The Facts:An article written by astrophysicist Ethan Siegel Ph.D. in Forbes tells readers it is dangerous to do your own research on important topics of our time. He suggests we should only listen to experts.
Reflect On:Why do we hold on to ideas even when new evidence tells us it’s time to question? What state of being identifies so strongly with ideas of the mind that we think those ideas are our identity?
In a recent article out of Forbes, scientist Ethan Siegel suggests people should not “do their own research” on topics as they are not qualified to understand, and doing that research yourself could be dangerous. Throughout the article, Siegel cites the public health disaster that he believes ensued as a result of people questioning vaccines. He also points out that people doubt the validity of water fluoridation due to their dangerous research, and now there exists people who question water fluoridation when they shouldn’t.
To both vaccines and water fluoridation, Siegel believes there is scientific consensus on safety and effectiveness, and therefore anyone doing their own research must stop, and if they come to a different conclusion than the consensus, they must be unqualified.
This is where Siegel’s lack of digging and research is revealed. There is plenty of scientific evidence that would lead any functioning individual to question the safety of both vaccines and water fluoridation. In fact, the science is on the sides of both vaccines having inherent dangers we need to come to terms with, and water fluoridation having serious effects on brain function. Thousands of scientists see this. These are not rare, internet-driven realities, they are extremely well scientifically backed, and the only thing to points to them being untrue is unbacked mainstream scientific culture.
This is though, the natural progression of information. At first, it is ridiculed heavily, even when the evidence points to the fact that we are incorrect to ridicule. It’s odd because many scientists seem to throw the scientific method out when doing their work. “Once we know something, it cannot change, even when new research comes forth” This is the unscientific sentiment it appears many are operating from. But why? Why do we get so stuck in our ideas?To
One of the worst parts of the Covid-19 “pandemic” are the decrees to wear masks in public. What’s wrong with masks? Let me count the ways. First, they do not keep out “viruses.” The pores in the best of masks are ten times bigger than any “virus”—it’s like a six-foot man walking through a sixty-foot door. Labels on boxes of masks specifically warn that the masks “will not provide any protection against Covid-19 (Coronavirus) or other viruses or contaminants.” Two, we are constantly exposed to bits of cellular material called viruses—our body is home for three hundred sixty trillion viruses. The air we breathe is constantly raining billions of virus particles that float through the air and are blown from one end of the earth to the other. Three, viruses are good for us; they communicate changes in the environment and help us adjust. Four, the masks force us to breathe in more carbon dioxide than is healthy; they are particularly dangerous for those with respiratory problems. A recent study involving one hundred fifty-nine healthcare workers, ages twenty-one to thirty-five, found that 81 percent developed headaches from wearing a face mask (https://www.globalresearch.ca/face-masks-pose-serious-risks-healthy/5712649). Five, lots of bacteria build up inside the mask, and these might indeed become toxic. Six, the masks can be deadly. Several young people have dropped dead while wearing masks in gym class or while running. (https://nypost.com/2020/05/06/two-boys-drop-dead-in-china-while-wearing-masks-during-gym-class/) And seven, masks hide our facial expressions, thereby removing our main way of communicating friendship and approval.
FALSE POSITIVES
The test used to “determine whether someone has contracted coronavirus” actually does no such thing. What it looks at are snippets of RNA, not actual “viruses.” By some estimates, the test can give up to 80 percent false positives (www.collective-evolution.com/2020/03/16/study-suggests-potential-high-rate-of-false-positives-for-covid-19-testing/). Yet, many people have been hospitalized and subjected to dangerous treatments like anti-virals and ventilators on the basis of these tests. Probably the wisest world ruler alive today is President John Magufuli of Tanzania. A chemist by training, Magufuli submitted a number of samples to the World Health Organization (WHO) for testing. Says Magufuli, “We took samples from goats; we sent samples from sheep; we took samples from pawpaws; we sent samples from car oil; and we took samples from other different things; and we took the samples to the laboratory without them knowing.” His officials named the sample of car oil Jabil Hamza, thirty years old, male. The results came back negative. They named a sample of jackfruit Sarah Samuel, forty-five years old, female. The results came back inconclusive. Pawpaw got sent in as Elizabeth Anne, twenty-six years old, female. The poor pawpaw came back positive. Samples from a bird called kware and from a goat also tested positive; rabbit was undetermined; sheep was negative. President Magufuli is not wasting any government money on test kits for his people.
WARP SPEED? NOT SO FAST!
Moderna is one of over a dozen companies working on a Covid-19 vaccine, leading the pack in getting out a vaccine as part of Operation Warp Speed. An optimistic press release on their progress sent their stock price soaring. However, the clinical trial results for the vaccine did not give cause for optimism. The vaccine, developed and promoted by Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and financed by Bill Gates, used an experimental mRNA technology said to allow rapid manufacture of the shot. Moderna skipped animal studies on the vaccine, opting to try it out on “exceptionally healthy” volunteers. But three of the fifteen in the high-dose cohort (250 mcg) suffered a “serious adverse event” within forty-three days of receiving the vaccine. One of them, Ian Haydon, age twenty- nine of Seattle, had to seek medical care at an urgent care center just twelve hours after his shot, and when he returned home, he fainted. Says Haydon, he “felt sicker than he ever had before.” Moderna did not release its clinical trial study or raw data, but its press release acknowledged that three volunteers developed grade-three systemic events defined by the FDA as “preventing daily activity and requiring medical intervention.” A vaccine with those reaction rates could cause grave injuries in one and one-half billion humans if administered to “every person on earth” (childrenshealthdefense.org, May 22, 2020).
INEFFECTIVE
Not only are these new vaccines dangerous, they are also ineffective. Oxford University researchers are developing a vaccine called ChAdOx1 nCov-19, which they tested on six rhesus monkeys. All six contracted the disease (www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8331709/Oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-does-not-stop-infection-experts-warn.html). Just two days earlier, in an example of extreme wishful thinking, webmd.com reported that the Oxford vaccine was a success (www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200518/vaccine-protects-monkeys-against-covid-19)!
DISEASE ENHANCEMENT
The development and licensure of Dengvaxia vaccine for dengue fever by Sanofi took more than twenty years and cost more than one and one-half billion dollars. Researchers found that the vaccine provoked a strong antibody response, which often made the disease worse, especially in infants and children—a phenomenon that researchers call “disease enhancement.” In spite of these dodgy results, Dengvaxia was subsequently administered to thousands of children in the Philippines, resulting in the deaths of six hundred and leading to a permanent ban on the vaccine in that country. Did the FDA call for a halt to Dengvaxia? Quite the contrary, the FDA went ahead and licensed the vaccine in the U.S. In 2016, Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, Dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, tried to develop a vaccine for coronavirus. Hotez told a U.S. Congressional Committee that “coronavirus vaccines are scientifically challenging and have a unique potential safety problem,” that of disease enhancement. When Hotez observed this immune pathology in his coronavirus laboratory animals, he thought, “Oh my God, this is going to be problematic” (childrenshealthdefense.org, April 23, 2020).
BLOOD VESSEL DISEASE
Originally described as a disease of the lungs, akin to pneumonia, the emerging consensus now describes Covid-19 as a blood vessel disease caused by a “one-of-a-kind respiratory virus” that enters through the lungs and then attacks the blood vessels leading to high rates of blood clots. In the U.S., as many as 40 percent of Covid-19 patients develop clots and in China the rate is 71 percent. Autopsies show lungs filled with microclots. Even without a Covid-19 diagnosis, young people in their thirties and forties are having strokes in record numbers. On April 22, a New York doctor told CNN he had seen a sevenfold increase in the number of young people with strokes in the previous two weeks. At Mount Sinai Beth Israel Hospital, a doctor removing a clot from a patient’s brain “saw new clots forming in real time around it” as he was pulling it out. Bad, bad virus. . . or is it? Russian scientists saw the same symptoms in workers servicing ultra-high frequency generators way back in 1978. In addition to fatigue, drowsiness, headaches and loss of memory, the workers experienced a decrease in the amount of hemoglobin and a tendency toward hypercoagulation. There is no need to invoke “viruses” to explain cases of severe EMF poisoning (www.5gSpaceAppeal.org, May 20, 2020).
IT CAN BE DONE!
Mark Steele, a campaigner against 5G, worked to highlight the dangers of a secret 5G rollout in Gateshead, UK. Citing complaints of increased illness and cancer in 5G areas, Steele argued that the new smart 5G arrays on the top of new LED lampposts emit class-one radiation frequencies and should be treated as a danger to the public. The Gateshead Council launched a campaign against Steele, with false allegations on social media posts and printed leaflets stating that Steele was spreading pseudo-science; the leaflets claimed that the arrays were not dangerous and were not 5G. “Please be assured that there is no scientific basis or credible evidence of any of these scare stories about street lights causing cancer and other illnesses.” A court ruled that the council misused police powers to gag Steele and ordered the council to pay eleven thousand pounds to cover court costs. In court, none of the council officers could explain what 5G was and their leading government expert refused to attend the hearing. In conclusion the judge refused to gag Steele, stating, “The public have a right to know.” The secret 5G rollout in Gateshead is now officially an issue of public interest and will be treated as a landmark case for other people to start using this court’s ruling to challenge their Councils (https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/, October 12, 2018). Here in the U.S., one small town, Easton, in Fairfield County, Connecticut recently decided to put the brakes on the 5G rollout. On May 7, 2020, the Easton Board of Selectmen unanimously approved a 5G cease-and-desist resolution “until such technologies have been proven safe to human health and the environment through independent research and testing” (childrenshealthdefense.org, May 22, 2020). Other U.S. towns that have taken steps to stop 5G include Farragut, Tennessee; Hallandale Beach, Florida; Greendale, Wisconsin; Keene, New Hampsuire; and Santa Barbara, California.
VITAMIN A AND OBESITY
Obesity impairs the body’s ability to use vitamin A appropriately and leads to deficiencies of this key nutrient in major organs. This was the conclusion of research conducted at Weill Cornell Medicine. “Our research shows that, even if an obese animal consumes normal amounts of vitamin A, they have deficiencies of the vitamin A in major organs,” said first author Dr. Steven Trasino. “Obesity is categorized as a state of malnutrition, typically associated with consumption of too many calories and poor intake of essential nutrients. Our data expand on that definition by showing that obesity plays a role in the body’s ability to use this essential nutrient properly.” The report notes that vitamin A is critical for vision, fetal development, reproduction, immune responses and wound healing, and that vitamin A deficiency is also implicated in increased risk of respiratory infections, diabetes, infertility, delayed growth and poor bone development. Unfortunately, obesity interferes with the body’s ability to use vitamin A, even with adequate intake. (news.weill.cornell.edu/news, November 2, 2015). These findings may explain why obesity is a risk factor for severe Covid-19 disease, since vitamin A is also a critical nutrient for protecting us against environmental toxins, including electromagnetic toxicity.
UNTO THE THIRD GENERATION
Grandmothers with higher blood levels of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl, fluorine-containing industrial toxins released into the air, soil and water) are significantly more likely to have granddaughters with obesity, according to a report given at the virtual ENDO 2020 meeting sponsored by the Endocrine Society. According to Barbara Cohn, PhD, of the Public Health Institute in Berkeley, California, “Pregnancy appears to be. . . a critical window of exposure for at least three generations of humans.” These compounds are designed to persist in the environment, and they also obviously do in the human body (https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/endo/85719). Major sources include non-stick pans, food packaging, household products, stain- and water-repellent fabrics, cleaning products and fire-fighting foams. They are associated with low infant birth weights, negative effects on the immune system, cancer, thyroid hormone disruption and lowered testosterone.
PROTECT YOUR KIDS WITH RAW MILK
A January 2015 study published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology found that children who drink raw milk have less rhinitis and fewer respiratory tract infections and ear aches. The highest rates of these illnesses were in children who drank UHT milk, with lower rates in those drinking pasteurized milk and boiled farm milk. The best outcome was in children on raw milk. The results were especially significant for ear infections—something that makes children especially miserable. Interestingly, children who drank raw milk had about the same rate of fever as those who drank pasteurized milk or boiled farm milk, an indication that fever is just a normal and possibly protective occurrence for children.
A new earthquake swarm started beneath the Salton Sea in California on August 10, 2020. The risk of a larger earthquake over the next 7 days is considerably elevated due to the swarm when compared to background levels. The southernmost section of the San Andreas Fault is capable of rupturing in large magnitude earthquakes (M7+), the last of which occurred more than 300 years ago, USGS said.
The San Andreas Fault is considered as one of the most dangerous faults in the world. It stretches around 1 200 km (750 miles) and marks the boundary between the Pacific and North American tectonic plates. There are three major cities on the fault– Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego, along with other towns.
The USGS has been monitoring an ongoing earthquake activity beneath the Salton Sea near the fault, with the largest quake recorded on August 10 as M4.6.
Image credit: TW/SAM, Google
This portion of San Andreas is capable of generating tremors of M7.0 and above. The last time an earthquake of this size hit the area was over 300 years ago.
“Historically, this area has seen swarms before– most recently in 2001, 2009, and 2016. During the last swarm in 2016, there were three bursts of activity separated by relatively quiet periods before the swarm ended,” USGS wrote.
“Past swarms in this area have remained active for 1 to 20 days, with a typical duration of about a week, so this swarm may have future bursts of activity that will in turn impact the probabilities discussed below.”
The agency warned that there are three possible scenarios of what could happen from August 12 to August 19.
The first scenario has a 98 percent chance of happening: earthquakes continue but will not be greater than M5.4 within the next week. The most likely scenario is that the rate of quakes in the swarm will decrease over the coming week.
Some moderately sized earthquakes may happen, within the range of M4.5 to M5.4. This may cause localized damage, especially in weak structures. Smaller earthquakes around M3.0 may be felt by people near the epicenters.
The second scenario has about a 2 percent chance of occurring: a larger earthquake could occur, ranging from M5.5 to 6.9. Earthquakes of this size may inflict damage around the Salton Sea area and may be followed by aftershocks that would increase the number of smaller quakes each day.
Scenario Three has less than 1 percent chance of taking place: a much bigger earthquake with M7.0 or higher could occur within the next seven days.
While the scenario has a very small probability, it would have major impacts on nearby communities if such a quake were to happen. It would be followed by aftershocks that would also increase the number of smaller shakes per day.
“No one can predict the exact time or place of any earthquake, including aftershocks or events in swarms. Our earthquake forecasts give us an understanding of the chances of having more earthquakes within a given time period in the affected area. We calculate this earthquake forecast using statistical analysis based on past earthquakes,” said USGS.
“We are carefully monitoring activity throughout the region and will continue to provide information to help people stay safe and care for themselves and each other.”
Patrick Wood — an economist, financial analyst and American constitutionalist — has devoted a lifetime to uncovering the mystery of what is controlling most of the craziness we’re currently seeing, and which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Wood’s foray into the ideology of technocracy began with a chance meeting with Anthony Sutton at a gold conference in the early 1970s. Sutton has written several books about political science, primarily about the Trilateral Commission, which Wood had studied from a financial angle.
They developed a relationship and eventually wound up collaborating on a newsletter and two books, “Trilaterals Over Washington: Volumes 1 and 2,” which have recently been re-released. …
Definition of Technocracy
So, what is “technocracy”? As explained by Wood, technocracy is a movement that got started in the 1930s during the height of the Great Depression, when scientists and engineers got together to solve the nation’s economic problems. It looked like capitalism and free enterprise was going to die, so they decided to invent a new economic system from scratch.
They called this system “technocracy.” It was to be a resource-based economic system. Rather than basing the economic system on pricing mechanisms such as supply and demand, this system is instead based on energy resources and social engineering. In a nutshell, under this system, companies would be told what resources they’re allowed to use, when, and for what, and consumers would be told what to buy.
“They actually proposed to use an energy script instead of money, and let energy be the determining factor on what was produced, bought and sold, and consumed, and so on.
…
‘Technocracy is the science of social engineering. The scientific operation of the entire social mechanism, to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.’
First off, you’ll see that it’s the science of social engineering. That ought to be enough to make the hair stand up on the back of your head, because who wants to be scientifically engineered by somebody that you don’t know, somebody that doesn’t know you, but rather has this idea that they can reform you, remake you?
But most importantly, you see the economic aspect that they had in mind, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism — that’s all the people in society — to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.
This was an economic system from the get go, not a political system. And what’s really important to see in that — the big takeaway here — is that technocracy viewed politics and politicians as an unnecessary, irrelevant, and even just a stumbling block to getting on down the road with society.
They proposed to get rid of all the politicians. Just dismiss them. Dismiss the Senate, the Congress, all the elected officials. …
Scientists Stand Above All Other Individuals
As explained by Wood, the technocrats “had this crazy idea that they were better than everybody else.” This philosophy and mindset can be traced back to Henri de Saint-Simon, a French philosopher from around 1800. Saint-Simon is considered the father of scientism, social sciences, transhumanism and technocracy.
He said in one of his essays, “A scientist … is a man who foresees. It is because science provides the means to predict, that it is useful, and the scientists are superior to all other men.” This was the mindset of technocrats in the 1930s, and it’s the same today. In essence, science is used to manipulate society and keep the economic engine running.
Top Technocrats Rescued Through Operation Paperclip
While technocracy began in the U.S., the first country to ever implement it was Nazi Germany under Hitler. …
When technocracy first began in the U.S., it was a membership organization. At its peak, there were more than 500,000 card-carrying, dues-paying members in the United States and Canada. Incidentally, the head of technocracy in Canada was the grandfather of Elon Musk, founder of Tesla and SpaceX. Around the same time, a technocratic organization also got started in Germany.
“As Hitler rose to power, he realized that the technocrats, as an organization, would be competitive with him becoming a dictator. So, he outlawed the Technocratic party in Germany. …It was discovered later by historians that these technocrats, who were banned from meeting, were actually very active during the course of World War II, during Hitler’s reign. They were the statisticians, the mathematicians, the physicists, the engineers for business and so on; that really enabled Hitler’s expansion and dictatorship.
…
After the war … a top-secret operation [took place] in the United States … called Operation Paperclip, which brought some 1,200 of these top scientists and engineers from Germany to the United States. They sanitized their resumes and installed them into positions of scientific prowess in the United States, like at the national technology agencies.
So, the very same people that were helping Hitler do what he did, completely bypassed the Nuremberg trial. …
Beauty and the Beast
The Trilateral Commission’s co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Columbia University professor, brought the concept of technocracy into the Commission in 1973, with the financial support of David Rockefeller.
“Brzezinski wrote this book called ‘Between Two Ages — America’s Role in the Technetronic Era.’ It caught Rockefeller’s eye. And so, Rockefeller and Brzezinski became like the beauty and the beast. They went on to form the Trilateral Commission, which declared, from Day 1, that they wanted to foster a new international economic order.
…
The Trilateral Commission more or less took over the Jimmy Carter administration, and has dominated the political structure ever since….
Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton were all members. Within two weeks of his inauguration, Barack Obama appointed 11 Trilateral Commission members to top-level positions in his administration, equivalent to 12% of the Commission’s entire U.S. membership.1 …
What the technocrats are doing is making an end run around national sovereignty. Rather than a frontal assault on the system, which has never been successful, they’ve simply eroded national sovereignty piece by piece.
Their last great power grab in the U.S. was the 9/11 tragedy. It allowed them to push through the Patriot Act, which sacrificed many of our freedoms in one fell swoop. They’re in the process of doing it again with the current pandemic. It’s quite clear the pandemic is being used to move us toward an authoritarian tyranny.
However, the COVID-19 pandemic has provided a platform that will dwarf their 9/11 power-grab and radically increase their ability to continue to erode our civil liberties and control our society. If you find this line of reasoning interesting, I think you will enjoy the video below from Really Graceful, which reviews whether or not you’d even notice if you were living under tyranny.
Technocratic Infrastructure
It’s also crucial to understand that the only reason they’ve not yet been able to overtake the U.S. is because of our Constitution. We’re the biggest barrier worldwide to implementing technocracy, which is why there’s been so much focus on dismantling the freedoms of Americans. …
Rule by algorithm. Operation by algorithm. This is the big predominant thing we see today. When something doesn’t fit into the algorithm, you’ll hear the term ‘Science says.’ We should do that thing.”
To give you just one rather hilarious real-world example of the technocratic “science says” strategy, here’s a sentence from a recent article in The Sun:3 “People who refuse to wear a face mask to reduce the risk of coronavirus have lower cognitive ability, new research has found.”
Not only is it laughable because it’s illogical, it’s also completely irrelevant, since there’s not a single well-designed study showing that mask wearing lowers the spread of viral infections. For the scoop on this, see my interview with Denis Rancourt.
Rule by Algorithm
Initially, science is used to issue suggestions, but those suggestions rapidly turn into mandates. We’ve repeatedly seen that with vaccines, for example. But the COVID-19 pandemic has also revealed there’s a much larger plan that includes implantable digital identifications, medical records and vaccine passports, digital currency and banking — all of which will ultimately be tied together so that algorithms and automation will be able to keep everyone in line, everywhere, all the time. …
Data Is the New Oil
In her book, “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism,” professor Shoshana Zuboff exposes the stunning capacities currently available to surveil, analyze and manipulate our behavior. It’s crucial to realize that as bad as it is today, the predictive power of technology is advancing at an exponential rate, which means their ability to manipulate behavior is increasing at a pace we cannot fully comprehend. …
What’s the Ultimate Goal?
For instance, years ago, if you searched for a holistic medicine topic, many of my articles would appear at the top of your search. In June 2019, Google quietly started to eliminate Mercola.com from search results. I discussed this in “Google Buries Mercola in Their Latest Search Engine Update, Part 1 and Part 2.”
“You haven’t done anything different. You’re still doing exactly what you did, but Google is treating you as a non-person now,” Wood says.
Google has this power to present information that it wants you to hear or see, and they can manipulate minds and mindsets. … It’s just amazing. They even said, internally, that they believe they have the power to take the 2020 election away from Trump because of this very feature. Well, wait a minute.
If any person or organization sets themselves up intentionally to overthrow the government of the United States, I think there’s a term for that. It’s called sedition….
It doesn’t really have to do with a class of people that they’re censoring, it has to do with the topics that are being censored. That’s the key thing here to understand. One of the key topics today that they are so in love with is this idea of global manipulation of the human [gene] pool, to get the medical hooks into your body.
This is social engineering at its extreme, where they’re not only engineering the society around you, the environment around you, they also want to engineer you personally….
Sustainable Development Isn’t What You Think
Wood also explains why “sustainable development” goals, which sound like a good thing, really aren’t. The United Nations has declared that sustainable development is going to be the new economic system of the future. It’s a resource-based economic system based on energy.
“A couple of years ago, the head of climate change at the UN, Christiana Figueres, gave a press conference in Europe and she said, ‘This is the first time in the history of mankind that we’re setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.’
…
Their vision for the future of society is this sustainable future where they will control all the resources and all the consumption. In other words, they will tell businesses what they’re allowed to build and they will tell consumers what they’re allowed to consume. …
This is the science of social engineering here. They have the science, you just have to follow and do what they tell you to do. ….”
Taking Back Local Government Is Key
Importantly, what the technocrats are doing is making an end run around national sovereignty. Rather than a frontal assault on the system, which has never been successful, they’ve simply eroded national sovereignty piece by piece. Wood also reviews what we can do to save our republic and thwart the steady march of technocracy:
“I believe very strongly that local activism is the only way to rebuild our country, if there is going to be any rebuilding at all. Local activism — because this is how they got us. They built [the technocratic system] from the bottom up. We cannot tear their house down from the top down. It’s simply is just not going to happen. They’re too powerful,” Wood says.
One of the most important elected local officials that you should concern yourself with is your sheriff. They are responsible for enforcing tyrannical edicts from local, state and federal government, and if they choose not to, government has no power. City councils also have a lot of power. They can pass binding resolutions to protect citizens against the technocratic agendas. …
What is Agenda 21? It is the keystone document for Sustainable Development. It was developed in 1992 at the Rio de Janeiro conference of the United Nations’ first Earth summit. This became the agenda for the 21st century. The doctrine that came to be known as Agenda 21 came from a book written by Trilateral Commission member Gro Harlem Brundtland, called “Our Common Future.”
Wood’s nonprofit organization, Citizens for Free Speech, is another excellent resource where you can learn more about your constitutional rights and how to communicate your ideas to others. For a small donation, Citizens for Free Speech also offers a laminated No Mask Card that you can wear on a lanyard, explaining your First Amendment Right to disobey local mask mandates.
Egypt bombshell: Hidden ‘code’ of Great Pyramid of Giza unlocks ‘remarkable find’
EGYPT investigators believe they have discovered “hidden numbers” in the geometry of the Great Pyramid, leading one to claim it unlocks a “remarkable” ancient secret.
The Great Pyramid of Giza is the oldest and largest of the three ancient monuments in the Giza Plateau believed to have been constructed for the Pharaoh Khufu over two decades. Among the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, it is the only one still largely intact and is estimated to weigh approximately six million tonnes. For decades, experts have known that the sides of the square base are closely aligned to the four cardinal compass points of true north in space.
But now, Gaia’s new documentary ‘The Hidden Codes of the Great Pyramids’ has revealed how a discovery over its construction proves the ancient builders had an even deeper understanding of astronomy than previously thought.
Engineer and author Christopher Dunn said: “When you start looking at the schematics of the Great Pyramid and the unusual interior design, it doesn’t represent any kind of structure or building where people would spend any time.
“Of course, in regards to the original tomb theory – there were no mummies found in the Great Pyramid, no original mummies found in any pyramids for that matter.”
The narrator explained why some believe developments in understanding the Great Pyramid are challenging history books.
Investigators believe there are hidden numbers in the geometry of the pyramid (Image: GETTY)
The Great Pyramids were built over 4,500 years ago (Image: GETTY)
He said: “Today, children are taught in school that it took builders 10 to 20 years to complete.
“Yet to achieve this timeline, one block would have had to be placed every one to two minutes.
“On top of this monumental achievement in construction, the form and position of the pyramid’s structure is also an intriguing marvel of the ancient world.
“Contrary to popular belief, the Great Pyramid is not simply a four-sided structure.
“Experts suggest a closer look at its unique shape may provide some clues to the true power and relationship to Earth’s motion.”
Some believe the builders had an advance understanding of astronomy (Image: GETTY)
Author Robert Bauval suggests a new theory.
He says that the Great Pyramid has twice as many sides as most believe, revealing a possible link between its geometry and astronomy.
He said: “Many people don’t know this, but, in fact, it’s not a four-sided pyramid.
“It has a very slight concavity on each side, making it an eight-sided pyramid.
“Now the minute you do this, it produces very bizarre geometry.
“It produces numbers, numbers keep popping up that shouldn’t be there.
“Things like the universal constant that has been known for over 100 years, the golden ratio, but we also have now strange numbers coming up in the design.”
Graham Hancock revealed just how precise the building was (Image: WIKI)
Elon Musk came under fire earlier this month for comments (Image: GETTY)
Author and investigative journalist Graham Hancock believes a minuscule discovery over the alignment of the pyramid shows just how important this positioning was to ancient Egyptians.
He thinks it proves the ancient civilisation had a better understanding of astronomy than first thought.
He claimed in July: “If you take it upon yourself the project of building a pyramid and aligning it to true north, east, south and west you wouldn’t make any error at all.
“But there is an error in the Great Pyramid – it’s tiny.
“It is 3/60th of a single degree off true north.
“This is almost eerie precision because the scale of the monument is so huge.
“This thing is 481 feet high, it has a footprint of 13 acres, it weighs six million tonnes and consists of two-and-a-half million individual blocks of stone.
“You’re taking that whole gigantic mountain of stone and you are aligning it within just 3/60th of a single degree of true north, it’s a very remarkable thing.”
For years archaeologists have tussled with conspiracy theorists, who wildly claim the advanced technology needed to build these pyramids must have come from out-of-this-world.
Earlier this month, technology tycoon Elon Musk appeared to support the claims.
He tweeted “aliens built the pyramids obv,” which quickly prompted a response from Egypt’s Minister of International Cooperation, Rania al-Mashat.
She said: “I follow your work with a lot of admiration. I invite you and SpaceX to explore the writings about how the pyramids were built and also to check out the tombs of the pyramid builders.”
He later appeared to take the claim back in a follow-up social media post linking to an article describing how the pyramids were more likely built by humans living in an Egyptian settlement.
He added: “This BBC article provides a sensible summary for how it was done,” linking to a story with the headline ‘The Private Lives of the Pyramid-builders’.
New Censorship Czars: Tech Titans Aim to Restrict Access to Information in the Vaccine Debate
By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman, Children’s Health Defense
When I was a boy, it was unthinkable that an American liberal would acquiesce to censorship. It was axiomatic that all the Nazi atrocities had begun with censorship and silencing of critics of government policies. Our civics teachers taught that the free flow of information—even inconvenient truths—was the lifeblood of democracy.
We must know all the facts and hear all the alternatives and listen to all the criticisms.
My uncle, John F. Kennedy, commented in 1962 that American “libraries should be open to all—except the censor. We must know all the facts and hear all the alternatives and listen to all the criticisms. Let us welcome controversial books and controversial authors. For the Bill of Rights is the guardian of our security as well as our liberty.”
History will record that, in 2020, it was men who called themselves “liberal” who lead the clamor for censorship. Harry Truman warned us against such men: “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”
Today they openly silence the tragic stories of American mothers of vaccine-injured children and all of the other unapproved criticism of pharmaceutical products.
In early 2019, Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff asked the CEOs of Google, Facebook, and Amazon to censor “vaccine misinformation”, a euphemism for any statement that departs from official declarations by Pharma and its captured regulatory officials. Each of these Silicon Valleytyrants is partnered in rich deals with vaccine makers. They were therefore delighted to comply. Today they openly silence the tragic stories of American mothers of vaccine-injured children and all other unapproved criticism of pharmaceutical products.
Where does Adam Schiff think this will end? Does he imagine Bill Gates as a friend of liberty? In one short moment, the worm will turn. To Schiff, I paraphrase St. Thomas Moore’s query: “When you have obliterated the First Amendment to get at the Devil, and the Devil then turns on you, then where will you hide?”
Last Sunday I didn’t finish scheduling blogs this week. There’s a reason for that, and it’s because my inbox was stuffed once again with articles in one way or another having to do with the Fauci-Lieber-Wuhan virus planscamdemic. So I was at a loss as to what to blog about. So I woke up this morning – in part due to the gentle urgings of Shiloh, who has a whole routine worked out now on how to wake me up – determined to schedule a blog for today and the rest of the week. As for her routine, this consists first of scratching herself furiously, then pawing at her blanket in order to move it closer to me, and then, with great drama, plopping herself down so that the effort literally pushes me toward the edge of the bed. If that doesn’t work, then it’s the circle-next-to-him-endlessly, and another plop-and-push. And if that doesn’t work, it’s the old paw-on-the-cheek-with-accompanying-sweet-whine trick.
But I digress. Back to the Fauci-Lieber-Wuhan virus planscamdemic narrative. I received, as I said, so many articles about it, I’ve decided once again to gather up the best of them for this weekend’s “honorable mentions”. I was still at a loss about today’s blog, however, until I opened my email inbox and found this article sent along by E.U., and I read the headline.
“You’ve got to be kidding,” I said aloud. Shiloh was sitting next to my chair, and I told her, “listen to this, Shiloh,” and read the headline to her. Even she gets how crazy it is, and cocked her head and whined. But in a way, you just knew this one was coming. After all, some crazy county – I think it was in Florida – actually announced they were considering mandatory nose feeder bags for people in their own homes, so you just knew this one was coming:
Yes, you read that correctly: you should now wear a mask during sex, to make sure the sex is completely safe sex. Get this:
The university reportedly sent out notices to on-campus students that said they should “consider wearing a face mask during sex. Heavy breathing and panting can further spread the virus, and wearing a mask can reduce the risk,” according to OutKick.
That’s right folks, not only wear a mask, but try to limit the heavy breathing during the activity, a difficult proposition, since masks tend to interfere with normal breathing to begin with. But the real insanity of the article is that the galloping, somersaulting kookery that is modern Amairikuhn edgyjkayshun in the modern Amairikuhn quackademy has now reached out and married itself to the gymnastic idiocy that is the Fauci-Lieber-Wuhan virus narrative. Ahh, but wait, dear reader, there’s more:
“You are your safest sex partner. Practice solo sex, or limit the number of sexual partners you have,” said the University of Georgia recommendations, according to OutKick, which identifies itself on Twitter as “fearless, data-driven sports reporting.”
Yes, that’s right, better just to have sex with yourself.
Ahh, but wait, dear reader, there’s even more:
In June, a study from researchers at Harvard University said that in order to prevent transmitting COVID-19 from one person to another, both people should be wearing a face mask while having sex.
The study also advised against kissing. It suggested partners shower before and after the act, and clean everything with alcohol wipes or soap.
“Data are lacking regarding other routes of sexual transmission,” said the study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. “Two small studies of SARS-CoV-2–infected people did not detect virus in semen or vaginal secretions. An additional study of semen samples from 38 patients detected the virus by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction in 6 patients (15.8%). However, the relevance regarding sexual transmission remains unknown. Until this is better understood, it would be prudent to consider semen potentially infectious.”
Yes, this lunacy is coming straight out of that hellish pit of quackademic lunacy, Harvard, home of Dr. Charles Lieber.
Wear your masks during sex, don’t kiss, and whatever you do, don’t breathe heavily (in fact, better not to breathe at all. We’ll get back to that).
Now, we all know where this is headed. Why, just a few weeks ago I was joking in blogs and interviews about the narrative leading to people wearing masks during sex. Apparently someone at Haaahvaaahd was taking me seriously, and did a study about it (I wonder how much of the missing trillions went to fund that one?!). So let’s press this “logic” a bit more. I seem to recall the whole purpose of wearing nose feederbags was to prevent the spread of “droplets” that could contain THE DREADED BUG, and then were were also informed that THE DREADED BUG’S way into the body could also be through the eyes or other mucus membranes as per the “wash-your-hands-at-all-times-and-don’t-touch-your-face-or-eyes” narrative. So some people are walking around now with feederbags and goggles. But now there’s that all-too-human activity – sex – to be concerned about. So, not only “practice safe sex”, but in order to be really, completely, totally and uncompromisingly safe, both partners should wrap themselves in cellophane or latex body-condoms (without breathing heavily of course), and have sex in cellophane, or better yet, if you have the money, buy a hazmat suit or buy a military grade gas mask. (Oh, but wait, aren’t the pores in cellophane or latex much larger than the size of viruses? It’s all so confusing…) And while we’re at it, we really should be wearing feederbags and goggles when we sleep, especially you married folk who like to sleep in the same bed, and if you do sleep in the same bed together, you might want to rethink that, and buy twin beds and practice Social Sleep Distancing. Hmmm, I just thought of something else, too… best to avoid public restrooms altogether; if you have to go, just go where you are and suffer the indignity of a little embarrassment rather than risk getting THE DREADED BUG. If you do have to use one, best to carry a pair of rubber gloves and toilet bowl cleaner in your “New Normal Backpack” at all times.
And come to think of it, investing in a little mustard gas would be helpful too, for that post-sex clean-up, to make sure your dwelling is really free of THE DREADED BUG, and a propane tank outside, rigged for hand sanitizer, and connected to your shower, would be helpful too. If your local industrial chemical supplier is out of mustard gas, you can make a simple version for yourselves out of chlorine bleach and… oh, I’d better stop now, because some soulless humorless product of the modern quackademy will not appreciate my satire and think “hey! that’s a good idea!”
I’m waiting for the next study from Haaahvaaahd: “Not breathing helps to slow the spread of THE DREADED BUG” and “Social Distancing During Sex Helps Limit the Spread of THE DREADED BUG.”
So now we don’t have to listen to what those doctors said in front of the US Supreme Court, because it turns out that one of them has some whacky beliefs about sex with demons causing reproductive disorders. What a relief.
I’m not going to pretend that the things Dr. Stella Immanuel has said don’t sound just a little crazy to me. They do.
But I’ve been observing this game long enough to have a pretty good idea of how this works:
Someone says something that contradicts the dominant narrative (in this case, the narrative about medical science), and the machine that supports that narrative goes into overdrive to discredit them, with whatever information they can dig up–as long as it doesn’t involve discussing the actual substance of what the person has said.
I understand that for some people, maybe even for a great many, that is the end of the conversation.
So for everyone who is satisfied with the “fringe doctors promoting hydroxychloroquine also believe demon sex causes fybroids” narrative–please, stop here. Your ride is over, and you may go on believing that this group of doctors and other professionals has been thoroughly discredited by these statements.
For everyone else, if you are at all interested in why such a coordinated effort has been launched to silence and discredit this group, why – even before the sex demon stuff was uncovered – videos of the group’s press conference were quickly yanked from YouTube, and why their own website was taken down without warning by its host, SquareSpace, (their new website can now be found here) then please keep reading.
WHAT THE AMERICA’S FRONTLINE DOCTORS GROUP SAID:
What follows is a brief summary of the key points made by the group America’s Frontline Doctors at their press conference last week. I will not comment on the validity of their claims, however founder Dr. Simone Gold has provided support for much of what the group said, in a white paper that can be found here.
1. They believe that hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for Covid-19.
This is the claim made by several of the speakers, including Dr. Immanuel, based on their own clinical experience, as well as on multiple published studies. Many of those studies are listed here, and here.
2. State licensing boards are using their power to forcibly prevent people from having access to this drug.
According to Dr. Gold, many states have empowered their pharmacists to not honor prescriptions for hydroxychloroquine to be used in treating Covid-19. This, she says, is unprecedented:
“It has never happened that a state has threatened a doctor for prescribing a universally accepted safe generic cheap drug off-label.”
Meanwhile, says Gold, the drug is available over the counter in many other countries, including Iran and Indonesia, where it can be found “in the vitamin section”.
3. There is a coordinated campaign to discredit and suppress information about the drug hydroxychloroquine as a possible treatment for Covid-19:
“If it seems like there is an orchestrated attack going on against hydroxychloroquine,” said Dr. James Todaro, “it’s because there is.”
Dr. Todaro is speaking from experience. He was the co-author of a March 13 white paper arguing for the use of hydroxychloroquine against Covid-19. The paper was made public on Google Docs, received a lot of attention, and was then removed–without warning–by Google. (It has since been put back up.)
4. The World Health Organization halted its trials of hydroxychloroquine based on a blatantly fraudulent study that relied on data that it appears never even existed.
Bear in mind that this is the authority upon which YouTube CEO Susan Wojcickihas said she bases her company’s policy on “misinformation”.
The WHO later resumed trials after independent investigators discovered the problems and the study’s authors retracted it.
5. We should be able to have a free and open discussion about this.
Dr. Dr. Joseph Lapado from UCLA, sums it up:
“We’ve been using (hydroxychloroquine) for a long time. But all of a sudden it’s been escalated to this area of looking like some poisonous drug. That just doesn’t make sense… At the very least, we can live in a world where there are differences of opinion about the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, but still allow more data to come, still allow physicians who feel they have expertise with it to use that medication, and still, you know, talk and learn and get better at helping people with Covid-19.”
WHY THE ALL-OUT MEDIA ASSAULT ON THE FRONTLINE DOCTORS?:
The influence that the pharmaceutical industry wields over media outlets is no secret. As of 2018, an estimated 70% of all news advertising in the US came from pharmaceutical companies. I have written elsewhere about how “reporting” on medical issues can be difficult to distinguish from outright marketing for drug companies.
Social-media platforms are not immune to this influence, whether it comes via advertising dollars; “partnerships” such as that between the CDC Foundation and MailChimp (which like many other platforms, has an explicit policy of censoring content about vaccines that does not align with the positions of the CDC and the WHO); direct investment, such as that of Google’s parent company Alphabet; or indeed at the behest of politicians such as Congressman Adam Schiff, who last year wrote to the CEOs of Amazon, Facebook and Google, requesting that those companies censor information and products that did not conform to the officially sanctioned position on vaccines. All three complied.
So it should come as small surprise that both Google and YouTube have now taken to removing content supportive of hydroxychloroquine, a drug that is no longer covered by patent, and can be made and sold by any generic producer, for a fraction of the price that Gilead, for example, might charge for its still-patented Remdesivir.
Twitter and Facebook have likewise removed posts about the drug, most notably–and with no visible sense of irony–removing posts of the video in which the Frontline Doctors speak out about widespread media censorship of the topic. (You can now see those videos on Bitchute.)
One need not have an opinion on the merits of the drug hydroxychloroquine in order to recognize that something very odd is happening here. Something that doesn’t seem to have anything to do with free and open inquiry or honest scientific discourse.
Many argue that the politicization of this drug is founded in a desire to unseat President Trump, that the opposition to it is primarily because it was endorsed by Trump, and if it is deemed to be a failure (or even better, dangerous to patients) it will be a powerful strike against the president. That may well be part of what has motivated this. But there is another motivation, having to do with the desire to push a more expensive medication onto the market, and to push a new vaccine on the world’s population.
More broadly, it has to do with the narrative that those in the business of selling drugs demand we believe: that we are all in desperate need of their products (but only the ones still under patent) if we are to be healthy–or indeed, if we are to survive at all.
If it turns out that this “new” virus is easily treatable, with hydroxychloroquine or anything else, then the industry’s dreams go up in smoke. If hydroxychloroquine turns out to be a safe and effective way of treating Covid-19 (as multiplestudies and the experience in many other countriesoutside of the US indicate it may be) then there is much less reason for anyone to receive a vaccine for it, let alone the entire world’s population. Likewise, there is no pressing need to develop a new, more expensive treatment.
But even more than that: If it turns out that hydroxychloroquine is after all a safe and effective treatment for Covid-19, then this whole episode – the silencing of dissenting voices, the “fact-checking” on social media, the campaigns against “misinformation” – will be revealed in plain sight, for what it has always been: Nothing more than a well-funded marketing campaign and damage-control effort on behalf of the industry that wants you to believe that you need to use its expensive products in order to go on living.
So when a group of doctors took to the steps of the US Supreme Court and told the world how they were having success using a cheap anti-malarial that had been in use for 65 years to treat the most deadly contagion of our generation, it was a massive blow to the narrative upon which the pharmaceutical purveyors’ success depends. And over the next few days, as viewers engaged in a race with the censors, quickly downloading videos before they were removed, to post them on other platforms… it became clear that the censors and the gatekeepers had lost control of the conversation.
This is not only about hydroxychloroquine. Every time media outlets or social-media platforms engage in outright censorship of content, in a way that happens to benefit pharmaceutical companies, both parties lose just a little more credibility. The actions we are witnessing now are not the actions of an industry confident in the value of what it provides to the world. They are the actions of a desperate, threatened creature. They are the actions of an entity that is not strengthened by the truth, but weakened by it. That is what these (increasingly obvious) acts of censorship tell us. What we are witnessing are the pangs of a lumbering, wounded, behemoth.
On Friday, July 31, in a column ostensibly dealing with health care “misinformation,” Washington Post media critic Margaret Sullivan opened by lambasting “fringe doctors spouting dangerous falsehoods about hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 wonder cure.”
Actually, it was Sullivan who was spouting dangerous falsehoods about this drug, something the Washington Post and much of the rest of the media have been doing for months. On May 15, the Post offered a stark warning to any Americans who may have taken hope in a possible therapy for COVID-19. In the newspaper’s telling, there was nothing unambiguous about the science — or the politics — of hydroxychloroquine: “Drug promoted by Trump as coronavirus game-changer increasingly linked to deaths,” blared the headline. Written by three Post staff writers, the story asserted that the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 is scant and that the drug is inherently unsafe.
This claim is nonsense
Biased against the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 — and the Washington Post is hardly alone — the paper described an April 21, 2020, drug study on U.S. Veterans Affairs patients hospitalized with the illness. It found a high death rate in patients taking the drug hydroxychloroquine. But this was a flawed study with a small sample, the main flaw being that the drug was given to the sickest patients who were already dying because of their age and severe pre-existing conditions. This study was quickly debunked. It had been posted on a non-peer-reviewed medical archive that specifically warns that studies posted on its website should not be reported in the media as established information.
Yet, the Post and countless other news outlets did just the opposite, making repeated claims that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective and caused serious cardiac problems. Nowhere was there any mention of the fact that COVID-19 damages the heart during infection, sometimes causing irregular and sometimes fatal heart rhythms in patients not taking the drug.
To a media unrelentingly hostile to Donald Trump, this meant that the president could be portrayed as recklessly promoting the use of a “dangerous” drug. Ignoring the refutation of the VA study in its May 15 article, the Washington Post cited a Brazil study published on April 24 in which a COVID trial using chloroquine (a related but different drug than hydroxychloroquine) was stopped because 11 patients treated with it died. The reporters never mentioned another problem with that study: The Brazilian doctors were giving their patients lethal cumulative doses of the drug.
On and on it has gone since then, in a circle of self-reinforcing commentary. Following the news that Trump was taking the drug himself, opinion hosts on cable news channels launched continual attacks on both hydroxychloroquine and the president. “This will kill you!” Fox News Channel’s Neil Cavuto exclaimed. “The president of the United States just acknowledge that he is taking hydroxychloroquine, a drug that [was] meant really to treat malaria and lupus.”
Washington Post reporters Ariana Cha and Laurie McGinley were back again on May 22, with a new article shouting out the new supposed news: “Antimalarial drug touted by President Trump is linked to increased risk of death in coronavirus patients, study says.” The media uproar this time was based on a large study just published in the Lancet. There was just one problem. The Lancet paper was fraudulent and it was quickly retracted.
However, the damage from the biased media storm was done and it was long-lasting. Continuing patient enrollment needed for early-use clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine dried up within a week. Patients were afraid to take the drug, doctors became afraid to prescribe it, pharmacies refused to fill prescriptions, and in a rush of incompetent analysis and non-existent senior leadership, the FDA revoked its Emergency Use Authorization for the drug.
So what is the real story on hydroxychloroquine? Here, briefly, is what we know:
When the COVID-19 pandemic began, a search was made for suitable antiviral therapies to use as treatment until a vaccine could be produced. One drug, hydroxychloroquine, was found to be the most effective and safe for use against the virus. Federal funds were used for clinical trials of it, but there was no guidance from Dr. Anthony Fauci or the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel on what role the drug would play in the national pandemic response. Fauci seemed to be unaware that there actually was a national pandemic plan for respiratory viruses.
Following a careful regimen developed by doctors in France, some knowledgeable practicing U.S. physicians began prescribing hydroxychloroquine to patients still in the earlyphase of COVID infection. Its effects seemed dramatic. Patients still became sick, but for the most part they avoided hospitalization. In contrast — and in error — the NIH-funded studies somehow became focused on giving hydroxychloroquine to late-presenting hospitalized patients. This was in spite of the fact that unlike the drug’s early use in ambulatory patients, there was no real data to support the drug’s use in more severe hospitalized patients.
By April, it was clear that roughly seven days from the time of the first onset of symptoms, a COVID-19 infection could sometimes progress into a more radical late phase of severe disease with inflammation of the blood vessels in the body and immune system over-reactions. Many patients developed blood clots in their lungs and needed mechanical ventilation. Some needed kidney dialysis. In light of this pathological carnage, no antiviral drug could be expected to show much of an effect during this severe second stage of COVID.
On April 6, 2020, an international team of medical experts published an extensive study of hydroxychloroquine in more than 130,000 patients with connective tissue disorders. They reaffirmed that hydroxychloroquine was a safe drug with no serious side effects. The drug could safely be given to pregnant women and breast-feeding mothers. Consequently, countries such as China, Turkey, South Korea, India, Morocco, Algeria, and others began to use hydroxychloroquine widely and early in their national pandemic response. Doctors overseas were safely prescribing the drug based on clinical signs and symptoms because widespread testing was not available.
However, the NIH promoted a much different strategy for the United States. The “Fauci Strategy” was to keep early infected patients quarantined at home without treatment until they developed a shortness of breath and had to be admitted to a hospital. Then they would they be given hydroxychloroquine. The Food and Drug Administration cluelessly agreed to this doctrine and it stated in its hydroxychloroquine Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that “hospitalized patients were likely to have a greater prospect of benefit (compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness).”
In reality just the opposite was true. This was a tragic mistake by Fauci and FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn and it was a mistake that would cost the lives of thousands of Americans in the days to come.
At the same time, accumulating data showed remarkable results if hydroxychloroquine were given to patients early, during a seven-day window from the time of first symptom onset. If given during this window, most infections did not progress into the severe, lethal second stage of the disease. Patients still got sick, but they avoided hospitalization or the later transfer to an intensive care unit. In mid-April a high-level memo was sent to the FDA alerting them to the fact that the best use for hydroxychloroquine was for its early use in still ambulatory COVID patients. These patients were quarantined at home but were not short of breath and did not yet require supplemental oxygen and hospitalization.
Failing to understand that COVID-19 could be a two-stage disease process, the FDA ignored the memo and, as previously mentioned, it withdrew its EUA for hydroxychloroquine based on flawed studies and clinical trials that were applicable only to late-stage COVID patients.
By now, however, some countries had already implemented early, aggressive, outpatient community treatment with hydroxychloroquine and within weeks were able to minimize their COVID deaths and bring their national pandemic under some degree of control.
In countries such as Great Britain and the United States, where the “Fauci-Hahn Strategy” was followed, there was a much higher death rate and an ever-increasing number of cases. COVID patients in the U.S. would continue to be quarantined at home and left untreated until they developed shortness of breath. Then they would be admitted to the hospital and given hydroxychloroquine outside the narrow window for the drug’s maximum effectiveness.
In further contrast, countries that started out with the “Fauci-Hahn Doctrine” and then later shifted their policy towards aggressive outpatient hydroxychloroquine use, after a brief lag period also saw a stunning rapid reduction in COVID mortality and hospital admissions.
Finally, several nations that had started using an aggressive early-use outpatient policy for hydroxychloroquine, including France and Switzerland, stopped this practice when the WHO temporarily withdrew its support for the drug. Five days after the publication of the fake Lancet study and the resulting media onslaught, Swiss politicians banned hydroxychloroquine use in the country from May27 until June 11, when it was quickly reinstated.
The consequences of suddenly stopping hydroxychloroquine can be seen by examining a graph of the Case Fatality Ratio Index (nrCFR) for Switzerland. This is derived by dividing the number of daily new COVID fatalities by the new cases resolved over a period with a seven-day moving average. Looking at the evolution curve of the CFR it can be seen that during the weeks preceding the ban on hydroxychloroquine, the nrCFR index fluctuated between 3% and 5%.
Following a lag of 13 days after stopping outpatient hydroxychloroquine use, the country’s COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and the nrCFR index stayed elevated at the highest level it had been since early in the COVID pandemic, oscillating at over 10%-15%. Early outpatient hydroxychloroquine was restarted June 11 but the four-fold “wave of excess lethality” lasted until June 22, after which the nrCFR rapidly returned to its background value.
Here in our country, Fauci continued to ignore the ever accumulating and remarkable early-use data on hydroxychloroquine and he became focused on a new antiviral compound named remdesivir. This was an experimental drug that had to be given intravenously every day for five days. It was never suitable for major widespread outpatient or at-home use as part of a national pandemic plan. We now know now that remdesivir has no effect on overall COVID patient mortality and it costs thousands of dollars per patient.
Hydroxychloroquine, by contrast, costs 60 cents a tablet, it can be taken at home, it fits in with the national pandemic plan for respiratory viruses, and a course of therapy simply requires swallowing three tablets in the first 24 hours followed by one tablet every 12 hours for five days.
There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections. There are 14 global studies that show neutral or negative results — and 10 of them were of patients in very late stages of COVID-19, where no antiviral drug can be expected to have much effect. Of the remaining four studies, two come from the same University of Minnesota author. The other two are from the faulty Brazil paper, which should be retracted, and the fake Lancet paper, which was.
Millions of people are taking or have taken hydroxychloroquine in nations that have managed to get their national pandemic under some degree of control. Two recent, large, early-use clinical trials have been conducted by the Henry Ford Health System and at Mount Sinai showing a 51% and 47% lower mortality, respectively, in hospitalized patients given hydroxychloroquine. A recent study from Spain published on July 29, two days before Margaret Sullivan’s strafing of “fringe doctors,” shows a 66% reduction in COVID mortality in patients taking hydroxychloroquine. No serious side effects were reported in these studies and no epidemic of heartbeat abnormalities.
This is ground-shaking news. Why is it not being widely reported? Why is the American media trying to run the U.S. pandemic response with its own misinformation?
Steven Hatfill is a veteran virologist who helped establish the Rapid Hemorrhagic Fever Response Teams for the National Medical Disaster Unit in Kenya, Africa. He is an adjunct assistant professor in two departments at the George Washington University Medical Center where he teaches mass casualty medicine. He is principle author of the prophetic book “Three Seconds Until Midnight — Preparing for the Next Pandemic,” published by Amazon in 2019.
Last week, Reddit user Brazedowl received a curious notification on his phone: Google was telling him that a smoke detector in his home had gone off. Brazedowl, a teacher from North Carolina who goes by Drew in real life, knew about the smoke alarm — he was at home himself and had just fried some sausages in his kitchen. But up until that moment, he had no idea that his smart speaker was able to detect such events. “Google just made my dumb smoke detectors smart,” he wrote on Reddit. “Pretty rad.”
A Google spokesperson told Protocol that the feature was accidentally enabled for some users through a recent software update and has since been rolled back. But in light of Monday’s news that Google invested $450 million — acquiring a 6.6% stake — in home security provider ADT, it may be a sign of things to come for Google, as it hints at the company’s secret home security superpower: millions of smart speakers already in people’s homes.
Once the deal closes, ADT’s more than 20,000 installers will also sell Google-made smart displays, security cameras and other hardware, and ADT will more closely integrate Google technology into its own home security offerings. “The goal is to give customers fewer false alarms, more ways to receive alarm events, and better detection of potential incidents inside and around the home,” Google Nest VP and GM Rishi Chandra said in a blog post.
Brazedowl wasn’t the only Google smart speaker user receiving a possible preview of this kind of incident detection in recent days. Other Reddit users reported getting security alerts after breaking glassware, as well as some false alarms triggered by sounds like popped bubble wrap and high-frequency noises that could be confused with a smoke alarm.
When Reddit user Brazedowl fried some sausages last week, accidentally setting off a smoke alarm, his Google Home smart speaker sent alerts to his phone.Screenshot: RedditGoogle announced support for the detection of “critical sounds” for paying subscribers of its Nest Aware home security subscription service in May. “Your Nest speakers and displays will notify you if a critical sound is detected, like a smoke alarm or glass breaking, by sending an alert to the Home app,” the company wrote in a blog post. “From there, you can hear an audio clip or listen live within the Home app to confirm the alarm.”
“A recent software update enabled these alerts on some of our speakers that didn’t have a subscription, but we’ve since rolled that back,” a Google spokesperson told Protocol last week. The spokesperson declined to comment on whether Google had any plans to bring the feature to users without subscriptions in the future. Google did announce Monday that ADT customers would get access to Nest Aware over time.
On the one hand, there is some potential for a privacy backlash. Google has long told users that its speakers only actively monitor ambient audio for utterances of the “Hey Google” wake phrase. Any use of far-field microphones for other purposes, especially for users who didn’t sign up for advanced monitoring, could result in some consumers rejecting the device category altogether.
On the other hand, the feature does demonstrate how powerful Google’s smart speakers can be in the context of home security. Google sold around 30 million smart speakers and displays in 2019 alone, market research company Strategy Analytics estimated earlier this year. All of these devices feature powerful far-field microphones capable of detecting not only voice commands but also environmental noises.
Some of this functionality is less obvious than the detection of blaring smoke alarms. Google’s smart displays sense it if someone walks up to them by emitting and monitoring ultrasonic sounds. Right now, this is being used to change the size of fonts on the display, but the same technology could conceivably also be used to detect possible intruders and other movements inside a home.
Google isn’t the first company to rely on smart speakers for monitoring; rival Amazon also uses smart speakers to detect fire alarms and other sounds as part of its Ring Alarm security system.
But in a way, it is a very Google-ish approach to home security: The search giant has long made its own cameras and smoke detectors, with mixed success, and largely failed to make a mark when it introduced its very own home security system in 2017.
With its ADT partnership, Google now signals that it is happy to rely on others for the more mundane aspects of home security, including the huge workforce needed to install and troubleshoot window sensors and the like. Instead, Google is bringing to the table what it does best: advanced technology, including millions of cheap speakers with far-field microphones, ready and able to become smart home security sensors.
We must know all the facts and hear all the alternatives and listen to all the criticisms.
