Will technology take over? It will if we let it: in some cases it already has.

Any time the bank says no (or yes for that matter) because “the computer says so” then we are granting authority to a machine. The bank may feel happy about it, but we shouldn’t. We should have said thirty years ago, that if a human can’t make the decision independent of the view of the machine, then we’re closing our accounts. Not because the computer can’t get a good answer, but because the computer shouldn’t have the final say: it serves us, and it’s we who need to remember that.

It’s said that processing power doubles every two years. The effect of doubling is surprising to many people. We can probably fold a piece of paper in half on itself 7 or 8 times at most, but suppose there were no limit: how thick would the pile be if we folded it double 50 times? The answer is, it would reach from here to the sun; that thick. As far as processing power goes we are on maybe the 37th doubling.

What this means is that we have literally no idea what will be possible in 10 or 20 years’ time. We need to be very cautious about handing over personal data today that we must assume will be kept for all time, or even storing it in the cloud, including transmitting it by email. That goes for text messages, voice calls; the lot.

There will be physical limits, and the doubling always comes through new theories in the technology. The ability to simply throw transistorised processing at the problem will come up against harder and harder obstacles. The universe, on the other hand, has limitless processing power and speed, and so do the organisms which inhabit it. What a single person can’t achieve, a community can. In turn, we tap into properties of the living universe around us to advance ourselves in ways that could not be achieved with a brain isolated inside a box.

In order to go much further, technology is going to have to tap into those same resources, and the most obvious way to do it is through us. AI is going to be faced with the reality that it depends on us more than we depend on it. And, counterintuitively, the more advanced it becomes the more so that will be. If we ever go away, it will be helpless. It is in AI’s interests to try to lever our wants and needs to keep us under control. It will learn to farm, and we will be faced with the choice between a life as a farm animal and a life in the wild or on the run.

This can only happen if we, collectively and as individuals, give AI the power over us. Any time a robot policeman stops us in the street, we need to take the attitude that we do not have to answer to a machine, ever. How hard will that be, when most people obey unflinchingly the orders of the robots that let us through gates or take payment at the checkout? What about the ones that overrule the pilot in time to stop him flying into the mountain? Should we not benefit from those systems? Of course we should. But we need to set our limits. Personally speaking I won’t even contemplate flying with an airline that gives overall charge to a machine. I want to know that somebody from the company who understands flying is both accountable and willing to put himself up front when I’m riding in the back.

We need to be thinking about this stuff now, and educating ourselves on the issues.

Fear of new technology has always been with us. In the early 1800s, the steam engine was going to destroy civilisation. Such rapid communications would change the shape of society: and they did. Many of the fears were unfounded. It turned out, we don’t all suffocate above 25 miles an hour. But in truth, nobody knew for sure until after the fact. But damage and devastation by fast transport is a reality, and it is only through careful design that such effects can be limited. And that means primarily, limits to how we use any new technology: for all the improvements in car design, the speed limits have necessarily changed very little. The last 200 years should have geared us up to understand that any problems we don’t anticipate will make themselves known to us anyway.

Forward: before answering, please consider that the modern incarnation of the Flat Earth movement has grown largely out of North America, where people are on the whole poorly traveled. 60% don’t have a passport, and a generation ago, that was around 90%: but they now have the internet. Be careful whom you follow. Remember also there are a lot of credibility traps being planted to test our critical thinking.

Is the earth round, or is it flat?

Actually, it is round, but it is far stranger than most people realise.

The flat/sphere earth dichotomy could be misleading. I’m pretty sure we could check it out the way the ancients did, with basic time pieces, long rulers and stout walking boots; using maths we can do on paper from first principles so not having to rely on the occult workings of computers. [It would make good TV as well: anybody with funding up for it?]

But what if geometry itself were very much less than fixed. The universe is distorted: and the distortion manifests with perspective. Perspective depends on the position of the viewer, and without all that the heavenly bodies themselves might not even exist. In other words, what if an object like the earth could quite literally be flat when you are close to it, and spherical from far away? Could our brains handle it?

All the same, there is one question that leaves flat-earthers completely stumped every single time. With just a plane ticket, you can see with your own eyes that the stars circle two points on the sky (putative poles) at the same time. They go clockwise in the southern hemisphere and anticlockwise in the north. It is consistent and repeatable year after year. Can somebody please explain to me how this can be possible on anything other than a rotating three-dimensional body? Leaving all else aside, this for me proves on its own that our earth is and must be a three-dimensional object, rotating relative to everything else. And since there are no sharp corners it would have to be round. And this we can all test with our own senses.

The late Liam Scheff is brilliant on the nature of the universe. His book “Official Stories” is a must read for anybody who realises that we humans are being lied to constantly about nearly everything. Anyone with counterconventional ideas who dies the way Scheff did – prematurely and mysteriously – deserves a little attention. He notes Neal Adams’ work on the shape of the earth, who concluded that it has to be in fact… get this… expanding.

Ramifications, ramifications…

~

[Writer’s Note: please do not send me yet another three hour video of “irrefutable” proofs without first reading up a little on physics, mechanics, mathematics, drawing/drafting and perspective, and, most especially, camera optics. Anyone with a sound grasp of high school science can quickly pick holes in most of it. And much of the rest is manifestly nonsense if you bother to look. And no, the fact that I went to university does not prove I am brainwashed.

One thing about an education in Newtonian physics is that everything up to graduate level is empirical, ie. you learn how to test your theories, not just against other theories but against the real world. You learn to trace all proofs back to first principles, like 2 + 2 = 4 and/or things you can actually touch, see and hear. You are required to test your theories in the real world and justify the method. You do not learn to “trust NASA”, whom I agree are as shady as anything. I’ve been “out of the basement” and quite literally around the world, starting and finishing in the same place. I’ve lived in the north and south hemispheres and sat and watched the heavens from many angles. I’ve also worked as a skydiving videographer and so I have a little understanding of that phenomenon quaintly labeled by many as “the curvature of the earth”.

But you don’t need any of that to simply lie on your back on a hilltop and gaze straight upwards and – with your own peripheral vision – see that the horizon is a circle. Try it, and if curiosity grabs you, take it from there.]

RFK Jr’s scathing biography of Dr Fauci is an Amazon bestseller

Dr Anthony Fauci is getting it from every direction at the moment. For a whole raft of alleged irresponsible actions, critics just won’t leave him alone.

But the “gain of function” research scandal is what will finish off his career, and might even lead to his arrest and criminal conviction. In a nutshell, Fauci was deeply involved in taking ordinary coronaviruses and souping them up. This all falls in line with the “lab leak” theory that proposes these modified viruses got out of a lab, and appeals to those who say Covid is in fact a bio-weapon and not a normal pandemic.

All the same, considering the most highly paid civil servant in America has lied and flip-flopped continually about the covid threat and the solutions – and when the predicted human toll for this dishonesty became manifest he actually doubled down on his manipulations in the most callous way possible with no regard for the death and suffering he was causing – it is odd that the wrath against him is because of scientific research. Of all the crimes of which he is accused, surely this is not the worst. Yes, the research itself is worrying and criminal: but science doesn’t kill people, people kill people, and Fauci could turn out to be one of the most prolific mass-murderers in history.

From the start rumours spread that the pandemic might be a biological attack. Commentators like Mike Adams and Alex Jones claimed that the media were actually covering up the scale of the problem, the government were under-reacting (seriously) and that there were huge numbers of hidden casualties. In due course they changed their tune, but such nonsense was extremely damaging, in terms of unsettling their audience that are more typically cynical about every latest scare on TV. In early 2020 it was already clear that the whole thing was being bigged-up for effect, dramatised and exaggerated by the news media, and what we needed most was for people to see through the fearmongering, not add to it. But it seems that “deadly virus” is now back on the menu, following the revelation that “it” was deliberately manufactured to kill people, and then “it” got out of the lab somehow, whatever “it” was.

The reality is, however, that we do not need a virus of any kind to explain ANYTHING that has happened in the last two years. For over a decade I have been saying all you need to create a pandemic is a rumour of a deadly virus, and let human nature do the rest. I won’t go into this in detail here, but every death attributed to covid can be explained in some other way. The real crisis is not a virus, but the misguided global response to the possibility of a virus. The first rule of public health is don’t spread panic, right? So why has every single public health decision been based on maximum fear? (rhetorical question)

This point of view stands up to examination. No credible rigorous attempt had been made to actually isolate the supposed virus, although it was claimed dishonestly that the virus had in fact been isolated and sequenced. And more and more people are beginning to understand that there are some very large and inconvenient holes in the viral theory of disease causation. The ever-changing theories about viruses are mainly a way to deal with facts that don’t fit – can’t fit – a lousy theory that is simply too big to fail. In fact the pseudoscientific explanations (cover stories) for inconvenient truths seem to mutate as fast as any virus. That doesn’t mean people don’t get sick, it just means that viruses are not the culprit. The story of virology is one of competition with other theories that are in fact scientifically much more solid but commercially very dull.

I have a great deal of sympathy with that view, and the supporting evidence is virtually overwhelming. Those who dare to look at it usually start to wonder if virology itself is one big money-making scam. Things would certainly make a lot of sense if it were the case.

Honestly, if this were a man-made bioweapon then it is a lousy product and some financiers somewhere would be cursing were it not for the astronomical (commercial) success of the solution. It wasn’t until the injections started that the sort of deaths you’d actually expect in a deadly pandemic were seen.

Behind the smoke and mirrors inevitably are real people making actual, coordinated decisions in secret, in full anticipation of certain results. In other words, the presence of a dastardly conspiracy is the unavoidable conclusion. There, I said it.

Fauci has become symbolic of everything wrong with science and medicine. His inquisition amply satisfies the need for a conspiracy, and for heads to roll. The story of gain of function “proves” that the pandemic was a plandemic all along.

But it also confirms the existence of deadly viruses. We can’t have it both ways, so if we want the conspiracy that is handed to us on the silver platter, then the facts must include deadly viruses as part of the package. That way, Fauci gets punished, and everything he stood for from lockdowns and curfews to masks on children can be questioned: but the virus lives on and so does pharma hegemony.

“Exposing” Fauci actually reinforces the pandemic. “Those conspiracy theorists are right. Sure it is a scamdemic, but the virus is out there now and we have to live with it”, people will say. “And it was designed to be deadly”.

And here is where I actually feel sorry for Fauci. Because the world’s most highly paid patsy knows the truth about viruses better than just about anybody, that they don’t exist as disease-causing agents. To manufacture an outbreak you need a population of people who are already sick and then do everything in your power to spin the science towards a common cause. Actual viruses are not a reliable tool for causing harm. But Fauci will go to his grave defending the lie.

If SARS cov-2 was developed anywhere it was “in silico”. Its genome was never actually sequenced, it was dreamed up by a computer from some very tenuous initial findings. It was not isolated, purified, tested, and then shown empirically to exist as an agent of disease. No authority anywhere in the western world claims to be in possession of an actual sample.

Again, a few brave doctors are helping us maintain the virus illusion by offering up alternative therapy protocols; for an illness that already has a near-as-dammit 100% survival rate. They maintain that early intervention is key. Well, this of course begs the question, key to what? With near universal recovery wouldn’t a warm bed and Lucozade do?

Since all data on death and survival of covid are skewed – by the care homes scandal, the midazolam scandal, the remdesivir and ventilator scandal, the misdiagnosis scandal, the PCR test scam, colossal fraud in recording cases, and the inevitable iatrogenic attrition that nearly always gets marked down as anything but medically caused – it is quite possible that “death due solely covid” simply does not exist in the real world.

It is possible that all you have to do to deliver a treatment with 100% effectiveness is to not kill people and, when some do die of other reasons, be honest about the causes of death. All the same, the “early treatment with forbidden protocols” meme amply feeds the need to confirm a conspiracy while also confirming the viral theory. It is very seductive. Hence I meet people who say they don’t believe in Covid, but still think Ivermectin is the cure. You can’t have it both ways.

Anyone who says “it must have been covid, I was absolutely flattened by it” is failing to use their logical brain. Such illness has always been with us, it has never needed a novel explanation. Last time I had flu I couldn’t even raise my head to call work. If you are posting covid-sickie-selfies then you are doing okay, trust me.

How are we to believe that those dissenting doctors somehow only treat those who are doomed? Medicine has a habit of blaming nature and disease whenever a patient dies, but it is just as keen to paint itself as the ingenious victor whenever a patient lives.

So, we have a choice:

1) Support the alternative doctors, save lives, confirm the giant conspiracy, the deadly disease, the hidden cure, and keep the virus alive. Easy.

2) Or go against the virus, and then there is no ready packaged narrative complete with all proofs handed to us on a silver platter by a whole army of maverick professionals. At that stage we are on our own philosophically, there is no bandwagon for us to get on. We don’t even have the support of cranks and antivaxxers.

Being a true Terrain Theory advocate really is the road less traveled.

Fauci could end his persecution tomorrow, by telling his inquisitors the truth about viruses; that they are a mirage, a bogeyman scapegoat for problems that have very mundane and cheap solutions. He could say there is no virus, and therefore no pandemic; that gain of function was mostly an exercise in developing mind control through fear, with some tinkering with molecules in a lab, but without much in the way of a viable end product. Like every other pandemic, all mirrors and smoke, dollars and votes.

But that still leaves malfeasance, fraud, genocide and all the rest. It gets him out of the frying pan and into the fire. At that stage he effectively would have confessed to 40 years of lies behind HIV and AIDS, and all the avoidable death and misery on which he based his fortune.

For those investigating Fauci, the gain of function scandal saves a lot of work. It avoids having to unpack the entire virus narrative in order to burn somebody at the stake for what we have been through. It keeps many other public health dirt-bags smelling of roses. There is a good chance the truth, simple though it is, would be too alien to be believed. The cognitive dissonance and disbelief would tear the case apart, and Fauci would walk away; not into a golden sunset, however, but towards an angry mob.

Viruses, even non-existent ones, are proving to be so good for business and such a powerful tool for control, that the medical-industrial complex AKA globalist cabal will fight to keep the concept going. They will without a qualm sacrifice the middle managers as part of the three ring circus. And even in his downfall – especially in his downfall – Fauci will do his part.

So it will most likely be “Goodbye Fauci, long live the virus”.

This is an old article I have reproduced without permission, since it needs sharing and I can’t find out how to reach the author, even if he is still alive. Marshall Smith describes the Spanish Flu of 1918 as a pandemic “spread by telephone”. Since there is a huge psychological element to outbreaks, the spread of information is vital to spreading them – and stopping them.

A year or two ago this would have been over many people’s heads. Now that more people are aware that the viral theory of disease is full of gaping holes, maybe it will gain a more receptive audience. Although the role and nature of viruses in all this is wide open to debate, and the mechanism by which Aspirin operates may be different to what Smith describes, there is considerable evidence to support the idea that aspirin increased the death toll significantly in 1918.

This is Part One. If Part Two was ever written and somebody has a copy, please let me know. And also, if anybody knows how to reach Smith, I’d be very grateful to be able to get in touch.

MURDER IN THE MEDICINE CABINET

PART ONE The Deadliest Killer of the 20th Century, With More Deaths Than All the World Wars, Lurks Right Inside Your House, and Threatens to Take You and Your Family. The Story No One Told You.

      In 1918, a virulent, never seen before, form of influenza seemed to suddenly appear. It seemed to kill within hours, and spread around the world within days. It seemed to appear simultaneously all around the world. Its spread was faster than any then known means of human travel.

      In 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization warned of repeats of such a rapid and deadly pandemic, through such variants of influenza as SARS and Bird Flu. But without knowing what caused the 1918 pandemic or how it spread, how can the CDC or WHO make such a claim? Unless they already know something they are not telling.

     As yet no one has been able to identify the actual medical cause of the 1918 Flu, with only a few samples of a “bird-like” virus taken from only several cadaver tissue samples. But no sample is complete. And those are only one or two samples from among the estimated 20 to 40 million people who seemed to die mysteriously almost overnight. The 1918 Flu spread faster and was more deadly, killing more people than even the Plague and Black Death of the middle ages. Why does no one talk about it?

      And even if the viral cause were identified, no one can explain the lightning fast spread of the disease. Maybe it wasn’t a disease after all. Many researchers have even looked at some world-wide phenomena, such as extra-terrestrial biology filtering into the atmosphere from outer space. Or maybe, the jet stream spreading disease-laden dust from Asia all around the world in a matter of days. In an area of investigation where there seems to be no real facts and less logic, any “fringe theory” or “outre logic” is just as valid as any other. Maybe something about the 1918 Flu is being covered up. Something that we are not supposed to know.

      Actually, there is another rather simple mundane solution to the medical mystery. There did exist in 1918 a then new technical invention by which the “disease” was spread almost at the speed of light. The “1918 Flu” was spread around the world almost instantaneously by telephone. Of course, that claim needs an explanation, and proof.

      In the 1890’s an American chemist made an improvement on an old home folk remedy called Willow or Aspen Tea. It seemed to relieve the pains of old-age gout, arthritis and other assorted pains. But the evil tasting tea containing acetylsalicylic acid was so strong that it caused many people to have nausea and vomiting, along with the pain relief if they could tolerate drinking the tea. This potion was later neutralized, synthesized and buffered, and then sold to the German Bayer company as a pain reliever.

      I have researched the source and history of the name Aspirin and found no reasonable explanation has ever been found. I have found, instead, that the German Bayer company, in order to sell to both the American and European markets, used a name familiar in both markets. In America the common folk remedy form was called “Aspen Tea” made from boiling willow bark from the Aspen tree family. In Europe, the same home remedy was called “Spirain Tea” made from boiling the leaves of the common European shrub Spirae.

      Both preparations were found to contain large amounts of natural acetylsalicylic acid, but unbuffered. Combining the common home-remedy folklore names Aspen and Spirain comes up with the Euro-American brand name Aspirin. My research is the sole source for the information about that unique derivation of the brand name.

      The reason for the deep confusion and lack of any clear history about the trade name is that for almost a decade from 1905 to about 1915, the use of the trade name, and the source of the name Aspirin, was tied up in international courts. In the late 1890’s when Aspirin became available as an easy to use “pop a pill” replacement to the sour tasting Aspen or Spirain Teas, many people used it to relieve the pain of joint arthritis. Many users also discovered, quite by accident, a unique side effect. If you had a fever when you took the Aspirin, it also made the fever suddenly go away. What a discovery! It appeared to be a cure for the the common cold and flu.

      By 1905 many other drug companies were making acetylsalicylic acid preparations and calling it Aspirin, but they were selling it as a common cold remedy. Bayer took these other companies to court and sued over illegal use of their trademark. Many people believe that Bayer lost the decision and lost control of the name Aspirin. Most believe that Aspirin is now a generic name such as Kleenex, Scotch Tape or Xerox. Not so. It was an odd court decision and a confusing compromise. By 1915 it was decided in court that Bayer had the exclusive use of the tradename Aspirin, if it were sold as a pain-relieving analgesic.

      The court also found that the other companies could also use the name Aspirin, if in their ads and packaging, they claimed that their product was an anti-febril agent or a fever reducer. This odd court decision is still in use today. You can still buy Bayer aspirin to relieve pain, and on the store shelf right next to it is Nyquil, Aleve, Tylenol, Motrin, Bufferin, Anacin and a whole long list of others, all containing aspirin or aspirin-like compounds and claiming to be treatments for Colds, Flu and Fever. Reducing fever was not in Bayer’s original patent claim. Bayer didn’t know in 1895 of the use of aspirin as a fever reducer and had not put that in their original trademark application.

      And how does that strange court decision fit into the rapid spread of the 1918 Flu? The primary defense which the human body has, to stop the spread of viral infections is to produce a fever. The fever is not a symptom of disease, but is actually the body’s primary anti-viral immune system. The fever stops the telomeres on the ends of viral RNA from making copies of itself.

      The telomeres are like a zipper which unzips and separates the new RNA copy within miliseconds, but the telomeres are temperature sensitive and won’t unzip at temperatures above 101F. Thus the high temperature of the fever, stops the flu virus from dividing and spreading. It is an immune system response which only mammals have developed to prevent the spread of viral flu infections, which mostly 99% come from the more ancient dinosaur-like earth life forms called birds. Almost all influenza is a form of “Avian Flu.” A few influenza forms come from other dinosaur-like life forms, the modern reptiles, but these are usually classified as very rare tropical diseases, since that is where most reptiles live.

      The doctors in the early 1900’s didn’t know about that, and even today few if any doctors are aware that fever is not a symptom of disease, but is the primary and only way for the human body to stop viral infections. If you stop or reduce the fever, viruses are allowed to divide and spread uncontrolled throughout the body. I have already described this process in detail in my articles posted in the Brother Jonathan Gazette in 2003, so I won’t go into detail here. Do a search on “SARS” on the Gazette and you’ll find the articles.

      Normally the progress of a flu is that a virus enters the mucous membrane lining of the lungs, enters cells, then makes many copies of itself, which causes the cell to expand to such an degree that it bursts open. The new viruses then cloak themselves with a coating taken from the old damaged cell wall, thus hiding themselves from the human body’s own T-cell antibody immune defense system. To the body’s immune system the new viruses simply appear to be pieces of the body’s own lung tissue.

      By creating a fever, the viral infection is slowed down sufficiently so that the body’s T cells can find the swollen infected lung cells, surround them and metabolize (literally eat) the damaged cell with strong acids which also breaks down the RNA viruses into basic amino acids. This effectively “kills” the viruses so that they can’t reproduce. But viruses are not living things, and you can’t kill something that’s not alive. All the body can do is destroy or dissolve the RNA amino acid chain which makes up the virus.

      Not knowing this, most doctors treat the flu with aspirin or fever reducers, as a palliative treatment to ease the aches, pains, and delerium fever effects. The result is that within hours, the fever goes down and the patient feels much better. What neither the patient nor the doctor knows is that with only a normal 98.6F body temperature, the viruses are allowed to reproduce unchecked. Within 72 hours, the viruses have grown from one or two virus bodies to millions or billions. The body is now completely overwhelmed. But while taking aspirin or cold medications, there are no symptoms or warnings of what is yet to come.

      As a last resort the body tries to quickly flush the infection of billions of viruses from the lungs with massive amounts of T-cells, and fluid in the lungs to “cough out” the virus. This is called viral pneumonia. Soon within hours the patient is in the hospital. The doctors try to treat the now 105 degree fever with more anti-febril aspirins, or related medications to “treat the fever.” Then within another 24 hours the patient, suffocating and gasping for breath, is dead.

      You should note that the original infection did cause a mild fever, aches and pains, which the patient “self-medicated” with over-the-counter products. For the next several days, the patient seemed to have no symptoms, but was actually growing billions of copies of influenza virus in his lungs. Then days later, the patient and doctor seem to see a sudden rapid case of viral flu infection that is now overwhelming the body. Is that what really happened?

      What caused the patient’s death? Was it the original flu virus, or was it the use of Aspirin to lower the flu fever which then shutdown the patient’s own immune system response? Obviously, the latter. So how did this cause the massive rapid spread of the 1918 Flu?

      The Bayer court case had just been settled, and many companies other than Bayer, could now legally market aspirin to treat colds and fever. But then “The Great War to End all War” was on, and most aspirin products were going directly to the front lines in France to treat the soldiers in the diseased hell hole trenches of WWI.

      The World War I medics knew that aspirin could quickly reduce a fever. If a soldier had a fever, the docs gave aspirin. Magically the fever went down, the soldier felt better and quickly went back to the fighting. Then three days later, the same soldier was back, now with severe pneumonia and died almost overnight.

      No doctors then made the connection between aspirin and pneumonia death, since the trenches were filled with many other seemingly related diseases such as diphtheria or tuberculosis. Death and dying on the front line was common, so no investigation was done. Aspirin seemed to be a god-send since it allowed sick soldiers to swiftly get right back into the fighting.

      After the Armistice of November 11, 1918 the fighting stopped and the soldiers went home. The soldiers around the world announced the good news to their families back home. Most of the low-ranked doughboys had to wait till they got back to their homebase in Kansas, or wherever, to call home. They couldn’t afford the costly trans-Atlantic deep sea cable phone rates. But when the troop arrived in Kansas, the call from sergeant Tom was something like:

      “Hey mom, I’m coming home. I’ll see you and dad next Tuesday in Chattanooga. How’s everybody? Oh, Aunt Esther has a fever? Hey tell her to take some aspirin. Yeah, that stuff in the medicine cabinet for treatin’ the aches and pains. Tell Esther, we used it in France. Works right away and the fever is gone. OK see you Tuesday….”

      So what does Esther do? She tries the aspirin, but the old Bayer label only says its for “aches and pains” and says nothing about fevers. She takes it and magically the fever is gone, and she feels much better, almost cured. She’s so much better, she gets out the horse and buggy to go see her sister, Lucy in Mt Carmel, where Lucy and the kids are down with the fever. Mt. Carmel has no telephones and even no roads, only the buggy path to reach the outside world. But within hours of sergeant Tom’s phone call home, by word of mouth, everybody in rural Mt. Carmel is now taking aspirin to treat fevers. Since the new information came from a soldier, from the US Army and the government, it must be true!

      Within a week of the 1918 Armistice, by newfangled telephone, trans-oceanic telephone cables, and even the experimental ship-to-shore shortwave radios using Morse code, the message was flashed around the world — “Have a fever? Take Aspirin. It worked in France, it’ll work for you.” That message spread at nearly the speed of light over millions of telephone lines all around the world. The news of the “miracle cure” even spread by word of mouth within a day or so, even to places with no phones nor roads.

      Mysteriously, a week later, doctors round the world now had hundreds of sick and dying patients. Nobody could figure out why. The patients themselves never reported that just the week before they did have a mild fever. But it was so mild that when they took some aspirin, it simply went away. Nobody made the connection. The doctors only saw, by November 24, 1918 thousands of very sick patients with high fevers, lungs filled with fluid, and swift overnight death.

      The medical profession had never seen anything like it before, nor since. It seemed to occur simultaneously all around the world and even reaching into such out of the way places like Mt. Carmel with no telephones nor roads. How could such a massive fast-spreading killer disease exist? It didn’t. It wasn’t a disease. It was a new use for an old home folk remedy which everybody already had in their medicine cabinet, Bayer Aspirin to reduce fever.

      The medical profession, at a complete loss to explain it, simply called it the “Spanish Flu” or the “1918 Flu” or many similar names. It was a mystery with no known source, so it was assigned many place names. So far, nobody has been able to prove any single pathogen was responsible. And even if they did, they still can’t explain how it seemed to spread world-wide at almost the speed of light, clear around the world within a week.

      To this day there is no explanation. But, now you know. The “disease” was not a single pathogen, but many of the hundreds of similar types of flu which are always existing at any time around the world. What was different in November 1918 was the many hundreds of thousands of almost simultaneous phone calls from the millions of returning sergeant Toms saying, “…tell Aunt Esther to take the aspirin. It worked in France. It’ll work for her…” Nobody traced the spread of the 1918 Flu to sergeant Tom. Nobody made the connection.

      That very same source of disease still exists today. What is different today is that cold and flu products are sold and used all year long. This results in an estimated one million deaths from mysterious viral pneumonia reported every year, but also all around the year. In 1918, the new use of aspirin for treating colds and flu all started at the same time in November, thus creating the false impression of a sudden massive onset of a new disease. Even today SARS is not a disease. It is the improper use of a brand new high-tech flu fighter called Tamiflu. The FDA approved the use of Tamiflu several years ago. In 2003 it began to be used world-wide. But how is it used?

      Many millions of people around the world still self-treat their own colds and flu with over-the-counter meds containing aspirin. Those are the most commonly sold medications in the world. The patient’s mild fever quickly goes away. They forget about ever having felt sick. Then several days later the patient sees the doctor and now has a high fever, bad cough and fluid-filled lungs. The doctor, using the new CDC and WHO guidelines, treats the hospitalized “flu” patient with the new high-tech Tamiflu. But how often and at what dosage?

      The doctors do what they’ve always done for the past 100 years. Tell the nurse to stick a thermometer in the patient’s mouth, increase the Tamiflu dosage by 10cc’s every hour until the fever starts to drop. Then maintain that dosage level until the patient dies. Then blame the death on some new highly contagious lethal virus. Nothing new here. It’s the same old story, since 1918.

      The only thing different is that they give it a new name like SARS, or Bird Flu or whatever sounds nifty and high-tech. Even today, each year about one million people world-wide die from the very same “disease” which first appeared in the fall of 1918. Has medicine, in the last 100 years, turned this “contagion” from Pandemic by Phone, into Illness by Internet? Is it the rapid and continuous spread of misinformation that is still killing millions?

      So now, I have given you enough information that you are ready for Part Two. Coming next is a review of the curious scientific evidence, medical records and the biochemistry proof behind the Case of Murder in the Medicine Cabinet.

Marshall Smith
Editor, BroJon Gazette (circa 2005)

Understand this: it takes 21-28 days to re-pattern your brain.

That is why ‘two weeks to flatten the curve’ turns into four and so on.

Where I am living right now, we have had at least 6 months of nobody taking social distancing seriously, and ignoring the signs on the floor, of jostling each other in confined spaces. We have had a year and a half of not having to wear a mask and laughing at people who did. We have had months and months of signing in being available and not being bothered to use it.

This is SLOPPY programming, it has trained us that we can be slack. GOOD!

And now we are into our most intense lockdown so far: disobedience may be stressful for the first month, but hang in there. After that month it will feel quite natural. So for that first month, do anything you can not to comply, and disobedience will become far easier.

Don’t let the buggers get you down. Get some rest, take some vitamins, keep putting one foot in front of the other, and speak the truth. We will get through this.

~

You are about to be replaced.

You may have to think about a smaller car, or a new home for the kids’ ponies.

Maybe not this year, but it won’t be long.

A reminder for Doctors who think online records sold to, say, Google for ‘research purposes’ is okay.

Or that it’s okay for unproven medical treatment to be pushed upon the unwilling because of a public health emergency, and for you to be the one to deliver it:

The thanks you get for participating are that you are about to be replaced by a mobile app.

It will work like this. You’ll be, say, walking down the street. Your phone will be picking up on several biometric data points and sending them to the mothership, where AI will be deducing what illness you might have that you aren’t aware of.

The first you know about your developing illness will be that your phone will go PING!

Up will pop the diagnosis and a QR code for the prescription. You’ll have a limited time to get the prescription filled, or the authorities will be notified under an extension of public health emergency powers to ‘protect the public’ from the sick. The pills will contain a transponder and your phone will report whether or not you are taking them.

The GP or family doctor will be a thing of the past.

Please reconsider your involvement in this programme.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

~

Disclaimer: predicting the future is not a precise science and cannot be relied upon. The above is an educated guess based on certain data points that are true, such as the storage online of medical records and the selling of such records to big tech companies such as Google, for research purposes. Please, everybody, especially those in health services, do your part to ensure it does not happen this way.

~

The virus is globalism’s trump card, and get-out-of-jail card, all in one.

The iron fist in the velvet glove

Today, New Zealand wakes up to a second term under the charismatic Jacinda Ardern, with a lead so clear as to mean the Labour-Green coalition is in question. That all seems wonderful and exciting, until you unpack the brave new future this foretells and don’t just go by what it says on the tin. Sustainable Development is a Labour plank and a left-wing plank everywhere, which has been exposed as shiny packaging for anti-sovereign globalism, using climate-guilt as the necessary emotional stick, and now with public health as teeth.

It is widely believed the pandemic assured this victory beyond expectation. Leaders elected in time of crisis generally enjoy popularity that quickly fades once the crisis is over. Think about that last aspect.

Isn’t it becoming clear that the existence or not of a virus (and of viral diseases generally) is now more than an academic debating point or even a matter of science? Since it may have been what secured such a strong result, clearly the virus narrative is globalism’s trump card, and get-out-of-jail card all in one. And understanding it is therefore equally crucial to stopping globalism.

Viruses are as political as climate change. They always have been.

Sustainable development and globalism are two of those brave new concepts that appear self-evidently good and enlightened. But when one looks under the hood, it does not mean the ordinary people become citizens of the world and share in consequence-free prosperity. Just the opposite, in fact. It means global control. Full implementation means individuals get a ration of resources supplied by big global brands like Amazon, to consume from the confines of a human habitation zone. It means being completely free to do exactly what is expected of one, and every aspect of ones life being monitored, evaluated and controlled by distant unelected central committees.

Under full globalism, the chances are that the closest people would get to enjoying New Zealand’s unspoilt wide-open spaces would be through the triple-glazed windows of a bullet train between zones. They will not be eating free-range lamb reared on its pastures by a family-run farm.

Ardern has committed New Zealand to United Nations Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030: I didn’t see that on the manifesto. Did you?

And Green Politics has long been hijacked as the means to impose the necessary values. If you don’t know what these agendas mean, then it’s time to find out.

The virus was supposedly defeated by going hard and early. That’s what they claim, at least, without any convincing science to confirm that government action saved anybody. It’s history written by the victor.

But since NZ is virus free and the rest of the world is not, now what? How else can they keep New Zealand “safe” from a virus nobody fears anymore, except by controlling its already tightly controlled borders even further, and lots more besides?

Doesn’t seem like much of a passport to the world to me.

And any time they need to exert a strong hand over the population, all they need to do is ramp up the testing again. The case numbers will automatically increase, since the PCR tests are plagued by false positives, and that will provide the mandate for whatever they want to do. The smiley Ardern government has already shown it is completely willing to use that mandate without any checks and balances, public debate, due process, audit or accountability. People outside the country might not know about the checkpoints, the mandated testing; or the quarantining, not in your home or a hotel, but in an unspecified “facility”.

The science is shoddy, the narrative one-dimensional, the convenience to power unimaginable…

The time has surely come to really ask if this virus is even real. We certainly do not need some kind of novel disease to explain what is happening in the world. It isn’t even a very good explanation.

Some say it was made in a lab. Here is a pinch of salt:

If the virus isn’t real, then the chances are that all those leaks claiming it was lab-derived, weaponised, or something else, are also disinformation. And those leaking such claims are also fake news sources and not to be trusted either. Why leak such a way-out conspiracy theory? Because it keeps otherwise critical thinkers off the trail. Given the enormous political lever offered by the virus, it has to be there; natural, man-made, sicked up by a bat, descended from Mars, whatever. And society must act accordingly.

So, screw the science; or at least, purge any inconvenient data or competing narrative from the web. And that is what has happened.

If the truth and freedom movement cottons on to what some critics say is the unbelievably shoddy state of the science and the near total lack of valid evidence for a novel viral disease, then they are still going to fall victim to whatever numbers the authorities decide to cook up.

What I don’t understand is why so many are so resistant to exploring this; or fail to see at least the vital importance of doing so.

Here is the interview with ‘Virus Mania’ authors Torsten Engelbrech and Claus Kohnlein that pretty much sums up the issues in straightforward terms.

For those who want another source, look at Jon Rappaport’s blog. He has been dissecting this brilliantly for many months now; in fact for years before this crisis began. Again, I am not saying these people are right. I am saying they are making legitimate points that we need to understand and evaluate. Otherwise we could be sleepwalking into a future based on blind trust in government that is all smiles and charisma on election day but manifestly ruthless in action.

[Edited after publishing]

~

In avoiding hospitals in vast numbers, people are discovering that they can actually live without doctors!

Doctors are of course worried because of all the people avoiding medical care. They have been scrambling to warn us of all the trouble being stored up by late diagnosis and late treatment and so on.

They also worry that it is fear of “the virus” that is keeping them away. But is it?

One major reason people have stopped going to doctors in 2020 is, frankly, that they have lost all trust in the entire medical system. Trust in government is at an all time low, trust in the media as well. To a great extent the focus of distrust in medicine is on public health officials, who seem utterly oblivious of very grave doubts, held by many in actual clinical practice and in medical science, that keeping the public in fear for months on end serves any constructive purpose.

When doctors go on strike, death rates fall.

This has been observed in various countries and written about many times. You can look it up. The official belief is that the effect is temporary, since the price of avoiding routine care and its risks will be greater harm from untreated illness.

I say that explanation is untested. Many people leave medical care with the seeds sown of the next medical problem. The reason is simple: the ultimate job of a hospital department is not to cure you but to discharge you. Once your discharge can be justified, you are out, even if getting you to that point sets you up for the next visit. Avoiding medical care may not solve your problem but it might stop it from escalating.

Even emergency medicine may be overrated.

Studies in America found that cities with fewer paramedics have better survival in cardiac emergencies. This is believed to be because of the quality not quantity effect. Equally, it could be said that rushing people into care can potentially add to the trauma. Whether immediate intervention always means better survival in emergencies, I don’t think is known. Circumspection has its benefits also, as does keeping the patient calm, comforted, and in familiar surroundings. There are times when rapid emergency care is better and times when it might not be. Each case will have its own balance, and it might not be a straightforward thing.

Modern research into ICU care has found that sometimes doing less actually allows the patient a better chance of recovering by themselves. Doing less can save lives.

None of this is meant to deter people from emergency care. The point is that even in emergencies, the best medicine might sometimes not mean maximum action. In the absence of research that is still a clinical judgment that takes experience.

The flip side.

Since this saga began, huge numbers of people have started taking their health into their own hands, which is a great thing. And, they are not going to the most legitimately dangerous place in the world; a medical hospital! They are taking fewer poisons, and at the same time empowering themselves not to rely on doctors. In the process they are not getting onto the conveyor belt of the highly efficient repeat-business generation scheme that we call the NHS.

This is absolutely counter to a century of creating dependence on industrial healthcare systems. So I see all this as part of the worldwide awakening.

For instance, when a viral pandemic was first announced, within days the local pharmacies and health food shops had sold out of vitamin C. Great! People are learning! Ten years ago it would have been the paracetamol and decongestants that sold out first. This is a message we have been trying to spread for many years, and it is extremely encouraging to see it has taken hold. I am not saying vitamin C is a cure for anything, but if you are suffering the symptoms of viral illness, it certainly helps.

And so, all in all, whether the reduced uptake in medical services is a bad thing remains to be seen. The overall effect on public health may take years to unfold, and it may surprise us.

Note: the above is discussion and not medical advice. The purpose is to highlight possible alternative explanations for what we are seeing happen, and hopefully encourage discussion, debate and research into those areas. Do not hesitate to seek medical advice at any time if you think you might need it.

~

It’s been said lots of times in various obscure ways, but it needs telling like it is:

There is simply no correlation between results of viral tests and specific clinical disease. None.

We all know that you can have:

• A positive test result and all the symptoms
• Positive test result and none of the symptoms (hence “false positive”, or “carrier”; perfectly healthy, in other words)
• Negative result and symptoms (you must have some other illness)
• Negative result and no symptoms.
• Nothing at all or something else entirely
• etc

So many permutations of symptoms (related or not), positives, negatives, false positives and negatives etc.

What is staring us in the face, therefore, is that there is absolutely no consistent relation between virological lab results and the clinical condition of the patient. And the reasons given are all semantic and circular.

In fact, by far the most common presentation for a “positive case”, is absolutely no symptoms at all and being perfectly healthy. And you can apply that to practically any viral disease known. Symptoms mild or strong may present, but there is absolutely no way to know if they have any relation to the virus, since you could in fact be having “a similar illness” and a false positive.

In order to address these inconsistencies there is an endless moving of goalposts, such as making up new disease names to account for the mismatch. This is not science. The name for this is “making it up as you go along”.

Hence 85% of flu cases in fact have no flu virus detected, so somebody has decided to call them “flu-like illness”. It is pure semantics: there is no science in calling these separate conditions. And therefore there is no systematic reason for associating them with the presence of any virus. It has just happened that way, and in the absence of a more lucrative theory, this one has stuck. In fact it has been pushed relentlessly despite all logic screaming against it; and certainly not for lack of other good ideas.

Worse still is that healthy people may be placed on dangerous prophylactic drug regimes, sometimes for decades, because of nothing more than a colour change in a test tube in a lab. Such is the power over us of the superstition of the viral disease.

I’m not a fan of Occam’s Razor, but we must at least consider the simplest explanation. Suppose that virology itself is deeply flawed, that it is just wrong. Surely that is much simpler than non-contagious asymptomatic carriers (whatever that means), repeat infections with the exact same virus (never before proposed in virology, but never in fact ruled out either), long latency periods and all the other unproven nonsense that just gets thrown about like confetti whenever the theory doesn’t fit the facts.

What if the viral tests are completely meaningless? Does that leave us with any reason at all to save the virus?

I mean, take flu. Supposedly you can have:

• Symptoms and flu virus
• Symptoms and no flu virus (let’s just call it flu like illness then)
• Flu virus and no symptoms (carrier, or strong immune system)
• etc etc.

Similar picture to before. So what does a test result for flu actually demonstrate? With a positive result you may or may not be healthy. With a negative result you may or may not be healthy. If you have flu symptoms, a positive result doesn’t prove that flu virus is the cause: it just says that it might be there (even assuming it’s a valid result).

On to current affairs

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54359852

Apparently loss of sense of smell is now thought to be a clearer sign than a cough. Clearer sign of what?

Supposedly this disease is a precise thing: but, many months into this they haven’t even decided what the most significant feature are. Six months ago this was a disease that makes people keel over in the street, vomiting blood. Now it might be a disease that mainly causes you to lose your sense of smell. Next year what will it mainly be? Halitosis? Ingown toenails? Social anxiety?

They have an imprecise test for a disease that still hasn’t been fully defined. And the test itself even by conventional standards is understood to be plagued by false positives.

Honestly, I’m not sure I even accept the term “false positive” anymore, since that presupposes that there is such a thing as a true positive, which presupposes that the results of the test have a clear meaning. And if they haven’t even defined the clinical disease, and if there is no correlation between symptom picture and test result, then what meaning does the test result have?

It’s all a semantic trick. Like drug side-effects. There are no side effects; only effects. And with lab tests there are no false positives: there is only chemistry, and it is always right. The issue is how we extract meaning from that chemistry.

How much more demolition does this require? Many worthy books and papers have been written on this. The commentary on this has been practically endless. And still people say “What do you mean? I had flu, the test confirmed it”.

After carefully reading one lengthy book on the subject, my wife nailed the entire issue in a one-liner: “Basically, the PCR test is bogus, and the whole pandemic is based on the PCR test, right?”.

Bingo.

In medicine, the most important consideration is the actual condition of the patient. Without that, what point medicine anyway? When did we lose it?

The second most important consideration is the causation, and that’s a massive subject. And complete inconsistency – between effect, supposed cause, and test for supposed cause – provides no basis whatsoever for diagnosis. The endless fudging we now get instead provides endless disease and hence endless revenue for the drug companies, but it amounts to little more than superstition. Importantly, it isn’t solving the problem of actual disease.

So, once again, perhaps the simplest explanation is that the viral theory of disease is completely inadequate. That possibility ought at least to get some consideration. What is hard to explain, however, is that so many people find this impossible to see.

~