longer seems to be as lethal as it was six months
ago.
CYA and the fiscal and monetary policy mix
Moving on to the far less controversial fiscal and monetary policy responses to the
recession, can there be any doubt -- again -- that policy is being driven above all by the CYA
principle? What policymaker wants to espouse the Hippocratic principle of "first, do no harm,"
and let markets and prices find their own footing? None. As Anatole has argued, policymakers
are scrambling always to do more, with ever-bigger budget deficits funded by ever-more money
printing ( see Will A Keynesian Phoenix
Arise From Covid? ).
Can this new enthusiasm for budget deficits and money printing guarantee prosperity? It
seems to for some individual stocks. But for the broad market? Perhaps not, or at least not in
"real terms". Take the equal-weighted S&P 500 as a proxy for the typical equity portfolio
(appropriate now a handful of mega-cap names dominate the cap-weighted index), and discount it
by the gold price to get a picture of equity returns adjusted for currency debasement.
When US governments keep spending under control, as Bill Clinton's did in the 1990s or the
Tea-Party-led Congress did after 2011, the broad equity market goes through long phases of
"rerating" against gold (see the chart below).
And when the government embraces expanding budget deficits funded by the Federal Reserve, as
with George W Bush's "guns and butter" policies or Donald Trump's rapid deficit expansion, gold
massively outperforms the broad equity market. Where does this leave us today? Since 2014, the
equal-weighted S&P 500 has delivered the same returns as a pet rock -- gold. This is
because the index has lost a third of its value since making a high in September 2018, and has
basically been flat-lining since late April (see the chart below).
This may help to put the current debate on US stimulus into context. First, does anyone
doubt that the US government will release a tsunami of new spending after the election? Because
of the CYA principle, what policymaker will want to be seen to be blocking recovery? Secondly,
will this increase in budget deficits, funded by the printing press, trigger stronger economic
growth? If so, why weren't we doing it before? Will it lead to higher asset prices? If so, why
are we so far off the 2018 high? Or will it mean further currency debasement? Looking at the
ratio between the equal-weighted S&P 500 and the gold price, will a new round of stimulus
mean a return to the February 2020 high? Or will it see the March 2020 low taken out?
Another way to look at this problem is through the prism of the US dollar. Will another
round of fiscal stimulus be dollar-bullish? Or will it be dollar-bearish? The answer matters
greatly to all those foreign investors currently seeking shelter in US equities. For them, the
return on US equities has been flat since late May - and going further back, flat since
mid-2019.
So, if another round of stimulus weakens the US dollar, as seems likely if the stimulus is
funded by the Fed, then foreign investors will have to hope that increased equity values will
more than compensate for their foreign exchange losses.
CYA and indexing
This brings me to what is likely the most important element of all this for readers: the CYA
principle and investing. Gavekal has written at length about the dangers of indexing (see, for
example, Exponential Optimization). We have also argued that indexing is the new in-vogue form
of socialism. Capital is not allocated according to its marginal return -- the foundation on
which capitalism rests. Instead, capital is allocated according to the size of companies. Just
as in the days of the old Soviet Union or Maoist China, the bigger you are, the more capital
you get. It is hard to think of a stupider way to allocate one of the key resources on which
future growth relies. So why is indexing so popular? Simple: it is the ultimate CYA
strategy.
As Charlie Munger likes to say: "Show me the incentives, and I will show you the outcome."
In a world where every money manager is told his or her target is to achieve a performance
close to that of the index, it is hardly surprising that ever-more money ends up getting
indexed ( see Indexation = Parasitism
). As a consequence, over the years the dispersion of results among money managers has become
smaller and smaller.
Now, the Holy Grail of money management is to achieve decent long term returns combined with
low volatility in those returns. However, in a world where ever-more capital is directed into
investments that outperform -- playing momentum rather than mean reversion -- you inherently
end up with greater volatility all round. Take the past few years as an example: since January
2018, the S&P 500 equal-weighted index has suffered six corrections of -10% or greater,
including one -20% drop and one -40% drop. In contrast, in the preceding two years -- January
2016 to January 2018 -- the S&P 500 did not see a single -10% drop, while the July 2016 to
January 2018 period didn't even see a -5% drop. Clearly, something in the environment has
changed.
More indexing makes sense from a CYA perspective, but ends up delivering lower returns and
higher volatility all round. This stands to reason. If capital is allocated only according to
marginal variations in the price of an asset, then the more the asset's price rises, the more
capital money managers will allocate to that asset. And the more an asset's price falls, the
less capital is allocated to it. Such momentum-based investing inevitably creates an
explosive-implosive system, which swings wildly from booms to busts and back again. And in the
process, capital gets misallocated on a grand scale.
In the 20th century, the goal of every socialist experiment was for everybody to earn the
same salary. In the 21st century, it seems that the goal of indexing is for everybody to earn
the same return. As we now know, fixing everyone's return on labor at the same price was a
disaster. People stopped working, and economic growth plummeted. Fast forward to today, and why
should we expect a different outcome if the end-goal of our investment strategy is to ensure
that everyone gets the same return, not on the their labor but on their capital? Isn't the
entire world of money management now oriented towards delivering this remarkable ambition?
And should we really be surprised if the growth rates of our economies continue to slip? Why
should we expect a positive growth outcome from an epic misallocation of capital? Take the
current Big Tech craze as an example: everything is organized for investors to sink ever more
capital into those very companies that need it least, and whose best use for this gusher of
money is typically to buy back their own shares.
This CYA investment-decision-making process appears to be one of the key drivers behind the
recent divergence between the S&P 500 market-capitalization-weighted index, and the S&P
500 equal-weighted index.
But it may also explain an interesting point raised by my friend Vincent Deluard, strategist
at StoneX. In a recent tweet (he's well
worth following) he noted that each of the last four major market corrections bottomed out
in the last week of the quarter, just after the index futures expired. Now, this could be a
remarkable coincidence. On the other hand, it might say a great deal about how capital is
allocated today.
Conclusion
In A Study Of History, Arnold Toynbee reviewed the rise and fall of the world's major
civilizations. He showed that throughout history, when any civilization was confronted with a
challenge, one of two things could occur. The elite could step up and tackle the problem,
allowing the civilization to continue to thrive. Alternatively, the elite could fail to deal
with the problem. In this case, as the problem grew, their failure led to one of three
outcomes.
1) A change of elite. An example is the clear-out of the French political class at the
time of decolonization. As the old Fourth Republic stalwarts struggled to meet the challenges
of Asian and African independence movements, they were replaced by Charles de Gaulle who
brought in new personnel and established the institutions of the Fifth Republic.
2) A revolution. Obvious examples include the French revolution, with the bourgeoisie
taking over from the aristocracy, and the American revolution, with the local elite taking
power from the British king.
3) A civilizational collapse. Examples include the collapse of the Aztec, Mayan and Inca
civilizations following the arrival of the conquistadores. Another is the disappearance of
the Visigoths in Spain and North Africa following the Arab-Muslim invasions at the start of
the eighth century.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
With this framework in mind, how does CYA as an organizational policy approach help in
dealing with challenges? The obvious answer is that if CYA is your guiding principle, the
problems you chose to tackle will be those where there is little controversy within the elite
about the required solutions.
This explains the constant hectoring about tackling climate change. Here, policymakers can
promise to spend lots of money, without leaving their backsides too exposed. This accounts for
the dramatic divergence between the performance of green energy producers (who produce energy)
and carbon energy producers (who also produce energy).
It may also explain the rush towards ever-more European integration, as if the real
challenge facing Europe today is a resurgence of the Franco-German rivalry that tore the
continent apart in the 19th and 20th centuries. Policymakers can spend entire weekends in
summit meetings debating European integration. This allows them to feel useful and important,
even if their debates increasingly seem about as relevant as the debates of the Byzantines over
the gender of angels even as the Turks were storming their city. But while pushing for more
European integration might not tackle any of the issues European voters actually care about, at
least it doesn't leave your behind exposed.
This brings me back to Karl Popper's theory that at any one time, there is a set amount of
risk in the system. Any attempt to contain this risk either displaces it to somewhere else, or
stores it up for later. If Popper was right, then the extreme aversion of our policymakers to
taking risks means that the risk must appear elsewhere. But where? Perhaps in financial
markets? It does seem not only that spikes in the Vix have been getting sharper lately, but
that the Vix is also staying more elevated than you would expect in the middle of a roaring
bull market.
Or, to put it another way, over the past few years, it does seem that the "downside gaps" in
markets have started to become more vicious.
So perhaps CYA makes sense in today's financial markets. The challenge, of course, has
become finding the instruments that allow you to cover your posterior. In March 2020, as equity
markets tanked, government bonds did not diversify portfolios adequately. And in September, as
equities fell -10% from peak to trough, bonds also failed to deliver offsetting positive
returns.
This new development -- that US treasuries no longer offer CYA protection for equity
investors in difficult times -- is an important one. It makes allocating capital to either
equities or bonds a lot more challenging. Or at least it becomes a lot more challenging if you
are compelled to follow contemporary western society's all-important guiding principle:
CYA.
Michael
Hudson's newest interview on the Macro N Cheese Podcast either as a transcript or via
audio is all about the coming debt deflation and what he calls the Neofeudal Empire.
If you haven't already known, Hudson reminds you that:
Who is the dumbest economic Nobel Prize winner? [Paul Krugman?] Paul Krugman. That's right.
He was given a Nobel Prize for not understanding what money was. If he would have
understood it, that would've excluded him from getting the Nobel Prize.
I know, take chess for example, where the highest rank is the title of "Master." Someone
should change this. Also note the "black" always move second, the queen serves the king and
her highest glory is to "sacrifice" herself for him. Protect the MAN! The game is so
structurally racist and sexist, is it any wonder there has never been a black or female world
champion? Sheez
Bolshevism stupidities first played as a great tragedy, which cost many scientists their life
or who were pushed into exile, now the same stupidity with the exchange of "proletarian
scientists" to "black scientist" is re-played as a farce in the USA
Some science-relevant extracts from Heather's article:
The dean of the Jacobs School of
Engineering at the University of California, San Diego, Albert ("Al") P. Pisano [ Email him ] pronounced
himself "absolutely dedicated" to turning the engineering school into an "anti-racist
organization." Doing so "crucially includes unconscious bias work we must do within ourselves,"
he added. How that work will interact with research on nanoparticles and viral transmission,
say, was unspecified.
[Excerpted from the latest Radio Derb, now available exclusively through VDARE.com]
Recently
I had things to say about wokeness at the fine old magazine Scientific American .
Their September issue had run a long article, headlined Reckoning With Our
Mistakes, in which the editors groveled, rent their garments, heaped ashes on their
heads, and flagellated themselves with guilt over shamefully un-Woke things the magazine had
published back in the 19th century.
All that was bad enough -- distressing enough, I should say, for an old science geek like
myself who, in his youth, looked to Scientific American for instruction and amusement on
science and math topics, delivered in a spirit of objective enquiry.
Can you guess which one? Of course you can! Quote:
The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its
people -- because he rejects evidence and science.
There follow several hundred words about how ineptly the Administration has coped with the
COVID-19 pandemic, with some supplementary remarks on healthcare in general and environmental
issues. Then this concluding paragraph:
The Scientific American editorial is, in short, just cut'n'pasted from Biden campaign
talking points.
For more on the ongoing corruption of American science by ideology, see Heather Mac Donald's
article Conformity To A Lie in the
summer issue of City Journal .
Heather quotes the revolting statements of self-abasement issuing from college presidents
and faculty heads about how they must strive harder to purge their institutions of "systemic
racism" and "white privilege."
Some science-relevant extracts from Heather's article:
The dean of the Jacobs School of
Engineering at the University of California, San Diego, Albert ("Al") P. Pisano [ Email him ] pronounced
himself "absolutely dedicated" to turning the engineering school into an "anti-racist
organization." Doing so "crucially includes unconscious bias work we must do within ourselves,"
he added. How that work will interact with research on nanoparticles and viral transmission,
say, was unspecified. The chairman of the earth and planetary sciences department at the
University of California at Davis, announced an "anti-racist reading group" for faculty and
students. The group's purpose was to confront the "structural racism that pervades" the field
of geology. Such structural racism in the study of igneous rocks is apparently so obvious that
the chair did not bother to elaborate further. The American Astronomical Society held
color-coded Zoom meetings, one for white astronomers to "discuss direct actions to support
Black astronomers," one for black
astronomers to "talk, vent, connect, and hold space for each other," and one for "non-Black
people of color to discuss direct actions to support Black astronomers." See
AAS Endorses #ShutDownSTEM, #ShutDownAcademia & #Strike4BlackLives , AAS website,
June 9,
This kind of thing is what has led VDARE.com's Lance Welton to say, repeatedly, that science is
entering a new Dark Age:
In that piece by Heather Mac Donald that I mentioned, one of the college presidents
confessing his
institution's sinful racism is Christopher Eisgruber, President of Princeton University.
President Eisgruber [ Email him ] has, Heather tells us,
ordered the school's top faculty and administrators to submit plans on how they will
"combat systemic racism within and beyond the University." Every aspect of Princeton will be
reexamined with a "bias toward action," Eisgruber said.
That caught the eye of Betsy DeVos, or one of her underlings.
The Department of Education has sent a letter to Eisgruber reminding him that Princeton has
received more than $75 million in federal aid during his seven years as president on the
understanding, repeatedly confirmed by Princeton, that Princeton complies with the
1964 Civil Rights Act by being scrupulously non-discriminatory. [
Princeton's "systemic racism" captures the government's attention , By Paul Mirengoff,
PowerLineBlog, September 17, 2020]
How, the Department wants to know, can that square with those
confessions of "systemic racism within the University"?
They have opened an investigation.
Yesssss! The weasel is caught in its own trap!
Here's a toast to Secretary DeVos! And please, let's see more of this.
Every university that has made pronouncements like those made by Princeton should be
formally investigated. Further, I think the government should immediately suspend all
payments to those universities, pending the outcome of those investigations. I mean, we
wouldn't want to support racist institutions. would we? Even for a little while.
As to Scientific American, it has been garbage for some time now. But the increasing
wokeness of science faculties and scientific societies is particularly worrisome. I expect
the enterprise of science to decline in the West.
Great article Derb'. Agree totally with the following.
"Objective, reasoned scientific inquiry is the crowning glory of Western civilization."
Would only add that close, in 2nd place, is Western Art -- & philosophy. In many ways,
Western Letters generally, made Science possible (ie Aristotle, Leonardo, Erasmus etc)
The radicalized political left in the U.S. today resides in the democratic party. They are
the servants of anti-American big tech and globalism over nationalism.
He was a Mechanical Engineering professor at Berzerkely, His concentration was mechanisms
and computer optimization methods in design. He went to Washington, FS to run a program to
dole out grant money for research in MEMS (at least that's what it was called then), M
icro E lectro M echanical S ystems. That was well before most people
understood the point of it.
That he issued that statement as the Dean of Engineering at UC San Diego makes me question
my assumption that people who push this stuff are all dummies who are just in these positions
due to AA and lots of student loan money allowing bloated staffs. This guy, I mean, he is top
0.01% sharp! From this, I gather it was: either issue a statement like this or get in trouble
with higher ups. Dr. Pisano was all about the engineering, not politics. The only other thing
I can think of is that he got brainwashed by his time in the Washington, Federal
Shithole.
I'm sorry if this bores most of the readers, but it is not off topic. Following is more
from Dr. Pisano's 1 year-old Curriculum
Vitae . I only picked out this diversity part, but you can see the guy's amazing,
illustrious career in his field, if you read the rest. You just can't go disparaging a man
like this after you read through the description of his life's work.
None of the stuff below involves big money. Even with what sounds like a mini-career in
D.I.E, in this long paragraph (I didn't want to put my own breaks in), I still maintain that
all this could easily just be a way of deflecting and problems that would keep Dr. Pisano
from doing what he loves, doing cutting-edge research and inventing new devices in the modern
age.
As the Chair of Mechanical Engineering [This was at Berkeley.] , Professor
Pisano prosecuted a strong agenda of diversity, working diligently toward equity and
inclusion for faculty, staff and students of the department. Using externally-raised
philanthropic funds, Professor Pisano established a $50,000 per year fund (to run for 5
years for a total of $250,000) for Equity and Inclusion in the Department of Mechanical
Engineering as well as in the College of Engineering. Professor Pisano re-constituted the
Mechanical Engineering Department Committee for Affirmative Action, changing it to the
Mechan- ical Engineering Department Committee for Equity and Inclusion, and reformulated
the committee membership to include student and staff membership (3 faculty, 2 staff and 7
students). Retention of female faculty has always been a top priority to Professor Pisano.
In one instance, Professor Pisano successfully convinced the faculty member to return to UC
Berkeley after she had accepted the position at Notre Dame, bought a home in Indiana, and
packed her belongings on the moving van. To help increase the diversity of the staff of the
department, Professor Pisano has hired an African American, an African, an Indian, two
Filipina and a Hispanic to the Department staff. Of these 6 new hires there were 5 women.
To demonstrate the sincerity of the department's commitment to equity and inclusion for
students, Professor Pisano instituted semester meetings between the Department Chair and
all student groups. He also initiated a policy of significant financial support ($1,000 per
semester per student group) for student groups who were engaged in the cause of diversity.
These student groups include Society of Women Engineers (SWE), Black Engi- neering and
Science Students Association (BESSA), Black Graduate Engineering and Science Students
Association (BGESS), Latino/a Association for Graduate Students in Engineering and Science
(LAGSES), Pi Tau Sigma Mechan- ical Engineering Student Honor Society (PTS), Tau Beta Pi
Engineering Student Honor Society (TBP), American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
student chapter, UC Berkeley Solar Car Team (CalSol), UC Berkeley For- mula SAE Racing Car
Team (Formula SAE).
Professor Pisano has worked hard to recruit women and underrepresented minorities to his
research laboratory. During his later years at UC Berkeley, Professor Pisano was the Ph.D.
advisor to 13 female graduate students and 12 male graduate students. This is a 52% ratio
of women to men in a lab in a Department where the overall percentage of women is less than
12%.
Also, think about this: Until recently at least, with the diversity business influencing
admissions and becoming more important than all the rest, this professor must have run into
only the very, very top, say 0.1% of the non-white students, grad students, and others in his
field. It's hard to get a picture from that of what the country WILL run into once whites are
marginalized.
Oh, I left out one point. In that paragraph, if you know the amount of money that is
around at these big research universities, you can see that the amounts described there are
just peanuts. Never mind the "significant financial support" bit for the money going to these
rainbow student groups. A thousand bucks doesn't get you much.
"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to
being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that
the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the
people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand
it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of
identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and
reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.
"You will understand me when I say that my Middle High German was my life. It was all I
cared about. I was a scholar, a specialist. Then, suddenly, I was plunged into all the new
activity, as the university was drawn into the new situation; meetings, conferences,
interviews, ceremonies, and, above all, papers to be filled out, reports, bibliographies,
lists, questionnaires. And on top of that were the demands in the community, the things in
which one had to, was 'expected to' participate that had not been there or had not been
important before. It was all rigmarole, of course, but it consumed all one's energies,
coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not
to think about fundamental things. One had no time."
"Those," I said, "are the words of my friend the baker. 'One had no time to think. There
was so much going on.'"
@Achmed E. Newman grandfather -- a landlord, a butcher and a wrestler -- told me so when
I was not even six years old -- with exactly these words.
***** tact and culture is required -- and that means a decent social context. -- To
put it in Erich Fromm's words: You have to try to achieve The sane society (The title
of one of Fromm's good books). You can't (and will not) be sane all by yourself. And you will
find it not that easy to work for a sane society -- after peak stupidity , so to speak
-- because it will always be a tad against human nature -- civilization brings with it
(necessary) discontents. In other words: Becoming civilized is not necessarily a pleasure and
all in all -- -- -- no task for snowflakes .
"University life may have racism
mixed in, and we have to unmix it,
looking at every aspect of the place," says him.
"Whether broken or not, we must fix it."
@Dieter Kief r, thanks for the reply and neat phrasing. I think by nature engineers are
seekers of the truth, though. This guy was no modern-era, 1000 SAT score, high-school B
average, barely squeaking by using old tests and "rubrics" engineering student. I could see
the latter type just joining with the flow of an insane society, as you say.
I think it's one or a combination of these 3:
1) The only non-white people he's dealt with on any consistent basis are pretty damn
bright.
2) He spent too much time in Washington, FS.
3) He really doesn't believe in this stuff, but is going along to get along, as he's had such
a productive life and does not want to be cancelled. It's gotta be an annoyance, in this
case, but just one of those things, like the university bureaucracy and the politics, that he
has to deal with quickly so he can get on with the cool projects.
In an ideal world, the technician would understand that society at times needs him badly
not only as a technician/engineer, but also in his role as a citizen (at least in
crucial situations -- and it seems as if the actual western front would -- slowly but
steadily -- morph into a rather serious Twilight Zone -- At the Darkness on the Edge of
Town -- if not -- at the edge of civilization. If this is somewhat the case, how much
longer should the brilliant engineer wait before he acts in a civilized and rational and
maybe even a bit courageous way in the public realm? -- I wish I had his nerves -- because I
sure don't think there'd be much time left over for waiting any longer.
Agreed. It makes me laugh when I see new home builders refusing to call a master bedroom a
master bedroom, instead calling it a 'main' or 'primary' bedroom. Just to avoid triggering
people who see evil everywhere.
The word 'master' is not and should not necessarily be associated with slavery. The word
can signify mastery over totally benign things, like being a master of a given craft or
endeavour.
The fact that people are demanding that we dispose of the word speaks volumes about their
idiocy, their lack of capacity to think critically, and their solipsism.
For the past seventy years, the people that run things have been marinated in a stew of
Frankfurt School nonsense. What Rudi Dutschke called the "March through the Institutions", an
instantiation of that heretical Marxist's, Antonio Gramsci's, neo-Marxist program, is in its
final stages. The current anti-science "science", negrolatry, Soros-funded destruction of
social order, and other manifestations of madness are the culmination of a century or two of
prog effort. At least temporarily, the mad are running the asylum. Currently there is not
much the small, sane minority can do. Right now history is not on our side..
@Dieter Kief i>Unz Review though? I don't see HOW, with all that he's done and has
going on -- please read that CV.
I wouldn't say this guy lives in an ivory tower, as engineers are practical-minded too.
Unlike for a Sociology or Literature professor, some common sense is required or you get
nowhere. I would say, Dieter, that Dr. Pisano just doesn't realize where our society is in
this sense, with not enough time for politics outside his university system stuff and living
in a somewhat cloistered environment. He doesn't know that society needs him to take a stand,
well, and of course, many more people like him.
I'm just trying to think of an explanation and explain it myself, not cover his ass, as
it's not like we are friends. This whole thing just came to me when I saw the name, and I
thought "wait, this is no SJW dummy -- far, far from it! How can this be?"
I know, take chess for example, where the highest rank is the title of "Master." Someone
should change this. Also note the "black men" always move second, the queen serves the king
and her highest glory is to "sacrifice" herself for him. Protect the MAN! The game is so
structurally racist and sexist, is it any wonder there has never been a black or female world
champion? Sheez
@Snert pidity.com/index.php?post=793"> "The Plantation Mentality and Misogyny of
the Engineers and Technicians" , how can engineers, technicians, and car mechanics deal
with this stupid shit? Are we going to change all the manuals for brakes and clutches?
What about electrical connectors? Do these idiots know that many are not just male or
female (you shouldn't have to ask why), but also what I call hermaphroditic, with male pins
vs. sockets but the overall "D" connector or whatever being female on the part with the pins
and male on the part with the sockets?
Yes, Peak Stupidity is nigh!
.
Oh, and because I ran out of [AGREE]s, chalk up one for Jus' Sayin' about the Frankfurt
School and Realist about the SA magazine and disgraces to the scientific profession.
The difference between religion and ideology is the latter can linger in the secular
fields.
While ideology can be treated like a religion, as with Marxism-Leninism, it is officially
defined as a political system of ideas or theory of justice. So, ideology can slip into
modern science in ways that religion cannot.
What the true secularists should do is reject anything that is religionist, i.e. even if
it's not a religion, if it is treated like a religion with sacraments and taboos, it is
antithetical to reason and logic.
What does one expect what with ObamaCore aka Common Core, where 2 + 2 = 5?
Mostly IMHO it's just a "go along to get along" thing because while no "scientist" wants
to be cancel cultured, neither does a "scientific" publication .the dollars, doncha know.
But that's okay at some point the "culture cancelers" as is their wont will waaayyyyy over
play their hand. I can "re-imagine" that happening just about every day, and I'm not talking
the movie "Idiocracy" either. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
DARPA, the govt. agency that brought us the internet and stealth technology, has a new
"twitter for scientists" called polyplexus. yes, it's as dumb as it sounds.
as part of it, they have ask me anything Q&As, typically with program managers to
discuss their research interests and upcoming funding opportunities. recently, one of them
was called "Systems Thinking From [sic] an Indigenous Lens" ( https://twitter.com/polyplexors/status/1309526281780953091
) do you think China's DARPA hosts the same nonsense?
Good way to be. I'm explaining this distinguished professor, not myself. If you were to
ask "what would YOU do?", then my answer would be that I would never be in this situation
because, leaving all other reasons aside, I wouldn't get that far with my attitude, which is
"to thine own self be true". It can be a major hindrance
"It makes me laugh when I see new home builders refusing to call a master bedroom a master
bedroom, instead calling it a 'main' or 'primary' bedroom."
So they took down the "master" bedroom, eh?
Let's hit 'em where it hurts, then: the *Master's* degree! Since it's apparently the rage
among females these days to enlist the aid of a sugar daddy to fund their educations, how
about -- the Mistress degree! For the ladies, of course. But given the dispositions of the
male academics these days, that label quite suits them as well.
1) The only non-white people he's dealt with on any consistent basis are pretty damn
bright.
2) He spent too much time in Washington, FS.
3) He really doesn't believe in this stuff, but is going along to get along, as he's had such
a productive life and does not want to be cancelled."
@El Dato but the number of pages devoted to ads at least doubled and probably tripled, or
more, starting from the early 1970s.
Same trend in radio and television, though not as dramatic. They actually changed how they
wrote many TV shows, in order to make room for the ads -- to my mind, they became more
insipid -- shorter hooks. My theory is that the profusion of ads helped mitigate the risk of
trying to move the Overton window, in both the ads and the product.
One of the hidden reasons for the way Eastern Europe is more traditional might be because,
for the most part, they lacked ads during communism. Well, that's just my crazy theory -- if
it is true it is just a small part of the explanation, which no doubt contains larger
factors.
Science is not entering a new Dark Age, American Science is entering a dark age. And it
ain't causation on the Left or Causation on the Right, Americans just don't want to do the
hard stuff anymore.
In the early 1980s, students of color at Harvard Law School organized protests in various
forms to problematize the lack of racial diversity in the curriculum, as well as among students
and faculty. These students supported Professor Derrick Bell, who left Harvard Law in 1980 to
become the dean at University of Oregon School of Law. During his time at Harvard, Bell had
developed new courses which studied American law through a racial lens that students of color
wanted faculty of color to teach in his absence. However, the university, ignoring student
requests, hired two white civil rights attorneys instead. In response, numerous students,
including Kimberlé Crenshaw and Mari Matsuda, boycotted and organized to develop an
"Alternative Course" using Bell's Race, Racism, and American Law (1973, 1st edition) as a core
text and included guest speakers Richard Delgado and Neil Gotanda.[11][12]
The theory itself is a kind of Lysenkoism in this particular area. Read voodoo science. This pseudoscience includes
several themes (Wikipedia)
Critique of liberalism: CRT scholars favor a more aggressive approach to social
transformation, as opposed to liberalism's more cautious approach; a race-conscious approach
to transformation rejecting liberal embrace of affirmative action, color blindness, role
modeling, or the merit principle; and an approach that relies more on political organizing,
in contrast to liberalism's reliance on rights-based remedies.
Storytelling, counter-storytelling, and "naming one's own reality": The use of narrative to illuminate and explore
experiences of racial oppression. B
Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress: Criticism
of civil-rights scholarship and anti-discrimination law, such as Brown v. Board of Education.
Derrick Bell, one of CRT's founders, argued that civil rights advances for blacks coincided
with the self-interest of white elitists. Likewise, Mary L. Dudziak performed extensive
archival research in the U.S. Department of State and Department of Justice, including the
correspondence by U.S. ambassadors abroad, and found that U.S. civil rights legislation was
not passed because people of color were discriminated against. Rather, it was enacted in
order to improve the image of the United States in the eyes of third-world countries that the
US needed as allies during the Cold War.
Applying insights from social science writing on race and racism to legal problems.
Intersectional theory: The examination of race, sex, class, national origin, and
sexual orientation, and how their combination plays out in various settings, e.g., how the
needs of a Latina female are different from those of a black male and whose needs are the
ones promoted.
Essentialism: Reducing the experience of a category (gender or race) to the
experience of one sub-group (white women or African-Americans). In essence, all oppressed
people share the commonality of oppression. However, such oppression varies by gender, class,
race, etc., and therefore, the aims and strategies will differ for each of these groups.
Non-white cultural nationalism and separatism (incl. Black nationalism): The
exploration of more radical views that argue for separation and reparations as a form of
foreign aid.
Legal institutions, critical pedagogy , and minority
lawyers in the bar.
Structural determinism : Exploration of how "the
structure of legal thought or culture influences its content," whereby a particular mode of
thought or widely shared practice determines significant social outcomes, usually occurring
without conscious knowledge. As such, theorists posit that our system cannot redress certain
kinds of wrongs.
White
privilege : Belief in the notion of a myriad of social advantages, benefits, and
courtesies that come with being a member of the dominant race (i.e. white people). A clerk
not following you around in a store or not having people cross the street at night to avoid
you, are two examples of white privilege.
Microaggression : Belief in the
notion that sudden, stunning, or dispiriting transactions have the power to mar the everyday
of oppressed individuals. These include small acts of racism consciously or unconsciously
perpetrated, whereby an analogy could be that of water dripping on a rock wearing away at it
slowly. Microaggressions are based on the assumptions about racial matters that are absorbed
from cultural
heritage .
Empathetic fallacy : Believing that one can change a narrative by offering an
alternative narrative in hopes that the listener's empathy will quickly and reliably take
over. Empathy is not enough to change racism as most people are not exposed to many people
different from themselves and people mostly seek out information about their own culture and
group.
Critique
Any rational legal scholar should reject CRT as voood science. But somehow it crioped in many federal againces.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday to stop funding to federal government contractors who hold critical
race theory training sessions.
“The President signed an Executive Order to end training sessions based on race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating in
the Federal workforce, the Uniformed Services, and among Federal contractors,” the White House said in an announcement.
“This order will prohibit Federal agencies and Federal contractors from conducting training that promotes race stereotyping,
for example, by portraying certain races as oppressors by virtue of their birth.”
The president provided a number of examples of such critical race theory trainings, which included a seminar recently held by
the Treasury Department that promoted the message that “virtually all White people, regardless of how ‘woke’ they are,
contribute to racism.” The same seminar was found to have told small group leaders to encourage employees to avoid the idea that
Americans should be “more color-blind” or “let people’s skills and personalities be what differentiates them.”
In another example, the Sandia National Laboratories, a research lab and a federal entity, was found to have stated in
training materials for non-minority males that an emphasis on “rationality over emotionality” was a characteristic of “white
male[s].” The training materials also asked the trainees to “acknowledge” their “privilege” to each other.
The Argonne National Laboratories, a research center under the U.S. Department of Energy, was found to have stated in its
training materials that racism “is interwoven into every fabric of America.” It also characterized statements like “color
blindness” and “meritocracy” as “action of bias.”
The executive order also pointed to the Smithsonian Institution in another example, where one of the museum’s graphics
asserted that concepts such as “objective, rational linear thinking,” “hard work” being “the key to success,” the “nuclear
family,” and belief in a single god are “aspects and assumptions of whiteness” and not values that would unite Americans. The
museum also stated that “[f]acing your whiteness is hard and can result in feelings of guilt, sadness, confusion, defensiveness,
or fear,” according to the order.
Many rational legal scholars have criticized CRT as pseudoscience and voodoo: CRT scholars'
reliance on narrative and storytelling, or CRT's critique of objectivity.
Judge Richard
Posner of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has "labeled critical race theorists and
postmodernists the 'lunatic core' of 'radical legal egalitarianism.'" He wrote:
What is most arresting about critical race theory is that it turns its back on the Western
tradition of rational inquiry, forswearing analysis for narrative. Rather than marshal
logical arguments and empirical data, critical race theorists tell stories – fictional,
science-fictional, quasi-fictional, autobiographical, anecdotal – designed to expose
the pervasive and debilitating racism of America today. By repudiating reasoned
argumentation, the storytellers reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of
nonwhites.
Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that critical race theorists
have constructed a philosophy which makes a valid exchange of ideas between the various
disciplines unattainable:
The radical multiculturalists' views raise insuperable barriers to mutual understanding.
Consider the "Space Traders" story. How does one have a meaningful dialogue with Derrick
Bell? Because his thesis is utterly untestable, one quickly reaches a dead end after either
accepting or rejecting his assertion that white Americans would cheerfully sell all blacks to
the aliens. The story is also a poke in the eye of American Jews, particularly those who
risked life and limb by actively participating in the civil rights protests of the 1960s.
Bell clearly implies that this was done out of tawdry self-interest. Perhaps most galling is
Bell's insensitivity in making the symbol of Jewish hypocrisy the little girl who perished in
the Holocaust – as close to a saint as Jews have. A Jewish professor who invoked the
name of Rosa Parks so derisively would be bitterly condemned – and rightly so.
Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry have argued that critical race theory, along with critical
feminism and critical legal studies, has anti-Semitic and anti-Asian implications, has worked
to undermine notions of democratic community, and has impeded dialogue.
Jeffrey J. Pyle wrote in the Boston College Law Review:[40]
Critical race theorists attack the very foundations of the [classical] liberal legal
order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism and neutral
principles of constitutional law. These liberal values, they allege, have no enduring basis
in principle, but are mere social constructs calculated to legitimate white supremacy. The
rule of law, according to critical race theorists, is a false promise of principled
government, and they have lost patience with false promises.
Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, considers CRT a "grievance
ideology" and an "absurdity". He sees the central tenet of "white racism in the American legal
system" to be shown false because of items such as the 14th Amendment, the Voting Rights Acts,
and Brown v. Board of Education.[41] Critics including George Will saw resonances between
critical race theory's use of storytelling and insistence that race poses challenges to
objective judgments in the US and the acquittal of O. J. Simpson.[42][43]
In September 2020, the White House Office of Management and Budget took steps to cancel
funding for training in critical race theory among federal agencies on the basis that it
constituted "divisive, un-American propaganda".[
Controversies Critical race theory has stirred controversy since the 1980s over such issues
as its:
deviation from the ideal of color blindness; promotion of the use of narrative in legal
studies;
advocacy of "legal instrumentalism" as opposed to ideal-driven uses of the law;
analysis of the U.S. Constitution and existing law as constructed according to and
perpetuating racial power;
and encouragement of legal scholars to be partial on the side of promoting racial
equity.[43]
In 2010, the Mexican American Studies Department Programs in Tucson, Arizona were
effectively banned due to their connection to CRT, which was seen to be in violation of a
recently-passed state law that "prohibits schools from offering courses that 'advocate ethnic
solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals'."[46] The ban included the
confiscation of books, in some cases in front of students, by the Tucson Unified School
District.
Matt de la Peña's young-adult novel Mexican WhiteBoy was banned for containing CRT,
However, this ban was later deemed unconstitutional on the grounds that the state showed
discriminatory intent. "Both enactment and enforcement were motivated by racial animus,"
federal Judge A. Wallace Tashima said in the ruling.
Derrick Bell as the founder of
critical rase thory and black racism
Derrick Albert Bell Jr. (November 6, 1930 – October 5, 2011) became the first tenured
African-American professor of law at Harvard Law School, and he is often credited as one of the
originators of critical race theory along with Richard Delgado, Charles Lawrence, Mari Matsuda,
and Patricia Williams. He promoted quota systems for racial groups in faculty which is a racist
stance in itself.
He was a visiting professor at New York University School of Law[3] from 1991 until his
death. For five years he was also a dean of the University of Oregon School of Law.
He was hired by Harvard Law School In the 1970s, with the help of protests from black
Harvard Law School students for a minority faculty member. At Harvard, Bell established a new
course in civil rights law, published a book, Race, Racism and American Law, and produced
several law review articles.
In 1980, he started a five-year tenure as dean of the University of Oregon School of Law,
interrupted by his resignation after the university refused to hire an Asian-American woman he
had chosen to join the faculty.
Returning to Harvard in 1986, after a year-long stint at Stanford University, Bell staged a
five-day sit-in in his office to protest the school's failure to grant tenure to two professors
on staff, both of whose work promoted critical race theory. The sit-in was widely supported by
students, but divided the faculty, as Harvard administrators claimed the professors were denied
tenure for substandard scholarship and teaching.[8]
In 1990, Harvard Law School had 60 tenured professors. Three of these were black men, and
five of them were women, but there were no African-American women among them -- a dearth Bell
decided to protest with an unpaid leave of absence.[8][11] Students supported the move which
critics found "counterproductive," while Harvard administrators cited a lack of qualified
candidates, defending that they had taken great strides in the previous decade to bring women
and black people onto the faculty.[8] The story of his protest is detailed in his book
Confronting Authority.
Bell's protest at Harvard stirred angry criticism by opposing Harvard Law faculty who
called him "a media manipulator who unfairly attacked the school," noting that other people had
accused him of "depriv[ing] students of an education while he makes money on the lecture
circuit."[12]
Bell took his leave of absence and accepted a visiting professorship at NYU Law, starting in
1991. After two years, Harvard had still not hired any minority women, and Bell requested an
extension of his leave, which the school refused, thereby ending his tenure.
Later in 1998, Harvard Law hired civil rights attorney and U.S. assistant attorney general
nominee Lani Guinier, who became the law school's first black female tenured
professor.[1][13]
In March 2012, five months after his death, Bell became the target of conservative media,
including Breitbart and Sean Hannity, in an exposé of President Barack Obama. The
controversy focused on a 1990 video of Obama praising Bell at a protest by Harvard Law School
students over the perceived lack of diversity in the school's faculty. Bell's widow stated that
Bell and Obama had "very little contact" after Obama's law school graduation. She said that as
far as she remembered, "He never had contact with the president as president."[14] An
examination of Senior Lecturer Obama's syllabus for his course on race and law at the
University of Chicago revealed significant differences between Obama's perspective and that of
Derrick Bell, even as Obama drew on major writings of critical race theory.[15]
NYU School of Law Bell's visiting professorship at New York University began in 1991. After
his two-year leave of absence, his position at Harvard ended and he remained at NYU where he
continued to write and lecture on issues of race and civil rights.
Bell and other legal scholars began using the phrase "critical race theory" (CRT) in the
1970s as a takeoff on "critical legal theory", a branch of legal scholarship that challenges
the validity of concepts such as rationality, objective truth, and judicial neutrality.
Critical legal theory was itself a takeoff on critical theory, a philosophical framework with
roots in Marxist thought.
Bell continued writing about critical race theory after accepting a teaching position at
Harvard University. He worked alongside lawyers, activists, and legal scholars across the
country. Much of his legal scholarship was influenced by his experience both as a black man and
as a civil rights attorney. Writing in a narrative style, Bell contributed to the intellectual
discussions on race. According to Bell, his purpose in writing was to examine the racial issues
within the context of their economic and social and political dimensions from a legal
standpoint. Bell's critical race theory was eventually branched into more theories describing
the hardships of other races as well, such as AsianCrit (Asian), FemCrit (Women), LatCrit
(Latino), TribalCrit (American Indian), and WhiteCrit (White).[21] His theories were based on
the following propositions:
First, racism is ordinary, not aberrational.[22] Second, white-over-color ascendancy serves
important purposes, both psychic and material, for the dominant group.[22] Third, "social
construction" thesis holds that race and races are products of social thought and
relations.[22] Fourth, how a dominant society racializes different minority groups at different
times, in response to shifting needs such as the labor market.[22] Fifth, intersectionality and
anti-essentialism is the idea that each race has its own origins and ever-evolving history.[22]
Sixth, voice-of-color thesis holds that because of different histories and experiences to white
counterparts', matters that the whites are unlikely to know can be conveyed.[22] CRT has also
led to the study of microaggressions, Paradigmatic kinship, the historical origins and shifting
paradigmatic vision of CRT, and how in depth legal studies show law serves the interests of the
powerful groups in society. Microaggressions are subtle insults (verbal, nonverbal, and/or
visual) directed toward people of color, often automatically or unconsciously.[23]
For instance, in The Constitutional Contradiction, Bell argued that the framers of the
Constitution chose the rewards of property over justice. With regard to the interest
convergence, he maintains that "whites will promote racial advances for blacks only when they
also promote white self-interest." Finally, in The Price of Racial Remedies, Bell argues that
whites will not support civil rights policies that may threaten white social status. Similar
themes can be found in another well-known piece entitled, "Who's Afraid of Critical Race
Theory?" from 1995.[24]
His 2002 book, Ethical Ambition, encourages a life of ethical behavior, including "a good
job well done, giving credit to others, standing up for what you believe in, voluntarily
returning lost valuables, choosing what feels right over what might feel good right
now".[25]
Antifa and BLM are just shows with stunts designed to distract people from the level they are
fleeced by MIC and financial oligarchy. As well as restore the legitimacy of Clinton wing of
neoliberal oligarchy which was badly shaken during 2016 election, when their candidate was send
packing.
Nicholas Kristof is member of "Clinton gang of neoliberals" and a part of this effort to
distract people. The number of people who pay attention to Nicholas Kristof bloviations is
astounding. Few understand that we do not know the facts and the real issue if the tight grip of
MIC and financial oligarchy on the society. What is interesting is that s in California, there
are 8.5 million residents born outside the country and about 150,000 homeless. "The melting pot
burned over. It is now a ... salad.
For example, if money spend on wars were used to manage thoseforests with difficult terrain
and perioc drauts, would the outcome be different?
Can those fires and destruction be viewed as God punishment for war the USA unleashed? As
Thomas Jefferson said "I tremble for my country when I consider that God is just."
BTW, the number of commenters with Russian paranoia symptom is frightening. Of course NYT
attracts specific audience, but still. In this sense NYT columnists including Nickolas Kristof
are just warmongering bottom feeders of MIC crumps. It is pathetic how he tries to hide the lack
of money for forest management and mismanagement if this issue by Oregon Dem politician under the
broad banner of "climate change" Existence of climate change does not mean that fire should burn
uncontrollably.
MIC steals half trillion dollars and then financial oligarchy steals probably another half,
if not more. What is left is not enough for proper maintenance of land, water and environment in
general. Stupid situation, but this is neoliberalism my friend, where "greed is good". And people
chose this mousetrap themselves in 1970th by electing first Carter and then Reagan and then
Clinton , allowing financial oligarchy to dismantle New Deal Capitalism. Clinton presidency was
especially destructive, In a way he should be views as the top villain in this story, a real
criminal boss.
Below I selected only more or less sane comment (which constitute probably less 1% of the
total)
Notable quotes:
"... How about a judicious Forrest management? ..."
"... So much for our useless 750 Billion dollar military budget. ..."
"... Amazing how ,close minded people become when, for them, everything is political. ..."
Wouldn't the conspiracy theories and concerns about antifa be lessened if progresses were as
vitriolic about violence committed in the name of equity, diversity and inclusion as they are
about violence committed in support of MAGA? Would the right have anything to crow about if
the NYT was as critical of physical altercations caused by social justice warriors as they
are of white supremacists? Wouldn't we all have more trust in MSM if they investigated the
facts before accusing Nick Sandman of racism or claiming a garbage pull was a noose? One
sided reporting and editorials like these fan the flames rather than squelch them.
It's amazing. You can write a column in the NY Times full of conspiracy theories -- all fully
believed by the left -- and accuse the right of being prone to believing conspiracy theories.
From Russia - collusion to rubes in the red states --a majority of dems share a set of
beliefs that are as delusional as anything a small group on the right might believe. But,
that's Kristof and the Ny Times for you.
People seemed to have lost a sense of what is plausible. While few of us know the news first
hand, we have to both trust and evaluate what is reported. Nothing is absolute. Jurors are
asked to decide cases beyond a reasonable doubt. That is how I feel taking in the news. But
within that sliver of doubt, within the fact that nothing is absolute is where conspiracy
theories begin to fester. It is where some have found solace to confirm what they want to
choose to believe despite how much there might be to question that. Events like this create
an opportunism to demonize those you hate and in doing so the essence of what we should be
debating is lost. How to prevent these fires in the first place? We will probably continue to
debate it despite the evidence on climate change, whether there is a deep state trying to
discredit Trump, whether the seriousness of covid is a hoax. Yes there is no absolute
certainty but there is taking an educated guess as opposed to an emotional response. I'll go
with the educated guess. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, I
will say it is a duck and accept that sliver of possibility I might be wrong.
Why do people attach themselves to "conspiracy theories?" It's actually quite simple. Take
QAnon for example: it is functionally just another religion competing for adherents. As with
any religion, it offers its believers an explanation of what they deem is wrong while
offering a path to right those wrongs. Certainty and simplicity: those are the essential
elements of cults/religion/bumpersticker politics. And the internet guarantees that whatever
you believe will be "validated." "Conspiracy theories" are, for the most part, not theories,
merely assertions. A theory is subject to proof and disproof by evidence. In a world where
truth has no inherent monetary value, don't expect it. Why the rapid spread? To paraphrase
Bill Clinton, "It's the internet, Stupid!" Follow the money: Agenda + Clickbaitability =
Profit That is the business model of the internet, a medium where "news" is whatever will
produce the most clicks. As in profit. Unless and until the youngest generation developes a
means of communication that does not depend on megacorporations, nothing will change. In the
Sixties, a generation which disbelieved and had no honest access to the traditional media,
created its own, the "alternative press." Hopefully, today's teenagers will develope their
own way to communicate that is reliable. It is 100% guaranteed that if their "opposition"
becomes an actual threat to the profits of Facebook, Google, Apple, Twitter, and the rest of
their ilk, they will be cut off.
The antifa movement has grown since the 2016 United States presidential election. As of
August 2017, approximately 200 groups existed, of varying sizes and levels of activity.[73]
It is particularly present in the Pacific Northwest.[74] Wikipedia
In an age when the US Justice Department is anything but just, more closely resembling
something akin to "just us," I call to mind Thomas Jefferson, in a somewhat different
context: "I tremble for my country when I consider that God is just."
We spend hundred of billions of dollars every year on the types of weapons that won WWII,
while the real threat to our Republic and yes, our civilization, is ,,, It's funny and
tragic, simultaneously.
Antifa has done a lot of things. They have chosen to step into the arena. Whether they did it
or not, this is accusation is a result of wading into the fight. If Antifa doesnt like to be
accused of things and cant handle it, then Antifa should step off. Or does Antifa only want
praise? Because that isnt going to happen. Many people dont like Antifa nor trust Antifa. And
rightfully so. Ask any career criminal how many times they've been wrongfully accused of
something. If an individual or group doesnt want to be accused of things, then dont get
involved from the start.
Except that about a dozen people have been arrested and charged with starting the forest
fires. Shouting "without evidence!" doesn't make it so. Facts matter.
@JQGALT There are always people who are setting fires whether accidentally or intentionally.
Do you have any proof that these arsonists were politically motivated I any way ?
Yet the Almeda fire in Oregon that destroyed more than 2,300 homes was, according to NYT
reporting, caused by human activity and is subject of a "criminal investigation." Perhaps it
would be wise to reserve total judgment until that investigation is completed.
Who needs rumors? The organization showed what it is made of when it created its free zone in
downtown Seattle and had the highest crime and murder rate per capita in its short life in
the country.
Rational people know that Antifa is not staring forest fires. However, burning and looting
and using fireworks as weapons in the recent riots make even the dumbest claims of Trump
supporters more believable.
Leftwing activists have literally been arrested for starting some of these fires. There is
video of arsonists being caught, yet the media ignores this, and actively denies it. Gee, why
could that be?
@LV Do you have any proof that these people were were left wing activist or just the kind of
people who are always starting fires ad they have in the past ?
The [neoliberal] left spends 24/7 preaching to their choir about Trump fascists dictatorship,
an illegal government installed by a foreign power, destroying the constitution while
preparing to seize power and ignore coming election results. There is a zero factual evidence
for it, such as a refusal to follow judicial injunctions for example, but their well educated
audiences are buying it whole day long. So what is so baffling that a rural audience after
watching night after night Portland burning by arson and accompanied by "peaceful protest"
graphics on TV would buy into arson speculations and rumors and ignore your disclaimers?
Facebook needs to be regulated since it has effectively organ-harvested the critical thinking
skills of a significant portion of the population. It'd be better if thinking people simply
deleted Facebook and let Facebook shrink and become the right-wing agit-prop tool that it
truly is. Mark Zuckerberg is happy to to destabilize society with his little toy invention.
You'd think with all that money, he could afford a conscience. What a wrecking ball Facebook
is.
"All this rumormongering leaves me feeling that the social fabric is unraveling, as if the
shared understanding of reality that is the basis for any society is eroding." Ya think?
@California Scientist Amen. We are more like an international terminal at this point. A bunch
of people gathered by happenstance, heading in different directions, and often with very
little in common.
@California Scientist: It is even worse than when Adlai Stevenson noted that there aren't
enough educated people to elect a liberal government in the US.
@LV - The point is that "urbanites" aren't able to boss anyone around. It's the low
population rural areas that have outsize political power thanks to the unfortunate design of
our government. Every state gets two senators, regardless of population, and that also
factors into the allocation of Electoral College votes, so that an EC vote from WY is worth 4
times as much as an EC vote from CA, for example. In 2016, Senate Democrats got 20 million
more votes than Senate Republicans, yet Republicans kept control. In 2018, Senate Democrats
got "only" 11.5 million more votes, and consequently lost seats. We're being governed by a
minority in may areas of the country, and nationally, yet the "rural rubes" or whatever you
want to call them, insist that they don't have nearly enough power.
Strange that anyone living in or just knowing the west would NOT know that arsonists could
not burn down huge chunks of forest if they where not so very dry.
Augury Unhappy Bird Watcher, State of Grave Doubt
Sept. 20
The ugly truth of Oregon's political past is asserting itself...we aren't in "Portlandia"
anymore Nick.
Ominous! There are two information ecosystems in this country and Americans increasingly live
in different realities. Much of the media is in the business of massaging the egos of their
readers by feeding them stories that confirm their biases and make them feel clever. There is
less and less fact based news and more and more propaganda. A lot of people aren't really
interested in facts. They just want to be told how right they are and how stupid and evil the
people who disagree with them are. Media corporations are providing the market with what it
desires, and what it desires is poisonous.
There is a reptilian brain need to believe this nonsense and to propagate it- because the
believers are so terrified of the facts of the truth (and the lack of knowing what might be
done to address those facts). The people who are true believers are pointless to discuss.
They are too frightened. They need to believe this stuff. It is hopeless to address them.
Dark times, indeed.
With the natural buildup of combustible matter, combined with houses everywhere now and
little land management, these fires will happen and will cause problems. Lots of things can
start them and they will.
You left out "a century of zero-tolerance policies toward wildland fires (creating
precariously dense underbrush), and resistance to traditional controlled burning at the
human/wilderness interface". It's not the whole story, but neither is climate change which,
due to global technological leveling, is evermore the responsibility of China and India than
Western civilization. Signed, a moderate progressive endlessly frustrated with breathless
liberalism
If only there were no arsonists. Here is a video of a woman who found a man on her property
with matches in his hand (and no cigarettes, which was his excuse for having matches in his
hand). She made a citizen's arrest. This happened in peaceful Oregon. Don't listen if you
can't handle harsh language by a woman who is trying to save her property. Arson is real, and
it is no joke. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJW_M4pBCnY
A man was arrested for arson in Southern Oregon. His fire damaged or destroyed numerous
homes.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-charged-arson-connection-almeda-fire-southern-oregon/story?id=72960208
Rumors of antifa notwithstanding, people in Oregon were looking for arsonists because there
are arsonists.
"Conspiracy theories" are, for the most part, not theories, merely assertions. A theory is
subject to proof and disproof by evidence. In a world where truth has no inherent monetary
value, don't expect it. To paraphrase President Clinton, "It's the internet, Stupid!" Follow
the money: Agenda + Clickbaitability = Prominence That is the business model of the internet,
a medium where "news" is whatever will produce the most clicks. As in profit. Unless and
until the youngest generation developes a means of communication that does not depend on
megacorporations, nothing will change. In the Sixties, a generation which disbelieved and had
no honest access to the traditional media, created its own, the "alternative press."
Hopefully, today's teenagers will develope their own way to communicate that is reliable. It
is 100% guaranteed that if their "opposition" becomes an actual threat to the profits of
Facebook, Google, Apple, Twitter, and the rest of their ilk, they will be cut off. As to why
people attach themselves to "conspiracy theories", it's actually quite simple. Take QAnon for
example: it is functionally just another religion competing for adherents. As with any
religion, it offers its believers an explanation of what they deem is wrong while offering a
path to right those wrongs. Certainty and simplicity: those are the essential elements of
cults/religion/bumpersticker politics. And the internet guarantees that whatever you believe
will be "validated."
"Conspiracy theories" are, for the most part, not theories, merely assertions. A theory is
subject to proof and disproof by evidence. In a world where truth has no inherent monetary
value, don't expect it. To paraphrase President Clinton, "It's the internet, Stupid!" Follow
the money: Agenda + Clickbaitability = Prominence That is the business model of the internet,
a medium where "news" is whatever will produce the most clicks. As in profit. Unless and
until the youngest generation developes a means of communication that does not depend on
megacorporations, nothing will change. In the Sixties, a generation which disbelieved and had
no honest access to the traditional media, created its own, the "alternative press."
Hopefully, today's teenagers will develope their own way to communicate that is reliable. It
is 100% guaranteed that if their "opposition" becomes an actual threat to the profits of
Facebook, Google, Apple, Twitter, and the rest of their ilk, they will be cut off. As to why
people attach themselves to "conspiracy theories", it's actually quite simple. Take QAnon for
example: it is functionally just another religion competing for adherents. As with any
religion, it offers its believers an explanation of what they deem is wrong while offering a
path to right those wrongs. Certainty and simplicity: those are the essential elements of
cults/religion/bumpersticker politics. And the internet guarantees that whatever you believe
will be "validated."
" All this rumormongering leaves me feeling that the social fabric is unraveling, as if the
shared understanding of reality that is the basis for any society is eroding." You betcha.
(Palin doesn't look half bad compared to the current batch.) It's a simple formula: social
media driven disinformation + extreme capitalism which leaves us with no real will to address
it + legitimate grievances like racism and financial insecurity = craziness on all sides,
fanned by a president whose personal agenda takes precedence over absolutely everything. All
societies are constantly dealing with potentially destabilizing threats. Their institutions,
media, leadership, and understanding of a common good are their immune system. Ours is
compromised, we are destabilized.
How about a judicious Forrest management? We live in a period of global warming
because of our planet axis precision, aggravated by the presence of an unprecedented
population explosion needing more water, more food, the production of which needs more arable
land, cutting trees, displacing wild animals, exhausting the aquifer. Cutting trees increases
the CO2 in the atmosphere. More people in India, more cattle emitting methane, more old
fashioned way of cooking food and producing more CO2 ... Permanent frost melting also sends
more methane in the atmosphere ... The climate is extremely complex to permit exact modeling,
but it is clear that if we want to stay healthy, it is vital to regularly clear our western
forests of dead wood in order to prevent today's disaster of millions of people, particularly
children with asthma and old people breathing the heavily polluted air. It is time to move to
solar, wind power, electric trucks, cars etc. The technology is here. Let's hope that Biden
will support clean air as means to better health. If all these years instead of using
abstract terms like global warming or climate change, we have been appealing to people to
keep the air clean in order to have better health, perhaps they would have stopped buying the
behemoths cars, producing so much pollution?
As Nicholas and many readers on this page already know, this commentary is more evidence of
how needlessly and recklessly polarized our country has become. When tribal instincts push
people to look for anything - fact, fiction or fantasy - on social media or "rage commentary"
that supports and validates their identities they will glom onto it faster than maggots on
dead flesh. It is a sad state of affairs when so many people of all political persuasions
will not take the time - even a few minutes - to question and investigate the latest "truth"
being promoted. The new culture of low information consumers seems to be spreading as fast as
a pandemic despite the heroic efforts of honest journalism. I wonder if low information
consumption was so endemic to the citizens of Ancient Rome and Greece - long before Twitter,
Facebook and Rage TV? People, please take a moment to "click" one step further to see if the
latest conspiracy story is true. Why help propagate lies? It will only come back to haunt
you, or your children.
Antifa or not, at least some of the big fires have been started by arsonists. Of this fact we
have video proof. By downplaying or even denying it, the media are just as bad as the
conspiracy theorists in promoting disinformation.
This reminds me of a time when people saw "Reds" behind anything that was going wrong in the
country. Nothing new, but just as pathetically paranoid. I wonder how many people, or their
parents, fit into both groups?
Here's another urban myth. Ok, more a lefty myth. That we can just keep adding people to this
country (urban, suburban, rural, big city, anywhere and everywhere) and it won't have any
effect. With the corollary that it's just a matter of "green new deal" or everybody getting a
Prius or the dummies in the sticks realizing climate change is real and then we can just go
on like this forever. We can't. Not only is our much hated lifestyle, which from what I can
see, nobody really wants to give up, killing us, but believing 330 million Americans that add
2-3 million more a year is not a problem at all. Our entire way of life: endless population
and economic growth is unsustainable. We don't need to wait until 2050 to see it. Just step
outside.
It is very difficult to teach people that "research," doesn't mean you go to some TV show or
website you like and root around for stuff that tells you what you want to hear. One prob
seems to be really simple: it takes actual work to do it right. Another is that research,
done well, has an ugly habit of forcing you to think at least a little about whether your own
ideas make any sense. And a third is that people really, really don't like it when their
political views start getting contradicted by reality. It seems to be easier to change
reality than to change views, even a little. Oh, and another prob? Too few Americans really
read anything worth reading. I'm all for funsies (and I've probably read more crummy science
fiction than all y'all put together) but one of the joys of walking around in Paris is seeing
that the kiosks and bookstores still sell a ton of stuff on philosophy, lit, economics, and
that everywhere, people actually read them. Books teach thought. Newsmax don't.
@Beer Can Boyd: As a native-born American, I think the US fell down when the Congress put
"under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1953, ostensibly to preclude anyone thinking
about Godless communism, and gave itself a stroke.
The melting pot burned over. It is now a word salad. But appears there is a method to the
madness. It is hard for the world to tell the madness from the method
@Carolyn then there are the lies and the demonization of China and Russia by both parties to
top it off. How can voters believe anything and decide before they vote?
Supporting this atmosphere of potential violence are some of my republican friends. They are
mostly educated and not stupid. Yet they continue to support a man whom I think holds the
responsibility for most of the violence if it comes. Now I want to get down to my point about
these supporters. I believe they have succumbed to a cult-like dynamic. I say this because no
rational person could possibly support Trump. Religious cults create this same addiction and
irrationality. When my friends disagree with me, they try to put our friendship hostage to no
further discussion of politics. They are unwilling to even be confronted with objections to
their support of Trump. I have decided that I can always make new friends. What I do not want
to do is take on the task of building a new country because I stayed silent.
@Harcourt "They are mostly educated and not stupid." In my opinion, educated persons who
behave as you describe never benefited from their education. Even worse, to me it seems like
persons who behave like that are of the opinion that what they learnt in school is only for
the purpose of writing the exams they needed to pass to get out of school. It was all just
noise to them.
You nailed it. There is no longer "a shared reality" in America. So we have wildly different
views of who Joe Biden and Donald Trump are. And how serious climate change is. And whether
it's important to wear a mask. And if left-wing anarchists set forest fires. Thank you,
Internet. Thank you, social media barons who refuse to ban Russian propaganda and manipulated
videos. Thank you FCC that does not rein in Fox News and their promotion of lies. Who will
step in and stop this madness?
@CA I agree with you completely except for the refusal to stop Russian interference. We
can't. We can't unless we stop US interference in the process. The problem is that US
interference, and rumor mongering, are the business model of these platforms which happen to
be some of our largest companies. Extreme capitalism is preventing us from addressing any and
all issues propagated by these companies. Russia is just a speck.
Antifa adherents and wildfires ? Seems pretty far-fetched. Even ridiculous. But setting fire
to occupied apartment buildings in Portland ? Oh yes, definitely. It happened, and more is on
the menu, as well as municipal and federal buildings. Don't believe it ? Read the news
releases for yourself, on the Portland Police Bureau's website.
An excellent discussion of the perils of social media. Although newspapers, TV, radio,
magazines have a historical principal of "generally" telling the truth, social media has
opened up the world to every single Tom, Dick and Harry who with to spread their message. I
believe that how we, as a nation, as a species, handle social media will define what happens
over the next decade.
The state of this country is absolutely terrifying. While the shift to ever more
conservative, insular, xenophobic, coroporate-controlled government has been going on for
years, with the faux election of trump democracy is what has become fake, while common sense,
empathy, and both fiscal and environmental responsibility have virtually disappeared. The US
has gone off the deep end...
Years ago I read a science fiction short story that is unsettling in its analogy to this
situation. I starts with aliens visiting the Earth and accidently leaving behind a device
that can allow metal to be manipulated by softening it, then hardening it. The device gets
copied and mass produced. When they returned a year later, they come back and cannot fathom
how their device could have resulted in anarchy. THAT is the internet. 5 Recommend Share
Let me ask you all a question. If your neighbor told you the fire in a nearby Oregon town was
started by antifa, how would you disprove it? Since you cannot provide evidence for a
negative statement, it's difficult. There is actually some evidence that antifa did start the
fire: a voice said it on the radio, and tv showed them lighting fireworks in Portland. This
isn't very good evidence, but it is evidence, and you can't produce any evidence that antifa
did not do it (because there can't be any.) So you are in the position of asking your
neighbor to look at the quality of the evidence. This is something very few outside the legal
and scientific world are capable of. But that is all you have. Ultimately, it really does go
back to belief. How many of us could independently prove that the earth turns around the sun?
Those of us who aren't astronomers choose to accept this belief based on what we've been
told, and that's how it is with antifa starting the fires.
Kristof is afraid that fires in the West represent the new normal. The evidence suggests that
this fear is well-founded. He is concerned about the government's paralysis. That is partly
due to Trump, who stands a good chance of being reelected on November 3. He is worried about
ordinary citizens seeking oversimplified answers and finding them in the conspiracy theories
presenting the fire as the work of antifa. I am more worried about the breakdown in
credibility of news sources like the NY Times, which finds itself in competition with Fox
News and a host of online sources. Indeed, you-tube and facebook will select news stories for
you, confirming whatever bias you bring to your reading of the news. There is no guarantee
that democracy will survive. One of the things that keeps me up at night is the realization
that not only the right, but the left, is subject to oversimplified presentations of global
warming. Global warming is a consequence of too much population growth. But as we argue over
freedoms for LGBTQ minorities liberals have neglected the importance of freedom of speech.
And voices which have warned about population growth have been simply ignored by the left. It
isn't enough to shift from Fords using gasoline to Teslas running on electricity. We also
need to control population growth. The population of earth will double again by 2072 if
current rates continue. Population growth threatens to overwhelm the attempts to move to
clean energy. 2 Recommend
The scientific consensus will also conclude that not allowing wildfires to burn compounds the
problem. While what I am about to type is not science, continued development in fire prone
areas amplifies and compounds every aspect of the problem. From my perspective the system has
evolved to socializing cost and privatizing cost in every way. I don't see it getting better,
until such time as individuals are held accountable this should be considered normal.
@secular socialist dem PG&E just paid billions in fines and PLEADED GUILTY in starting
last year's Paradise fire. They also have already admitted fault in several fires started by
their faulty, untended grid. "Individuals" don't need to be held accountable unless there are
rules in place for them to follow regarding wildfire. There already are. Most already do. Why
do folks act so proud about their 'anti-science' opinion? It's not like this conversation
isn't ongoing; nobody argues that development in fire prone areas' carries risks. So does
rebuilding in Oklahoma, Florida and Louisiana..... You're right (although confused) about
socializing RISK and privatizing PROFIT. See PG&E above.
Unsure how people lighting fires directly indicates climate change is corroborated. The
fellow who was arrested in Tacoma, WA: https://thepostmillennial.com/antifa-activist-charged-for-fire-set-in-washington
Looking to past wildfires, like the one's in Montana & Idaho in 2008, 5.5 million acres
were burned and certain interest groups advocated for them to burn out because it's apart of
the natural cycle. Federal government shouldn't send assistance unless it's possibly to
communities in threat of burning, who are humans to say we ought to stop mother nature? It's
natural to let these fires burn, if you try to hinder it's course you are stopping the cycle.
Doug Terry Maryland, Washington DC metro
Sept. 20 Times Pick
Why do people believe wild stupid things more than actual facts? Partly it is because they
like the wild stupid thing more, it gives them some weird comfort. It is also because people
are busying with their lives and don't have time to gather enough information to counter the
wild rumor that flies around faster than the speed of sound. The most important aspect of
successful conspiracy theories is they impart to the person holding them the idea that they
are smarter than other people and have "cracked the code" that explains everything or a lot
of big things that people don't understand. Reading, thinking, considering and re-considering
can seem like hard work, particularly if it is foreign to one's experience and life training.
Why not just lock on to a cool idea that comes around, even if it is weird? .
This story highlights for me an equally growing problem, the "selective framing" by media
outlets on the left and right (NYT and Fox as just two examples). To read Mr Kristof's
version, you may believe that arsonists are wild figments of the unhinged radical right
imagination. To read the same story on Fox, Antifa arsonists are working their way up your
street.
"...the shared understanding of reality that is the basis for any society is eroding." And
yet reality still exist. Normally, if someone starts to exhibit the kind of behavior that
these "vigilantes" are - screaming about boogeymen, thinking people are out to get them,
engaging in aggressive behavior based on paranoid fantasies, creating self-reinforcing
delusions, becoming obsessed with baseless conspiracy theories - we would rightly diagnose
them as being mentally ill, and to the extent that they represent a danger to others, confine
them. I don't think we can afford to see this as just a time of extreme differences of
opinion. Facts, truth and reality are still actual, tangible things. And those who have
become so disassociated from them that they are stopping vehicles and hunting down their
fellow citizen need to be dealt with appropriately.
We have been witnessing the start of the Second Civil War in America. If we accept the
definition of a civil war as a conflict between factions of citizens for either secession or
control of the government--including organizations within the existing government--then we
are in the beginning stages of a Second Civil War. The question is what the level of violence
will be (not will there be violence, but how much violence). We are beginning to see
indications of that level. When naturally or accidentally caused wildfires are attributed to
one faction as a way to stoke the fires of civil violence, then physical violence between
factions is a heartbeat away simply because of the falsity and extremity of the accusations.
The era of peaceful protest has passed because of the intensity of feelings on both sides;
the anger produced when a government begins denying civil rights, e.g., Freedom of Speech and
the Right to Assemble, through legal actions where protest organizers could be charged with
sedition (see Barr's comments, 9/16/2020, NYT), which then suggests that all protests become
illegal, the fires of violence are stoked. With a heavily-armed populace on both sides,
gunfire is a hair-trigger pull away. If Trump and the Republican's intention was to remake
America in their image (I leave it to you to supply that image), they are succeeding. If
Putin's intention was to bring down America, he is succeeding. If Xi's intention was to
dominate the world, he is on that path. Vote 33 Recommend Share
... There's an old saying "Those who the gods would destroy they first make mad." I have come
to the conclusion that America has gone qute a long way down that road.
And yet, Mr. Kristoff, you never make mention of the real threat that groups like Antifa and
other radical left rioters pose to this country (forgetting about attacks on federal
buildings in Portland? Attempts to firebomb courthouses? Violence against law enforcement
officers?). No, instead it's always Trump, or Trump supporters who are your focus. I do not
know whether Antifa has been involved in any of these recent fires, but I do know that these
violent elements on the left pose a massive danger to our democracy. You are correct about
one thing, though: We should brace ourselves. It's just "what" we need to brace for that is
off mark in your article...
It's heartbreaking to watch these three West Coast states burned. For days, the sky was red
and the air was unbreathable. But the saddest part was the feeling of helplessness.
40 years ago, I hitchhiked around the Pacific Northwest during the summer after Mt. St.
Helens blew up. Mt. Rainier was ash-coated, as were the wild blueberries I often ate. Epic
and Biblical are words inadequate to describe that destruction near Mt. St. Helens, with
millions of huge, old trees blown down, piles of mud, and rivers diverted. Yet I and others
knew that eventually, that land would regrow, and it did.
I see a lot of egotism and self-love on both sides. The so-called progressives in our
community are breeding at baby boom levels, driving SUVs, and, before the pandemic, you'd see
a dozen school buses idling outside every school. Development is out of control as people
flee from the city, and people flee from here, or downsize, and breed and breed and breed.
Two years ago, we had a flash flood and our street was under water, and there was a lot of
damage all over town. Hurricane Irene in 2011 left many with over a foot of water in their
basements. And let's not even start on Sandy. My friend lives in Pensacola; their downtown
area is under three or four feet of water from Hurricane Sally. It's not just fire, it's
floods, and it's not just the GOP which is the problem...
I don't blame anyone for guarding their roads if they think arsonists are about. The
Tillamook Burn was larger and more devastating than these fires but are we to blame climate
change ? Environmentalists and Liberals who do not even live out West, who did not rely upon
Logging, placed their concerns about the Spotted Owl and Virgin Forests about the danger of
Forest Fires and the livelihood of Loggers and the Towns and Peoples who depended upon
Logging. Managed Logging of Forests is not an inherently evil act. Clearing the bush and dead
trees is not bad in and of itself. Let Logging companies responsibly manage sections of the
Forrests, let Towns clear fire breaks around their perimeters. Place large Water towers in
strategic points throughout the Forests, huge mounds of dirt/sand/gravel next to them so that
the Firefighters have what they need to fight the fires. Force developers to build houses 50
feet apart. Require fireproof roofs, require thinning of trees in housing developments.
Require volunteer Fire Departments in every neighborhood so that if they do nothing else,
they can cut a fire break, water down the grasses around their neighborhoods, chase and
extinguish embers, something/anything versus fleeing their homes without putting up a fight.
"... dry conditions exacerbated by climate change coupled with an unusual windstorm ..." May
I add that a couple of other things have also contributed to making the fires worse or making
them harder to manage? For a century or so, in California, Oregon and Washington we have not
been letting the normal, periodic fires burn. Consequently, a great deal of fuel has built up
on the forest floor. Second, folks have increasingly been building homes or even
neighborhoods in places which have historically seen such normal, periodic fires.
@Robert Yes. But now controlled burns are a bit problematic, given the droughts, the heat,
the massive fuel loads from all the dead trees. It's just so easy for the controlled burns to
get out of control.
Hi, I am from Clackamas County metro. Every time a FaceBook "Friend" (and I personally know
all of mine) posted a rumor, I tried to find the footage from any of our 4 local news
stations to depute their post but they just shared another one. One said she didn't trust KGW
8 the local NBC station and when I told her the same story was on KPTV 12, the local Fox
station. She said, "I'm just stressed"
@David Biesecker Remember that half the people are of below average intelligence. That may
answer the existence of the small percentage of conspiracy theorists. One problem is social
media provides free and outsized loudspeaker systems that enables them to find each other.
@M.i. Estner First, let me identify myself as a liberal Democrat who has a masters degree. I
find it more than disheartening when half of the country, or half of rural or not formally
educated folks are said to have low intelligent quotas, critical thinking skills or
analytical abilities. You better believe that when a highly trained Eastern Oregon
firefighter is assessing how to save peoples lives, homes and land, has to quickly act with
their many faceted skill set and are calling on abilities you or I would not be able to
fathom. Same with farmers of large pieces of complicated crops and land. Same with city
managers, librarians, and social workers for the elderly--all having low city budgets. What
about the veterinarians, doctors and nurses in rural areas? This is exactly the same as
calling Black or Hispanics people of lower intelligence. And, there are different types of
intelligence. I know a literary critic, a liberal Democrat, who doesn't have the critical
thinking skills to run her own home or raise her children. If you look, you can see these
same differences in any group. It has to do with the way people are raised, what they are
using their skill sets for, what information they are used to consuming, money, ideology,
etc...And it has to do with being devalued for growing your food, producing your meat,
chicken and eggs. I'm not excusing the violence, guns, racism and hatred. These divides have
been with us for ages. Please don't stoke the fires.
If we have a selfish federal government, then we will have selfish states and people.
Everyone is for himself or herself. No one will think about other people or public good. It
all started from the top
In 2017, 2018, and 2019 northern California's new phenomenon of forceful 40 to 60 miles per
hour winds - in Fall, no less - caused old and aging electrical equipment to malfunction. As
a consequence, too much of Santa Rosa burnt to the ground, and the entire town of Paradise
ceased to exist. This year during the heat of a hotter than usual summer following yet
another dry winter, we had dry lightning strikes from Sonoma County to Santa Clara County and
beyond.
Yes, the science is clear and you fail to mention it. The forest fires reach critical mass
and spread because of the surplus of dead or dying trees. They are there because the federal
government essentially no longer allows logging on its vast landholdings and also fails to
allow controlled burns to clean out the tinderbox. I won't bother attaching a link because
any Google search proves the point. Why focus on hysteria and rumermongering among the
Deplorables? Come on, Mr. Kristof, you were a Deplorable once (when you were a kid growing up
in the countryside) as was I. Please defend them sometimes, particularly when the actual
causes are so well documented.
@Stuck on a mountain Western States are working to clear the brush from forests where, due to
our previous incomplete understanding of forest ecology, fires were suppressed for a century.
However, the cost is astronomical and there are millions of acres left to clear. Spending
their entire forest management budgets fighting current wildfires doesn't help. We've been
doing controlled burns for decades but in many areas, they're now too dangerous. Dry forests
and a dense understory can quickly turn a "controlled burn" into a conflagration. Many
ranchers and timber companies who profit from our state and national forests seem unwilling
to pay to keep those forests healthy. People who live in or near forests mostly have incomes
too low to pay for forest management. The National Forest Service, Department of the Interior
and USDA have made some progress, but the problem is huge. Saying we can prevent forest fires
by allowing larger timber harvests is an oversimplification. No solution to this complex
issue will be simple, perfect or cheap.
Wacky conspiracy theories to explain seemingly bizarre and unusual occurrences have been
around since the dawn of human cognition. But in an electronic/social media age, these get
spread even faster than a wind-blown fire climbs a canyon hillside. Previously, they were
spread one set of ears at a time; now millions of eyes can read them every second. And that
is a major part of the problem.
As a grad student in sociology, having lived through the 60s and participated in the
counterculture, I was deeply intrigued by the social construction of reality - how we come to
share a taken-for-granted world. This is a long-standing concern within sociological social
psychology. We examined how language, interpersonal communications, media and social
structure shaped ones perception of one's self, what is real, what's important. At the time,
however, this was considered theoretical and academic. 40 years later, understanding how
Americans' realities have come to diverge is no longer armchair social science. It's urgent
and in our faces, as is the question of how can we heal this terrible fracturing of our
world?
@DeHypnotist Yes. When studying for the degree in and then teaching sociology in my early
years, I learned that, too. But, I have to admit, it's actually taken all the decades of life
since then, and now the obvious confirmation of it by this current 'reality' to actually
realize, deep down in my guts, that we 'make up' our so-called 'social reality' simply to
serve the most basic of biological requirements: the need to dominate in the deadly
completion with the other 'tribes' of our species just to survive. We are, after all, animals
like all the others, no matter how much we blab about how much 'smarter' we are.
@Alex B The primal driver, deep in the core of our brain, is usefully thought of as
"reptilian." Cold-blooded. Egoistic. Hedonistic. And, in extreme cases, narcissistic, and,
heaven forbid when all three are present...
I lived for a few years in Brazil when it was a dictatorship. The similarities between Brazil
and what is happening in the US is startling. The police were being used to quell peaceful
protesters and the justice system co-opted by authorities, fear mongering were present, just
as now in the US....
I didn't live in the US from 1977-1999, only visiting on short trips. That enabled me to see
changes in society that were slow and not seen by those residing here. And when I came back
permanently I could feel immediately a deep change....
Perhaps an apt metaphor for the "danger sign ahead" is the approach of a Category three
hurricane and it's increasing in intensity. One of the stark disconnects is between the
message in an article like this and the politicians and citizens who are little concerned
about tempering rhetoric and elevating the importance of eschewing misinformation. We are in
the Misinformation Age and the victims of a cyber war, evolving into a civil war.
@ML What is happening here? These are the beginnings of what happened in Germany in the 30s.
Over there the reason was the loss of WWI. Here, is the obvious decline of the American
lifestyle and we have not seen anything yet. The range of the economic decline is covered by
7 trillion dollars in phony money. I fervently hope and pray that is not too late to stop the
process. All men and women of goodwill have to rally to restore a sane, and one, country .
Stay safe! It is going to get worse before it gets better.
@FunkyIrishman Right on. Water is an enormous issue waiting to happen here -- and Wisconsin
is estimated to have between 10 and 20 percent of the world's fresh water (depending on how
it's calculated and whether that includes some of Lakes Michigan and Superior. A Dept. of
Climate, Weather and Water would be a logical cabinet department.
@FunkyIrishman And polluting the potable water continues sometimes by the most resolvable
modern approaches: sewers and water treatment plants. Reagan ended federal funding for sewers
leaving septic systems (and now ancient sewers) where sewers would lead to protected fresh
water. All the medicines, chemicals, and toxins seep unseen but very real into fresh and also
salt water. We are not a modern nation any more.
Being a secular religion, neoliberalism produced a series of pseudo scientific perversions with the critical race theory as
one of the most interesting examples. This reincarnation of Lysenkoism is pretty dangerous.
Notable quotes:
"... Under CRT, Martin Luther King's dream is abolished, as racial identification is mandatory, and white children are taught self-loathing and black children to embrace victimhood. Like a religion, it is unfalsifiable, elevates subjective experience above objective reality, and crumbles under intellectual scrutiny. ..."
"... Contorting the meaning of "activist" to suit an ideological need, and claiming that all "activists" have "empathy" and "show compassion" is the kindergarten equivalent of teaching "war is peace,""freedom is slavery," and "ignorance is strength." ..."
"... Do the "activists" of the Westboro Baptist Church, Antifa, or KKK "have empathy" and "show compassion" ? And what about Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, and Osama Bin Laden? None of these were profiles in empathy and compassion either, but they, too, started out as what one might call "activists." ..."
"... George Orwell wrote, "If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." It seems obvious that CRT has corrupted the language used by my child's school, and that this corrupted language is intended, in turn, to corrupt the thoughts and minds of young students. ..."
"... This isn't education – this is blatant indoctrination. The school isn't teaching children how to think, but rather what to think. ..."
"... The school claims its mission is to develop "critical thinking" but does misinforming children about the definition of "activist" spur critical thinking? I've asked the leadership of the school this question, as well as for their specific definition of "equity" and "anti-racism" – terms they frequently espouse. Does "equity" mean "equality of opportunity" or "equality of outcome" ? Does "anti-racism" mean "opposing discrimination in all its forms" or "discriminating to benefit minorities" ? These questions have been entirely ignored. ..."
"... At best, CRT is an intellectually flaccid and insidiously vacuous ideology that focuses on "unlearning" alleged "implicit bias" at the expense of learning the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic. At worst, it is a malevolent, mendacious, and cancerous cult that demands discrimination against some children under the guise of "equity." ..."
"... Indoctrinating children with CRT is akin to systemic child abuse, as it steals innocence, twists minds, and crushes spirits. Parents must move heaven and earth to protect their children, and they can start by coming together and rooting out CRT from their schools by any and all legal means necessary. ..."
Woke teachers and school
administrators are waging a culture war for the minds of kids as young as five, by inculcating
them with toxic social justice teachings.
This summer, I got an unpleasant initiation into the culture war when, in the wake of the
George Floyd killing, my five-year-old child's elementary-middle public charter school here in
Los Angeles went from being an academic institution interested in preparing students for the
workplace and college to an ideological hotbed devoted to promoting Critical Race Theory (CRT)
over all other subjects.
CRT is a philosophy of hyper-racialization that looks to radically transform our
"inherently racist" society, including children. Under CRT, Martin Luther King's dream
is abolished, as racial identification is mandatory, and white children are taught
self-loathing and black children to embrace victimhood. Like a religion, it is unfalsifiable,
elevates subjective experience above objective reality, and crumbles under intellectual
scrutiny.
A shameless example of CRT indoctrination in action is that the very first lesson taught to
my child's kindergarten class this autumn was "how to be an activist."
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines activist as "a person who uses or supports strong
actions (such as public protests) in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial
issue." My child's school decided to perniciously redefine "activist" as "someone
who notices that a system is unfair to another person, group of people, or animals, and then
creates a new system that ensures fairness for every person, group of people, or
animal."
Redefining "activist" is as Orwellian as it gets. Words have meaning and meaning
matters. Calling an ass an eagle doesn't make it sprout wings and fly. But the mendacity
doesn't stop there. The school also teaches the four traits of an "activist," which they
claim to be "Observe. Ask questions. Have empathy. Show compassion." But these positive
traits are more defining of a good neighbor or a good friend, rather than an
"activist."
Contorting the meaning of "activist" to suit an ideological need, and claiming that
all "activists" have "empathy" and "show compassion" is the kindergarten
equivalent of teaching "war is peace,""freedom is slavery," and "ignorance is
strength."
Do the "activists" of the Westboro Baptist Church, Antifa, or KKK "have
empathy" and "show compassion" ? And what about Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Lenin, Mao
Zedong, and Osama Bin Laden? None of these were profiles in empathy and compassion either, but
they, too, started out as what one might call "activists."
George Orwell wrote, "If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt
thought." It seems obvious that CRT has corrupted the language used by my child's school,
and that this corrupted language is intended, in turn, to corrupt the thoughts and minds of
young students.
This intentionally deceptive "activist" lesson runs throughout the school year and is
accompanied by the "activist song," that's sung everyday to the tune of 'Row, Row, Row
Your Boat'. The lyrics are "I am an activist, I look and I observe, I ask questions and find
out, what has been unheard / Having empathy, helps me understand, I can make a change, working
hand in hand."
This isn't education – this is blatant indoctrination. The school isn't teaching
children how to think, but rather what to think.
The school claims its mission is to develop "critical thinking" but does misinforming
children about the definition of "activist" spur critical thinking? I've asked the
leadership of the school this question, as well as for their specific definition of
"equity" and "anti-racism" – terms they frequently espouse. Does
"equity" mean "equality of opportunity" or "equality of outcome" ? Does
"anti-racism" mean "opposing discrimination in all its forms" or
"discriminating to benefit minorities" ? These questions have been entirely ignored.
I also asked if my child would face discrimination at the school, and the principal and CEO
steadfastly refuse to answer that question too, which, unfortunately, seems like an answer unto
itself, and one that may carry legal liability.
That this taxpayer-funded charter school – which, according to
reports , just received between $2 million and $5 million in pandemic-related Paycheck
Protection Program loans from the federal government – refuses to say it won't
discriminate against a five-year-old, is quite an indictment. It reveals the ethical rot at the
center of CRT, and the catastrophic error the American education system is making by embracing
it.
At best, CRT is an intellectually flaccid and insidiously vacuous ideology that focuses on
"unlearning" alleged "implicit bias" at the expense of learning the basics of
reading, writing, and arithmetic. At worst, it is a malevolent, mendacious, and cancerous cult
that demands discrimination against some children under the guise of "equity."
Parents should be in charge of their children's moral and ethical education, and if parents
want CRT taught to their kids, let them teach it at home. Just as I wouldn't impose my Catholic
faith on other people's children, I don't want their CRT cult imposed on mine.
Many parents privately tell me they're horrified that CRT is being taught in kindergarten,
but are reluctant to speak out for fear of being labeled 'racist'. This is part of the 'social
justice' game, in which people are shamed into silence and compliance by scurrilous labels. But
parents must screw their courage to the sticking place and fight back now, because the war for
children's minds is being waged, and teachers' unions, school boards, and woke
faculty members and administrators are moving fast and pushing hard to make CRT the default
foundation for all education in America.
Indoctrinating children with CRT is akin to systemic child abuse, as it steals innocence,
twists minds, and crushes spirits. Parents must move heaven and earth to protect their
children, and they can start by coming together and rooting out CRT from their schools by any
and all legal means necessary.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Michael McCaffrey is a writer and cultural critic who lives in Los Angeles. His work can be
read at RT, Counterpunch and at his website mpmacting.com/blog . He is also the host of the popular cinema
podcast Looking California and Feeling Minnesota.
Nice take on imbecilization of important and complex topics by the US MSM and politicians.
Money quote about neoliberal Dems like Obama and Biden "
But there are others for whom altruism is an alien concept.
Self-interest is all they know. These people never pause. They relentlessly press for any advantage, under any circumstances. They
see human suffering as a means to increase their power."
Another money quote: "in the hands of Democratic politicians, climate change is like systemic racism in the sky: You can't see it, but it's everywhere and
it's deadly."
Notable quotes:
"... But there are others for whom altruism is an alien concept. Self-interest is all they know. These people never pause. They relentlessly press for any advantage, under any circumstances. They see human suffering as a means to increase their power. ..."
"... Joe Biden's closest friend in the world, a prominent Martha's Vineyard kite-surfer called Barack Obama, echoed that message with his trademark restraint. Obama declawed that your "life" depends on voting for Joe Biden. ..."
"... One of the few Republicans who still hold elected office in California, state Assemblyman Heath Flora, last year called on using the state's $22 billion budget surplus to implement vegetation management. ..."
"... Fires don't spread as well without huge connected forests functioning as kindling. It's obvious, which is why it's unthinkable to mention it in some Democratic circles." ..."
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: Massive wildfires continue to sweep across huge portions of the Pacific Northwest.
In Oregon, half a million residents have been forced to evacuate -- one out of every ten people in the state.
Dozens are dead tonight, including small children. But the fires still aren't close to contained. Watch this report from Fox's
Jeff Paul:
Video report
And it continues as we speak, walls of flame consuming everything in their path: homes, animals, human beings. Tragedy on a
massive scale.
When something this awful happens, decent people pause. They put aside their own interests for a moment. They consider how they
can help. We've seen that kind of selflessness before.
This is, remember, the anniversary of 9-11.
But there are others for whom altruism is an alien concept. Self-interest is all
they know. These people never pause. They relentlessly press for any advantage, under any circumstances. They see human suffering
as a means to increase their power.
These are the people who turn funerals into political rallies and feel no shame for doing it.
As Americans burned to death, people like this swung into action immediately. They went on television with a partisan talking
point: Climate change caused these fires, they said. They didn't explain how that happened. They just kept saying it.
In the hands of Democratic politicians, climate change is like systemic racism in the sky: you can't see it, but it's everywhere,
and it's deadly. And, like systemic racism, it's your fault: The American middle class did it. They ate too many hamburgers,
drove too many SUVs, had too many children.
A lot of them wear T-shirts to work and didn't finish college. That causes climate change too. And, worst of all, some of them
may vote for Donald Trump in November.
If there's anything that absolutely, definitively causes climate change -- and literally over a hundred percent of scientists
agree with this established fact -- it's voting for Donald Trump. You might as well start a tire fire. You're destroying the ozone
layer.
Joe Biden has checked the science, and he agrees. Yesterday, the people on Biden's staff who understand the internet tweeted out
an image of the wildfires, along with the message, "Climate change is already here -- and we're witnessing its devastating effects
every single day. We have to get President Trump out of the White House."
Again, by voting for Donald Trump, you've made hundreds of thousands of Oregonians homeless tonight. You've killed people.
Joe Biden's closest friend in the world, a prominent Martha's Vineyard kite-surfer called Barack Obama, echoed that message
with his trademark restraint. Obama declawed that your "life" depends on voting for Joe Biden.
At a time when sea levels are rising and we're about to see killer whales in the Rockies? Honestly, it doesn't seem like Obama is
overly concerned about climate change? And by the way, didn't he go to law school? When he did become a climate expert?
Those seem like good questions. But lawyers pretending to be scientists are now everywhere in the Democratic Party.
Here's the governor of Washington, Jay Inslee, a proud graduate of Willamette University law school, explaining that he's already
figured out the "cause" of the fires. Watch:
INSLEE: Fires are proof we need a stronger liberal agenda Sept 8 TRT: 18 Inslee: And these are conditions that are exacerbated
by the changing climate that we are suffering. And I do not believe that we should surrender these subdivisions or these houses
to climate change-exacerbated fires. We should fight the cause of these fires.
This is a crock. In fact, there is not a single scientist on earth who knows whether, or by how much, these fires may have been
"exacerbated" by warmer temperatures caused by "climate change," whatever that means anymore.
All we have is conjecture from a handful of scientists, none of whom have reached any definitive conclusions.
Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA, for example, has admitted that it's, quote, "hard to determine whether climate change
played a role in sparking the fires."
Meanwhile, investigators have determined that the massive El Dorado fire in California, which has torched nearly 14,000 acres,
was caused by morons setting off some kind of fireworks. And then on Wednesday, police announced that a criminal investigation is
underway into the massive Almeda fire in Ashland, Oregon.
The sheriff there said it's too early to say what caused the fire, but he's said human remains were found at the suspected origin
point. Nothing is being ruled out, including arson.
The more you know, the more complicated it is, like everything. Serious people are just beginning to gather evidence to determine
what happened to cause this disaster.
But at the same time, unserious people are now everywhere on the media right now, drowning out nuance. Don't worry about the
facts, they say. Just trust us -- the sky orange is orange over San Francisco because households making $40,000 a year made the
mistake of voting for a Republican.
Therefore you must hand us total control of the nation's economy. Watch amateur arson detective Nancy Pelosi explain:
PELOSI: Mother Earth is angry. She's telling us, whether she's telling us with hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, fires in the
west, whatever it is, the climate crisis is real and has an impact.
Mother Nature is angry. Please. When was the last time Nancy Pelosi went outside? No one asked her. All we know is what she said:
climate change caused this. Of course.
No matter the natural disaster -- hurricanes, tornadoes, whatever -- climate change did it. Keep in mind, Nancy Pelosi owns two
sub-zero freezers. They cost $10,000 apiece.
We know because she showed them off on national television. Those use a lot of energy. Like Barack Obama, she constantly flies
private between her multi-million dollar estates all over the country.
Obviously, she doesn't care about climate change. And neither do her supporters -- otherwise, they'd be trying to destroy the
mansions she owns, not the hair salons that expose her hypocrisy.
For the left, this is really about blaming and ritually humiliating the middle-class for the election of Donald Trump. Joe Biden
knows that the Pennsylvanians who would be financially ruined by his
fracking
ban
are the same Pennsylvanians who flipped the state red in 2016 for the first time in a generation.
That's the whole point. One of the reasons Joe Biden is barely allowed outside is that he has no problem showing his contempt for
the middle-class he supposedly cares so much about.
In 2019, he openly
mocked
coal miners
and suggested they just get programming jobs once they're all fired. Watch:
BIDEN: I come from a family, an area where's coal mining – in Scranton. Anybody, that can go down 300 to 3,000 feet in a mine,
sure as hell can learn how to program as well.
Learn to code! Hilarious. Joe Biden should try it. But there isn't time. The world is ending. Last summer, Sandy Cortez [AOC] did
the math and calculated we only have
12
years left to live
.
If that sounds bad, consider this -- Just four months after that warning, Sandy Cortez tweeted that we only have 10 years to "cut
carbon emissions in half."
Think about the math here. We lost two years in just four months. At that rate, we could literally all die unless Joe Biden wins
in November. Which is of course what they're saying.
On Tuesday, California Gavin Newsom pretty much said it Newsom abandoned science long ago. Science is too stringent, too western,
too patriarchal.
Newsom is a man of faith now. He's decided
climate
change caused all of this
, and that's final. He's not listening to any other arguments. Watch:
NEWSOM: I have no patience. And I say this lovingly, not as an ideologue, but as someone who prides himself on being open to
argument, interested in evidence. But I quite literally have no patience for climate change deniers. It simply follows completely
inconsistent, that point of view, with the reality on the ground.
People like Gavin Newsom don't want to listen to any "climate change deniers." What's a "climate change denier?" Anyone who
thinks our ruling class has no idea how to run their states or protect their citizens.
Are we "climate change deniers" if we point out that California has failed to implement meaningful deforestation measures that
would have dramatically slowed the spread of these wildfires?
In 2018, a state oversight agency in California found that years of poor or nonexistent
forest
management policies
in the Sierra Nevada forests had contributed to wildfires.
One of the few Republicans who still hold elected office in California, state Assemblyman Heath Flora, last year called on
using the state's $22 billion budget surplus to implement vegetation management.
Fires don't spread as well without huge connected forests functioning as kindling. It's obvious, which is why it's
unthinkable to mention it in some Democratic circles."
Presumably, you're also a climate-change denier if you point out that six of the Oregon National Guard's wildfire-fighting
helicopters are currently in Afghanistan.
Instead of dropping water to suppress blazes, the Chinook aircraft are busy supplying a war effort that's been going on for
nearly 20 years. That seems significant. Has anyone asked Gavin Newsom or Jay Inslee about that? Do any of the Democrats who
control these states even care?
The answer, of course, is probably not. It was just last week that Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti admitted on-the-record that
his city has become completely third-world.
Of course, Garcetti didn't blame himself for this turn of events. He blamed you. Quote: "It's almost 3 p.m," Garcetti tweeted.
"Time to turn off major appliances, set the thermostat to 78 degrees (or use a fan instead, turn off excess lights and unplug any
appliances you're not using. We need every Californian to help conserve energy. Please do your part."
"Please do your part." Garcetti wants his constituents to suffer to try to solve a problem that Democrats in his state created.
Even now, as residents in Northern California are facing sweeping power outages in addition to wildfires.
In the meantime, Gavin Newsom has vowed that 50 percent of California's energy grid will be based on quote "renewable" energy
sources within a decade.
That means sources like wind and solar power -- which can't be dialed up to meet periods of extreme demand, like California is
seeing right now during its heatwave.
Newsom was asked last month whether he would consider revising this stance given the blackouts that have left millions of
Californians without power.
Newsom responded, quote, "We are going to radically change the way we produce and consume energy." In other words, The blackouts
will continue until morale improves. So will the wildfires. Get used to it.
Fox News
6.2M subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
In the hands of Democratic politicians, climate change is like systemic racism in the sky: You can't see it, but it's
everywhere and it's deadly.
#FoxNews
#Tucker
This is a direct result of Gavin Newsom eliminating forestation controls. Jerry Brown kept them in place, the only thing he
did correctly. Democrats are to blame for all of this.
When environmentalists pushed through their "leave forests alone, allow nature to be undisturbed" bs, California and other
states stopped clearing underbrush, also known as fire fuel and now we see a perfect example of cause and effect.
Don't get me wrong I am a conservatist , but with common sense , we can't conserve unless we protect and nurture nature to
thrive. In fact extremism in environmentalism destroys as we see. People dead, animals dead, homes destroyed, forest destroyed
because of extremism.
The narrative to leave forests alone happened long before Trump, believing otherwise makes you a useful idiot.
Congratulations.
You could Google this old narrative but will you find it, well it's Google, you have to find the people who heard and lived
the so called natural environmental push narrative, we remember and we remember the warnings. Congratulations, your ignorance
has caused harm.
In the days, weeks, and months immediately following the 9/11 attacks, Arab-Americans,
South Asian-Americans, Muslim-Americans, and Sikh-Americans were the targets of widespread
hate violence. Many of the perpetrators of these acts of hate violence claimed they were
acting patriotically by retaliating against those responsible for 9/11.
...
Just after September 11, numerous Arabs, Muslims, and individuals perceived to be Arab or
Muslim were assaulted, and some killed, by individuals who believed they were responsible
for or connected to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The first backlash
killing occurred four days after September 11.
Balbir Singh Sodhi was shot to death on September 15 as he was planting flowers outside
his Chevron gas station. The man who shot Sodhi, Frank Roque, had told an employee of an
Applebee's restaurant that he was "going to go out and shoot some towel heads." Roque
mistakenly thought Sodhi was Arab because Sodhi, an immigrant from India, had a beard and
wore a turban as part of his Sikh faith. After shooting Sodhi, Roque drove to a Mobil gas
station a few miles away and shot at a Lebanese-American clerk. He then drove to a home he
once owned and shot and almost hit an Afghani man who was coming out the front door. When
he was arrested two hours later, Roque shouted, "I stand for America all the way."
The next two killings were committed by a man named Mark Stroman. On September 15, 2001,
Stroman shot and killed Waquar Hassan, an immigrant from Pakistan, at Hassan's grocery
store in Dallas, Texas. On October 4, 2001, Stroman shot and killed Vasudev Patel, an
immigrant from India and a naturalized U.S. citizen, while Patel was working at his Shell
station convenience store. A store video camera recorded the killing, helping police to
identify Stroman as the killer. Stroman later told a Dallas television station that he shot
Hassan and Patel because, "We're at war. I did what I had to do. I did it to retaliate
against those who retaliated against us."
Beyond these killings, there were more than a thousand other anti-Muslim or anti-Arab
acts of hate which took the form of physical assaults, verbal harassment and intimidation,
arson, attacks on mosques, vandalism, and other property damage.
Instead of "calming prejudice" the GB Bush administration institutionalized hate
crimes:
First, in the weeks immediately following the September 11 attacks, the government began
secretly arresting and detaining Arab, Muslim, and South Asian men. Within the first two
months after the attacks, the government had detained at least 1,200 men.
...
Second, in November 2001, the Department of Justice began efforts to "interview"
approximately 5,000 men between the ages of 18 and 33 from Middle Eastern or Muslim nations
who had arrived in the United States within the previous two years on a temporary student,
tourist, or business visa and were lawful residents of the United States. Four months
later, the government announced it would seek to interview an additional 3,000 men from
countries with an Al Qaeda presence.
...
Third, in September 2002, the government implemented a "Special Registration" program also
known as NSEERS (National Security Entry-Exit Registration System), requiring immigrant men
from 26 mostly Muslim countries to register their name, address, telephone number, place of
birth, date of arrival in the United States, height, weight, hair and eye color, financial
information and the addresses, birth dates and phone numbers of parents and any foreign
friends with the government.
Besides all that a rather useless security theater was installed at U.S. airports which
has costs many billions in lost time and productivity ever since. The Patriot Act was
introduced which allowed for unlimited spying on private citizens. Wars were launched that
were claimed to be justified by 9/11. These were "mass outbreaks of anti-Muslim sentiment and
violence. Many were killed and maimed in them. People were tortured and vanished. All of this
happened largely to applause of a majority of the U.S. people which were glued to 24 and dreamed of being "terrorist
hunters".
Anyone with a functional memory knows that the U.S. reaction to 9/11 was anything but
"pretty calm". It is ridiculous that Krugman is claiming that.
I find it a bit humorous b that you are critical of Krugman for his 911 dementia when for
years many of us finance types have railed about how morally corrupt the logic and thinking
of Paul Krugman is.
Paul Krugman is to economics what Bernie Sanders has become for the purported "left" side
of the "right wing" uni-party....a sheep dog for the easily led.
Paul Krugman is an acolyte for the God of Mammon/global private finance elite.
While spreading anger and hate toward Arab people, The Bush Administration rescued the
many members of the Kingdom's family from all around the US and escorted their flights out of
the US to safety in Saudi Arabia.
Distracting the public big time was Dick Cheney, VP, who insisted from the very next day
that the plot to hit the Twin Towers was Saddam's plot.
So, the historical record and US response was skewed from the getgo. AQ and Bin Laden
didn't concern the neocons. They wanted the US to go to Iraq again, and this time start a
wide war that would spread to Syria and Lebanon and Iran.
It was easy times to spread fear and hate, and Cheney and the war mongers of CENTCOM were
riding high. Americans were scared of all Arabs, all Sunnis, all Shiites, from anywhere. They
were all the same in the public's mind. Enemies.
It was perfect and has led to 19 years of endless wars. Add ISIS and al Nusra and the
Taliban and you have an endless soup of enemies.
krugman is a terrible shill for the neo-cons and liberal-interventionists of the 21st
century
at my age, I shouldn't really be surprised any more by what american "intellectuals" and
"nobel prize winners" say about anything..... but I am.
He's neo-liberal interventionist moron of the first rank, and saying what he did actually
normalizes the war mania and war-mongering which has become so staple in mainstream thought
and the "think tanks" and is now practically part of the american DNA and "culture".
shame on krugman
...
It appears the Deep State has attacked the USA's people twice in two decades--on 911 and with
the decision to let as many die as possible by deliberately not doing anything to mitigate
the impact of COVID-19 and allowing the real economy to atrophy so even more will die in the
long run.
Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 11 2020 19:40 utc | 34
Talking about tilting at windmills - I'll never forget Robert Fisk angrily pointing out
that the Yankees knew where to find Al CIA-duh because they extended the cave complex at Tora
Bora to help Al CIA-duh, equipped with 10,000 US Stinger Missiles, kick the Russians out of
Afghanistan in the 1980s!!!
(The Yankees had to wait for 10+ years to invade Afghanistan because it takes that long
for Stingers to pass their Use By date)
@michaelj72. "krugman is a terrible shill for the neo-cons and liberal-interventionists of
the 21st century"
Actually, Paul Krugman was a strong and outspoken opponent of the Iraq War since early
2003 and possibly earlier. He was amongst the few mainstream liberal commentators to take
that stand.
If MoA readers and commenters were to read the entire series of Krugman's tweets, six in
all, they will see mention of how the Bush govt began exploiting the events of 11 September
2001 almost immediately. Though the example Krugman actually uses would make most people
cringe at what it suggests about the bubble he lives in and how far removed it is from most
people's lives and experiences, and his reference to a "horrible war" does not mention either
Afghanistan or Iraq.
It has to be said that Twitter is not designed very well for the kind of informal
conversational commentary that people often use it for. But then you would think Krugman
would use something other than Twitter to discuss and compare 9/11 with the impact of
COVID-19.
The real issue I have with Krugman's Tweet is that he is revising history and bending over
backwards to apologise for Dubya in a way to criticise Donald Trump's performance as
President.
b " Anyone with a functional memory knows that the U.S. reaction to 9/11 was anything but
"pretty calm". It is ridiculous that Krugman is claiming that. "
Careful with that axe b, you are talking about Biden's chief economic adviser and likely
appointee as Chair of the Fed. How does this look?
Volker
Greenspan
Bernanke
Yellen
Powell
Krugman
Reading Krugman's columns in 2016, I had a strong to overwhelming sense that this was a
person revving up for a spot in Hillary's White House or cabinet. For some reason it isn't
hitting me as strongly this time around – he may not have as close connections in
Biden's circle – but it certainly would not be a surprise to see him take a turn
through the media/government revolving door if Trump loses (though, fwiw, I don't think it
will be a job at the Fed).
Yep. Pretty staggering how a few disgruntled ex-CIA contractors managed to, deliberately
or not, help the US Gov't launch the biggest world war operation right under the noses of the
brainwashed masses.
99% of Westerners still are clueless as to explaining the last 20 years in a broader
geopolitical context.
#28: "The antiwar protests in the US were small and insignificant."
No they were not. Millions of people demonstrated against the planned war, in the US,
in the UK, and around the world...
We mustn't forget how the vast majority of those who allegedly were anti-war suddenly went
totally pro-war silent upon Obama coming in.
But that pales compared to the vile spectacle of all the self-alleged
"anti-authoritarians", "anti-propagandists" "dissidents", who suddenly regard the government
media as the literal voice of God, where their alleged God speaks of Covid.
His book, End this Depression Now, is pretty weak. He has no theory of why the crash
occurred. He critiques the austerity agenda but doesn't understand that government spending
CAN create tax liabilities for capital down the road and eat into profits, thus blocking
expanded investments and growth. Moronic libertarians hate Krugman just because they are
right wing assholes who think, like fairies, that a free market without the state will work
fine and self correct. Marx debunked this fairy tale thoroughly in Capital Volume 1, showing
that, even if we start with the mythical free market of libertarian morons, capitalism will
still operate according to the general law by which concentration and centralization lead to
class polarization. In any case, in volume 3 of Capital, Marx develops his laws of crisis,
showing that the cycles of expansion and depression under capitalism follow the movements of
the rate of profit, which itself is determined by the ratio of the value of sunk capital in
production technologies to the rate of exploitation (profits/wages). If the former rises more
than the latter, the rate of profit sinks, along with investment, output and employment.
Financial crises then set in.
The empirical evidence in the data bears out Marx's theory, not Krugman's dumb notion of
aggregate demand, or the stupid libertarian focus on interest rates.
We could discuss here all day about the sociological subject of the American people's true
positioning in the aftermath of 9/11. It would be, sincerely, a waste of time.
The important thing to grasp over this episode - from the point of view of History - is
this: it was a strategic victory for al-Qaeda . The USA took the bait (all scripted?)
and went into a quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a few years, the surplus the USA had
accumulated with the sacking and absorption of the Soviet space during Bill Clinton
evaporated and became a huge deficit in the Empire's accounts. Not long after, the 2008
financial meltdown happened, burying Bushism in a spectacular way.
There's a debate about the size of the hole the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan cost the
American Empire. Some put it into the dozens of billions of USDs; others put it into the
trillions of USDs range. We will never know. What we know is that the hole was big enough to
both erase the American surplus and to not avoid the financial meltdown of 2008.
Either the expansion through the Middle East wasn't fast and provided riches enough to
keep up with the Empire's voracious appetite or the invasion itself already represented a
last, desperate attempt by the Empire to avoid its imminent collapse. We know, however, that
POTUS Bush had a list of countries he wanted to invade beyond Iraq (the "Axis of Evil") which
contained a secret country (Venezuela). He was conscious Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't be
enough. Whatever the case, he didn't have the time, and the financial meltdown happened in
his last year in the White House.
They knew who the perps of 9/11 were: their "own" Saudi irregulars in the CIA's US main
land training camps, who started practicing on the "wrong"- domestic American- targets. These
guys were officially entered without any background checks.
The Bush and Bin Laden families go way back in money making. That is why George had to ponder
so long in that Florida kindergarten after hearing about the attacks: he had a suspicion. The
Saudi only fly out after 9/11 confirms that.
Paul Krugman Is a pro. Completely owned by Deep State. His purpose is to deflect
discussion and prevent questioning the official version of 9/11 , and get people chasing
something completely irrelevant. Well done Paul, most have taken the bait.
In a sense the USA is a theocratic society with neoliberal religion as the state religion. Not that different from the
USSR whioch also was a theocratic society with some perversion of Marxism as the state religion.
I capitulate. Ron you are correct, we are post peak.
Post Peak
OK, now what?
It is so strange to be post-peak and not have high prices for crude,
and food.
I guess that will be coming.
note- biofuels should not be counted in liquids tally. It is a different animal, with the
source being dependent on farming and soil, not drilling and geology. Just because ethanol is
used for propulsion shouldn't matter- electrons and batteries aren't counted either, and
rightly so. Those belong in a different category- transportation energy.
I have argued for several years that peak oil is a low price phenomenon, not a high priced
phenomenon.
The most overrated law in economics is that of supply and demand. This law suffers from
what Richard Feynman called "vagueness" (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
). The problem is that it is always satisfied and hence gives absolutely no information about
prices.
Another problem with market theory (beyond vagueness) is that it lacks a time axis.
The theory states that the relationship between price and supply moves along the demand
curve, but doesn't say how fast, just that "in the long run" the system will reach
equilibrium. Being in equilibrium means being somewhere on the demand curve.
So for example, if prices go up, the demand quantity is expected to go down. The question
is when.
Where does this go wrong? In classical market theory, for example, unemployment is
impossible, because if labor supply outstrips demand prices (wages) should fall until until
equilibrium is attained. This has been observed to be false on many occasions, including
right now.
As Feymann states in the video, "If it disagrees with experiment, it's WRONG! That's all
there is to it." Classical economics isn't just too vague, it is wrong.
Keynes joked about this that in the long term we'll all be dead. He meant equilibrium will
never be reached, so we are never on the demand curve. He argued that "sticky prices",
meaning the unwillingness to accept pay cuts, kept labor markets permanently out of
equilibrium.
It's worth pondering whether oil prices are "sticky" as well. Saying yes is saying the law
of supply and demand doesn't apply (in the short term). This year we have seen that both
OPEC's politicking and panicky traders can cause wild swings in price unrelated to supply and
demand.
Where market theory is vague is the shape of the demand curve. For example, if oil supply
can't meet demand in the near future, as some here have posited, how high will prices go?
Some claim it will go over $200, as people get desperate for it. Some claim that higher
prices would increase efforts to find and drill more, putting a lid on prices. Some claim the
shortage would crash the world economy, depressing prices. Some claim that faced with oil
shortages, the world would simply switch to EVs, or stop wasting the gunk on poorly designed
transportation systems, so prices would stay more or less the same.
Who is right? Nobody knows. So we don't know the shape of the demand curve. The theory is
hopelessly vague.
I have argued for several years that peak oil is a low price phenomenon, not a high
priced phenomenon.
Schinzy,
The price of crude oil is only part of the Peakoil phenomenon. How much is left in the
ground counts, however more important is at which velocity the remaining Gb can be
extracted. I am not a geologist, but common sense says that when an oilfield is well depleted
(50-70%) the most of the remaining barrels will be extracted at a much lower speed, even at
very high oilprices. With secondary and tertiary EOR technology most conventional oilfields
will not produce the same or close to the same amount of barrels/day as before for many more
years. That's also my conclusion from what I have read more than a decade ago.
Of course with high oilprices new, relatively small, oil fields will come online and (more
advanced) EOR will start in other fields, but no matter how you look at it: depletion never
stops. With most oilfields in the world past-peak, only a tremendous amount of money (needed
to develop EOR) can prevent world crude oilproduction from falling like a rock. And all those
EOR technologies will deplete oilfields faster. Big gains in the beginning, more
disappointments later.
Will there be significant amount of shale oil developed in the future in other countries than
the U.S. ? If so, is that wise, regarding an already existing runaway climate change ?
I capitulate. Ron you are correct, we are post peak.
Post Peak
OK, now what?
It is so strange to be post-peak and not have high prices for crude,
and food.
I guess that will be coming.
NOTE:
biofuels should not be counted in liquids tally. It is a different animal, with the
source being dependent on farming and soil, not drilling and geology.
Just because ethanol is
used for propulsion shouldn't matter -- electrons and batteries aren't counted either, and
rightly so. Those belong in a different category- transportation energy.
I have argued for several years that peak oil is a low price phenomenon, not a high priced
phenomenon.
The most overrated law in economics is that of supply and demand. This law suffers from
what Richard Feynman called "vagueness" (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
). The problem is that it is always satisfied and hence gives absolutely no information about
prices.
Another problem with market theory (beyond vagueness) is that it lacks a time axis. The theory states that the relationship between price and supply moves along the demand
curve, but doesn't say how fast, just that "in the long run" the system will reach
equilibrium. Being in equilibrium means being somewhere on the demand curve.
So for example, if prices go up, the demand quantity is expected to go down. The question
is when.
Where does this go wrong? In classical market theory, for example, unemployment is
impossible, because if labor supply outstrips demand prices (wages) should fall until until
equilibrium is attained. This has been observed to be false on many occasions, including
right now.
As Feymann states in the video, "If it disagrees with experiment, it's WRONG! That's all
there is to it." Classical economics isn't just too vague, it is wrong.
Keynes joked about this that in the long term we'll all be dead. He meant equilibrium will
never be reached, so we are never on the demand curve. He argued that "sticky prices",
meaning the unwillingness to accept pay cuts, kept labor markets permanently out of
equilibrium.
It's worth pondering whether oil prices are "sticky" as well. Saying yes is saying the law
of supply and demand doesn't apply (in the short term). This year we have seen that both
OPEC's politicking and panicky traders can cause wild swings in price unrelated to supply and
demand.
Where market theory is vague is the shape of the demand curve. For example, if oil supply
can't meet demand in the near future, as some here have posited, how high will prices go?
Some claim it will go over $200, as people get desperate for it. Some claim that higher
prices would increase efforts to find and drill more, putting a lid on prices. Some claim the
shortage would crash the world economy, depressing prices. Some claim that faced with oil
shortages, the world would simply switch to EVs, or stop wasting the gunk on poorly designed
transportation systems, so prices would stay more or less the same.
Who is right? Nobody knows. So we don't know the shape of the demand curve. The theory is
hopelessly vague.
I have argued for several years that peak oil is a low price phenomenon, not a high
priced phenomenon.
Schinzy,
The price of crude oil is only part of the Peakoil phenomenon.
How much is left in the
ground counts, however more important is at which velocity the remaining Gb can be
extracted. I am not a geologist, but common sense says that when an oilfield is well depleted
(50-70%) the most of the remaining barrels will be extracted at a much lower speed, even at
very high oilprices.
With secondary and tertiary EOR technology most conventional oilfields
will not produce the same or close to the same amount of barrels/day as before for many more
years. That's also my conclusion from what I have read more than a decade ago.
Of course with high oilprices new, relatively small, oil fields will come online and (more
advanced) EOR will start in other fields, but no matter how you look at it: depletion never
stops.
With most oilfields in the world past-peak, only a tremendous amount of money (needed
to develop EOR) can prevent world crude oil production from falling like a rock. And all those
EOR technologies will deplete oilfields faster.
Big gains in the beginning, more
disappointments later.
Will there be significant amount of shale oil developed in the future in other countries than
the U.S. ? If so, is that wise, regarding an already existing runaway climate change ?
Science now is a highly politicized science and that's a huge problem. Ask USSR scientists
about possible consequences. Is Kapitsa noted long ago in his obitiary on Ernest Rutherford death
as soon as science become rich it lost its freedom. "
"The year that Rutherford died (1938) there
disappeared forever the happy days of free scientific work which gave us such delight in our
youth. Science has lost her freedom. Science has become a productive force. She has become rich
but she has become enslaved and part of her is veiled in secrecy. I do not know whether
Rutherford
would continue to joke and laugh as he used to.
Lysenkoism in Stalins's USSR was the first robin of this process. Now it became commonplace.
That's why we see so many pseudo-scientists -- politicians who pretend to be scientists like
Fauci. and so much corruption like among Professors of economics (all those neoclassical economic
scoundrels)
"...a permanent modern scenario: apocalypse looms and it doesn't occur."
- Susan Sontag, AIDs and its Metaphors
"I should not misuse this opportunity to give you a lecture about, say, logic. I call
this a misuse, for to explain a scientific matter to you it would need a course of lectures
and not an hour's paper. Another alternative would have been to give you what's called a
popular scientific lecture, that is a lecture intended to make you believe that you
understand a thing which actually you don't understand, and to gratify what I believe to be
one of the lowest desires of modern people, namely the superficial curiosity about the
latest discoveries of science. I rejected these alternatives."
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, A Lecture on Ethics
If you're reading this, then you've probably been called a conspiracy theorist. Also
you've been derided and shamed for questioning the "science" of the Covid debacle.
The idea of science is now a badly corrupted idea. In a nation, today, (the USA) which in
educational terms ranks 25th globally in science skills and reading, and well below that in
math; all one hears is a clarion call to science. In reading skills the US placed below
Malta, Portugal, and right about the same as Kazakhstan.
But in a nation that no longer reads, and *can* no longer read, it is not surprising that
knowledge is absorbed via the new hieroglyphics of gifs (interestingly the creator of gifs
wanted it pronounced with a soft g the more to sound like a peanut butter brand) and
memes.
So-called 'response memes' are the new version of conversation, and most register and
communicate (sic) confusion. As beer ad marketers know, the state of your brain after
consuming a six pack is pretty much the standard target ideal for advertising. And it relays
a message that six pack confusion is actually a good and perhaps even sexy state in which to
find oneself.
Education is for those with money, those who can afford the proper foundational skills to
get into Harvard, MIT, Cal Tech and the Stanford. For everyone else science is Star Trek.
But I digress. The point is that most Americans imagine that they revere science, and they
ridicule anyone they think of as unscientific. But they think of it in cult terms, really.
Its a religion of sorts. The only people who don't are those 'real' religious zealots,
Dominionist and Charismatic Christians (like Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Rick Perry, Betsy DeVos
et al) who hold positions of enormous power in the US government under the least scientific
president in history.
The Christian right doesn't like any science, ANY science. But for most of that target
demographic (the educated mostly white 30%), the cry is to "trust the science" even the great
Greta says to "trust the science".
The problem is, science is not neutral, its as politicized as media and news and the
pronouncements of celebrities.
In May 2020, The Lancet published an article revisiting the 1957 and 1968 Influenza
pandemics.
The 1957 outbreak was not caused by a coronavirus -- the first human coronavirus would
not be discovered until 1965 -- but by an influenza virus. However, in 1957, no one could
be sure that the virus that had been isolated in Hong Kong was a new pandemic strain or
simply a descendant of the previous 1918–19 pandemic influenza virus.
The result was that as the UK's weekly death count mounted, peaking at about 600 in the
week ending Oct 17, 1957, there were few hysterical tabloid newspaper headlines and no
calls for social distancing. Instead, the news cycle was dominated by the Soviet Union's
launch of Sputnik and the aftermath of the fire at the Windscale nuclear reactor in the
UK.
By the time this influenza pandemic -- known colloquially at the time as "Asian flu" --
had concluded the following April, an estimated 20 000 people in the UK and
80 000 citizens in the USA were dead. Worldwide, the pandemic, sparked by a new H2N2
influenza subtype, would result in more than 1 million deaths.
To date, Covid 19 has not reached the million death marker in the US, and yet we are
seeing the most draconian lockdowns in modern history, the total suspension of democratic
process and a level of hysteria (especially in the U.S. and UK) unprecedented. I wrote about
some aspects of this on my blog here , mostly touching on the
cultural effects
Allow me to quote The Lancet again.
The subsequent 1968 influenza pandemic -- or "Hong Kong flu" or "Mao flu" as some
western tabloids dubbed it -- would have an even more dramatic impact, killing more than
30 000 individuals in the UK and 100 000 people in the USA, with half the
deaths among individuals younger than 65 years -- the reverse of COVID-19 deaths in the
current pandemic.
Yet, while at the height of the outbreak in December, 1968, The New York Times described
the pandemic as "one of the worst in the nation's history", there were few school closures
and businesses, for the most, continued to operate as normal.
I remember the 68 Hong Kong flu. I was in my last year of high school. The summer after
was Woodstock, the 'summer of love'. Not a lot of social distancing going on. But we are past
numbers and statistics having any real meaning. The Covid narrative is now in the realm of
allegory.
The media perspective is utterly predictable. Liberal outlets that have the inside track
to government are seen to be reinforcing the mainstream story (VOX, Slate, Huff Post, The
Guardian and Washington Post). In a recent VOX article the message was only a sociopath would
NOT wear a mask and that the 'science' was unanimous.
Of course its no such thing. But the message of sites like VOX, or Daily Beast, or Wa Po
or the truly reprehensible Guardian, are always going to be to hammer away 'on message'. The
same is true for what passes for moderate news organs like the NY Times, ABC News, The Hill,
and BBC. There has been virtually no dissenting opinions expressed in these rags.
All these news outlets are given clear messages by the spin doctors in government, by the
White House, and by contacts within the State Department and Pentagon. And by the advertising
firms employed by the state (such as Ruder Finn).
"Ad agencies are not in the business of doing science."
- Dr. Arnold S. Relman (Madison Ave. Has Growing Role In the Business of Drug
Research, NY Times 2002)
The WHO, the CDC, and most every other NGO or government agency of any size hires
advertising firms. The WHO, which is tied to the United Nations, is a reasonably sinister
organization, actually.
Just picking up a random publication from the WHO, on what they call 'the tobacco
epidemic' and you find on page 33 the following chapter heading "Objective: Effective
surveillance, monitoring and evaluation systems in place to monitor tobacco use."
Reading further and all this is really saying is that the populace of any country is best
put under surveillance. It's for their own good, you see.
Institutions of medicine, global and national possess
no more integrity than your average NGO (Amnesty International, Médecins Sans
Frontières, Oxfam et al). And that means not very much.
To understand the nature of institutional corruption one must understand Imperialism. The
institutions of Imperialist nations are going to further Imperialist ideology. (see Antonio
Gramsci, ideological hegemony). The US is not
in the business of helping Americans .
Modern monopoly forms better reflect that scientific knowledge, and its advanced
application to production, are concentrated, ultimately, not in physical objects but in
human beings and human interaction with those objects. It is monopoly of the labour power
of the most highly educated workers, by both imperialist states and Multi National
Corporations, that forms the ultimate and most stable base of imperialist reproduction.
– Sam King (Lenin's theory of imperialism: a defence of its relevance in the
21st century, MLR)
The idea of super-exploitation needs to be conceptually generalised at the necessary
level of abstraction and incorporated in the theory of imperialism. Super-exploitation is a
specific condition within the capitalist mode of production [ ] the hidden common essence
defining imperialism.
he working class of the oppressed nations/Third World/Global South is systematically
paid below the value of labour power of the working class of the oppressor nations/First
World/Global North. This is not because the Southern working class produces less value, but
because it is more oppressed and more exploited.
– Andy Higginbottom (Structure and Essence in Capital 1, quoted by John
Smith Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century)
The US jobless rate just hit 2.1 million. Officially. Making the total something over
forty million. Its much higher in reality. Nobody has work. There is no work and we are at
the start of a period of massive evictions, foreclosures, and delinquencies - and the
homeless population will soon reach Biblical proportions (in some cities, such as Los
Angeles, its already Biblical). Will be simply of a magnitude never before seen.
Hence the authoritarian policing of lockdowns in, for example, New Zealand, suggests
something like a practice run. The ruling class in western nations knows full well this is
coming. And one wonders if it's not, in fact, a part of the plan (oh here is where someone
says conspiracy theory probably Louis Proyect).
Yes it's a fucking conspiracy theory. It is a theory based on evidence, however.
Why are the US and UK and a host of other countries deliberately ensuring a massive
depression? Because they care about your health? They are worried we all might catch the flu?
Has the US ever demonstrated a concern with your health and well being before?
Remember how many discretionary tax dollars go to health care and how much to defense.
Conspiracies do occur. The denial of that fact seems to be a hallmark of the pseudo or false
left. Does the suspension of democratic process not cause this soft left any problems at all?
Look at Sweden, at Belarus no lockdown and no problem.
It should be noted that there are a great many terrific doctors in the US. Dedicated and
brilliant, often. But they are not the system. The system is run for profit.
With about three-fourths of Americans under lockdown, the unintended consequences will
be vast. There has been a notable decrease in the number of heart attack and stroke
patients arriving at hospitals, presumably because they are afraid of catching the
coronavirus or of not finding a hospital bed.
As the economy spirals downward, we can also expect an increase in mental health crises,
domestic violence and suicides. While lockdown supporters say that to have a functioning
economy, we must have good public health, the reverse is also true: To have good public
health, we must have a functioning economy.
– Alex Berezow PhD (Geopolitical Futures, 2020)
Alfred Willener wrote an interesting book in 1970, analysing May 68 in France. He analyses
the answers students gave to various questionnaires they responded to. The section regarding
science is worth quoting.
'The scandalous fact is that, for all the means that science has put at our disposal,
most people live not much better than in the Middle Ages'. The system benefits from science
in the following way: through the atom bomb, through 'the power of statistical research',
through computers, through the chemical industry being 'in the hands of the state', through
space research.
'In the end, you realize', concludes one reasonably logical reply, 'that technological
progress, which makes economic growth possible, does not satisfy the fundamental needs of
man and is used above all to maintain and strengthen the system'.
Lastly, I should like to quote one quite unexpected reply, which forms the extreme point
of pessimism: ' Everyone is oppressed by science.'
– Alfred Willener (The Action-Image of Society on Cultural
Politicization)
I doubt seriously one would get such responses today in any European or North American
country. The contemporary indoctrination regards science is acute. And the media abounds in
junk science. Click bait science. And this is where most people have their opinions formed
for them.
There is a paper put out by one of the founders of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab,
called The Great Reset. The conclusion of the book reads
...at a global level, if viewed in terms of the global population affected, the corona
crisis is (so far) one of the least deadly pandemics the world has experienced over the
last 2000 years."
In other words, a mortality of .06% is simply not commensurate with the extreme measures
the governments of the world (the West in particular) are taking.
There is no question, none, that those measures, the lockdown, the masks, the distancing,
and the attending *diseases of despair*, will kill more people by a factor of ten than the
virus itself.
This is not even to begin discussing the psychological harm done, in particular to
children. And not just harm to children, but severe
harm to the most vulnerable .
What is being internalized by children is three fold. One, there is something inherently
sick and contagious about ME. Two, everyone MIGHT be a threat to my health. And three, obey
authority, because you don't want to end up like those smelly homeless people were are trying
to hard to avoid.
Children take things personally. They tend to blame themselves. Even in the comparative
sanity of Norway, where I reside, children are increasingly anxious about the world. How
could they not be? All this for a health risk of .06%.
But it is more than just the decimation of the economy in the US and UK. It is a
dismantling of the culture. One in three museums closed because of Covid will not re-open.
Ever. Where does all that art go?
Just a guess but probably very wealthy collectors will gobble it up at wholesale
prices.
The predictable outcome of these lockdowns, certainly in the US, is a guaranteed minimum
income. Very minimum. Restrictions on travel, all freedom of movement in fact, will not soon
return to normal. Various forms of surveillance and tracking, as well as health
certifications, are the goal of the state.
Also, if this pandemic succeeded so well, with so little resistance, why not have another?
And there is another aspect to the SWAT mask police, and that is that western society is
becoming alarmingly hypochondriacal. Children are kept out of school for runny noses. If all
kids with snotty noses were kept out of class, nobody would get an education.
There is a dire future of two or three generations now developing and maturing with very
weak immune systems. So that if a natural mutation takes place one day, from a Corona virus
or any other, a genuinely serious pandemic could kill tens of millions.
It is not a speculation that there are people who prosper and even benefit during an
economic crisis -- as smaller business owners struggle, large corporations and banks
benefit from huge government subsidies, giving them more power to buy failing small
businesses, for example. And it is a fact that many of those people have enormous economic
power to shape the policies that can benefit themselves.
It is not a speculation that they would appreciate having strict measures of control
against the people by limiting their freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to
travel, or by installing means of surveillance, check points and official certifications
for activities that might give freedom to the people beyond the capitalist framework.
It is not a speculation that they would benefit from moving our social interactions to
the digital realm, which can commodify our activities as marketable data for the
advertising industry, insurance industry and any other moneyed social institutions
Including education, political institution, legal institution, and financial
institution.
Such matters should be seen within the context of the western history being shaped by
unelected capitalists with their enormous networks of social institutions.
– Hiroyuki Hamada (Wrong Kind of Green, April 2020)
The collapse of retail is accelerating. This is emerging as a monopolization of retail.
Few shops will remain, in fact, except luxury stores in select gated areas. The rest will be
online and probably rudimentary. The culture and the economy are being strip-mined and
recreated for a select clientele. The collapse of the economy means the collapse of the
bottom 90% or so.
The very richest men and corporations on the planet are making huge profits.
And yet, there are precious few voices of dissent to the master narrative in the US. In
Norway, the lockdown was about five weeks. But its a sparsely populated country and one
hardly noticed it save for the kids being home and not in school. But schools reopened and
the Prime Minister actually made a speech apologizing, in effect, for an *unnecessary*
lockdown. She had been frightened.
But now, with a mild uptick in positive cases the country is considering stricter
limitations on travel. Why?
There is no uptick in deaths, only in positive test results. The fact remains the virus
attacks the aged and the already sick. But this is very telling, I think. The Norwegian
government doesn't want to be seen as disobedient. They don't want to not follow the grand
plan provided by western agencies and experts. Even if they seemingly don't really believe
it.
(The saddest aspect is the voice of Dr. Mads Gilbert, a known advocate for Palestinian
rights, who has weighed in on the side of fear. Why? I have no idea. But it is worth noting
his predictions
from March 2020 were staggeringly wrong.)
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
But clearly the groupthink pressure is powerful and small nations do not want to be
singled out for bucking the *science* . There are economic coercions threatened, tacitly, as
well. The pressure to conform is huge and it takes a Herculean effort -- both individually
and as a nation, to resist. And *experts* seem to have a hard time admitting they were
wrong.
The science has been consistently wrong from day one.
As I say, this is now allegory. Or fable. There is nothing reasonable or rational in the
lockdown measures of the US and UK and NZ. Or anywhere. And this is not even to touch upon
the criminality of the Gates Foundation and Bill Gates buying public influence and
visibility. Not trained in any medical discipline, Gates has somehow made himself one of the
faces of the pandemic.
And to deconstruct Gates' language is to find a disturbing quality of authoritarian
hubris. Gates utters declarations as if he were God speaking to his flock. All from a man who
has done little save steal from his partners and exploit the poor of India and Africa. One of
the most striking aspects of this whole last few months has been the enormous and coordinated
effort the Gates machine has put into rehabilitating his image.
If you google "Crimes of the Gates Foundation" for example, you will get ten different
fact-checkers officially denying any crimes and another half dozen articles ridiculing those
who question Gates motives, his profit from vaccines, or even his alignment with eugenicists
(depopulation adherents)– all are derided as, yes, conspiracy theorists.
If you dare to question the rushing of an untested vaccine you are called an
anti-vaxxer.
My children are vaccinated. I just don't like the idea of a hurried untested vaccine
produced for a virus that needs no vaccine. And one promoted by a creepy millionaire.
But clearly the Gates charm offensive is in overdrive. The pastel cardigan is everywhere.
And yet, his favorable rating in recent surveys is around 56%. That is actually not very high
given the amount of self-promotion involved. It's better than Mark Zuckerberg and Joe Biden,
though. Gates is not likeable. No amount of spin can change that.
The final factor to note is the Trump effect. Many liberals would literally rather see
dead in the street if it meant discrediting Trump. It is no longer quite a zero sum game,
though. But overall the hatred of Trump is now at a religious level, too.
And behold, the opposition is Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. If you want a window in the
black heart of Biden, watch and/or listen to his testimony around the Waco inferno. The
inherent sadism and lack of humanity is glaringly apparent.
As for Kamala Harris:
As a San Francisco social worker, I sat on the school district committee that met with
families of chronically truant students. Once, when we asked a student why he didn't go to
school, he said there was too much police tape and shootings at his school bus stop.
Harris, as CA Attorney General, was putting parents/caregivers in jail if their child
was chronically truant. Also as Attorney General, she denied a DNA test to Kevin Cooper, a
very likely innocent man who came within hours of execution in 2004.
– Riva Enteen (Counterpunch Aug. 2020)
These are the servants of capital.
The left should be emphasising the economic aspect of lockdown because it is the working
class who are the principal victims of lockdown."
- Phil Shannon (Lockdown Skeptics, June 2020)
A Downing street tweet today:
We're putting tougher measures in place to target serious breaches of coronavirus
restrictions. Fines for not wearing a face-covering will double for repeat offences, up to
£3,200."
This is a class-based assault. The wealthy will not be fined for not wearing a
face-covering on their private beaches, or dinner parties at the yacht club.
If not this also about conformism? Social desirability == conformism.
Notable quotes:
"... Mark Twain is credited with introducing into the American vernacular the phrase, "Lies, damned lies and statistics." One of the pervasive damned lies people take for granted is the results of political polls, especially in the Trump era. Most polls show him behind several of the myriad candidates vying to represent Democrats in the 2020 election. But the American Association for Public Opinion Research confirms that "national polls in 2016 tended to under-estimate Trump's support significantly more than Clinton's." ..."
"... Social desirability is a concept first advanced by psychologist Allen L. Edwards in 1953. It advances the idea that when asked about an issue in a social setting, people will always answer in a socially desirable manner whether or not they really believe it. Political polling, whether by telephone or online, is a social setting. Respondents know that there is an audience who are posing the questions and monitoring their response. As a result, despite a respondent's true belief, many will answer polling questions in what may appear to be a more socially desirable way, or not answer at all. ..."
Many conservatives are concerned about polling results regarding conservative issues,
especially about President Trump. For example, the latest CNN poll
found that 51% of voters believe the president should be impeached. How much credence should
conservatives give these polls?
Mark Twain is credited with introducing into the American vernacular the phrase, "Lies,
damned lies and statistics." One of the pervasive damned lies people take for granted is the
results of political polls, especially in the Trump era. Most polls show him behind several of
the myriad candidates vying to represent Democrats in the 2020 election. But the American
Association for Public Opinion Research
confirms that "national polls in 2016 tended to under-estimate Trump's support
significantly more than Clinton's."
We are inundated with the latest polling on President Trump's approval rating and how people
are likely to vote in the 2020 election. Both bode poorly for the president, but he doesn't
believe them and neither should we. As an academic, I ran a research center that conducted
local, state-wide and national public opinion polls and took a year's leave of absence from my
university to work for Lou Harris, founder of the Harris Poll.
Social Desirability
The reason why we shouldn't believe most of the current or future polling results about
President Trump can be summarized in two words: Social Desirability.
Social desirability is a concept first advanced by psychologist Allen L. Edwards in 1953. It
advances the idea that when asked about an issue in a social setting, people will always answer
in a socially desirable manner whether or not they really believe it. Political polling,
whether by telephone or online, is a social setting. Respondents know that there is an audience
who are posing the questions and monitoring their response. As a result, despite a respondent's
true belief, many will answer polling questions in what may appear to be a more socially
desirable way, or not answer at all.
When it comes to President Trump, the mainstream media and academics have led us to believe
that it is not socially desirable (or politically correct) to support him. When up against such
sizable odds, most conservatives will do one of three things:
1) Say we support someone else when we really support the president (lie);
2) tell the truth despite the social undesirability of that response;
3) Not participate in the poll (nonresponse bias).
This situation has several real consequences for Trump polling. First, for those in the
initial voter sample unwilling to participate, the pollster must replace them with people
willing to take the poll. Assuming this segment is made up largely of pro-Trump supporters,
finding representative replacements can be expensive, time-consuming and doing so increases the
sampling error rate (SER) while decreasing the validity of the poll. Sampling error rate is the
gold standard statistic in polling. It means that the results of a particular poll will vary by
no more than + x% than if the entire voter population was surveyed. All else being equal, a
poll with a sampling error rate of + 2% is more believable than one of + 4% because it has a
larger sample. Immediate polling on issues like President Trump's impeachment may provide
support to journalists with a point of view to broadcast, but with a small sample and high
sampling error rates, the results aren't worthy of one's time and consideration.
Some political pollsters often get around the necessity of repeated sampling over the course
of an election by forming a panel of people who match the demographics (party affiliation, age,
gender, race, location, etc.) of registered voting public. Polling companies often compensate
panel members and use them across the entire election cycle. Such panels are still subject to
the effects of social desirability and initial substitution error.
Interpretive Bias
Another factor to consider is the institution that is conducting the poll and those
reporting the data. Their progressive sensibilities are thumbing the scale of truth. In my
experience, polls conducted by media companies are less credible since they are often guilty of
the same biases seen in their news reports. The perfect example of this is The New York Times's
"
Poll Watch ," which provides a weekly review of their political poll. My experience is that
it reflects strongly the Times's negative opinions about President Trump and conservative ideas
and the paper's heavy political bias.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Even the Harris Poll, when Lou was alive, suffered somewhat from this bias. Lou Harris was
the first person to conduct serious political polling on a national level and is credited with
giving John Kennedy the competitive advantage over Richard Nixon in the 1960 election. He made
political polling de require for future elections. While many people point to Nixon's twelve
o'clock shadow during the televised debate, Harris gave Kennedy the real competitive advantage
-- a more complete grasp of what issues voters thought were most important and how to tailor
his policy pitches toward that end.
I worked for Lou between 1999-2000. During the election season we would get the daily tab
read-outs. While the results were pristine, Lou would interpret those numbers on NPR and in
other media in a way that showed his clear Democrat bias. His wishful thinking that Al Gore
would beat George W. Bush would color his interpretation of what the numbers meant. In the end,
by a razon thin margin, Bush took the White House and Gore was relegated to inconvenient
environmental truths. Similarly, the 2016 election saw Trump beat favorite Hillary Clinton by a
significant electoral margin, despite
the vast majority of polls giving Mrs. Clinton the edge by between 3-5%.
Where We Go
from Here
Public opinion polling is generally not junk science although with some companies it can be.
Companies like Gallup and Pew consistently do a good job of chronicling political opinion in
America. At issue is the fact that these polling stalwarts don't work for media companies and
use large national samples from current voter rolls; they also tend to not put their thumbs on
the interpretation of data. President Trump is a president unlike any other and most of his
supporters don't participate in political polls. Even Trump's
own pollsters were surprised by his 2016 win. We would do well during these fractured times
to ignore political opinion polls for they will continue to be much to do about nothing.
Just be sure to vote your conscience and that is nobody's opinion but your own.
AntiSocial , 5 hours ago
The polls are skewed, intentionally by the pollsters and unintentionally by anyone with
the common sense not to identify as a Trump supporter.
Would you tell the Nazi Party questioner you were anti - Nazi? How do you feel about Josef
Stalin might be the last question someone would ever answer. Trump people have an
overwhelmingly justified reason to keep it to themselves. Especially in the age of digital
record keeping, and Neo fascism on the Left.
Trump vs: a man whose brain is dying should be a landslide, and could be. BUT the
democrats have succeeded in making the entire population sick to death of hearing about Trump
Is The Devil.
People en masse are not very intelligent and generally do what everyone else is doing,
whatever it is. This time they may know instinctively that the Biden regime will be American
history's biggest failure but they just don't want to hear about Trump anymore, or Covid, or
BLM, and will vote for Biden making just hoping to make it all go away. After that they will
find that when you make mistakes on purpose you usually get what you deserve.
Hawkenschpitt , 6 hours ago
There is another bias besides the article's "interpretive bias." I call it "assumption
bias."
I am one of those whom Pew samples on a regular basis, and across a wide range of issues.
In responding to their queries, I have in the back of my mind how I perceive my responses are
going to show up in the aggregations and the public reporting. It certainly is a
consideration when the survey question is double-edged. For example, given a series of
questions surrounding my perceptions of "climate change" overlooks the wide variance of what
is exactly meant by climate change: are the questions related to the natural dynamism of the
earth's climate, or are they surrogates for Anthropogenic Global Warming? Their questions
assume an agreed-upon definition, and my responses will vary, depending upon what I perceive
to be the underlying basis to the series of questions. This introduces a bias in my
responses.
A recent poll had a series of questions about my activities during these coronavirus
lock-downs: e.g. how does the lock-down affect various of my activities (charitable
donations, volunteer services, neighborly assistance)? Do I do more? Less? About the same?
The wording of the questions shows that they had made an underlying, but false, assumption
that the coronavirus affects my actions.
At the end of every Pew survey, they ask whether I perceived bias in the questions; they
also allow comments on the survey. I take them to task when I encounter these kind of things.
I can only hope that they take my remarks under consideration for their next efforts.
Homer E. Rectus , 6 hours ago
This article spends most of its words trying to convince us that polls are junk science
and then says Pew and Gallup are not. How are they not also junk if they fail to get truthful
answers?
isocratic , 6 hours ago
You have to be really special to trust polls after 2016.
Im4truth4all , 9 hours ago
Polls are just another example of the propaganda...
DrBrown314 , 10 hours ago
Public polls have been rubbish for decades. They average a 0.9% response rate. That is not
a random sample folks. If only 1 person in 100 will agree to take a poll you have a self
selecting sample. Pure garbage. The pollsters have resorted to using "invitation" polling on
the internet and claim this is a probability sample. It is not. It too is rubbish. But you
already knew that because of what the polls said in 2016 and what actually happened. qed.
Alice-the-dog , 10 hours ago
Not to mention that I'm sure there are many like me, who has lied profusely in answer to
every polling call I've gotten ever since I became eligible to vote in 1972. In fact, I
strongly suspect that Trump voters are the most likely demographic to do so.
The Herdsman , 11 hours ago
Bottom line; the polls are fake. We already saw this movie in 2016, we know how it ends.
Back in 2016 you might be fooled by the polls but we already know empirically that they are
rigged. We literally saw it all with our own eyes.... never let anyone talk you out of what
you saw.
Ex-Oligarch , 11 hours ago
This article gives way too much credit to the pollsters.
Polls are constructed to produce a desired result. The respondents selected and the
questions asked are designed to produce that result.
If they do not produce that result, the data can be altered. No one polices this sort of
manipulation, formally or informally.
Adding spin to the result when it is "interpreted" is only the last step. The narrative
promoted in this article that pollsters are honest social scientists carried away by
unconscious biases is a crock.
We have seen articles blaming the respondents for the failures of pollsters over and over
again. This narrative that Trump voters are ashamed of supporting him and so lie to the
pollsters is just more spin designed to make republicans look insincere, amoral and
devious.
Hook-Nosed Swede , 12 hours ago
Mark Twain was quoting Benjamin Disraeli and admitted he wasn't sure the PM actually ever
used that phrase. Incidentally, Twain threw his Confederate uniform away and headed West in
the middle of America's Civil War. I don't see support for Jefferson Davis or Abraham Lincoln
there.
whatisthat , 12 hours ago
I would observe every intelligent and experienced person knows that political based
polling data is suspect to corruption and used as propaganda...
hootowl , 13 hours ago
Political and media polls are used to persuade people to vote for the demonunists by
purposely exaggerating the numbers of demonunists in their polling samples to deceive the
public in order to try to swing the vote to the demonunists and/or to dissuqade conservatives
into believing it is futile to vote because the demonunists are too numerous to overcome.
Ignore the political polls because they are largely conducted by paid liars, manipulators,
and propagandists. The 2020 presidential election is easy to assess. Do you want to elect a
senile, old , treasonous, crook and his family into the WH; or a man, who may, at times make
you a little upset with his abrasive rhetoric, but can be trusted to do what he thinks is
best for his fellow Americans, while he is continuously beset by the worst political cadre of
communists, demonunists, lying MSM/academia, and anti-American deep state crooks in the
history of our great republic.
Gold Banit , 13 hours ago
This is the end for the corrupt racist DemoRat party.
The DemoRats and their fake news media are in a panic and are very desperate and this is
why they are promoting this rioting looting destroying and burning cause their internal
polling has Trump wining 48 states in a landslide....
Groupthink is all around us. Decision-making in government, in the media and at work. It's
slowly killing the world.
In the background of the most important events, the Covid-19 response and increasing tension
and conflict in the world, it might be worth looking through some of this in a bit more
detail.
I've experienced groupthink working for large organisations, most notably in my last job. We
were tasked with investigating and solving complex problems. Some technical expertise helped
but was not crucial to the role.
Critical thinking and balancing evidence and differing viewpoints was key.
Yet the organisation decided that this was no longer required and changed the whole
operating model to a one-size fits all type of call-centre. This new high-risk approach was
recommended to us by the outside consultants Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) who were clueless
about our business.
Those of us who were experienced in the role argued that the model wouldn't work. But the
organisation ploughed on regardless. It was obvious from day one that the financials didn't
stack up which they tried to deny and later concealed.
The executive largely ignored our concerns to start but then paid limited lip-service when
the wheels started to come off. Anyway, in the end they offered us redundancy while employing
fresh university graduates to replace us. As far as I know the place is still in denial and
heading down the pan.
Groupthink is a term first used in 1972 by
social psychologist Irving L. Janis that refers to a psychological phenomenon in which
people strive for consensus within a group. In many cases, people will set aside their own
personal beliefs or adopt the opinion of the rest of the group.
People who are opposed to the decisions or overriding opinion of the group as a whole
frequently remain quiet, preferring to keep the peace rather than disrupt the uniformity of the
crowd'.
Groupthink is common where group members have similar backgrounds and particularly where
that group is placed under stress, resulting in irrational decision outcomes.
These are the main behaviors to watch out for:
Illusions of invulnerability lead members of the group to be overly optimistic and
engage in risk-taking.
Unquestioned beliefs lead members to ignore possible moral problems and ignore the
consequences of individual and group actions.
Rationalising prevents members from reconsidering their beliefs and causes them to
ignore warning signs.
Stereotyping leads members of the in-group to ignore or even demonise out-group members
who may oppose or challenge the group's ideas.
Self-censorship causes people who might have doubts to hide their fears or
misgivings.
"Mindguards" act as self-appointed censors to hide problematic information from the
group.
Illusions of unanimity lead members to believe that everyone is in agreement and feels
the same way.
Direct pressure to conform is often placed on members who pose questions, and those who
question the group are often seen as disloyal or traitorous.
There are two further observations I made in the workplace, particularly relevant to groups
going through major change or/and a crisis.
Firstly, they tend to swing from the status quo to the complete opposite. In our
organisation, we definitely needed some changes and tweaks but we lurched towards a model which
was completely unsuitable and unsustainable operationally and financially.
The other thing I noticed was our employers became control freaks. They started to talk down
to us and our customers like children. They introduced office slogans such as 'let's crack on'
or 'we're all in this together' and deflected from the problems of the disastrous
reorganisation towards 'celebrating diversity' in the workplace. Critical thinking, creativity
and expression were sucked out of the place.
The obvious analogy for all these behaviors is the response to Covid-19 when government
ministers were collectively panicked into making
extreme decisions on lockdown , using just one preferred source of 'expertise'.
At the same time, they sidelined dissenters and independent experts who could have offered a
calm, rational perspective and a targeted response to Covid-19.
In summing up this thinking and behavior, I'm reminded of these observations from Dr Malcolm
Kendrick and Lord Sumption about the response to Covid-19. Dr Kendrick
here :
We locked down the population that had virtually zero risk of getting any serious problems
from the disease, and then spread it wildly among the highly vulnerable age group. If you had
written a plan for making a complete bollocks of things you would have come up with this
one".
The Prime Minister, who in practice makes most of the decisions, has low political cunning
but no governmental skills whatever. He is incapable of studying a complex problem in depth.
He thinks as he speaks – in slogans.
These people have no idea what they are doing, because they are unable to think about more
than one thing at a time or to look further ahead than the end of their noses.
THE BBC – A CASE-STUDY
A large organisation which has
a high opinion of its news service . But of course, the reality is the opposite. There are
so many groupthink case-studies but the BBC is as good as any, particularly in terms of making
a bollocks of things.
The executives at the BBC and some senior correspondents will no doubt be aware that they
run a politicised agenda of bias and misinformation on a grand scale. Outsiders who've
researched their coverage will recognise this too. But this won't be obvious to the vast
majority of BBC employees, the victims of groupthink.
This came across in some of Andrew Marr's incredulous reactions to Noam Chomsky's
observations about the media during their
interview :
Andrew Marr: How can you know I'm self-censoring?
Noam Chomsky: I'm not saying you're self-censoring. I'm sure you believe everything you
say. But what I'm saying is if you believed something different you wouldn't be sitting where
you're sitting.
I believe the foreign affairs reporting of the BBC is where this problem stands out most.
Real expertise and impartiality has been completely absent from any reporting I've seen in
recent years.
First, while not unusual in this profession, most journalists employed by the BBC will have
a degree. Typically, when you look at today's 'top' BBC journalists, many have attended the
elite universities which tends to create a culture of like-minded people of similar
backgrounds. This has been identified as one cause of creating groupthink.
Also, the younger journalists will be impressionable within the BBC hierarchy to the views
and ways of the senior house-hold name journalists.
It's sometimes said that there aren't specific rules within the BBC and other media stating
what a journalist can and can't report and write and they generally don't knowingly mislead.
But they will learn almost instinctively to self-censor and operate within a set of unwritten,
unspoken rules and a strait-jacket narrative.
The other problem in foreign affairs reporting is that BBC journalists and most others
rarely visit the warzones. On Syria, they typically report from Lebanon or Turkey only
occasionally venturing into a government or relatively safe terrorist or Kurd held area. So
unlike previous conflicts, such as Bosnia where I remember at least a tiny degree of balance,
journalists seldom see what is actually going on.
Under the pressure of deadlines they rely on dubious sources such as
Al Qaeda terrorists and
Bellingcat and pre-determined assumptions which conveniently slot in with the anti-Assad
narrative of the BBC and establishment.
The investigations of Robert Stuart into a likely
previously staged incident involving BBC journalist s was swept under the carpet. Both
matters have been ignored because the BBC have no way or will to refute evidence which goes
against their bias.
On the other hand, the BBC are more than happy to provide extensive coverage to more
allegations against Russia and Trump from anonymous sources, providing no background or
balance within the overall of climate of related allegations which have collapsed or are
unproven.
It's well known BBC journalists are silent on malpractice. We saw this with the
Jimmy Savile scandal and decades of sexual abuse. This attitude is similar to what I
experienced with my employer who were very vocal and proud of their anti-bullying and mental
health policies. Yet when the staff were surveyed anonymously, bullying rates were through the
roof.
The other obvious signs of groupthink within the BBC, particularly during the Covid-19
crisis, is
dumbing-down and its slogan-filled website written as though their readers are idiots.
Another strong theme is a preoccupation with race and diversity, American affairs and
general tittle-tattle, to the detriment of more pressing matters such as the longer-term and
wider impact of the world's current problems.
Covid-19 and our response to it is probably the most important event of our lifetime but
there's barely a peep about whether the response is necessary and proportionate. Instead, this
totally rational viewpoint is only ever mentioned in the context of BBC articles about
Covid-19 'conspiracy theories' .
Many of the examples I've described neatly fit in with groupthink behaviors and experiences
I encountered in a large organisation.
But I think the biggest groupthink problem is with senior BBC journalists. Ultimately their
lazy arrogance has trickled down to the newer journalists and so over time, wrong behavior has
been normalised throughout.
THE BBC 'GRANDEES'
A few months ago Huw Edwards
made some comments about accusations of bias directed towards the BBC, defending the
corporation and journalists. These are some of the specific comments he made which to me showed
a complete lack of understanding of the concerns people have.
The BBC is not, to put it politely, run like some newspapers, with an all-powerful
proprietor and/or editor making his or her mark on the tone and direction of the coverage [ ]
BBC News is a rather unsettling mix of awkward, contrary and assertive people who (in my very
long experience) delight in either ignoring the suggestions of managers or simply telling
them where to get off. That's how it works."
Around this time, I also recall Edwards arguing on
Twitter on the subject and he said that it was ridiculous to say that journalists within
the BBC were willfully misleading the public. His Twitter opponent replied that this was not
what he had said and was simply stating that the BBC had fallen victim to groupthink. Edwards
just couldn't get his head past this, while continuing to attack and misrepresent BBC
critics.
This defensive attitude and stereotyping of critics is classic groupthink behavior in which
he,
Nick Robinson and others have taken part.
I used to admire John Simpson and in the 1980s he visited Iran post-revolution. He wrote a
book of the visit which I enjoyed. But in recent years, he has shown that he doesn't understand
modern geo-politics and like the BBC can only assess it in terms of the ethno-centric British
view on the world and our influence.
In this President Putin press conference he asked the most ridiculous question imaginable
which confirms he's lost the plot. His question was about Russian behavior in the world and
whether Putin wanted to create a new Cold War.
Putin
wiped the floor with him pointing out the hundreds of NATO bases and numerous wars which
put Simpson's aspersions into their rightful place.
Jeremy Bowen is another who has lost his way. I saw a
recent report from him from the position of a Christian militia unit fighting terrorists in
Syria.
Again,
BBC arrogance was on full display . His report made generalised comparisons between him
meeting Serbs in Bosnia in the 1990s and these Syrian fighters, clearly indicating that he
doesn't listen and is not interested in Syrian views on western complicity and the White
Helmets.
In the usual group-speak he described the Syrian Government 'the regime' and Al Qaeda as
'rebels'. His report simply rubber-stamped the BBC coverage of the whole conflict.
This arrogance is typical of journalists who rely on their past achievements, creating an
air of gravitas to impress their audience. The reality is his reporting is based on no
substance and outdated and lazy assumptions.
THE MADNESS OF JOHN SWEENEYNEVER
MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Ex-BBC nowadays, John Sweeney's arrogance is off the scale. These days he spends his time on
Twitter
attacking lockdown sceptics , like Peter Hitchens accusing him of 'killing' his Mail on
Sunday column readers with his views on Covid-19 lockdown.
Sweeney is off his trolley but the reality is he probably always was as this clip during his
BBC days shows.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/mjlo4u_8g60
This behaviour, extreme as it is, certainly suggests groupthink played a big part somewhere
in his career.
AN ILLUSION OF SANITY
BBC Dateline is a current affairs TV panel discussion which I occasionally watched. The
panel which changed regularly were seemingly well qualified with foreign writers and
journalists which included Russia or Arab affairs experts.
Sitting around that table they gave the impression of people who knew what they were talking
about.
However, when you listened carefully to what they were saying, there was very little
substance. Their arguments, all based on a simple premise that Russia/Syria are bad, the West
is good, tempered with a little occasional criticism of western policy to give the illusion of
balance.
Occasionally you would have a more pro-Russia expert on but with the prevailing consensus of
the rest of the panel, his or her views would be ridiculed. It got to the point any dissenting
panel member started to self-censor to sound more credible, perhaps to remain on the panel.
This is the dilemma for any progressively minded BBC guest nowadays.
Peter Hitchens who complains the BBC never invite him on, appeared on Good Morning Britain
(GMB) recently. As is normal with many GMB debates, the discussion on Covid-19 descended to
retorts and abuse and was simply not the forum for Hitchens to get across his well thought
out points on the big picture.
But I don't think he would have fared any better on the BBC. The BBC create an illusion of
civilised, intelligent discussion but the reality is there is no substance, depth or balance.
The crucial discussion points about Covid-19 or conflict in the world don't get a hearing. The
premise and the rules are already set in stone before the guests arrive.
FINAL
THOUGHTS
There are many reasons why the world is in its current madness and on the brink of serious
conflict.
Groupthink in government, the media and the general public is probably a key factor as this
represents the thinking culture alongside and below the psychopaths and war criminals who pull
the strings.
It's almost impossible to break this cycle by chipping away at it. But it's possible a large
event connected to Covid-19 or a major war will be the catalyst which might shock us out of our
distorted view of reality.
In the meantime, independent commentators and ex-MSM like Peter Hitchens,
Anna Brees and
Tareq Haddad , are putting their careers on the line and self-interests aside. We can only
encourage others employed by the BBC and other media to be brave and do the same.
Certainly, the consequences will be far more disastrous doing nothing and not speaking
up.
In the sudden, new founded willingness to demonstrate on the streets perhaps those
participating might be better reflecting on who and what the real enemy is.
Party politics, Brexit and Black Lives Matter really don't matter.
Groupthink, escalating world conflict, All Lives Matter, including Syrians, Libyans,
Palestinians and Blacks,(including those outside of US,UK and Europe) together with the
post-Covid-19 march to an uncertain 'new normal', are the issues which matter right now.
Belief system is not chosen. The individual is indoctrinated into it via socialization process. Only few can break this bond.
Notable quotes:
"... Social or Cultural Norms are standards for behavior engendered from infancy by parents, teachers, friends, neighbors, and others in one's life. Social Norms are the shared expectations and rules that guide the behavior of people within social groups; Social Norms can go a long way toward maintaining social order. Engendered, Social or Cultural Norms can be enforced by something as subtle as a gesture, a look, or even the absence of any response at all. At the extremes, aberrant social behavior becomes a crime. One could adopt Social Norms as a part or all of their Belief System. ..."
"... Religions were an early form of Social Norms. Yet and still, all Religious Beliefs address Social Behavior, Social Norms. As with Social Norms, most, if not all, Religions have slowly evolved over time. As with Social Norms, Religious Beliefs are often engendered from infancy by parents; handed down from generation to generation. Most Religions require one's Believing; Believing that the precepts of the Religion come down to us from a supreme being or deity via a prophet or inspired teacher. Whereas science asks questions in the quest for knowledge, Abrahamic religions hold that any questioning of their particular beliefs is blasphemous, a great sin. Rather than welcome questions in re validity, religions insist that, first and foremost, adherents believe. Religions might be a part of the whole of one's Belief System. ..."
"... Can we even have stable societies without Belief Systems? Is it possible to build a Society around Science, Philosophy, and/or Reason? Can we, benefitting from Science and Philosophy: Improve the quality of our Belief Systems? Of our Religions? Can Beliefs become Informed Opinions? Will future societies' Belief Systems be based more on Science and Philosophy, and less on opinion and belief? Do they have a choice? It seems that the more successful societies have long since chosen to give the thinking of Science and Philosophy precedence over Believing. Darwin tells us that survival goes to those that adapt. ..."
Belief Systems, these prisms through which we view the world, have been around from our earliest days. Not so long ago, the Ancient
Greeks separated the concept of what we might call belief into two concepts: pistis and doxa with pistis referring to trust and confidence
(notably akin the regard accorded science) and doxa referring to opinion and acceptance (more akin the regard accorded cultural norms).
In quest of a personal Belief System, should one: Go with the flow and adapt to the Social or Cultural Norm? Follow the Abrahamic
admonishment to first believe? Follow their own Reasoning? Or, should one look to Science?
Social or Cultural Norms are standards for behavior engendered from infancy by parents, teachers, friends, neighbors, and others
in one's life. Social Norms are the shared expectations and rules that guide the behavior of people within social groups; Social
Norms can go a long way toward maintaining social order. Engendered, Social or Cultural Norms can be enforced by something as subtle
as a gesture, a look, or even the absence of any response at all. At the extremes, aberrant social behavior becomes a crime. One
could adopt Social Norms as a part or all of their Belief System.
Most modern Religions are handed down from times long past, times before much was known about anything. Most, if not all, early
Religions were based on mythology. Later on, some Religions found more of their basis in whatever evidence and reasoning skills were
available to a people. From the earliest times, human cultures have developed some form or another of a Belief System premised on
Religion.
Humans are, uniquely it seems, given the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking in an orderly rational way; they are given
the faculty of Reason. To Reason is to use the faculty of Reason so as to arrive at conclusions; to discover, formulate, or conclude
by way of a carefully Reasoned Analysis. One might base a part or all of their Belief System on Reason.
Science can be seen as an endeavor to increase knowledge, to understand; to reduce ignorance and misunderstanding. Science encourages
active skepticism. Science, the word comes from the Latin word for knowledge, is premised on verifiable empirical evidence and best
thinking. Science employs our faculty to Reason. Belief is not a scientific criterion but is rather a bias to be filtered out of
any scientific experiment. We have confidence in the knowledge afforded us by Science to the extent that we have confidence in the
validity of the evidence and the rigor of the Reasoning, and in Scientific Methodology. Science can form the basis of one's Belief
System to the extent that they have confidence in Science.
Religions were an early form of Social Norms. Yet and still, all Religious Beliefs address Social Behavior, Social Norms. As with
Social Norms, most, if not all, Religions have slowly evolved over time. As with Social Norms, Religious Beliefs are often engendered
from infancy by parents; handed down from generation to generation. Most Religions require one's Believing; Believing that the precepts
of the Religion come down to us from a supreme being or deity via a prophet or inspired teacher. Whereas science asks questions in
the quest for knowledge, Abrahamic religions hold that any questioning of their particular beliefs is blasphemous, a great sin. Rather
than welcome questions in re validity, religions insist that, first and foremost, adherents believe. Religions might be a part of
the whole of one's Belief System.
As is to be expected, Science is often in conflict with religious beliefs. This dichotomy between the Reasoning of Science and
the Believing of Religion goes back at least to early Egypt, Greece, and India; has played, and still plays, a huge role for philosophers,
scientists, and others given to thought.
While most modern societies have moved away from a Religious dominance of their culture; at the extremes, we still have theocracies
where Religious Belief is given reign over culture and politics, and, to some extent or another, thought itself.
Preceding statute law, Religious associated Belief Systems played an important role in mankind's development. Down through the
centuries, religious behavioral standards have provided societies personal security, social stability. Religious Beliefs have long
been, are still being, codified into law.
Codified laws can also be based on 'Social Norms', on philosophy and reason ( love of learning, the pursuit of wisdom, a search
for understanding, ); or on yet other Belief Systems.
Can we even have stable societies without Belief Systems? Is it possible to build a Society around Science, Philosophy, and/or
Reason? Can we, benefitting from Science and Philosophy: Improve the quality of our Belief Systems? Of our Religions? Can Beliefs
become Informed Opinions? Will future societies' Belief Systems be based more on Science and Philosophy, and less on opinion and
belief? Do they have a choice? It seems that the more successful societies have long since chosen to give the thinking of Science
and Philosophy precedence over Believing. Darwin tells us that survival goes to those that adapt.
He didn't say it quite that way, but that is what he meant.
This seeming need of humans to Believe can be abused. The atrocities of Colonial Spain and Portugal and the Era of Slavery were
ostensibly committed under the aegis of Christian Belief. Nazi Germany, Jonestown, ISIS, and a Trump Presidency are examples of some
of the more negative consequences of aberrant Belief Systems.
Demagogues prey on this need to Believe by telling the people what to Believe; by giving them something to Believe. Fox News,
by telling its viewers what to Believe, gives them this thing they need; something to Believe. All those arbiters of opinion we see
and read on the media are trying to sell Beliefs to their audience; an audience that needs something to Believe. Fox News has become
a Belief System for millions. So too, the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, and Shawn Hannity.
Adolph Hitler and Jim Jones gave their needy followers something to Believe. Osama bin Laden/Al-Qaeda and ISIS gave their needy
followers something to Believe. Donald J. Trump is giving his needy followers something to Believe.
Thinking's too hard.
Obviously, existing well-meaning Belief Systems can be co-opted by unsavory persons, societies. Equally obvious, Belief Systems
can be instilled into a population. From the days of slavery and for these 150 yrs hence, whites in the Southern States have engendered
racism into their progeny. For 150 yrs now they propagated a false version of history in their schools. They created and propagated
a Belief System premised on mendacity.
Though many Belief Systems are based on Religious Tenets; we also see them based on economic models, personality cults, , even
in science. Economic dogma can be instilled in a society as a Belief System to the extent that any challenge thereto is considered
to be heretical, blasphemous. One can be born a Republican, a Baptist, or both, as were their parents and their parents' parents.
People have been being born Catholic for 2,000 yrs. Joseph Smith, a come lately, instilled.
Some positive consequences of Belief Systems include: higher moral standards, the great art and science flowing from the Renaissance;
the science, philosophy, and art from The Age of Reason/The Enlightenment. More recently: the ending of slavery, the ending of Colonialism,
the ending of apartheid, the codification of LGBT rights, and the struggle to end racism correlate with changes in Belief Systems.
Pending challenges for Belief Systems include such as freedom from hunger, access to housing, and alleviating economic disparity.
Belief Systems can carry us forward. Belief Systems can hold us back.
Is tweeting believing?
To what Belief System, if any, is this our Age of Technology attributable? Has Technology itself become a Belief System?
A very famous frog once said, "It is not easy being green."
Closely held, long-held, Beliefs are hard to give up; especially if they have been engendered via emulation, imprinting, repetition,
, since infancy. In America, the most technologically advanced economy ever known; our technology, our scientific achievements, are
all based on science. Yet today we have upwards of half of our politicians pandering to one or another Religious group that, for
the most part, denies Science. Quid pro quo: the pols get the Religious groups' vote, the Religious group gets the laws, and the
judges and justices, they want. Perhaps in part as a consequence of this support, most of this same group of politicians would govern
all the while making little effort to acquaint themselves with Science, with technology, in this day and age of Science and Technology.
Many, maybe most, of these same politicians hold fast to theories of economics and law that are, themselves, based on Belief.
John Prine, recently departed, not a frog, wrote the tune "In Spite of Ourselves".
In spite of ourselves, we humans mumble and fumble our way as is our wont.
Ron (RC) Weakley (a.k.a., Darryl for a while at EV) , June 22, 2020 8:35 am
" Darwin tells us that survival goes to those that adapt.
He didn't say it quite that way, but that is what he meant "
[No he did not say it that way because that is not what he meant. Human beings just like to misrepresent Darwin that way because
it follows along with their own narrative of innovative superiority and control of their own fate. To transpose biological mutation
from the natural selection process of biological evolution over to social evolution is a bit of a stretch, but clearly it would
favor diversity and freedom over rigid authoritarian orthodoxy. It comes with no guaranty of course, but it also more accidental
or incidental than contrived.]
Ron (RC) Weakley (a.k.a., Darryl for a while at EV) , June 22, 2020 9:18 am
Reason is not the same as logic, not pure logic at least. Impure logic is mostly sophistry. Reason is not necessarily sophistry,
but still depends upon assumptions which in life may be less reliable than in math.
Nietzsche and Machiavelli were notable philosophers of celebrated capacity for reason. By my own anti-intellectual biases I
have found them both intolerable as human beings and deceptive as arbiters of truth. Science, when correctly applied, has evolved
far beyond its roots in philosophy. I am skeptical of both incorrect science and any philosophy that I am not taking an active
roll in. Any valid philosophy should be about the present rather than the past. Kant and William James are tolerable, but still
insufficient despite their well meaning morality.
"... Failure to blame all problems suffered by minorities on racism ..."
"... Groupthink must be fun for many people. Emoting without as much as a thread of a connection to knowledge of history and careful ..."
"... But what today most scares me – a true liberal to my marrow – is the rabid mobthink on the political and ideological left. My fear is neither my forgiving nor tolerating the many prejudices and idiocies rampant on the right. I despise these unconditionally. But today – June 12th, 2020 – I fear more the prejudices and idiocies rampant on the left, if only because these seem to me to be today more widespread and socially encouraged. ..."
Reading David Henderson's recent EconLog post titled " Why Don't
People Speak Up? " prompts me to offer a more general yet personal point, which is
this:
These are, at least for me, especially scary times. I refer here not principally to the
covid lockdown (although that, too, is scary in its own way). Instead, I refer to the tsunami
of virtue signaling now drowning the country in the wake of the death of George Floyd. Frank
and honest disagreement with any parts of the narrative that dominates the mainstream media is
treated by too many people as proof of evil intentions or, at best, of indifference to
evil.
Underway now is something far more extreme than a mere loss of nuance. The world is now
painted exclusively in the darkest black and brightest white. (Please, do not
interpret my use of "black and white" as referring to anything other than the traditionally
used example of the starkest of distinctions.)
Failure
to blame all problems suffered by minorities on racism – failure to denounce
loudly and angrily American bourgeois society's allegedly inherent bigotry, greed, and
rapaciousness – failure to acknowledge that America today is a brutal and cruel place for
all but the elite, and hellish especially for blacks, women, and gay, bi, and transgender
people – is frequently interpreted as sympathy for dark-ages-like superstition and
prejudices.
Equally bad, in the eyes of the Virtuous, are attempts at offering historical perspective.
Even if accompanied by a sincere and express acknowledgement that serious problems remain, the
mere suggestion that at least some of these problems were more widespread and worse in the past
– the slightest hint that over time there's been some real improvement for anyone but
white, heterosexual, high-income Christian males – is treated as evidence of blindness or
malignant bias.
Groupthink must be fun for many people. Emoting without as much as a thread of a
connection to knowledge of history and careful consideration of the facts is the
practice of very many people today. And it's de rigueur now to treat one's emotions
– along with rioting-crowds' outrage and passions – as sources of understanding and
knowledge more reliable than an actual understanding of history and economics.
Sadly, but unsurprisingly, this irrationality centered in the political left spawns
irrationality on the right. I've heard it said that George Floyd wasn't killed by Derek
Chauvin, or that Floyd deserved his fate. I hear it said that any success at reforming
government police departments would undermine law and order. Nonsense, of course. Pure
nonsense.
But what today most scares me – a true liberal to my marrow – is the rabid
mobthink on the political and ideological left. My fear is neither my forgiving nor tolerating
the many prejudices and idiocies rampant on the right. I despise these unconditionally. But
today – June 12th, 2020 – I fear more the prejudices and idiocies rampant on the
left, if only because these seem to me to be today more widespread and socially
encouraged.
Fauci clearly is a charlatan, a researcher who long ago became a politician and now cheats
like Pompeo. His mask wearng fiacto characterize him as a person who is unable to admin that he
was wrong. and admin the he lied in order to cover the shortage of masks for medical personnel
and complete unpreparedness of the country to the epidemic.
He also look like a boy who cried "wolf,wolf" way to many time, when no wolf was around.
This guy did absolutely nothing to understand and prepare for the epidemic from January to
Late March and then pushed for excessive measures like total quarantine. he should be fired for
incompetence. He is implicitly guilty for Ciumo idiotism in NY (horror hospital beds are running
out we need million of ventilators) and similar idiotism in NJ and other parts of the country,
which unnecessary closed businesses where wearing masks would suffice.
This charlatan never admitted his role in promotion of "gain of function" experiments and
financing them in Wuhan biolab.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the polarising director of the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases, slammed everyday Americans for refusing to go along with 'authority' on
medical matters, and accused people of 'amazing denial' when it comes to 'truth'.
Speaking on a podcast called Learning Curve , produced by the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), Fauci charged that "unfortunately, there is a combination of an anti-science
bias that people are -- for reasons that sometimes are, you know, inconceivable and not
understandable -- they just don't believe science and they don't believe authority."
"So when they see someone up in the White House, which has an air of authority to it,
who's talking about science, that there are some people who just don't believe that -- and
that's unfortunate because, you know, science is truth, " Fauci asserted.
"It's amazing sometimes the denial there is, it's the same thing that gets people who are
anti-vaxxers , who don't want people to get vaccinated, even though the data clearly indicate
the safety of vaccines," Fauci proclaimed, adding "That's really a problem."
Fauci also has a long history of being the front man for a network of powerful Big Pharma
and Big Medicine interests, pushing vaccines
and medicines in a clear conflict of interest.
* * *
Following Fauci's blame-scaping the anti-science bias of (implicitly ignorant) Americans,
Thiel Capital MD Eric Weinstein unleashed a barrage of uncomfortable truths on Twitter
How dare this man.
Do you want to know why they are learning to hate scientists for real Dr Fauci?
Because your group lies about science & your ilk drove the truth telling scientists
out of their rightful places inside the institutions calling bullshit on your lying about
masks. pic.twitter.com/VJLTGT0GOe
Scientists like me who don't go along with cowards & crowds cannot disrupt your
group's lies because we are outside. Imagine if I was tweeting from the National Science
Foundation or MIT. It would be a national news story about how your cabal lies and degrades
faith in science: https://t.co/leYsCerG3o
"But you prattle on. We will one day find out later that you suspected all along that the
Wuhan BS-L 4 virology lab might well be involved, but that you didn't say so for this or that
political reason.
Because you aren't a scientist. You play one. You are an MD turned actor.
Even when I agree with the conclusions of your institutional pseudo science cabal, you
cheat to get to our shared conclusions on vaccines, viruses, climate, etc.
So you want people to believe in science again? Ok. Call-yourself-out. Admit that your
crowd **lied** about our masks.
And not to put too fine a point on it: your group is sitting in chairs reserved for people
who don't do what your cabal just did.
You just don't have what it takes sir. I'm sorry. But science isn't acting. It's not a
beauty pagent. It's not politics.
Science requires courage ."
y_arrow 1
Whoa Dammit , 2 minutes ago
Like the other many things that Mr.Fauci has gotten wrong, he fails to recognize the truth
that Americans don't believe him
Boing_Snap , 6 minutes ago
People don't believe Fauci, never been in the real world, vaccine patent holder,
TruthHunter , 6 minutes ago
Fauci, you're not a scientist. You're a politician...stop whining when you're treated like
one
JoePorkChop , 6 minutes ago
Are scientists and authority some incorruptible special breed? A very skeptical eye
towards any power structure is very neccesary, always.
artytom , 6 minutes ago
Good man Weinstein.
HowardBeale , 7 minutes ago
Is he phucking joking? Fauci has no idea what Fauci will say tomorrow...
SuperareDolo , 8 minutes ago
I don't know if it would surprise Fauci to know that the majority of epidemiologists are
among those he says, "Don't believe in science, or authority."
Combining those two terms is very telling. Science is skeptical empiricism, not belief.
It's kind of self-contradictory to believe in conclusions, since he's not talking about
belief in the validity of skeptical empiricism. He's talking about his authority, which he
wants people to believe in, because he's a scientist. That's technocracy, and nobody should
accept that.
diogi23 , 9 minutes ago
Fauci is the John Bolton of science. Why does Trump keep him around??
aelfheld , 6 minutes ago
Science is a process, not 'revealed wisdom'.
I d----d sure don't put much faith in scientists who try to speak ex cathedra .
ze_vodka , 11 minutes ago
I require evidence based reasoning to be presented for Science...
and
I require that those who seek to be called an "Authority" demonstrate the ability to lead
well with kindness and humility.
So...
I firmly reject arbitrary Totalitarianism... which is exactly what Fauci espouses and
proclaims.
Demystified , 12 minutes ago
Fauci is a medical MEATBALL, his credibility is in the toilet. A Flush is needed
urgently.
ze_vodka , 11 minutes ago
I require evidence based reasoning to be presented for Science...
and
I require that those who seek to be called an "Authority" demonstrate the ability to lead
well with kindness and humility.
So...
I firmly reject arbitrary Totalitarianism... which is exactly what Fauci espouses and
proclaims.
Demystified , 12 minutes ago
Fauci is a medical MEATBALL, his credibility is in the toilet. A Flush is needed
urgently.
YouThePeople , 13 minutes ago
Fauxi is a corrupted paid stooge...and a bad actor.
Slayer666 , 14 minutes ago
Old School Americans aren't very fond of blindly following authority. They/We have a
rebellious streak. That's why the globalists/NWO want to import a new, more docile
population. But if America falls, don't expect the rest of the world to remain the same. Yeah
I know a lot of people would welcome that, but don't be too sure that what comes into that
power vacuum wouldn't be way worse.
hugin-o-munin , 6 minutes ago
There is a big difference in allowing the US economy to fail and having the US fail. Two
different things. In fact I think the best remedy to the current hyper corrupt system is to
let the dollar implode. That removes these fvckers' power in a clean sweep move and then
something more genuine and honest can take its place.
Distant_Star , 15 minutes ago
What ********. I believe in Newton's laws of motion. I believe in the laws of
thermodynamics and many other scientific rules. I believe in the periodic table. I believe in
Avogadro's number and Boyle's Law.
I don't believe in the "China model" that Fauchi, the corrupt WHO, the inept CDC with
their flawed Chinese test kits and the progressive politicians worshipped from day 1. I don't
believe it was necessary to lock down whole populations. I don't believe in the political
jihad against hydroxychloriquine because Trump said it might have value, mounds of anecdotal
evidence supported its use, and many physicians endorse it.
I don't subscribe to the globalist horesehit from the Gates Foundation with his push for
undeveloped vaccines and quantum dots, and statements that, "we have to vaccinate 6 billion
people." I have contempt for craven people who demand that everyone else be locked down for
their benefit, and whine about how "We can never go back to the way it was. Boo-hoo."
I question the ever changing, often contradictory narrative on this virus. I heap scorn on
their wildly inaccurate models that caused this economic and social disaster. I call
horse**** on the "scientists" and progressive authoritarians who joyfully locked down
populations and businesses when it was not necessary. These same fools then remained totally
silent when thugs, demonstrators, looters, arsonists, anarchists and mobs filled the street
for a "higher cause." I condemn those such as the "hero" Andrew Cuomo who put infected people
into nursing homes where old and vulnerable people died by the thousands for no reason. I
guess that makes me and millions of others science "deniers." On the other hand, maybe
ordinary people know a ship of floundering fools when they see one, and express genuine
concern. You don't need scientific method to see a disaster in motion. Screw Fauchi.
theboxseat , 12 minutes ago
I believe in:
Fool me once shame on you...
Darn who can remember Dubya's version of this
LA_Goldbug , 11 minutes ago
He's busy looking for WMD with Colon Powell in Iraq. He'll be back in 50 yrs. because it
is there and he will not stop looking.
ken , 9 minutes ago
Lies, just remember the lies, and that stupid look on his face while he tells them.
hugin-o-munin , 5 minutes ago
“There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you
can't get fooled again.”
Rocbottom , 15 minutes ago
SCIENCE doesn’t say jack ****. SCIENTISTS do. And this “scientist” is a
PROPAGANDIST not a doctor. THAT IS WHY no one believes what he says. He’s a paid
liar.
SteveNYC , 18 minutes ago
Joke of the day "American don't believe authority"
Tony, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? When you've been lied to, on a massive scale since 2001,
additional lies of which were put on steroids starting in 2016 - you'd be a FOOL to believe
"authority" or "EXPERTS" like you pal.
It's over.
k3g , 11 minutes ago
Lives Matter.
hugin-o-munin , 10 minutes ago
You must be a racist. :)
ken , 3 minutes ago
...not so much according to the Georgia Guidestones, the BMGF, U.S. Foreign Policy, and
the sacrificial babies used in blackmail to force it, by Israel.
sun tzu , 21 minutes ago
What science told the states in the northeast to send thousands of infected patients into
nursing homes?
Trezrek500 , 22 minutes ago
Science isn't about blind ideology.
B52Minot , 23 minutes ago
Faucci is nothing but a spoiled brat....and now he has a tantrum because Americans could
care less about what he says....why?? he wonders....Because Faucci has shown us the dark side
of science....how it can ruin you if you make the wrong decision about its true validity. If
we knew that the original estimate of deaths from COVID was a fraud Trump would never had
declared an emergency and agreed with a shut down....This entire COVID response has been one
big disaster....and a fraud with Faucci out there thinking he runs the place...
Time after time HE HAS BEEN WRONG..and his trust in the WHO and CHINA too has been
corrupted if not a fraud too...SO WHY IS HE STILL TRYING TO TELL US WHAT TO DO....Because he
thinks he is some sort of expert yet so flawed it oozes out of every pore...and NO ONE should
listen to him on anything. Just another crying kid having a tantrum....GO HOME and retire
Faucci...you really are worthless...and shut the hell up.
sun tzu , 24 minutes ago
Science is the truth, but scientists can and do lie.
BAMCIS , 24 minutes ago
Science has a PR problem. Mainly due to it only being accountable to itself and the fact
that for all it lofty aspirations, Science has not been able to achieve escape volatility
from the bounds of corruption that only Big Money can impose.
Plus Americans are culturally hard wired to view Science as an enemy. Luke, a dumb hick
farmer who used his faith and tenacity to destroy the crown jewel of the evil technocrats,
namely the Death Star. In most (if not all) James Bond movies the villains are mad scientists
or industrialists using science for "evil". In "The Hunger Games", Katniss Everdean is again
a bumpkin who wages war against the fancy people with their shiny tech in their decadent
cities. Its the Urban/Rural dichotomy. Same as it ever was.
bh2 , 27 minutes ago
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." -- Feynman
vampirekiller , 29 minutes ago
No one believes a queertard that attempted to attribute a 100% preventable queer disease
confined to the queer population to the majority heterosexual population. No one believes a
queertard when current empirical data refutes his fearmongering.
Lux , 29 minutes ago
I'm still wondering why Fauci is even alive. Then again, the entire Pentagon is populated
by traitors with offshore bank accounts, so..
smacker , 33 minutes ago
Someone needs to tell Fauci the reason why people don't believe the science is because it
keeps changing and contradicts itself.
There is no centre of competence on this virus and conflicting advice, including from
him.
Voice-of-Reason , 35 minutes ago
Science originally said we didn't need masks and now we do. The problem I have with Mr
Fauci's form of science is that it is too easily manipulated by politics.
adr , 38 minutes ago
Hey Fauchole, is this science?
Upwards of 60% of people have natural immunity to Covid due to antibodies produced from
four or more common coronaviruses.
I reject your "science" and replace it with real research.
Well, yeah Dr. Fausti. We certainly did believe you. We didn't want to. But we are playing
along. You know like at work. And like living like free citizens in a supposedly free
country. By obliging you with shut-ins and shutdowns. And you terrorizing and bankrupting
millions. Yeah I think we played along. And had faith in government and science. Cuz you said
so. And would jail or punish those who did not. Take kids away. Send swat. Stuff like that.
Had bills to pay. Those bills just keep on coming. And the nerve of those people wanting to
like pay them! On time!
Government is only effective with the consent of the governed. You should know that. You
should also say something about how that was shown to be very selective enforcement. Cuz
riots or something. Do or don't matter? Confusing. They apparently can live of a billion
dollars from bank of America and starkbucks and Wal-Mart. Or just not pay their bills at all.
Or work. At a job. Where you have to show up on time, wear a mask and not burn **** down.
Stuff like that.
You are throwing a tantrum. Because everyone, not quite everyone. Still doesn't obey you.
Enough. To willingly line up for your vaccine. When it is ready. Of course. Seeing a little
scary times ahead for your authority. Who do you answer to Dr. Fausti? Are they getting a
little hot under your collar? Cuz science, right? Is what you most believe in. Not like
something else. And as long as we are here. Why do you work for Trump? Or more to the point.
Why does he employ you? Very confusing. Since he wants to maga. Supposedly.
Hal n back , 41 minutes ago
I wonder how he treats his subordinates who have different views
R2U2 , 40 minutes ago
Webster’s Dictionary, 1828:
JES'UITISM, noun
1. Cunning, deceit; hypocrisy; prevarication; deceptive practices to effect a purpose
"Two cankers are biting the very entrails of the United States today: the Romish and the
Mormon priests. Both are quietly at work to form a people of the most abject, ignorant and
fanatical slaves, who will recognize no other authority but their supreme pontiffs. Both are
aiming at the destruction of our schools, to raise themselves upon our ruins. Both shelter
themselves under our grand and holy principles of liberty of conscience, to destroy that very
liberty of conscience, and bind the world before their heavy and ignominious yoke.
The Mormon and the Jesuit priests are equally the uncompromising enemies of our
constitution and our laws; but the more dangerous of the two is the Jesuit—the Romish
priest, for he knows better how to conceal his hatred under the mask of friendship and public
good; he is better trained to commit the most cruel and diabolical deeds for the glory of
God.”
--Abraham Lincoln, 1864; "Fifty Years in the Church of Rome,” Charles Chiniquy,
1888.
The CIA is roughly half Mormon and half Roman Catholic.
Stan Smith , 43 minutes ago
The reason people don't trust institutions is because they fail us time and time
again.
All why sucking up resources for research (good) and making sure people inside the system
are taken care of (less good).
The more Fauci talks the more he sounds like Al Gore. Not a good thing.
Lying about masks was bad. But lying about HC + Zinc is worse, at least in my mind.
To be fair to Fauci, that industry isnt the only one filled with dishonest schiesters.
They are everywhere.
Institutions aren't trusted because they've earned the distrust over decades. It's well
earned.
Sid Davis , 46 minutes ago
Fauci is a complete fraud.
He graduated from medical school and then spent 2 years working in hospitals. That is the
extent of his medical experience. For the last 50 years he has been a bureaucrat. He
obviously has a conflict of interest because of his ties to the Gates Foundation, Big Pharma,
and the Wuhan Lab where this mess started.
This guy belongs at the end of a rope, not at the top of the response team to this
scamdemic.
He is a sociopathic conman, and not even very good at that.
Stillontheroad , 50 minutes ago
Hey Fucci. How much money to you stand to gain from all your patents, all granted when you
worked for the Federal Government but because you had friends in Congress a law was passed
giving you the proceeds from those patents when in the real world said patents belong to the
USA
Voice-of-Reason , 52 minutes ago
Mr. Fauci,
We believe science. We just don't believe governmental controlled shutdowns are the answer
to this pandemic and that it ultimately does more damage to the economy than it protects
people from Covid19. And yes, we do not believe authority because they lie constantly, are
corrupt and generally are incompetent.
Krink26 , 53 minutes ago
When authorities weaponized everything including science, for political gain, people will
not trust your authority.
VideoEng_NC , 53 minutes ago
"Speaking on a podcast..."
This is the level of media Fauci seems to be relegated to plus his ever-welcoming friends
for interviews with the MSM. Would appear Hungarian Pengos here on ZH was correct on his
05/21 post regarding the ulterior motives behind the announcement of Pence staffers getting
the Wuhan virus making Fauci self isolate...for good. He doesn't even get to bake tree
cookies.
Longdriver , 1 hour ago
Fauci's true colors are being shown now. He's getting testy because he is watching his
future personal profits go up in smoke in controlled vaccines.
DoctorFix , 1 hour ago
"Dont believe science"? Sure, Dr. Falsey! I believe in the "science" you represent. The
science of lies and criminal deception. The science of propaganda and manipulation. The kind
of sciences that you wholeheartedly embrace.
k3g , 1 hour ago
Fauci's turn came, and he proved himself to be incompetent, a bureaucrat, a fraud.
**** you Tony. You flat out suck.
What is The Hedge , 1 hour ago
What Fauci is really saying is that Americans are no longer accepting the false narratives
promoted by those in charge. Maybe there's hope.
Lumberjack , 1 hour ago
Mr. Fauci;
I’m your age and have a pretty strong background in engineering, science and some
other practical skills.
Over the last 30 years science has been bastardized by politicization and liberalism has
finally reached the point of teaching kids 2+3= anything they want.
Political science is based on fraud and bull$hit and now the real deal is as contaminated
as Fukushima.
Your comment about “authotity” screams of idiocracy. Try watering your crops
with gatorade and fertilizing with MDMA.
I know and knew real Phd’s who were real scientists and that’s when science
was based on theory, tests, duplication and verification.
That is no longer the case. It’s idiots like you, book smart field stupid (
I’m being kind with book smart), The only thing you a$$wipes are looking for is 10
minutes of fame, a bunch of money and molesting your interns and students with big boobs that
need a passing grade.
When as usual your astrological prognotications are bad (which are 99% of the time), you
find convenient parties to blame.
It’s time to put real science into both science and leadership.
I have high hopes that this will happen sooner rather than later.
Kid’s take note and see how many times they claimed eggs are bad for you and then
they said eggs are good for you. That goes for many other items and issues too.
Yesireebob, You screwed the pooch Mr. Fauci and I’m calling PETA right now.
Lj
NotAGenius , 1 hour ago
Why the hell does ZH give Fauci the incredibly dishonest cruel idiot any venue. He's a
liar and is the cause of the destruction of the USA by telling Trump we'd have a million
covid-19 deaths unless it was shut down and everyone stayed home. So Trump wiped out the
country and all of our lives on Fauci's b.s. That is what Fauci is, at best. Do not give him
any public platform to lie even more yet to the cowardly stupid clueless Americans. Fauci
does not deserve any recognition or platform for lies anywhere in the USA. But he's given the
stage because the government apparently supports his lies. They are all guilty of treason and
mass destruction of civilization. I want both executed at best, or at least humiliated with
public avoidance.
brian91145 , 1 hour ago
he is owned by the Rockefllers and Gates. That's a fact
radical-extremist , 1 hour ago
Scientists that can never bring themselves to say "I don't know." , are not
scientists...they're blathering charlatans pumping their brand and feeding their egos. Fauci
is much like Paul Krugman. He speaks with such confidence and certainty about everything,
that surely he must be right. And when proven wrong will do it again with the opposing view,
ignoring the fact he ever said it to begin with...as if there's no internet.
SurfingUSA , 1 hour ago
Yes true scientists are extremely humble and cautious, bec. they know how much they don't
know.
FragNasty , 1 hour ago
Hee hee, greatings to all.
Science is meant to be based on evidence rather than faith. Maybe Fauci himself doesn't
believe in science with his inclination to the contrary. "Americans don't believe ..." The
man is a maniac! Maybe he is accidentally confessing to the state of "science" as a
counterpart to religion in it's role as an ideological control mechanism within the state of
politics today, more precisely the breakdown of such a control mechanism.
Often is man's best wisdom to be silent , 1 hour ago
Marionettes can easily be transformed into hanged persons. The ropes are already
there.
Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 1 hour ago
He is right...
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political
and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is
just as good as your knowledge.
~ Isaac Asimov
But he is also one of the reasons that the anti-intellectual movement can maintain
momentum. Too many of the "authoritative voices" in positions of power are total
charlatans.
Itchy and Scratchy , 1 hour ago
This yap flappin’ freak show in on the board of Gates controlled WHO & various
other big pharma boards! His crooked snoot is buried so far into the cash flow trough it
ain’t even funny! Embezzlement poster child!
Handful of Dust , 1 hour ago
"Fauci the Fraud" will go down in history who will not remember him kindly.
Totally_Disillusioned , 1 hour ago
Fauci doesn't seem to understand WE DON'T BELIEVE HIM ANY LONGER!
SuperareDolo , 6 minutes ago
You never should have believed him. He was behind the attempt to steal credit for the
discovery of HIV by his underling, Gallo. There's a long story there.
Yog Soggoth , 1 hour ago
I believe Fauci gave the Wuhan lab $3.7 million.
We_The_People , 1 hour ago
That’s not entirely true, we just believe fraudulent agenda driven traitors like
you!
Fauci’s estimates were so off that the only 2 conclusions can be formed, gross
negligence or intentional deception, either way he has zero credibility left!
A strange mixture of Black nationalism with Black Bolshevism is a very interesting and pretty alarming phenomenon. It proved to
be a pretty toxic mix. But it is far from being new. We saw how the Eugène Pottier famous song
International lines "We have been naught we
shall be all." and "Servile masses arise, arise." unfolded before under Stalinism in Soviet Russia.
We also saw Lysenkoism in Academia before, and it was not a pretty picture. Some Russian/Soviet scientists such as Academician Vavilov
paid with their life for the sin of not being politically correct. From this letter it is clear that the some departments
already reached the stage tragically close to that situation.
Lysenkoism was "politically correct" (a term invented by Lenin) because it was consistent with the broader Marxist doctrine.
Marxists wanted to believe that heredity had a limited role even among humans, and that human characteristics changed by living
under socialism would be inherited by subsequent generations of humans. Thus would be created the selfless new Soviet man
"Lysenko was consequently embraced and lionized by the Soviet media propaganda machine. Scientists who promoted Lysenkoism with
faked data and destroyed counterevidence were favored with government funding and official recognition and award. Lysenko and his
followers and media acolytes responded to critics by impugning their motives, and denouncing them as bourgeois fascists resisting
the advance of the new modern Marxism."
The Disgraceful Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming Theory
Notable quotes:
"... In the extended links and resources you provided, I could not find a single instance of substantial counter-argument or alternative narrative to explain the under-representation of black individuals in academia or their over-representation in the criminal justice system. ..."
"... any cogent objections to this thesis have been raised by sober voices, including from within the black community itself, such as Thomas Sowell and Wilfred Reilly. These people are not racists or 'Uncle Toms'. They are intelligent scholars who reject a narrative that strips black people of agency and systematically externalizes the problems of the black community onto outsiders . Their view is entirely absent from the departmental and UCB-wide communiques. ..."
"... The claim that the difficulties that the black community faces are entirely causally explained by exogenous factors in the form of white systemic racism, white supremacy, and other forms of white discrimination remains a problematic hypothesis that should be vigorously challenged by historians ..."
"... Would we characterize criminal justice as a systemically misandrist conspiracy against innocent American men? I hope you see that this type of reasoning is flawed, and requires a significant suspension of our rational faculties. Black people are not incarcerated at higher rates than their involvement in violent crime would predict . This fact has been demonstrated multiple times across multiple jurisdictions in multiple countries. ..."
"... If we claim that the criminal justice system is white-supremacist, why is it that Asian Americans, Indian Americans, and Nigerian Americans are incarcerated at vastly lower rates than white Americans? ..."
"... Increasingly, we are being called upon to comply and subscribe to BLM's problematic view of history , and the department is being presented as unified on the matter. In particular, ethnic minorities are being aggressively marshaled into a single position. Any apparent unity is surely a function of the fact that dissent could almost certainly lead to expulsion or cancellation for those of us in a precarious position , which is no small number. ..."
"... The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people . There are virtually no marches for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads. The message is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Black violence is expected and insoluble, while white violence requires explanation and demands solution. Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly is. ..."
"... The claim that black intraracial violence is the product of redlining, slavery, and other injustices is a largely historical claim. It is for historians, therefore, to explain why Japanese internment or the massacre of European Jewry hasn't led to equivalent rates of dysfunction and low SES performance among Japanese and Jewish Americans respectively. ..."
"... Arab Americans have been viciously demonized since 9/11, as have Chinese Americans more recently. However, both groups outperform white Americans on nearly all SES indices - as do Nigerian Americans , who incidentally have black skin. It is for historians to point out and discuss these anomalies. However, no real discussion is possible in the current climate at our department . The explanation is provided to us, disagreement with it is racist, and the job of historians is to further explore additional ways in which the explanation is additionally correct. This is a mockery of the historical profession. ..."
"... Donating to BLM today is to indirectly donate to Joe Biden's 2020 campaign. This is grotesque given the fact that the American cities with the worst rates of black-on-black violence and police-on-black violence are overwhelmingly Democrat-run. Minneapolis itself has been entirely in the hands of Democrats for over five decades ; the 'systemic racism' there was built by successive Democrat administrations. ..."
"... The total alliance of major corporations involved in human exploitation with BLM should be a warning flag to us, and yet this damning evidence goes unnoticed, purposefully ignored, or perversely celebrated. We are the useful idiots of the wealthiest classes , carrying water for Jeff Bezos and other actual, real, modern-day slavers. Starbucks, an organisation using literal black slaves in its coffee plantation suppliers, is in favor of BLM. Sony, an organisation using cobalt mined by yet more literal black slaves, many of whom are children, is in favor of BLM. And so, apparently, are we. The absence of counter-narrative enables this obscenity. Fiat lux, indeed. ..."
"... MLK would likely be called an Uncle Tom if he spoke on our campus today . We are training leaders who intend, explicitly, to destroy one of the only truly successful ethnically diverse societies in modern history. As the PRC, an ethnonationalist and aggressively racially chauvinist national polity with null immigration and no concept of jus solis increasingly presents itself as the global political alternative to the US, I ask you: Is this wise? Are we really doing the right thing? ..."
I am one of your colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley. I have met you both personally but do not know you closely,
and am contacting you anonymously, with apologies. I am worried that writing this email publicly might lead to me losing my job,
and likely all future jobs in my field.
In your recent departmental emails you mentioned our pledge to diversity, but I am increasingly alarmed by the absence of diversity
of opinion on the topic of the recent protests and our community response to them.
In the extended links and resources you provided, I could not find a single instance of substantial counter-argument or alternative
narrative to explain the under-representation of black individuals in academia or their over-representation in the criminal justice
system. The explanation provided in your documentation, to the near exclusion of all others, is univariate: the problems of
the black community are caused by whites, or, when whites are not physically present, by the infiltration of white supremacy and
white systemic racism into American brains, souls, and institutions.
Many cogent objections to this thesis have been raised by sober voices, including from within the black community itself,
such as Thomas Sowell and Wilfred Reilly. These people are not racists or 'Uncle Toms'. They are intelligent scholars who reject
a narrative that strips black people of agency and systematically externalizes the problems of the black community onto outsiders
. Their view is entirely absent from the departmental and UCB-wide communiques.
The claim that the difficulties that the black community faces are entirely causally explained by exogenous factors in the
form of white systemic racism, white supremacy, and other forms of white discrimination remains a problematic hypothesis that should
be vigorously challenged by historians . Instead, it is being treated as an axiomatic and actionable truth without serious consideration
of its profound flaws, or its worrying implication of total black impotence. This hypothesis is transforming our institution and
our culture, without any space for dissent outside of a tightly policed, narrow discourse.
A counternarrative exists. If you have time, please consider examining some of the documents I attach at the end of this email.
Overwhelmingly, the reasoning provided by BLM and allies is either primarily anecdotal (as in the case with the bulk of Ta-Nehisi
Coates' undeniably moving article) or it is transparently motivated. As an example of the latter problem, consider the proportion
of black incarcerated Americans. This proportion is often used to characterize the criminal justice system as anti-black. However,
if we use the precise same methodology, we would have to conclude that the criminal justice system is even more anti-male than it
is anti-black .
Would we characterize criminal justice as a systemically misandrist conspiracy against innocent American men? I hope you see
that this type of reasoning is flawed, and requires a significant suspension of our rational faculties. Black people are not incarcerated
at higher rates than their involvement in violent crime would predict . This fact has been demonstrated multiple times across multiple
jurisdictions in multiple countries.
And yet, I see my department uncritically reproducing a narrative that diminishes black agency in favor of a white-centric explanation
that appeals to the department's apparent desire to shoulder the 'white man's burden' and to promote a narrative of white guilt .
If we claim that the criminal justice system is white-supremacist, why is it that Asian Americans, Indian Americans, and Nigerian
Americans are incarcerated at vastly lower rates than white Americans? This is a funny sort of white supremacy. Even Jewish
Americans are incarcerated less than gentile whites. I think it's fair to say that your average white supremacist disapproves of
Jews. And yet, these alleged white supremacists incarcerate gentiles at vastly higher rates than Jews. None of this is addressed
in your literature. None of this is explained, beyond hand-waving and ad hominems. "Those are racist dogwhistles". "The model minority
myth is white supremacist". "Only fascists talk about black-on-black crime", ad nauseam.
These types of statements do not amount to counterarguments: they are simply arbitrary offensive classifications, intended to
silence and oppress discourse . Any serious historian will recognize these for the silencing orthodoxy tactics they are , common
to suppressive regimes, doctrines, and religions throughout time and space. They are intended to crush real diversity and permanently
exile the culture of robust criticism from our department.
Increasingly, we are being called upon to comply and subscribe to BLM's problematic view of history , and the department is
being presented as unified on the matter. In particular, ethnic minorities are being aggressively marshaled into a single position.
Any apparent unity is surely a function of the fact that dissent could almost certainly lead to expulsion or cancellation for those
of us in a precarious position , which is no small number.
I personally don't dare speak out against the BLM narrative , and with this barrage of alleged unity being mass-produced by the
administration, tenured professoriat, the UC administration, corporate America, and the media, the punishment for dissent is a clear
danger at a time of widespread economic vulnerability. I am certain that if my name were attached to this email, I would lose my
job and all future jobs, even though I believe in and can justify every word I type.
The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people . There are virtually no marches
for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads. The message
is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Black violence is expected and insoluble, while white violence requires
explanation and demands solution. Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly is.
No discussion is permitted for nonblack victims of black violence, who proportionally outnumber black victims of nonblack violence.
This is especially bitter in the Bay Area, where Asian victimization by black assailants has reached epidemic proportions, to the
point that the SF police chief has advised Asians to stop hanging good-luck charms on their doors, as this attracts the attention
of (overwhelmingly black) home invaders . Home invaders like George Floyd . For this actual, lived, physically experienced reality
of violence in the USA, there are no marches, no tearful emails from departmental heads, no support from McDonald's and Wal-Mart.
For the History department, our silence is not a mere abrogation of our duty to shed light on the truth: it is a rejection of it.
The claim that black intraracial violence is the product of redlining, slavery, and other injustices is a largely historical
claim. It is for historians, therefore, to explain why Japanese internment or the massacre of European Jewry hasn't led to equivalent
rates of dysfunction and low SES performance among Japanese and Jewish Americans respectively.
Arab Americans have been viciously demonized since 9/11, as have Chinese Americans more recently. However, both groups outperform
white Americans on nearly all SES indices - as do Nigerian Americans , who incidentally have black skin. It is for historians to
point out and discuss these anomalies. However, no real discussion is possible in the current climate at our department . The explanation
is provided to us, disagreement with it is racist, and the job of historians is to further explore additional ways in which the explanation
is additionally correct. This is a mockery of the historical profession.
Most troublingly, our department appears to have been entirely captured by the interests of the Democratic National Convention,
and the Democratic Party more broadly. To explain what I mean, consider what happens if you choose to donate to Black Lives Matter,
an organization UCB History has explicitly promoted in its recent mailers. All donations to the official BLM website are immediately
redirected to ActBlue Charities , an organization primarily concerned with bankrolling election campaigns for Democrat candidates.
Donating to BLM today is to indirectly donate to Joe Biden's 2020 campaign. This is grotesque given the fact that the American
cities with the worst rates of black-on-black violence and police-on-black violence are overwhelmingly Democrat-run. Minneapolis
itself has been entirely in the hands of Democrats for over five decades ; the 'systemic racism' there was built by successive Democrat
administrations.
The patronizing and condescending attitudes of Democrat leaders towards the black community, exemplified by nearly every Biden
statement on the black race, all but guarantee a perpetual state of misery, resentment, poverty, and the attendant grievance politics
which are simultaneously annihilating American political discourse and black lives. And yet, donating to BLM is bankrolling the election
campaigns of men like Mayor Frey, who saw their cities devolve into violence . This is a grotesque capture of a good-faith movement
for necessary police reform, and of our department, by a political party. Even worse, there are virtually no avenues for dissent
in academic circles . I refuse to serve the Party, and so should you.
The total alliance of major corporations involved in human exploitation with BLM should be a warning flag to us, and yet this
damning evidence goes unnoticed, purposefully ignored, or perversely celebrated. We are the useful idiots of the wealthiest classes
, carrying water for Jeff Bezos and other actual, real, modern-day slavers. Starbucks, an organisation using literal black slaves
in its coffee plantation suppliers, is in favor of BLM. Sony, an organisation using cobalt mined by yet more literal black slaves,
many of whom are children, is in favor of BLM. And so, apparently, are we. The absence of counter-narrative enables this obscenity.
Fiat lux, indeed.
There also exists a large constituency of what can only be called 'race hustlers': hucksters of all colors who benefit from stoking
the fires of racial conflict to secure administrative jobs, charity management positions, academic jobs and advancement, or personal
political entrepreneurship.
Given the direction our history department appears to be taking far from any commitment to truth , we can regard ourselves as
a formative training institution for this brand of snake-oil salespeople. Their activities are corrosive, demolishing any hope at
harmonious racial coexistence in our nation and colonizing our political and institutional life. Many of their voices are unironically
segregationist.
MLK would likely be called an Uncle Tom if he spoke on our campus today . We are training leaders who intend, explicitly,
to destroy one of the only truly successful ethnically diverse societies in modern history. As the PRC, an ethnonationalist and aggressively
racially chauvinist national polity with null immigration and no concept of jus solis increasingly presents itself as the global
political alternative to the US, I ask you: Is this wise? Are we really doing the right thing?
As a final point, our university and department has made multiple statements celebrating and eulogizing George Floyd. Floyd was
a multiple felon who once held a pregnant black woman at gunpoint. He broke into her home with a gang of men and pointed a gun at
her pregnant stomach. He terrorized the women in his community. He sired and abandoned multiple children , playing no part in their
support or upbringing, failing one of the most basic tests of decency for a human being. He was a drug-addict and sometime drug-dealer,
a swindler who preyed upon his honest and hard-working neighbors .
And yet, the regents of UC and the historians of the UCB History department are celebrating this violent criminal, elevating his
name to virtual sainthood . A man who hurt women. A man who hurt black women. With the full collaboration of the UCB history department,
corporate America, most mainstream media outlets, and some of the wealthiest and most privileged opinion-shaping elites of the USA,
he has become a culture hero, buried in a golden casket, his (recognized) family showered with gifts and praise . Americans are being
socially pressured into kneeling for this violent, abusive misogynist . A generation of black men are being coerced into identifying
with George Floyd, the absolute worst specimen of our race and species.
I'm ashamed of my department. I would say that I'm ashamed of both of you, but perhaps you agree with me, and are simply afraid,
as I am, of the backlash of speaking the truth. It's hard to know what kneeling means, when you have to kneel to keep your job.
It shouldn't affect the strength of my argument above, but for the record, I write as a person of color . My family have been
personally victimized by men like Floyd. We are aware of the condescending depredations of the Democrat party against our race. The
humiliating assumption that we are too stupid to do STEM , that we need special help and lower requirements to get ahead in life,
is richly familiar to us. I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be easier to deal with open fascists, who at least would be straightforward
in calling me a subhuman, and who are unlikely to share my race.
The ever-present soft bigotry of low expectations and the permanent claim that the solutions to the plight of my people rest exclusively
on the goodwill of whites rather than on our own hard work is psychologically devastating . No other group in America is systematically
demoralized in this way by its alleged allies. A whole generation of black children are being taught that only by begging and weeping
and screaming will they get handouts from guilt-ridden whites.
No message will more surely devastate their futures, especially if whites run out of guilt, or indeed if America runs out of whites.
If this had been done to Japanese Americans, or Jewish Americans, or Chinese Americans, then Chinatown and Japantown would surely
be no different to the roughest parts of Baltimore and East St. Louis today. The History department of UCB is now an integral institutional
promulgator of a destructive and denigrating fallacy about the black race.
I hope you appreciate the frustration behind this message. I do not support BLM. I do not support the Democrat grievance agenda
and the Party's uncontested capture of our department. I do not support the Party co-opting my race, as Biden recently did in his
disturbing interview, claiming that voting Democrat and being black are isomorphic. I condemn the manner of George Floyd's death
and join you in calling for greater police accountability and police reform. However, I will not pretend that George Floyd was anything
other than a violent misogynist, a brutal man who met a predictably brutal end .
I also want to protect the practice of history. Cleo is no grovelling handmaiden to politicians and corporations. Like us, she
is free. play_arrow
Blacks will always be poor and fucked in life when 75% of black infants are born to single most likely welfare dependent mothers...
And the more amount of welfare monies spent to combat poverty the worse this problem will grow...
taketheredpill , 37 minutes ago
Anonymous....
1) Is he really a Professor at Berkeley?
2) Is he really a Professor anywhere?
3) Is he really Black?
4) Is he really a He?
LEEPERMAX , 44 minutes ago
BLM is an international organization. They solicit tax free charitable donations via ActBlue. ActBlue then funnels billions
of dollars to DNC campaigns. This is a violation of campaign finance law and allows foreign influence in American elections.
CRM114 , 44 minutes ago
I've pointed this out before:
In 2015, after the Freddie Gray death Officers were hung out to dry by the Mayor of Baltimore (yes, her, the Chair of the DNC
in 2016), active policing in Baltimore basically stopped. They just count the bodies now. The clearance rate for homicides has
dropped to, well, we don't know because the Police refuse to say, but it appears to be under 15%. The homicide rate jumped 50%
almost immediately and has stayed there. 95% of homicides are black on black.
The Baltimore Sun keeps excellent records, so you can check this all for yourself.
Looking at killings by cops; if we take the worst case and exclude all the ones where the victim was armed and independent
witnesses state fired first, and assume all the others were cop murders, then there's about 1 cop murder every 3 years, which
means that since has now stopped and the homicide rate's gone up...
For every black man now not murdered by a cop, 400 more black men are murdered by other black men.
taketheredpill , 46 minutes ago
"As an example of the latter problem, consider the proportion of black incarcerated Americans. This proportion is often used
to characterize the criminal justice system as anti-black. However, if we use the precise same methodology, we would have to conclude
that the criminal justice system is even more anti-male than it is anti-black ."
It is the RATIO of UNARMED BLACK MALES KILLED to UNARMED WHITE MALES KILLED in RELATION TO % OF POPULATION. RATIO.
RATIO. UNARMED.
BLACK % POPULATION 13% BLACK % UNARMED MEN KILLED 37%
WHITE % POPULATION 74% BLACK % UNARMED MEN KILLED 45%
Is there a trend of MORE Black people being killed by police?
No. But there is an underlying difference in the numbers that is bad.
>>>>> As of 2018, Unarmed Blacks made up 36% of all people UNARMED killed by police. But black people make up 13% of the (unarmed)
population.
There's a massive Silent Majority of Americans , including black Americans, that are fed up with this absurd nonsense.
While there's a Vocal Minority of Americans : including Democrats, the media, corporations and race hustlers, that wish to
continue to promulgate a FALSE NARRATIVE into perpetuity...because it's a lucrative industry.
Gaius Konstantine , 57 minutes ago
A short while ago I had an ex friend get into it with me about how Europeans (whites), were the most destructive race on the
planet, responsible for all the world's evil. I pointed out to him that Genghis Khan, an Asian, slaughtered millions at a time
when technology made this a remarkable feat. I reminded him the Japanese gleefully killed millions in China and that the American
Indian Empires ran 24/7 human sacrifices with some also practicing cannibalism. His poor libtard brain couldn't handle the fact
that evil is a human trait, not restricted to a particular race and we parted (good riddance)
But along with evil, there is accomplishment. Europeans created Empires and pursued science, The Asians also participated in
these pursuits and even the Aztec and Inca built marvelous cities and massive states spanning vast stretches of territory. The
only race that accomplished little save entering the stone age is the Africans. Are we supposed to give them a participation trophy
to make them feel better? Is this feeling of inferiority what is truly behind their constant rage?
Police in the US have been militarized for a long time now and kill many more unarmed whites than they do blacks, where is
the outrage? I'm getting the feeling that this isn't really about George, just an excuse to do what savages do.
lwilland1012 , 1 hour ago
"Truth is treason in an empire of lies."
George Orwell
You know that the reason he is anonymous is that Berkley would strip him of his teaching credentials and there would be multiple
attempts on his life...
Ignatius , 1 hour ago
" The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people . There are virtually no marches
for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads. The
message is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Black violence is expected and insoluble, while white violence
requires explanation and demands solution. Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly
is."
A former fed who trained the police in Buffalo believes the elderly protester who was hospitalized after a cop pushed him
to the ground "got away lightly" and "took a dive," according to a report.
The retired FBI agent, Gary DiLaura,
told The Sun
he thinks there's no chance Buffalo officers will be convicted of assault over the
now-viral video showing the
longtime
peace activist Martin Gugino fall and left bleeding on the ground.
" I can't believe that they didn't deck him. If that would have been a 40-year-old guy going up there, I guarantee you they'd
have been all over him, " DiLaura said.
" He absolutely got away lightly. He got a light push and in my humble opinion, he took a dive and the dive backfired because
he hit his head. Maybe it'll knock a little bit of sense into him, " added the former fed, who trained Buffalo police on firearms
and defensive tactics, according to the report...
It's a great brainwashing process, which goes very slow[ly] and is divided [into] four basic stages. The first one [is]
demoralization ; it takes from 15-20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number
of years which [is required] to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of
the enemy. In other words, Marxist-Leninist ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American
students, without being challenged, or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism (American patriotism).
The result? The result you can see. Most of the people who graduated in the sixties (drop-outs or half-baked intellectuals)
are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, [and the] educational system.
You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. T hey are contaminated; they are programmed to think and react to certain
stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind[s], even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you
prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior. In other
words, these people... the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To [rid] society of these people, you need
another twenty or fifteen years to educate a new generation of patriotically-minded and common sense people, who would be acting
in favor and in the interests of United States society.
Yuri Bezmenov
American Psycho , 16 minutes ago
This article was one of the most articulate and succinct rebuttals to the BLM political power grab. I too have been calling
these "allies" useful idiots and I am happy to hear this professor doing the same. Bravo professor!
If you are among the
two-thirds of Americans opposing calls by Black Lives Matter to defund the police, think
twice about saying so in public.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago is the latest example of what you might face. On Friday
it cut ties with a prominent University of Chicago economics professor, Harald Uhlig, who was a
scholar at the bank, as
reported by the Wall Street Journal. The Chicago Fed said it terminated Mr. Uhlig's
contract effective that day.
What was Uhlig's sin?
A series of tweets criticizing Black Lives Matter's call to defund police departments.
BLM had "just torpedoed itself, with its full-fledged support of #defundthepolice," Uhlig
tweeted.
"Time for sensible adults to enter back into the room and have serious, earnest,
respectful conversations about it all We need more police, we need to pay them more, we need
to train them better," he wrote.
If you think those comments seem harmless, you are not alone. Beyond the two-thirds of
Americans who tell pollsters they oppose calls for defunding, you have to wonder how many more
are afraid to answer polls honestly.
Uhlig also knocked those who tried to redefine what defunding means by claiming "it just
means funding schools (who isn't in favor of that?!?)." He was absolutely right to do that.
We wrote just this week why calls to defund mean just that, which was affirmed by a New
York Times column
Friday headlined, "Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police."
The Chicago Fed wasn't the first to go after Uhlig for his tweets. Earlier reactions were
covered by both the
Wall Street Journal and
Business Insider , reactions the National Review
described as a mob attack on academic freedom.
Over the past few years we learned to expect, even to shrug off, charges of racism or
insensitivity over even the most sensible or innocuous comments.
What's new just in the past month, however, is far more frightening.
It's the surrender by so many companies and institutions to intimidation by the most radical
voices, such as those who would defund the police. Contributions to Black Lives Matter are
pouring in from corporate America and dissenting voices are being muzzled and punished. The
Federal Reserve Bank properly guards its independence, and its local banks pride themselves on
independence even from one another. But for the Chicago Fed, that independence apparently ends
when the mob shows up.
These are terrifying times for reasons far beyond law and order. This is about freedom of
expression and America itself.
Unable to communicate in Arabic and with no relevant experience or appropriate
educational training
Seems rather typical of those making policy, not knowing much about the area they're
assigned to. If a person did know Arabic and had an understanding of the culture they
wouldn't get hired as they'd be viewed with suspicion, suspected of being sympathetic to
Middle Easterners. How and why these neocons can come back into government is puzzling and
one wonders who within the establishment is backing them. Judging by the quotes her father
certainly seems deranged and not someone to be allowed anywhere near any policy making
positions.
Flynn also seems to be a dolt what with his 'worldwide war against radical Islam'. Someone
should clue him in that much of this radical Islam has been created and stoked by the US who
hyped up radical Islam, recruiting and arming them to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Bin
Laden was there, remember? Flynn, a general, is unaware of this? Islamic jihadists are
America's Foreign Legion and have been used all over the Muslim world, most recently in
Syria. Does this portend war with Iran? Possibly, but perhaps Trump wouldn't want to go it
alone but would want the financial support of other countries. They've probably war-gamed it
to death and found it to be a loser.
The coronavirus reminds us that the gap between what we think we know and what we
actually do know is enormous.
Dr. Deborah Birx, White House coronavirus response
coordinator, shows off charts with members of the coronavirus task force during a briefing in
response to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the
White House on Tuesday, March 31, 2020 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Jabin Botsford/The
Washington Post via Getty Images)
May 13, 2020
|
12:01 am
Matt
Purple St. Louis Federal Reserve watchers, rejoice! And yes, I'm talking to both of you. The St.
Louis Fed is freshly relevant this week thanks to a paper it
published back in 2007 that examined the economic effects of the 1918 Spanish flu. Drawing
on old newspaper articles, local surveys, and other studies -- national data back then was
scarce -- the report found that the damage done to businesses by the outbreak was both severe
and short-lived. The impact on the next generation, however, was longer-lasting. Those in utero
during the pandemic went on to attain less education and lower incomes than had previous
generations.
What we wouldn't give for that kind of glimpse from the future today. The coronavirus has
killed hundreds of thousands while sledgehammering the economy, leaving close to a quarter of
working-age Americans either unemployed or
underemployed. And we still have no idea how it will end. It may be that this recession is
similar to the one in 1918, cutting deeply but easing rapidly. Or it may be that we're in for
another lost decade of stubborn unemployment and stagnant growth. It may be that the virus is
seen off this summer, remembered as a frightening but ultimately brief ordeal. Or it may be
that it lurks into the autumn, whereupon it comes roaring back.
We don't know, and we hate that we don't know. Consequently a cottage industry has sprung up
around our uncertainty, hawking models, projections, expert opinions. These things have valid
scientific purposes, of course, but thrown down the rabbit hole of our popular discourse,
they've taken on a kind of hysterical clairvoyance, supposedly able to tell us what's coming
and how we should respond. With climate change, we grew accustomed to the idea that scientists
could see into the future. Now we're demanding they do the same with the coronavirus. That's
despite the fact that so far, none of these projections have demonstrated any greater
predictive ability than your average call to Miss Cleo.
Take the government's official death toll projections. Back in January, the White House was
largely complacent over the coronavirus, with President Trump comparing it to the seasonal flu
and his health secretary
saying that Americans need "not worry for their own safety." Then in late March, the
pendulum swung towards apocalypse. Actually, the White House said,
200,000 Americans could die. Two weeks later, the death toll projection fell
to a far rosier 60,000 , and the country breathed a sigh of relief ahead of Easter weekend.
Then the projections ticked upwards yet again. Today, IHME, the White House's principal
modeler, predicts that 147,000 Americans will be killed
by August 4.
Some of the issue here may be the choice of models. IHME has been
criticized by epidemiologists , as have the Imperial College modelers in Britain (who have
lately been distracted by, er, more
extracurricular activities ). But the bigger problem is best summed up in a quote
to Politico by the head of IHME, explaining why his organization's projections
were so wrong. "We had presumed, perhaps naively," he said, "that given the magnitude of the
epidemic, most states would stick to their social distancing until the end of May." In other
words, the models are premised on assumptions that can be scrambled by real-world events,
whether political decisions or acts of God or the caprices of the virus itself. They aren't
showing us the future so much as extrapolating off of a snapshot, one that can easily change.
Yet we treat them as practically mystic. "200,000 could die!!" scream the headlines, with
"could" ever the weasel word.
We don't just do this with the death toll. On the economy, too, we seem hopelessly confused.
Here's a smattering of headlines from the past two months: "Unemployment rate could exceed 20%
by June, top White House adviser says." "Economists see uneven jobs recovery, high U.S.
unemployment through 2021." "Top JPMorgan investment advisor: It will take '10 to 12 years' for
U.S. employment levels to return." "The coronavirus recession will be deeper and faster than
the financial crisis." "Economists say quick rebound from recession is unlikely." "Trump's
baseless claim that a recession would be deadlier than the coronavirus." "U.N. warns economic
downturn could kill hundreds of thousands of children in 2020."
Stare into this blurry puddle long enough and you might conclude that no one has any idea
what the hell they're talking about. Or you might fall back on your own biases, choosing to
believe stories that buttress your political beliefs and speak to your own personal
circumstances. Either way, this kind of confusion can have long-reaching effects. Consider, for
example, a new study that was released last week, which found that there could be 75,000
so-called deaths of despair -- meaning suicides and drug and alcohol overdoses -- as a
result of the coronavirus recession. It called to mind another
social science finding , one of the most consequential of the last decade: that life
expectancy among less educated, middle-aged, white Americans was declining, driven primarily by
those deaths of despair.
That claim, courtesy of researchers Anne Case and Angus Deaton , made
its way around the internet. It fed into the narrative of the populist right and Donald Trump.
It provided an empirical grounding for "American carnage." But wait: a less noticed study a
year later, which took Case's and Deaton's data and adjusted for age, found a more mixed
picture. According to research from
Columbia University , while middle-aged white women had indeed seen increased mortality
rates, middle-aged white men had reversed this trend back in 2005. And then came another study, in the
American Journal of Public Health , that challenged the very concept of "deaths of
despair," warning that "the gap between deaths of despair as a claim and deaths of despair as a
rigorously tested scientific concept is wide."
There is a Grand Canyon-sized gap between what we think we know and what we actually know.
How to navigate this chasm? Two maxims can help.
The first comes from Friedrich Hayek: "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to
men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." Hayek was concerned
with what he called the "fatal conceit," which he defined as the belief "that man is able to
shape the world around him according to his wishes." We might add a corollary: that man is able
to anticipate the world around him according to his wishes. Because knowledge is
complex and dispersed, Hayek argued, no one can ever marshal enough of it to centrally plan an
economy. Likewise even a sophisticated model can't have enough data to foresee how a pandemic
will play out. There are simply too many variables, drawing on too many areas of life.
The second maxim comes from a very different source: John Dickinson, perhaps our most
conservative founding father. "Experience must be our only guide," Dickinson said. "Reason may
mislead us." Of course, by reason, he didn't mean vast computer algorithms struggling to track
contagion across seven continents; he was thinking of 18th-century rationalism, which he
contrasted with the more reliable yardstick of historical experience. While what seemed
philosophically sound in the abstract could be tainted by personal bias or disconnected from
real life, precedent was far more settled. How something had worked in the past was a good
indication of how it would work in the future.
Unfortunately we have very little precedent when it comes to the coronavirus, though the
Spanish flu can perhaps offer some clues. The 1918 influenza, like the current pandemic, began
in the spring, only to enter a second wave in the fall that killed more people than the first.
A third wave then began that winter and stretched into the summer of 1919. That's chilling, yet
there's good news too: the recession that followed was short and quickly blossomed into the
1920s, one of the most dizzying economic expansions in our history.
So top hats and flapper dresses all around? Who knows? It's called the novel coronavirus for
a reason. The awful truth is that we have very little idea how long this will go on and how it
will ultimately turn out. And the reason for that is that we know so very much less than we
think we do.
I also remember some of early estimates of Mad Cow disease in humans in UK and they
turned out to be very exaggerated.
When the political class was trying to de-gay HIV/AIDS in 1987, they had Oprah tell
everyone that 20% of heterosexual people would be dead before 1990.
The first I learned of Oprah's jaw-droppingly sensationalist remarks, was in a piece a
couple of days ago on AmericanThinker (which sounds like a rare bird indeed, if not an
outright oxymoron – but it has good stuff from time to time).
Anyhow, it was an interesting piece – entitled
" Reflections on a Century of Junk Science " by the author of " Hoodwinked: How
Intellectual Hucksters Have Hijacked American Culture ", which I will acquire today. (The
book's 11 years old, but sounds like it will be along the same lines as Kendrick's "
Doctoring Data: How to Sort Out Medical Advice from Medical Nonsense ", which was
excellent).
